D40 -> D80, Worth it?
Discussion
I've had my D40 for all of a month now, and I feel....limited.
I'm not sure if it's psychological or whether I could actually get more than I'm getting with say, a D80.
While I appreciate I still have quite a hill to climb in terms of ability, I think I might be less restricted to what I can/cant do with something that has less limitations and more capability.
I've not gone too mad on lenses, 70-300, 50-200 and the kit 18-55, all of which would work fine on a D80.
I guess the question really is, what would I gain on the D80 that I dont already have?
I'm not sure if it's psychological or whether I could actually get more than I'm getting with say, a D80.
While I appreciate I still have quite a hill to climb in terms of ability, I think I might be less restricted to what I can/cant do with something that has less limitations and more capability.
I've not gone too mad on lenses, 70-300, 50-200 and the kit 18-55, all of which would work fine on a D80.
I guess the question really is, what would I gain on the D80 that I dont already have?
Not a big enough jump. 
What can you do with a D80 that you couldn't do with a D40? - no really!
Let me bore you with my story. I cut my teeth on Feds and Zeniths, Pentaxes, Cosinas and Canons from the '60s and '70s. Then made a leap forward in the mid-'90s. My Nikon progression has been:
F90x
F100
D70
D2x
And I have to say that, for two and a half years, I really hated the D70 for what it didn't have over, or even up to, the F90/F100.
I anguished over D200 - it would have been even tougher had the D300 been out - but went for the secondhand D2x. That was a step up, and a step into stretching my abilities that I didn't have with the D70. Anything less would have been a waste of time, unless I needed a second body.
But, at the end of the day, it won't make you a better photographer - it certainly hasn't made me a better photographer, but the jump I made was sufficient to put me back in control of a lot of situations that I would have been in with the old F90/F100.
What can you do with a D80 that you couldn't do with a D40? - no really! Let me bore you with my story. I cut my teeth on Feds and Zeniths, Pentaxes, Cosinas and Canons from the '60s and '70s. Then made a leap forward in the mid-'90s. My Nikon progression has been:
F90x
F100
D70
D2x
And I have to say that, for two and a half years, I really hated the D70 for what it didn't have over, or even up to, the F90/F100.
I anguished over D200 - it would have been even tougher had the D300 been out - but went for the secondhand D2x. That was a step up, and a step into stretching my abilities that I didn't have with the D70. Anything less would have been a waste of time, unless I needed a second body.
But, at the end of the day, it won't make you a better photographer - it certainly hasn't made me a better photographer, but the jump I made was sufficient to put me back in control of a lot of situations that I would have been in with the old F90/F100.
RobDickinson said:
What do you think the D40 is lacking?
It is lacking some things, things I use all the time. But will you?
Image quality its fine, D80 wont be any improvement.
Well, I dont know! And thats the crux of it really, the little voice is saying "D40's are the pikey one, now you know you're not going to drop this latest whim get something better, it's not even the X"It is lacking some things, things I use all the time. But will you?
Image quality its fine, D80 wont be any improvement.
I may well be chasing numbers on the megapixels as satisfaction, or I have a misconception that the lenses are going to be restrictive. I generally shoot in P, A, S and the odd full Auto here and there. I dont mess about with white balances too much.
Prior to the D40, I'd never really taken any pics of note, other than the odd car-at-a-show type of shot with a cheap £80 ompact in full Auto. So I've learned a lot in the last month or so, especially with the trip to New York, and also having had a good look around some of the camera places. It's a bit of a sweetshop really, Adorama and BH certainly were!
I dont particularly have a type of shot that I take, it's still a bit too early on for me, what I do know is while I'm a car enthusiast, I dont find car photography particularly interesting at the moment. More likely I'm going for shots that are more traditional.
Maybe I'm giving the D40 undue criticism and I need to rely less on processing and get better behind the camera before I go looking at upgrading it.
andy_quantum said:
Maybe I'm giving the D40 undue criticism and I need to rely less on processing and get better behind the camera before I go looking at upgrading it.
