D40x....d80

[Wolfie]

Hi There

Can anyone tell me if the Nikon D80 is considered an upgrade to the D40X.....or are they basically the same?

Thanks

[kirbinster]

They are different bodies. The d40x was "considered" and upgrade to the D40, but was dropped after around a year because they crammed to many pixels on the small sensor and created a lot of noise. The D80 is the next level up from the d40/d40x/d60/d3000/d50000. It is a bigger body, with a motor for autofocus and many more dedicated controls. But it is an older ccd sensor and does not provide image quality as good as some of the newer, but lessor, bodies.

[Dennismc]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

They are different bodies. The d40x was "considered" and upgrade to the D40, but was dropped after around a year because they crammed to many pixels on the small sensor and created a lot of noise. The D80 is the next level up from the d40/d40x/d60/d3000/d50000. It is a bigger body, with a motor for autofocus and many more dedicated controls. But it is an older ccd sensor and does not provide image quality as good as some of the newer, but lessor, bodies.

Could you quantify that statement? The sensor in the d40x is the same one that is in the d80

Here is a quote from a review on it. ."The D40x seems to be very close to the D80 in acuity, though as you bump up the ISO value with noise reduction turned on, the D40x seems to lose a bit of detail that the D80 doesn't (but that detail comes at the expense of slightly more noise on the D80)............... Amazingly, the D40x does a bit better than the D80 in the noise department, apparently due to slightly more aggressive noise reduction, as the level of detail is slightly lower at ISO 1600 on the D40x than it is on the D80. But again, ISO 100 to 1600 produced very usable images. "

[kirbinster]

To the best of my knowledge that is not true, but hey maybe I am wrong.

[zephod]

Originally Posted by Dennismc

Could you quantify that statement? The sensor in the d40x is the same one that is in the d80

Here is a quote from a review on it. ."The D40x seems to be very close to the D80 in acuity, though as you bump up the ISO value with noise reduction turned on, the D40x seems to lose a bit of detail that the D80 doesn't (but that detail comes at the expense of slightly more noise on the D80)............... Amazingly, the D40x does a bit better than the D80 in the noise department, apparently due to slightly more aggressive noise reduction, as the level of detail is slightly lower at ISO 1600 on the D40x than it is on the D80. But again, ISO 100 to 1600 produced very usable images. "

Not really sure where that 'review' came from but no the 40x was never really on par with the 80 in my experience and yes I've had both. It's like saying since the p100 and d300s both have the expeed processor they are on the same level of quality with each other. From features to ease of use this argument really doesn't fly. The 40x was a failed experiement that Nikon recognized and quickly pulled from the market.

That said, if I were the OP I'd probably try to pick up the D90 but if it's money that's an issue, and when is it not, I'd probably go with the 5000 for a nice intermediary camera.

D

[Dennismc]

That review came from Thom Hogan, and ken rockwell, and Dpreview all have it listed as being as good as the d40 if not a little better at times.

Not one review I have found mention excessive noise, or any reason why it was pulled from the market.

Personally I love mt d40x, and the only thing i find lacking with it at the moment is the AF motor and AF points.

My response was just to the blanket reason it was pulled.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

They are different bodies. The d40x was "considered" and upgrade to the D40, but was dropped after around a year because they crammed to many pixels on the small sensor and created a lot of noise. The D80 is the next level up from the d40/d40x/d60/d3000/d50000. It is a bigger body, with a motor for autofocus and many more dedicated controls. But it is an older ccd sensor and does not provide image quality as good as some of the newer, but lessor, bodies.

The D40x had the same sensor as the D80: it was replaced by the D60 rather quickly.

Other than that, that's correct.

[Dennismc]

Oh also, if you look around you will find that the image quality from a d40/d40x is pretty darn good, still rates right up there, not going to complete with a d3 but for what it is, most I think would agree that it is capable of some amazing photos still..

There was a thread either here, or at the cafe, that asked who stilled used them, and a lot, i mean a lot of the pro even still have one they shoot with from time to time. so the statement. "But it is an older ccd sensor and does not provide image quality as good as some of the newer, but lessor, bodies" is a little off skew. I was going to replace mine with the d3000 just for the added focus points but the reviews have been pretty mixed on it, so decided to invest in lens instead..

[Almond.Butterscotch]

Originally Posted by Dennismc

Oh also, if you look around you will find that the image quality from a d40/d40x is pretty darn good, still rates right up there

Not past ISO 400-800 it isn't. It's terrible past ~600.

Then again, if you're shooting the right things, you can't see the noise anyways.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

Not past ISO 400-800 it isn't. It's terrible past ~600.

Then again, if you're shooting the right things, you can't see the noise anyways.

Ive got some shots at 800 that are still relatively noise-free or at least low in noise. Depends on how you expose.