Low-end DSLRs: Canon XT Rebel versus Nikon D40

If you are considering moving up to a low-end digital SLR, but are not really sure, the choice often boils down to the big two, namely Canon and Nikon.

I use my dSLR as a glorified point-and-shoot. I don't fiddle too much with aperature or shutter priority. I just want to get good photos of things happening around me quickly and not miss out. The one area I push my camera is low-light since I prefer not to use a flash if possible. So I'm often adjusting the ISO.

Another of my quirks is I don't baby my dSLR. After all it is only a $400 item these days, and so long as you don't abuse it, it will last. Over the last 4+ years ....

• I always leave it on (which seems to not use any power, though people who borrow my camera are always turning it off, which annoys me when I then try to take a picture).
• I never use my lens cap. I have put on a UV filter protector, but that has never been broken or even scratched.
• I just throw it in my backpack or luggage. I don't have a camera bag since I just have that one lens.
• I've never had any problems with
  

If you are a higher-end photographer who needs to take very-high resolution shots for blowing up bigger than 2' x 3', spend lots of time tweaking photos afterwards, are a professional photos, or simply want to have a better camera than a low-end dSLR, then skip this post.

Back in 2006, I had had a Canon Rebel XT for a few years, but wanted to try the Nikon D40. So I gave away my Canon as a holiday gift and got the D40 with the kit lens and an SB400 flash ($120). Both cameras came with a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, non-IS. How do they compare?

Nikon advantages (most important to least)

1. External flash for $120. The cheapest from Canon is around $220. Being able to bounce the flash is a huge win, as you can get pretty decent looking photos whereas before you have a semi-ghastly look. Also an external flash has its own AA batteries so it recharges faster and doesn't drain the camera batteries. This is a huge gain, and I would take a D40 + SB400 over any other $1000 dSRL w/o a flash. The first $120 I'd pay is for this Nikon flash, over any lens.
   
2. Better folder naming/numbering. The D40 lets me name the suffix of the current folder on the flash card using any 6 letters I want so I can name things like "July4" or "Home" or "SFTrip". I don't offload my photos very often, say once every 2-4 months, and its super annoying to have a numeric ordering.
3. Much better LCD screen, mostly because the Rebel XT screen sucks. But this is not very important anymore because the newer Canons all have much better screens, though apparently not as bright as the Nikons.
4. Able to focus quickly more often. Every so often, both cameras would not focus, perhaps due to not enough light or not enough contrast. The Nikon seemed to do this a bit less than the Canon.
   
5. Lens feel. Of the 3 Canon Rebel XT kit lenses I've played with (I was giving these away as gifts), only 1 had silky zoom feel. Pverall, I'd give the three Canon kit lenses an A, B+ and a B-. The Nikon kit lens has a A- feel.
   

Canon advantages.

1. Faster, sharper focusing. The Canon snaps into focus so fast most of the time it seems like should jerk the camera. The Nikon in contrast is downright slow, though still much faster than point-and-shoot. Note both have trouble if there not enough contrast, e.g. if in a moving car, and the camera is partially aimed at the sky.
2. Better access to the controls I care about, namely ISO, and resolution. The Canon has one-button access to both of these important fns. The Nikon only let me have a single programmable "Fn" control, for which I chose ISO.
3. Ever so slightly better image quality, it being 8MP versus 6MP... but really this was very minor.
   

Other than that they were comparable. Battery life. Weight. Feel. Ruggedness. Lens optic quality.

In short, the fact that Nikon had a good cheap flash was the tie breaker. You can't go wrong with either camera. As of mid 2009, the Nikon D40 is available for under $450, making it hard to pass up. For another concurring opinion about the beauty of a D40, see Ken Rockwell's site.

Were I buying today, I'd probably get the D40 again or wait until a model that took video was under $650. Note too that so far video taken by dSLR cameras is not that great; a good camcorder does better job. I'd really like a full-frame camera with an FX sensor, instead of the DX sensor on lower end dSLRs, but full-frame costs much more at $2500+ and are much heavier. And people would probably laugh at me if I used some crappy kit lens with a full-framer.