garyaosborne

Thanks everyone for the excellent feedback.

garyaosborne

Thanks everyone for the excellent input.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The D40X has been around for a long time, so an upgrade would be a good idea, and you can get a D7100 new or refurbished. As for the lens, money plays a big part here. Do you want to spend $2,400 on a lens, or will you be satisfied with one costing half or less? Read reviews and decide how important having the best lens is to you.

mikedidi46 Loc: WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA

I would start by upgrading your lens, that will show the biggest improvement

jaycherry

I bought my grandson a Nikon D3100 which is not much more than D40x and a 18-300mm lens. You can still get them new for about $300. If you are on a budget, go with the 55-300mm lens.

bersharbp Loc: Texas

I started my upgrade from a D-40 (not an X) about a year and a half ago by first upgrading the lens, then the camera but in your case I think I would I would do the camera first (your lens was better than mine). I chose the the 7100 and am VERY happy I did. The D-40 is an excellent entry level camera but the 5300 is a huge step upward.

PhotoPhred Loc: Cheyney, Pa

I started out with the d40x with the 2 kit lenses. It is a 10.2 MP camera. The first thing I bought was the Nikon 70-300 vr lens. It took great pictures. Not so good in low light hand held, but other than that I had no complaints. The only reason that I don't still have it is a friend made me an offer I couldn't refuse. I still have the 70-300 lens and a d5100 and d7100. Very sharp lens, worth the money.

Audioguy Loc: Pocono Mts. PA

A lot of opinions in this area. I agree with SS for the most part although I doubt that 10MP is an issue with IQ unless you are making very large prints or like to crop a lot. There is a case to be made for camera design using moderate pixel density to achieve even better low light capability rather than reducing the pixel size and increasing MPs. This is something to consider when choosing a new camera since a sensor with 16MP will outperform a sensor with 34MP in light gathering ability (if both are the same size).
I would suggest a new camera with the best high ISO performance in its class along with a current 2-300 mm primary lens. This will provide the ability to increase shutter speed as necessary for telephoto shots and greatly increase the IQ of your camera and lens. A lot depends on your style of shooting, certainly if you like to attempt handheld bird shots this approach has some merit.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

There is a strong argument against any real benefit to having larger pixels for noise control with high ISO. It basically goes like this - if you look at images from a D4 and a D800 - 16 and 36mp respectively at 100%, then the noise will be greater on the D800. However, the D800 image is substantially larger. If you were to look at both of them at the same image size, where the D800 image is downsampled to have the same image magnification as the D4, you will see similar noise levels, and, up to about ISO 6400, the image quality will be similar. Downsampling combines the information in adjacent pixels without adding the noise. In essence you are reducing resolution but increasing the signal to noise ratio.

As far as lenses go, when you go to a zoom range that is greater than 3x, something usually suffers. Either the short or the long end, but in practice it is usually the long end. Most 18-200 or 300 lenses I have seen or used are pretty awful at the longest focal length, though many owners will swear that they are just wonderful throughout the entire range. I suspect that they have not shot very much with a good quality lens at that focal length, or just do not need the image quality because they are either making small prints or uploading to social media. In these circumstances the results might be "good enough" but not necessarily great, all things considered. I see this all the time with my students - they buy a cheap superzoom lens, then they try to add a TC and are upset when they look at their pictures because they are so soft.

Audioguy Loc: Pocono Mts. PA

Yes, I agree, if we look at noise alone, however I have seen evidence that dynamic range is significantly greater with larger pixels. This is a function of initial light gathering and is more difficult to post process.
And I definitely agree with a primary lens if possible, or high quality "tele-zoom" rather than a full range zoom for better IQ and hopefully faster lens as well.

banjonut Loc: Southern Michigan

The lenses could definitely use some updating, but good lenses will last most, if not all of a lifetime, given good care. Cameras however, age much quicker. Not that the older cameras do a bad job. In their day, most of them were cutting edge. But things progress very quickly in the DSLR field, and the D40 is lagging in a few areas.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

As others have said, you do need a better body badly ! Whatever you get, I would then look at the Tamron SP 70-300 VC - A great lens which will save you some over the Nikon.

Nikon_DonB Loc: Chicago

Good lens if you are on a budget. I had one with my old D3100 and it gave good results.
Remember not to get caught up in the NUMBERS game(I should know). You can still hit "Home Runs" with an old(or less expensive) bat!

MW

I have been working through a similar dilemma. My current inclination is to update the body if it is a significant upgrade and yours is. If you are familiar with the DxOmark website you may have noticed that the way they rate and evaluate lenses is in the context of a lens-body combination. What that means in you case is that the upgrade to the body will effectively upgrade the performance of all your lenses. D40 to Dx300 is a big jump; were you contemplating D3200 to D3300 I would advise against it. I suggest you get the new body and get some experience with it first. You may find that your images from the 55-200mm look magically better.