Nikon D90 vs Canon EOS 40D

Winner
Nikon D90

100

Canon EOS 40D

84

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D90

Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
12.5 EV
Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.63x
Built-in focus motor
Badge
Autofocuses with more lenses
Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
300 ms startup delay
 

Reasons to buy the Canon EOS 40D

Thickness
Thin
2.9"
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/8000 of a second
Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
400 ms startup delay
Viewfinder
Great viewfinder
Pentaprism

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon EOS 40D.
Explore our gallery of 47 sample photos taken by the Nikon D90.

competitors

Nikon D90 Competitors

Placeholder

Nikon Coolpix P1000

Super zoom

$997

Image stabilization Image stabilization
Screen size Significantly larger screen
Viewfinder Has a digital viewfinder
Nikon D5100

Nikon D5100

Entry-level DSLR

$342 body only

$403 with 18-55mm lens

External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Viewfinder Doesn't have a pentaprism viewfinder
Nikon D3400

Nikon D3400

Entry-level DSLR

$326 body only

$397 - $497 with 18-55mm lens

True resolution Much higher true resolution
Movie format Higher resolution movies
Viewfinder Doesn't have a pentaprism viewfinder

Canon EOS 40D Competitors

Canon Rebel T3i

Canon Rebel T3i

Entry-level DSLR

$708 with 18-55mm, 55-250mm lenses

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Movie format Shoots movies
Viewfinder Doesn't have a pentaprism viewfinder
Canon Rebel T3

Canon Rebel T3

Entry-level DSLR

$350 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Shoots movies
True resolution Higher true resolution
Dynamic range Less dynamic range
Canon EOS 7D

Canon EOS 7D

Pro DSLR

$1,099 body only

$1,195 with 18-135mm lens

Overall image quality Much better image quality
Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Battery life Shorter battery life

discussion

Nikon D90
D90
Nikon

Report a correction
Canon EOS 40D
EOS 40D
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments