So my own camera is a Nikon D40. Had it a few years now and frankly its brilliant. Its small, takes great shots with the stock 18-55mm and the fixed 35mm I have, but recently I’ve had pangs of an upgrade.
One of the things I’m interested in is shooting a little SLR video.

The natural progression then I thought is a D90.
I work at a college with a photography department so borrowed a D90 off them today.

A very unscientific test maybe but I stood outside, put the cameras on the same settings and shot the (nearly) same photo.

So which is the better’ camera?

The natural thought(at least I think) would be the photos on the left are better right? Well they were taken with the D40, and as I said, same settings etc.

The D40 has a kit 18-55mm, the D90 a kit 18-200mm, both in aperture priority, both 200 iso, both 5.6 aperture.

Can anyone suggest why the rendering on the right on the expensiverer camera is worse?

May have to keep the D40…. 😐

Without going into detail or inspecting the images closely, I’d suspect the Jpeg settings, which you can change if you go into the camera’s menus.

I actually would say that the pics on the right are better (well apart from the blurring on the bottom right). I have just upgraded to a D200 and its streets ahead of the D70 is used to use. I would suggest upping the ISO may make a difference-was the light at exactly the same level as that may explain some difference-a little cloud cover can affect it.
Is the difference between the two cameras you are comparing mainly down to the CCD size and quality as again that will make a difference even on small size images.

Could be lens differences too. A fairer test would be to use the same lens on both bodies surely?

A fairer test would be to use the same lens on both bodies surely?

Very true, why didn’t I think of that?… 😳

I’ll do that.

also, looking at a size you can view on a screen there probably won’t be much difference TBH. Extra pixels aren’t helping you. The main advantage will be lower light, and more features (more AF points, faster AF etc etc)

No idea about the images above but I sold my D40 for a D90 and have no regrets, its better in every way I need (and the motor in the body drives my 50mm prime lens which the D40 couldn’t).

Can both cameras shoot RAW? If so test this, not what they do before they compress an image to JPG.

also, looking at a size you can view on a screen there probably won’t be much difference TBH. Extra pixels aren’t helping you.

No, it was more the rendering and depth of the colours which I thought was markedly different.

This time I used the same lens(18-55mm) and the same settings.

The D90 on the right just seems a little more wishy-washy to me… Hmmm.

Are you shooting in raw?

I would also try shooting from a tripod, so the camera is in the same position for both shots

Very hard to see much difference at that size to be honest. They look very similar to me.

You’re focussing on different points which doesn’t help the comparison much.
Are you using manual metering if not the different focus points may also be changing your exposure.
What about white balance? Set manually?

As above, I’d stick them on a tripod, as your viewpoint is slightly different.

Have you changed the colour/sharpness settings in the menu systems? Perhaps the colours in the d40 are set to vivid (can’t remember if that’s the exact expression Nikon use) or are toned down in the d90?

Am only looking at it on my phone screen but the colours from the d40 look more saturated as if something has been turned up a notch or two…

I have a D50 and D90 and on screen, shooting raw with my 50mm f1.4 ( sorry no pics on Holl) I struggle to see a difference, are you sure there is no difference in the settings?

There is quite a bit to mess with in the d90 settings and if it’s been used by students, you can mess it up quite a bit in the settings 😉

When you print them mind, the d90 images are noticeably richer toanally

I did have to get my d90 focusing checked with Nikon as it was slightly out from new, only noticeable with my f1.4 lens opened up fully.

Saying that at higher iso I still prefer the noise the d50 gives over the d90 but that’s a personal choice more than anything.

Nothing wrong with the d40, upgrade wise, keep the body, lenses is the way to go 😉

Forgot to mention, if you are looking for something for video use keep in mind the d90 will not autofocus once you start to video, something to keep in mind.

why bother with these tests when there are loads of online noise/resolution/dynamic range/colour accuracy comparisons on sites like dpreview.com that have been carried out accurately so comparing is easy.

I think all the photos look fine and perfectly acceptable, colour wise and sharpness etc anyway.

I’d save your money and buy bits for your bike instead or a nice lens for the D40.

it’s like wanting XT when you have perfectly working Deore

it’s like wanting XT when you have perfectly working Deore

Ha, I know what you mean 😀
Actually, I currently have an XT front brake and a Deore rear…. go figure… 🙂

not a fair comparison unless:-
both shooting in raw, or default colour space settings
both on same lens, at same setting in same position
both on same metering setting*

*which it the main reason the cameras are giving different exposure values.

Also in cloths line test, the best camera is the one that produced the top right image. Look at the detail around the skyline vs. the pegs, much less fringing with that camera (better coating on sensor). Also its dealt with the contrast in light & dark on that tree a lot lot better. the one on the left looks like a phone camera pic by comparison.