Nikon D40 – still crazy after all these years

The search for compact perfection goes full circle

That the D40x beats the Canon S95 is hardly a surprise. That it beats the Panasonic GF-1 on every count except size is astounding. OK, the D40x has no video but I use a camcorder for that purpose so video is of no interest. Handling and image quality are the things that matter to me.

The D40x is the best-handling digital camera I know, and Nikon hasn’t been able to match this achievement since. And image quality is quite simply in another class compared to the Panny GF-1, dynamic range most of all. But wait a minute, I hear you says: how can a 4-year old consumer DSLR still be competitive when digital cameras have a lifespan of 2 years before rapid-onset obsolescence?

Even the digital age throws up occasional classics, like the original Canon Rebel of 2003 and its big brother the full-frame 5D in 2005. The 5D still produces superb images but it lacks a few modern convenience features. The Nikon D40 of 2006 was another classic, the first Nikon DSLR to dispense with the old screw-drive AF motor. The one Canon had dispensed with two decades earlier.

Obsolescence?

I have a Nikon D5000, which has been on the market less than 2 years and has already been canned by Nikon. It uses the same sensor as the D90, a camera that has ruled the entry-level prosumer DSLR market for over two years. Here’s the rub: the images I get out of my D5000 are not demonstrably better than those the D40x produces. Yes, I mean that and yes, I’ll show you what I mean. (Click on these D40x images to see a larger version).

  ISO 1600

 

I’m not alone with this contention: Imaging Resource was pretty impressed with the D40x back in 2007. The review’s conclusion said: ‘One other plus with the Nikon D40x that we found when we ran our Imatest "deep analysis," which we usually reserve for SLRs, is its quite superior dynamic range. It actually delivers better highlight and shadow gradation in its JPEG images than all other cameras we've tested, including the remarkable Fujifilm S3 Pro. This latter camera has a sensor that's specially designed to produce a wide dynamic range, blending the results from high-sensitivity and low-sensitivity pixels, so the fact that the D40x beats this purpose-built pro camera is significant. Looking at the images side-by-side, we tended to prefer the D40x's output as well.’

‘When it came to analyzing the RAW output from both cameras, the S3 Pro did edge the D40x slightly; but it [the D40x] beat everything else on the chart. What does that mean for you? Well, it means you're more likely to get both the white wedding dress and black tuxedo exposed properly in the same shot; and if you don't, you're more likely to be able to recover some detail from these areas if you need to. Both shadow and highlight detail will be more rich and have more depth, where other cameras will just transition from gray to black in one or two steps.’  http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D40X/D40XA.HTM

It’s funny IR should mention a wedding because that’s exactly where I was, digging detail out of the shade of the ancient fig trees at Balmoral (a favourite wedding venue a short stroll from my place). And yes, the detail was there to be dug out.

 

These images look pretty good on my 24in screen, and I don’t think the D5000 would’ve done much better with the dynamic range required to cope with the harsh summer light and shade. Don’t get me wrong: it’s a faster, more capable and more versatile camera but I’m talking about image quality here. There’s not a lot in it.

Megapixels

The D40 was a surprise packet in the image stakes as well, but 6 megapixels couldn’t hack it in the megapixel-mad marketplace of late 2006. So less than six months later – in April 2007 – Nikon released the D40x, which was a D40 with the sensor/ mirror/ shutter from the D80. The result was 10 megapixels, an ISO 100 option (great), and 3 frames per second - up from 2.5.

Missing was the 1/500 sec flash synch speed of the D40, something even the D3X missed out on. Despite the extra pixels, the D40x’s dynamic range is greater than the D40’s. The only obvious clue that the D40X is not current technology is the 2.5 inch LCD screen, but that isn’t a big deal. Otherwise the camera looks like any other modern DSLR, only smaller. And it produces great images:

Strange light on a day of threatening thunderstorms

These are the kinds of high contrast scenes that showed up the poor dynamic range of the Panasonic GF-1’s Micro 43 sensor. And here I discovered an interesting explanation, courtesy of a GF-2 review by DPReview (the GF-2’s sensor is unchanged). DPReview notes that ‘the underlying camera technology is starting to show its age. So, while it's quick and easy to use, the images - particularly in JPEG mode - are rather less spectacular.

The conclusion says: ‘... in JPEG mode - fine (particularly low-contrast) detail isn't well rendered, so the output images don't convey much of what the camera is capturing. Auto white balance also seems to produce overly cool results (using too low a color temperature and making the pictures too blue), which can make images look much less attractive than they could be. Noise at high ISO settings is also a problem, with detail smearing and blotchy chroma noise creeping in. Which is not to say the results are terrible - in many situations they're very good, but it's a camera with a report card that makes regular use of the phrase 'could do better.' http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGF2/page19.asp

Reading between the lines, what DPReview is really saying is: we’re not impressed - with the JPEG output at least. As I wrote in my piece on the GF-1, you can get better results shooting RAW but it’s too much hard work. I admit I’m not one of those who insists on shooting RAW to prove that I’m a real man, least of all with a go-anywhere camera that I tend to shoot from the hip with. The D40x’s JPEG output is superb, even with all the settings on 0 or neutral.

Pockatable the D40x is not, but it doesn’t weigh that much with the 35mm prime on the front. Even with the 18-70 - which is shorter than the kit lens but heavier – it’s OK. I’ve found a small carry bag that fits either combo like a glove: the Lowepro Adventura 120 http://products.lowepro.com/product/Adventura-120,2159.htm .

And so this quest for perfection in a compact camera has come full circle: my first digital camera was a D40, and I loved it because it wasn’t a chore to carry around until I bought all kinds of fancy lenses. And I loved the images it produced. And now that I've settled on the D40x, I love having a real viewfinder again. I'll get out of your way now.

Kim

Comments

[George Howard]

Thanks, Kim. I enjoy good photography articles by people who love what they do. Your article is very well-written and I am bookmarking your site so I can read more of your wonderful writing. Keep it up, please.

George

[Kim Brebach]

You are very kind, George.
You are also the first to notice how much work goes into my writing.
Thank you
Kim

[tinnitus treatment]

I could never ever envision that paint is usually stroked and shaped into one thing similar to this. What the website is made up of is very much beneficial, and i can generally understand quite a bit by traveling to the web site.