Nikon D40x makes the D40 seem totally out of date
By Peter Rojas 
posted Mar 5th 2007 11:21PM
posted Mar 5th 2007 11:21PM
[Thanks, David N.]
posted Mar 5th 2007 11:21PM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
It may have more megapixels, but are the images any better?
More pixels != better picture (in some cases, more pixels = worse picture)
Maybe not better quality (but not worse either), but people need megapixels if they want to do cropping while still having the ability to print out photos poster-size with good quality.
Also, the D40x has a higher ISO range than the D40, which actually does mean the images will be better quality.
@Nick:
That's a very strange thing to say. Ever heard of noise? Know what creates it?
The reason more pixels can decrease the image quality is that both cameras have the same physically sized sensor. More pixels in the same area = less light per pixel, which in turn creates more noise, as the camera software has to extrapolate more per given iso setting.
Your second comment about more iso settings meaning better image quality is even stranger. Just cause you can turn the gain up further doesn't mean it won't get more noise. Do you play guitar? What would happen if you could turn your gain up to 11 instead of 10?
Whats the price on this bad boy?
The D40 has a terrible Veiwfinder... very dark and a serious case of tunnel vision. If you spend a few $100 more on the D80, you get a much better VF.. like night and day.
So, what are the differences between this and the D80?
Because I was planning on buying a D80 soon...
The D80 does what you want it to, easier. Also - the D80 is generally a more sturdy and 'semi-pro' camera.
You get what you pay for with Nikon.
Normally, I would be overjoyed about this type of announcement. However, since I just bought (today at 11am CST) a Nikon D40 after months of comparing & soul searching, this announcement completely crushed my spirits. Way to go Nikon. You could have at least waited another week to announce this! :(
Sincerely,
John
Jesse S. - Compared to the Nikon D80 the biggest difference is the price. From what I can tell spec-wise the cameras are nearly identical with the D40x having the advantage due to price & size. However, if having autofocus on older lenses is a big deal for you, the D80 is the only way to go.
Sincerely,
John Butler
P.S. Check this site out to compare the two: http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/nikon/d40x/nikond40x_EN4.html
Thanks, I saw that.
I was planning on getting Nikon's 18-200mm lens, that will work with this, correct?
Jesse:
I was planning on getting Nikon's 18-200mm lens (for D40X), that will work with this, correct?
Did you buy this lens for D40X? if yes, any comments to share?
Thnx in advance!
Jay
ROAAAAAARRRRRRRR!!!!!!! GRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I bought the D40 in december!!!!!!
It isn't fair! Only 3 months have passed and my camera is out of date! Unbelievable!
Nikon should exchange mine for free. If the D40x isnt significantly pricier than the D40 I am going to get VERY mad. Not that the D40 is bad, it is a great camera, but it isn't fair if it costs the same. That 105mm lens is way better than the 55mm.
I'm guessing this camera is going to be a $100-200 premium over the D40?
Need prices, almost put down the money for a D40 today.
its going to be $799 with the same 18-55 offered on the original d40.
so dont get your panties in a bunch
Never mind, found this on Nikon's website:
"$729.95 ESP1 Camera body only, lens sold separately $799.95 ESP Packaged with 18-55mm DX Zoom Nikkor lens"
@elliot
Ever heard of design and process improvements? Nikons 10MP sensors have been shipping for a while now. They've been tested and, yes, the represent a meaningful improvement in image quality over their older 6MP sensors.
The Nikon D1 was one of the noisiest dSLRs ever and it only offered 2.7MP. Things get better with time, elliot. Perhaps you should find a topic you know something about.
David Pogue did an article on "The Megapixel Myth".
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/deconstructing-the-megapixel-myth/
He printed out the same image poster-sized three times at three different resolutions, and no one could tell the difference.
Also, with a higher ISO you get sharper images (no motion blur), and with a lower ISO you get less noise in low light. Doesn't that count as "better image quality"?
@elliot:
Less light does per pixel does not implicitly mean more noise. That's only true if the CCD/CMOS elements which make up the sensors have the same signal/noise ratio. Neither does this have anything to do with "extrapolation" - it is the circuitry of the sensor itself which creates noise and not "guesswork" in the cameras software (you may be thinking of interpolation which is the software-based process of "upsizing" an image by guessing what should be "in between" pixels, which is sometimes done in cheaper cameras).
Here ya go, elliot. Read it and weep.
From http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/3896/camera-test-nikon-d40x-small-size-big-features-page2.html
"Noise suppression was generally better than the D80's and much better than the Rebel's. As ISOs increased, the D40x's resolution exceeded that of the Rebel. Its noise levels of 0.9, 1.05, and 1.05 at ISOs of 100, 200, and 400, respectively, would qualify for a Ridiculously Low rating if we had one. (They all rank Extremely Low.) Noise reduction is applied steadily but unobtrusively at higher ISOs. At ISO 1600, noise was only Very Low, while resolution dipped by less than 5 percent, still Excellent. This is great performance -- especially for $799."
Cool. I just hate how Nikon cripples their lower end cameras so you can't meter with old lenses.
Sorry Michael, but that's just bullshit. Nikon has made lens compatibility a more important issue than their competitors. With the D40, they dropped support for the older, slower style autofocus---nothing to do with metering. Some time ago they introduced lenses that dispensed with the aperture ring, thus making them incompatible with older film bodies. You don't know what you're talking about.
Of course, Nick, David Pogue is a journalist, not a photography expert, he demonstrated his incompetence in his original article, and the article you linked to was not that one. His discussions don't support his conclusions consistently (they speak in generalities) and he ultimately limits his comments to consumer cameras of which this D40x is not one.
It is easy to claim that image quality isn't improved when you use shoddy shooting techniques, improper image scaling, and printers that can't show differences. When called on your crappy technique, limit your discussion to cameras where increased pixel count, indeed, don't show improvements. That's all Pogue has done.
If you want to see the real deal, go over to dpreview and read their dSLR tests. You can easily see that 10MP cameras are, in fact, capable of higher imaging performance than 6MP ones.
First, to clear things up. I'm not the other Nick that posted at the top of this page, talking about the D80.
Also, I linked the wrong article.
In this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html?ex=1173330000&en=4633ae93d3cfe334&ei=5070
David quotes Ellis Vener...
“I am a professional photographer and a technical editor at Professional Photographer magazine,” his e-mail message began. “I’ll be happy to do the following test.”
...and explains the rest...
"Using a professional camera (the 16.7-megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II) in his studio, he would take three photos of the same subject, zooming out each time. Then, by cropping out the background until the subject filled the same amount of the frame in each shot, he would wind up with nearly identical photos at three different resolutions: 7 megapixels, 10 and 16.7. “Frankly, I’m interested in the results as well,” he wrote.
I gave him a green light for the new test.
His choice of subject also put to rest another objection to my original test. Instead of a smooth-skinned baby, Mr. Vener’s model was positively bristling with detail: curly hair, textured clothing, a vividly patterned background and a spectacular multicolored tattoo on a hairy arm.
We set up the new 16-by-24-inch enlargements on identical easels at a public library. (Why the library? Because it was warm, it was flooded with natural light and its director gave me permission.) Clipboard in hand, we conducted the test again.
Surprise, surprise: the results were the same. This time, out of about 50 test subjects, only three could say which photo was which."
Before anyone complains again about a new and (hopefully) improved product coming out, at least do some homework before you buy. There are time when you can expect new cameras to be released (PMA, for instance), and if you care about getting the newest camera, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to buy until after PMA.
As far as quality, I'm inclined to not judge until we can see actual images from the camera. The changes of the specs do not guarantee better quality images. They just don't for endless reasons (there are plenty of articles on the web that explain this).
Since no one mentioned it, I will... This is Nikon's most entry level consumer DSLR. Which leads me to believe that a rather nice (since this now practically matches the D80 and D200) pro-level DSLR (other than the D3) will be on its way sometime quick...
ah, i purchased the d40 today!
i don't believe this, i hope there is a price premium as i paid $600 with 2gb memory and would feel really down if the d40x is the same price next month.
These types of discussions that verge off the post itself is what an Engadget forum would be good for.
I emailed... the email system a while back about it, but no respose.
Just an idea.
Yes, more pixels often do mean worse pictures. The D40 kicks ass when it comes to noise. The D40 at 1600 has better noise than the D40x at 200!
This means that you can take high quality pictures with the D40 in real life settings such as evening and indoors. The extra pixels of the D40x are not really of much benefit unless you are cropping or making huge prints. But even then the extra noise would likely nullify the difference. And the D40 is $200 cheaper.
The D40 is a bargain - the D40x not. Nikon released the D40x because most consumers are uninformed and mislead by numbers. The informed consumer has the choice, and mine would be: get the D40, get better grain and use the $200 for a great flash, a better lens, or a slap up meal at Mrs. Miggins Pie Shop.
I'm so CONFUSED!!! I've been poring over articles concerning the new d40x, one says the 10MP is well worth the money, while another says save $200 and get a d40. It would be nice to get a clear answer of what would be best for me, I take mostly portrait shots and I don't need the highest priced camera, but I want a good deal on something I'll be able to use for a long time and will also be able to get accessories for. I had just decided to buy a d50 or d70 after so much research and hands-on, and now they're being made basically obsolete. AHH!!
Anyone know when this comes out?
Here, read what Ken Rockwell has to say, http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40x.htm