Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › D40, D100 or anything else?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

D40, D100 or anything else?

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 
I owned a D50 for a brief time, and I really enjoyed it, but I am searching a new DSLR.
I can find a new D40 (not D40x) and an used D100 for about the same price (350USD for body only).
I am mostly using the camera for close range pictures, about 60cm to 1m. Detail levels in the picture is a must. Wich one will be the best using the same lens?
About the lens, I'd apreciate a suggestion for a afordable lens for this purpose.
post #2 of 5
Do you already have Nikon lenses? If so, they have to be AF-S to autofocus on the D40. Nikon has only 3 macro lenses with AF-S, and they are fixed length and very expensive ($500, $750, $1300 for the 60mm, 105mm, 85mm lenses). Of course, you will get great build and image quality from these lenses.

Sigma makes some macro lenses which are affordable and decent. However, they won't autofocus on the D40. The only relevant macro + hsm lens in Sigma's lineup is the 17-70mm 2.8-4.5, which is a very good all-arounder for $400.

Also consider the Pentax K10D ($670 new) or K200d (<$550 new). You'll get different options for macro lenses, some of these options should suit you better. The total cost of these bodies with a suitable lens can be less than with Nikon D40. You also get a lot more features.
post #3 of 5
The dslr world is fast moving and I would never buy 6 year old tech. There's practical issues like tiny screens, but image quality also gets better with new processors. Also, flash technology has improved since the D100. I'd much rather get a D70 instead of a D100.
On the one hand, if the D100 does what you need, and you don't shoot jpeg, go for it. Just watch the number of shutterreleases on such an old camera, they don't last forever.
On the other hand, a new D40 with the new 60mm macro would be sweet too and might even yield better results. You just don't get autofocus with old lenses.

edit: I fear I didn't really make a clear point here. Thing is, every camera is a trade-off. Film or digital, high or low price, lenses you can use, etc. But a D70 does everything the D100 does better, because in 2002 people at Nikon and Canon were just getting to grips with digital. Analogy: Apple, Windows (xp, vista), Linux (all distros)...all tradeoffs. But you don't install Windows 98 in 2008 even though it probably gets the job done.
post #4 of 5
+1 - too many recent improvements to buy an old Digital SLR. Simple things as faster focusing, better metering, etc. - much improved in the newer models

post #5 of 5
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the inputs guys.
I don't have any lens left. I was just looking for a cheap DSLR solution, mainly because it has a bigger sensor than point and shoot. I searched Google a bit too, and while the D40 to D100 all fill my needs, I will stick with a P&S for the convenience. I was thinking about the Canon G9 but I found a Panasonic LX2 for 200USD. I'll take that route.
Anyone knows any other cheap and good P&S?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › D40, D100 or anything else?