I think thats more correct. I've a friend with a canon 300d. An antique by todays standards, still produces cracking photo's, its more down to the photographer and what they do with the tools than the tools themselves I'm afraid.
Brush up on the mechanics, then look at composition rules etc, IMO get a cheap prime (50mm) even tho it'll be manual focus it'll make tyou move & think more about your shots, and give you nice shallow DoF for creative shots too.
Then look at post processing, not sure what you have or use, the last year or two I've learned a lot of tricks in photoshop (still a lotmore to learn) and it makes a huge difference to how the finished artice looks - even basic level adjustments,croping & sharpening etc.
Your camera is lacking some features but nothing that will stop you getting a shot if you want it.
andy_quantum said:
RobDickinson said:
What do you think the D40 is lacking?
It is lacking some things, things I use all the time. But will you?
Image quality its fine, D80 wont be any improvement.
Well, I dont know! And thats the crux of it really, the little voice is saying "D40's are the pikey one, now you know you're not going to drop this latest whim get something better, it's not even the X"It is lacking some things, things I use all the time. But will you?
Image quality its fine, D80 wont be any improvement.
I may well be chasing numbers on the megapixels as satisfaction, or I have a misconception that the lenses are going to be restrictive. I generally shoot in P, A, S and the odd full Auto here and there. I dont mess about with white balances too much.
Prior to the D40, I'd never really taken any pics of note, other than the odd car-at-a-show type of shot with a cheap £80 ompact in full Auto. So I've learned a lot in the last month or so, especially with the trip to New York, and also having had a good look around some of the camera places. It's a bit of a sweetshop really, Adorama and BH certainly were!
I dont particularly have a type of shot that I take, it's still a bit too early on for me, what I do know is while I'm a car enthusiast, I dont find car photography particularly interesting at the moment. More likely I'm going for shots that are more traditional.
Maybe I'm giving the D40 undue criticism and I need to rely less on processing and get better behind the camera before I go looking at upgrading it.
Edited by GetCarter on Monday 11th February 20:01
Look - give the chap a break, he doesn't even know he's suffering from early-onset NAS yet.....GetCarter said:
buy a D300 and work on technique.
RobDickinson said:
Man those 5D's are sweet, barely need to press the shutter release..
You can really go off some people you know... 
I couldnt justify the D300, I'd feel too guilty for not using it enough.
The D200 however is that bit more affordable
andy_quantum said:
I couldnt justify the D300, I'd feel too guilty for not using it enough.
That's easy then. Buy it and use it a lot. Here to help.
ETA - Sorry... I'll get off your back now.
In your situation I'd stick with the D40 untill you are really finding it's not as good as you need... then take a big jump. D200 isn't far enough IMHO.
Edited by GetCarter on Monday 11th February 20:16
Simpo Two said:
Yuo can go out and buy a DSLR with more knobs on. But will it make you a better photographer?
Nope... but you'll certainly get better results. I have a D50 and D2X in the bag and am astonished how bad the D50 pics are compared to the D2X. I am not the 'variable' in this case... the camera is. The D2X is SO much better at metering - especially in difficult light.
(and the D3 and D300 are even better, I read)
Edited by GetCarter on Monday 11th February 21:48
GetCarter said:
andy_quantum said:
I couldnt justify the D300, I'd feel too guilty for not using it enough.
That's easy then. Buy it and use it a lot. Here to help.
ETA - Sorry... I'll get off your back now.
In your situation I'd stick with the D40 untill you are really finding it's not as good as you need... then take a big jump. D200 isn't far enough IMHO.
Edited by GetCarter on Monday 11th February 20:16
I know a few guys who have gone from d40 level cameras to d200s etc and would say they consistently take worse photos now. They really miss the scene modes etc, so you need to ask yourself whether you are prepared to make the mental effort to learn what those modes are doing under the covers etc. If not you'll probably end up the same 
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff