Georg N. Nyman PhD.

BACK TO HOMEPAGE

Nikon D 40x

(How to create competition for the competition)

The big brother of the D40? Is it worth the extra money to get that camera instead of the D40? Is it really better or does it just have a sensor with higher resolution? Is the resolution really better?

All these questions came into my mind when I saw the announcement for the D40x. Talking to an expert in that industry, his opinion was - it is not worth the extra money, it is just a marketing feature, nothing to consider - especially not in that price range in which it was positioned.

Well, anyway, I got it for a couple of weeks and - believe it or not, I liked it very much. Not that it can replace a D200 but it is a very neat, high-quality camera which gives incredibly good high-resolution pictures.

Here my report about the two weeks and what I did with it in this time. I shot pictures - many pictures, at day, at night, in macro, with wide-angle, with tele, with and without flash. And I still like it as much as I did shortly after I got it.

What makes that camera so attractive - first of all, it is very light weight. About half a kilogram of weight for the body, that is nothing to think about when hiking (at least for me). Its battery capacity is impressive and its sensor-imaging-color rendition combination is well balanced to ensure properly exposed (some exceptions do exist), nicely colored images which can easily be printed at 13x18inch (35x50cm) without recognizing the pixel structure.

The 10Mpx sensor makes it advisable to use a SD card with at least 1GB capacity but as they have become very inexpensive, this is no problem - in Austria, you get fa 1GB SD card for under 15Euro - so that is no problem. The files are larger - of course, and this you can see when you upload the images on to a slower, older computer - it takes more time than the files obtained from the D40.

What else is different compared to the D40 - the range of sensitivity. It starts at ISO 100 and climbs up to ISO 1600+1step (more or less comparable to ISO 3200). OK, nice feature, but the upper end - I do not like those grainy images, but there might be situations where you are happy to be able to shoot an image, grainy and noisy, but better than not being able to take it without tripod, I guess. On the lower end, the ISO 100, I do like very much. In my opinion, it is a real advantage of the D40x over the D40. Of course, not for all scenes, but in bright light, in summer, at higher altitudes with bright sunshine - the images are better - at least in my opinion and, as you can imagine, what I write here in this brief report, is my opinion - not influenced by Nikon or any other company. As a result of ISO100 being the lowest sensitivity, the ISO200 are already included in the Auto-ISO function. I personally have my reservations about this Auto-ISO function but it might be pretty practical if you just want to take a photo without giving much consideration to sensor "speed", "grain" and electronic noise - the D40x is targeted primarily towards amateurs and newcomers to digital SLR photography.

Any disadvantages to point out right at the beginning - well, if you want, the higher price. But I guess, it is justified as the sensor as got 10Mpx instead of 6Mpx. In the EU, you can get the camera for under 800 Euros, not cheap but at least it includes the standard zoom - the same, which comes with the D40 as well, the 18-55mm AF-S Nikon zoom. That zoom is pretty good - fully plastic body, very light-weight, not really durable, but inexpensive.

As the D40, the D40x has not got anymore the coupling pin for those AF lenses, which do not have the AF motor incorporated - maybe a drawback but I guess, in that class of cameras, an acceptable compromise. That is the often published disadvantage of all D40 cameras - you can only use the AF-S and AF-I lenses if you like to use the AF function. I tried other zooms and fixed focus lenses and they work fine but you have to focus manually. Is this a problem? Well, not for me as I am anyway not a fan of AF operation as most AF systems do not focus exactly where I want them to focus. This is pretty unpleasant, especially for portraits, where you usually want to focus exactly - and I do mean exactly on the eye, which is the closer one to the camera. Can you show me a camera which does exactly this without some additional moving around, half-depressing the release button, then reframing and then shooting (this would cover another story - the one about AF and its many disadvantages and the few advantages).

Same as for the D40 - the function "bracketing" does not exist for the D40x. This is sometimes resulting in slightly overexposed images, images, which need a one-step exposure decrease to come out more brilliant and less washed-out. Not always, but there are certain scenes, which the camera did not deal well with. I include some of these scenes that the reader can see what I mean. One point, which was quiet clearly criticized by DPReview in their D40 review, was the white balance performance in automatic mode and incandescent light. I agree - the auto white balancing for incandescent light is not really good - neither on the D40 nor on the D40x. One should use the preprogrammed setting for that color temperature if the warmish and rather pinkish color rendition is an issue.

Another feature - the RAW-JPEG file setting, which records the JPEG´s in the basic file quality only, was criticized by DPReview as well - here my opinion is, that if I shoot in RAW, then the JPEG file is for my liking for information only - as a quick info sheet to see with all viewers, how the shot came out. And for this purpose, the basic quality is good enough. I anyway then optimize the RAW file and work with that file and not with the JPEG.

So, well, would I want to buy that camera or rather the less expensive D40? I guess, I would go for the D40x because I have a higher resolution sensor which allows me to make larger prints if I want them. And if I wait for another 6 months or so, I bet, that camera will become less expensive and then I shall get it....

First, I want to show the color rendition and color error chart - the light was incandescent light and the white balance was on manual - the results are fine

The color errors are not too bad, the saturation is fine (I personally do not like very colorful images - but this setting can be customized)

The automatic white balancing for daylight is quite good - nothing to complain

Density response curve, noise and noise spectrum - well, not bad for that class of camera

As one can see, an exposure error of 0,41 f-stops was noted - I do not remember having set the camera for manual underexposure for the shot of the Gretag-Macbeth colorchart but the exposure time was 1,6 seconds and the illumination, as mentioned before, incandescent light with manual white balance setting.

Using the automatic white balance setting, the color rendition looks very different - here for comparison the color error chart only:

It is very well visible, who large the white balance error is and how far the actual white deviates from the real white - that is what I wanted to express before -that the while balance setting for incandescent light is poor - similar to the D40, here with the D40x.

For the next test, I used a well balanced 3200K incandescent lighting, a neutral grey background and a sophisticated "Jugendstil" vase to check noise, resolution and color rendition in a real setting. The unprocessed shot is flat, not brilliant and not very impressive - it was done with automatic exposure and manual white balance setting.

The shot was processed with Nikon´s Capture NX and turned out to be quite nice - the colors are fine, the gray balance more or less OK and the details well taken.

OK, how how do the details look when taken with different ISO settings? I used the left arm of the guy holding his hat and enlarged the same part after applying D-lighting adjustment in Nikon Capture NX. Here the results for ISO 100, 400, 800, 1600 and 1600+1step=3200 setting with the D40x:

   ISO 100                               ISO 400                                    ISO 800

ISO 1600                                ISO1600+1step=3200

I think that ISO 1600 is the limit, the one step more might be a nice marketing feature, but the image suffers very much already - it seems to be not advisable to use it unless for rare exceptions.

Now back to my comment regarding exposure adjustment - I took a lot of shots in the automatic mode of the D40 - ISO 100 or 200 and just shot scenes. Here an example where I think that the automatic exposure setting overexposed the image - I corrected manually later the shot and the comparison is shown here:

First the automatic mode shot

And now the corrected shot - which, in my opinion reflects much more the character of this scene - I also corrected the color temperature - the sky was overcast and therefore the color temperature in automatic mode could not adjust for the much higher than average Kelvin degrees.

On the other hand, difficult scenes, like the following one, are exposed quite well - the sky is overexposed, but this must be expected - the contrast range is too large and without bracketing and then sandwhiching (HDR composition), the photo cannot look much better

This leads me to the question of resolution -is the D40x really that much better because of the 10Mpx sensor, compared to the D40 with the 6Mpx sensor?

I took the Patterson resolution chart, the one, I use for all my tests and the best possible optics - the Nikon ED 2,8/17-35mm AF-S and shot it at various aperture settings from a very stable tripod. The results prove that the resolution of the D40x (for those who are interested in resolution...) is what it claims to be - far superior compared to the D40 (what else, of course - 10Mpx vs 6Mpx...)

Here the results, first the D40x and then, below, the D40 for comparison - what a difference!!

D40x

I estimate that the limit is somewhere in the range of 33-35 line pairs - really very good! The closest competitor in terms of resolution, due to the sensor size, is the Nikon D200 - how would it perform side by side? Here the same detail, shot with the D200 (I always use the same lens as well)

I am not sure, but to me, the D40x almost outperforms in this setting the D200....strange, right?

D40 - no comparison to the D40x

For the sake of completeness, here the comparison shot with the Nikon D2xs - another league of camera performance, right?

All right, so far the dry topic of resolution - which is of no interest as long as you are ordering 4x6" (10x15cm) prints or even 8x10" (20x30cm) prints - you most likely would not recognize much difference, it at all.

Next was my usual shot inside the Mariahilfer Kirche in Vienna. This is a very nice old church, founded at the end of the middle-age, then modernized in the mid 17th century and full of attractive and photogenic objects - very suitable for lens-, camera-, film- and optics comparison shots.

The setting is always the same - the camera plus a lens which gives at least 90 degrees of viewing angle - in this case it was again my Nikon AF-S ED 12-24mm, this time mounted on the D40x.

Here the complete scene - this shot was taken with the Nikon D200 some time ago. I used it to show again the same detail above the altar, marked inside a black rectangle.

The left detail was taken out of a shot from the D40x and the right detail comes from the above shot with the D200

I could show more examples of this and that feature, but at the end of this short review, I would like again to show a few photographs, taken with the D40x. The camera is good, very good and I can highly recommend it. As with all technical products, there are shortcomings and some of them are not necessary, but what or who is perfect? Not even me...:-))

At the "Hohe Wand" looking at the "Schneeberg"

In the park of the castle of Laxenburg

In the garden of the castle of Laxenburg

What camera would I like to hold in my hands next to test it - I guess, the Fuji Finepix S5 Pro - but this is a camera, which is difficult to get for a test....I keep trying!

Send mail to Webmaster with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 09-Jun-2007