difference in dslr bodies? (ignorance warning)

specifically nikon d40 and d80 (though d90 seems to tank it)

i know the pixels and iso range change, i think theres a dif sensor? theres also dif auto focus points (and you can use more lenses on a d80) but are the images taken with the same lens in the same conditions different? i assume they must be but im slightly confused as to how? dont need massive techinical explanation but an idea of why there are differences.

The most expensive DSLR cameras come with a sensor that’s the same as 35mm film. Most come with a smaller pixel (called APS-C – after a film format you have to be really old to remember).

In general the more expensive the body:

– the quicker the autofocusing;
– the greater the number of shots you can shoot in a continuous burst.

A single shot taken with two bodies with the same size sensor using the same lens should be identical (all other things being equal and shooting RAW with no internal processing).

Don’t know what dlf is.

If you don’t use the extra features to make a pic, i.e. complicated lighting, I doubt you will be able to see much of a difference, unless you blow the pics up quite large.

The D80 is a better camera, worth it if you need/want the features, also slightly more solidly built.

If you don’t already have lenses that will only auto-focus with the D80, the D40 will be a good choice as well.

The sensor that has the same size as 35mm film (34x36mm) comes into play in MUCH more expensive models: D700 and upwards.

I have a D60 for day-to-day pics and a D300 for serious shooting. The difference between the bodies is marked (even setting aside the fact that the D300 is more than twice as heavy). The 300 just begs to be used – anything other than the lightest touch on the shutter release takes 2 shots, and it will happily click away at 6 shots a second for ages. The D60 in comparison is far more sluggish, and soon stalls, displaying an annoying hourglass. The D300 also has far more comprehensive settings, from simple things like ISO in 1/3rd stop increments (D60 goes 100-200-400-800 etc), and more of the settings have a dedicated button instead of having to hunt through a menu.

I like the way the D60 is so dinky – though I couldn’t resist putting quite a large lens on it, but I wouldn’t like to have to use it for biking or other action shots.

D40 and D60 don’t have the onboard lens motor so can only do AF with AF lenses with a built in motor.

Know about the motor but was thinking more about features and resulting pictures. Being able to alter ISO and other features without diggin through menus would be good but ultimately i was wondering if the images would be better and why. ive been using a 50mm fixed lense (old e series so no metering or auto) and love it hardly used the 18-55 because enjoy low light opportunity the 50 affords. sadly only the new f1.4 at nearly £300 will auto with a d40. Plus i feel i already know all the settings and while itll take a while to master and really cut my teeth feels like might outgrow it. only been a month or so tho.

anyway keep posts coming, ta for those that have posted and if anyone fancies layin into my pics so far feel free – flickr[/url]

hang on does a d40 auto focus with an af-i lens? hmm

I have a D80.
D40 is a great camera for very little money.
Main things you DON’T get on the D40/D60 is the focus motor, which might not bother you unless you want a £70 50mm f1.8 lens. However for me the thing that makes the D80 worth the coins is the built in wireless flash.
This really is the best flash system in the business and will transform your pictures with very little effort.
If you don’t want wireless flash and focus motor then I would consider the D60 bundle with the antishake lens bundle.

sorry to clarify i own a d40 just wanted to find out more of what differentiates different bodies. I think a nice fast lens like sigma f2.8 18-50 is what ill save for first, the manual e series 50 works fine just no auto or metering (which is annoying but can always plump for an £80 f1.8)

There is quite a bit of difference between the d40 and more expensive bodies
I own and use d40 a d6o and a d300. IMHO the two main areas of improvement, as well as sfb’s observations, are the image processing gubbins which produce less noise in shadows and allow a wider ev range, and the facility let the camera vary the iso as you alter aperture and shutter speed which is great for working in varying light conditions without flash.
the price/improvemnt line is parabolicbolic (as with most technology) and the best way to improve image quality is with the glass.
btw the d300 and other more expensive nikons also have an adjustment to tune in the focus of a lens to really get it sharp so you will get a better image out of the same lens than with the d40 all other things being equal, which I think was your original question.

Ramble over 🙂

no ramble sir, useful info. i think ill stick with d40 get some nicer glass, cut my teeth and see if i find my equipment limiting my pics then look at sexy bodies 🙂

parabolicbolic

best new word this month

btw seriously fire some advice/criticism on my flickr, its early days and i need guidance and help

The D90 might be worth a look, it’s a scaled down version of the D700 with the exact same sensor, if memory serves me correctly – low light sensitivity is a phenomenal improvement over previous gens. Very low noise at higher iso (relatively) so good for shooting mtbs. Video function to boot.

D90 has DX sensor (APS-C 23.5mm x 15.7mm), D700 has full frame (35mm, 36mmx24mm) the pixel count is similar but the D700 is a much larger sensor, i’d imagine you’d get less noise and better clarity from the larger sensor

I stand corrected. Pehaps it’s the same as the D300. Fine camera all the same.

yeah d90 looks very nice, maybe 6 months or a year down the line i can justify something shiny 😀