D40 to D90?

[DarumaBlue]

Hey there,

So I've come by a small bit of spending money, and am considering my "goodies" options. One option is to upgrade from my D40 to a D90 body. I'm wondering if this is a wise investment. I currently own three lenses, all of them AF-S to accomodate the D40. I have the Nikkor kit lens that came with the D40, the 55-200 VR II and the Nikkor 35mm 1.8 for low light environments. I love my lenses to death, but I'm beginning to feel the pressures of the AF-s restrictions for auto-focusing on the lenses. I know, I know, I should learn how to manually focus (and very often do, especially with the 35mm) but the D90 seems more flexible.

I've taken a lot of photos with the D40, learned a lot about processing them, and I want to start blowing up pictures to 8x10 WITH cropping.

Is this a wise upgrade path?

[DarumaBlue]

Actually, what if I invested, instead, in the 18-200 lens? Expensive, but I am getting tired of desperately switching between the 18-55 and the 55-200...

[OsmosisStudios]

The 18-200 is convenient, but I was never happy with the image quality from it. It wont perform as well as your two lenses.

Id say get a D90 body, unless theres something else out there that you feel you need,

[kirbinster]

Check a thread I recently posted called "Show some love for the Nikon 18-200vr" regarding the real-world image quality.

[dakwegmo]

Originally Posted by DarumaBlue

I love my lenses to death, but I'm beginning to feel the pressures of the AF-s restrictions for auto-focusing on the lenses.

How many non-AF-S lenses would you realistically shoot with if only they could autofocus on the D40? If you're otherwise happy with the D40, I would spend the money on glass. It's a much better investment, as lenses hold their value longer than bodies do, and will have a much more noticeable impact on your images than a new body will.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

Check a thread I recently posted called "Show some love for the Nikon 18-200vr" regarding the real-world image quality.

kirbinster: I've actually been wanting to show this for a while. I've been using this image as my desktop background for some time and am always bothered by it.

Download here (1200x800).

82mm, f/5.3, 1/250s, ISO 200.

This image is supposed to be a flat plane, with only slight differentiation between one side and the other (the left is slightly closer than the right, about 3"). Note the smearing on both sides.

I experienced this with several copies of the 18-200 I tested at several focal lengths. And that's an UNCROPPED file.

I've got some landscapes that are fine at websizes (Ie resized from 3600x2400 to 600x400), but any closer and they're soft all over and exhibit some rather rough-looking fringing in the high-contrast areas.

Like I said, I was never happy with it.

[nokiN]

And you're not the only one.

I pan the 18-200 at every opportunity for it's image quality.

For many, the convenience of a superzoom is more important that image quality. Go figure.

[Aegea]

dakwegmo wrote

How many non-AF-S lenses would you realistically shoot with if only they could autofocus on the D40?

Well, in my case, I don't own any AF-S lenses, so that would be 6 lenses. I like the value per dollar of the old AF glass.

[bbtom10]

I think I would go for the D90 frmo my D40 because:

- More megapixels - you state that this is a consideration for you with respect to large prints
- More focus points (11 vs 3) which is vital if you are going to continue to use auto-focus
- Exposure bracketing - the one thing I really wish my D40 has - yes, I know I can do it manually, but come on!
- Top-side LCD - control things and understand things much better and more quickly then through the menu driven system of the D40
- Movie mode - well, I'm sure the photogs on here are anti-movie (get with the now!) but it's a nice to have

Good luck making your decision!

[MagicalForest27]

I made the switch from D40 to D90 this past winter and I'm so glad I did! The D90 is amazing!