D40 to 40D

[Speed Pujari]

Guys is it a wise decision?
I do not have much of accessories which can be reused on higher model of Nikon viz D300 etc.
D80 is a history and D90 appr cost 1300 bucks (body only) -little beyond my budget if I include lens...

Considering me tight on budget wherein I can get a 40D for 1300 bucks including a 28-105mm lens .. wat do u guys suggest? Cost might be reduced if I wait till thanksgiving or may get a deal also !

Is it considered as a drastic change i.e. from Nikon to Canon? I am still learning various aspects of photography ..
I cannot think of upgrading to D40x/D60 as the basic problem of missing features like AF-motor(and many more !) remains intact !

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Speed Pujari

Is it considered as a drastic change i.e. from Nikon to Canon?

If you get the basics, no, it's not as drastic as the gear addicts make it sound.

I shoot Canon personally but contract myself out as a shooter for photo studios that use Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, and Minolta/Sony. Once you understand the buttons and dials and differences, it's not a big deal.

[Jose]

I used Nikons for 27 years and changed to Canon in 1999. At this moment, I cannot recommend Canon gear; its quality control is awful and Nikon is really making a come back. I am waiting for the replacement for the Canon 5D and if it does not greatly outperform the new Nikon D700 and may be going back to Nikon. The bottom line is "performance" regardless of brand.

[Mr. Pickles]

The only "deal" I see is the cost of switching. If nobody cares about cost, then you can switch. Is one better than the other? Yes. Is it Canon or Nikon? Yes again. They both stink and they both are great.

As for what Jose said, seems kind of odd to say Canon's quality control is "awful" but if the 5D replacement is a cool camera, I'm sticking with awful quality control....My take is that the more cameras sold, the more chance of a bad one, and not too many posts start out with "I got this great camera that has never failed me, ever..."

Don't buy the camera. Buy the system.

[Jose]

"odd to say that Canon's quality to control is "awful" is based on my experience and record. Without going into further details I had 2 Canon cameras "out of the box" that were not working and a third one that was replaced by Canon after 3 weeks of use. Maybe is my "bad luck". However, the lenses had performed mechanically well and some are 10 years old.

[Speed Pujari]

Agree to Jose awa pickles.
As a system - I am not happy with D40, I think thats why I got a hate for Nikon. But Image quality of Nikon is something I love. Canon is not bad at all anyways.

I'm planning to go for Canon 'System' actually. Pricing is the major parameter here. Same system nearing 40D is D200/D300 which costs more..

But as pointed out by Jose- Seems I need to start a thread in Canon forum also ...

Are there really difference in Image quality b/w these brands? Or is it a slight speculation?

[Mr. Pickles]

If you're not happy with the D40, then go get a 40D. It is pretty simple if you got the money and desire. Why ask questions? Not too many can convince you that something you do not like is way better than you think. That would be similar to saying you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

To me, the 40D "should" be a better camera. It is suppose to be. It isn't there to compete with the D40. The 40D is suppose to compete with the D300's of the world (or maybe the D200). And on that one, overall the cameras are a good equal. Some will like this or that better on one, others won't and like different things. In reality, the differences are pretty small when you think about it.

It would have been better to say you are not getting what you need out of a D40 and want to know what would be better....