Beginner to SLR - Worth it to pay $250 more for Nikon D60 or get D40

mojer

TPF Noob!
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I have been a point and shoot guy for quite some time. I am ready to take my photography to the next level and get an SLR. I really like the Nikons. I can get a D40 (6MP) for $500 with a decent lens. I can get the D60 (10MP) for $750. I have read great reviews on the D40. The D60 is somewhat new so I am unable to get lots of reviews about this camera. I want to have the ability to take photos and make larger prints (20x30). I will not be using the camera for sports or fast action shots. Mostly pics of family, and other misc stuff but nothing high tech. Is getting the D60 so that I can get 4MP more all that important or worth it? It just seems like most of the point and shoot cameras are coming with 7, 8 or more MP and here I am spending lots more $$$ and only getting a 6MP camera (if I were to get the D40). The other thing with the D40 that I keep reading is that it has lots of limitations. Decisions, decisions, decisions. Thanks for any input!
 
If you are specifically worried about megapixels (which is actually what you should be worried least about) the D40X is 10 megapixels compared to the D40.

However, the lenses that you put in front of your body is the most important thing.... you will still get "bad" photos no matter how many MP you have if you have crappy lenses.

That being said, you can make it work if you take the time to learn about what you are doing...
 
Well I already said in the other thread that my D40 does great prints at 3-feet wide, although I don't do it all the time. If you plan to print that big routinely you might as well go with a 10MP camera. At least then you'll have some cropping leeway as opposed to 6MP cameras. Most point and shoots may have more megapixels, but they have nowhere even remotely close to the sharpness of a DSLR, so not all pixels were created equally. If you really want a 10MP camera, you might as well go with the D80 over the D60 since it offers far more lens compatibility among other things for $50 over the D60.
 
I have been a point and shoot guy for quite some time. I am ready to take my photography to the next level and get an SLR. I really like the Nikons. I can get a D40 (6MP) for $500 with a decent lens. I can get the D60 (10MP) for $750. I have read great reviews on the D40. The D60 is somewhat new so I am unable to get lots of reviews about this camera. I want to have the ability to take photos and make larger prints (20x30). I will not be using the camera for sports or fast action shots. Mostly pics of family, and other misc stuff but nothing high tech. Is getting the D60 so that I can get 4MP more all that important or worth it? It just seems like most of the point and shoot cameras are coming with 7, 8 or more MP and here I am spending lots more $$$ and only getting a 6MP camera (if I were to get the D40). The other thing with the D40 that I keep reading is that it has lots of limitations. Decisions, decisions, decisions. Thanks for any input!

D40, definitely. The additional pixels won't do much for you and you'll have many more controls to learn and to worry about. Get good glass and replace the body in two years.
 
Of the two, D400 ABSOLUTELY.
 
I haven't heard of that model. It must be pretty Uber.

Anyway, I would stick to the D40 if those two were your only options. But I also hear ALOT of bad things from people who find themselves limited after they outgrow their D40 - because the lens mount is abnormal and they can't use their lenses on other models ... or something like that. Someone here will know the details better than me.
 
Anyway, I would stick to the D40 if those two were your only options. But I also hear ALOT of bad things from people who find themselves limited after they outgrow their D40 - because the lens mount is abnormal and they can't use their lenses on other models ... or something like that. Someone here will know the details better than me.
You can use just about any Nikon F-mount lens dating back to 1959 on the D40. The body simply doesn't have the built in focusing motor, so it requires "AF-S" lenses that already have the motor built in for auto focus support. For the most part it's not an issue and blown way out of proportion. It's only really an issue if you want to experiment with all sorts of different lenses or use prime lenses. A lot of D40 owners don't.
 
Save and go for the D80. Love mine and about to go up in a few months! :D 300??? >:D
 
The latest review I read on the D60 was really only boasting about the 18-55mm VR kit lens it comes with, and more in-camera image processing (digital filters and such). Other than that, it's not much different than the D40x, same resolution anyways. The body with the kit lens is $750, assuming that is the package you are looking at. Otherwise the body alone is a tad over $600.
 
wait until you know what it is you want
 
im amazed (and slightly mad) at how cheap you can get a D50/70 for now. I wish i didnt pay around $600 for mine (even though i love it). If you are looking at a cheap way to enter the DSLR market, look around for a used D50 or D70s. They are extrememly cheap for the quality.
 

:) I figured... either that or you were being sarcastic.


My original post was going to advise you to move up to the D80, but I didn't.

So now I am... it would be better to move up the the D80.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top