I'm going to get one or the other but can't decide. Price is about the same I think This isn't exactly what you asked for, but perhaps you will find it helpful in making your decision. I have never used a Canon EOS 350D, so I can't actually compare teh cameras, but I favor the D40 because it has a spotmeter and the 350D doesn't. Although the D40 seems small, it is practically the exact same size as the 350D.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40...
tells us that the Canon 350D meter calibration is off by about 1/3 of a stop. This would not really present any problems, except that it suggests "something" to me about the quality, since the Nikon and Pentax are dead on.
Scroll on down the page for image comparisons. The D40 is clearly sharper and shows less noise at all ISO settings.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40... shows us that both handle shadows equally, but the D40 clips the highlights by about 1/3 of a stop.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40... shows a side-by-side of studio images. The 8 MP of the Canon 350D at least put the camera on equal footing with the Nikon D40 for image quality, but you have to take note that the Rebel XT is shot at ISO 100 and the Nikon is shot at it lowest setting of ISO 200. I think the Canon images may look a little better, but we know from the prior page that under equal lighting levels, the Canon will start to break up before the Nikon.
The reviewer says, "While it is possible to pick areas of the image which lend some credence to the EOS 350D's 34% pixel count advantage it's clear that the average observer would not notice these differences and that you would need a very large output size for any of them to become visible."
Check this out...
http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/ca... is taken by the Canon 350D with a 17 mm focal length at f/6.3, 1/80th of a second, ISO 400 using RAW.
http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/gallery/ni... is taken with the Nikon D40 with an 18 mm focal length at f/4.5, 1/80th of a second, ISO 400 using jpeg.
The point of focus for the Canon photo is a bit deeper than it is for the Nikon, but even having 8MP and using RAW and a smaller aperture, I think the Canon image breaks up a lot more than the Nikon. You can barely make out the features on the face of the gentleman in the background. Is this the camera or the superiority of the Nikon 17-55 lens, which so many of us here praise???
Okay, I've made my stance clear. I like the Nikon D40 better than the Canon ESO 350D, so here's my general review of the D40.
The Nikon D40 is a great little camera, very easy to use and quite reasonably priced. It has a few "consumer friendly" totally automatic modes that make it very easy to use, but still offers total photographic control when you are ready to take charge. It will get you in the Nikon family which is a great place to be. If you buy accessories and lenses, you will be able to use everything on any Nikon that you might upgrade to later on.
Check out Nikon's "Picturetown" promotion, where they handed out 200 D40's in Georgetown, SC. http://www.stunningnikon.com/picturetown...
Here are a few reviews, in case you have not read them yet. Be sure to note that they are several pages long and some of the reviews also have some sample images that you can look at.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40...
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_revi...
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/3756/cam...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/d40...
I hate to see people slam the camera because it can't autofocus with older Nikon lenses. It is true that there is a "slight problem" with older Nikon lenses not autofocusing on the D40, but if you do not own a bag full of older lenses, it is not going to be a problem. It is barely a problem anyhow. If you check www.nikonusa.com for "AF-S" lenses, which are ALL 100% compatible with the D40, you will find 23 lenses, including 7 "VR" (vibration Reduction) lenses and one true macro lens with "VR". There are another 25-plus lenses in the current catalog that provide all functions except autofocus as well as many (possibly dozens) "out of print" lenses that will work just as well. In addition, although these lens will not autofocus, most of them will still give focus confirmation. From the D40 manual: "If the lens has a maximum aperture of f/5.6 of faster, the viewfinder focus indicator can be used to confirm whether the portion of the subject in the selected focus area is in focus. After positioning the subject in the active focus area, press the shutter release button halfway and rotate the lens focusing ring until the in-focus indicator is displayed." (See www.members.aol.com/swf08302/nikonafs.tx... for a list of AF-S lenses.)
The D40 only has 3 autofocus zones arranged horizontally at the center, 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock positions. This might be considered a limitation, but realistically, most people will find this perfectly adequate, especially if you are moving up from a point and shoot with only a center zone.
You can get the D40 with the 18-55 kit lens at B&H Photo available through Yahoo! Shopping or at 1-800-622-4987) for $550 (May 2007) and this is with TWO Lexar 1 GB cards. You can get the same kit with one Lexar Platinum (higher speed) card for $560. Or - get the D40 with 18-135 lens and 1 GB Lexar card for $760.
And yet... clearly these are both very good cameras. What it all comes down to is which one YOU feel better about. Go to a camera shop and pick them up and see. I own a 35O and its a great camera, pics look nice and the zooms good to. I would highl recomend it. Had it over 2 years without no problems. Not much of an answer, but so you can make a more balanced decision.
Whilst everything Dr Sam says is true about the lenses available for the D40, what he doesn't mention is that alot of the very good third party lenses that are available will not autofocus with the D40. The main issue here is that these are also the ones that are more affordable. To allow autofocus (AF) with the D40, a lens needs a motor built in to it which means they are more expensive. For example, the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and the 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO would be two of the most recommended upgrades for someone starting out. Both of these would not allow AF with a D40. They will of course focus manually, but that reduces some of the user friendliness.
If you think you will want other lenses and can afford the extra you may have to pay to get ones that will AF then it's no problem.
At the end of the day, get the camera that feels good to hold and use and whichever that happens to be I doubt you'll have any reason to regret your decision.
Good luck. Usually everyone's opinions are based to some extent on their preferences/prejudices. They are both good cameras. The one important piece of advice mentioned is to go to a store and just have a look and try both. Handling can be quite different, and you may find that you have an immediate preference based solely on that. I know I did when I was looking at an EOS400 v Nikon D80. Another point on lenses, if you can afford it, go for the Camera manufacturers lenses rather than 3rd party manufacturers. They are made specifically for the cameras, and generally produce better images. I think they're both too small to fit adult hands.
Unless you are 7 years old, go for a proper-sized camera like the D80 or 30D. pick either both are very good.
look around and see which one you can get a better deal on.! |
