d40 vs a200

I would say the XS is slightly superior to the D60 for several reasons.

- The biggest is that the XS uses a CMOS sensor whereas the D60 still uses the older CCD sensor.

- The XS allows you to change the ISO on top of the camera whereas the D60 makes you hunt around in the menus, this is obviously much slower.

- The XS has Live View, the D60 does not.

- Another big one is that the XS has 7 focus points whereas the D60 only has 3.

- The XS has a depth of field preview button whereas the D60 doesn't have one. This might be handy for some folks.

- The XS is fully compatible with all current Canon lenses whereas the D60 lacks a AF motor in the body and must rely on the more expensive AF-S lenses if you want auto-focus.

In the end, they're pretty evenly matched and it boils down to personal preference. I would go with the Canon, but then I'm biased towards Canon at this point so my opinion isn't all that valuable. Each person must make up their own mind as to what they want and which system suits their needs. No matter what you decide, both will serve you quite well.

As for the A200, I wouldn't go with Sony. I would stick with one of the two big dogs for support (from other photogs if you join a group), access to a huge used market of modern lenses and accessories (surf the boards for deals) and I don't care for the proprietary hotshoe mount.
 
I would say the XS is slightly superior to the D60 for several reasons.

- The biggest is that the XS uses a CMOS sensor whereas the D60 still uses the older CCD sensor.

- The XS allows you to change the ISO on top of the camera whereas the D60 makes you hunt around in the menus, this is obviously much slower.

- The XS has Live View, the D60 does not.

- Another big one is that the XS has 7 focus points whereas the D60 only has 3.

- The XS has a depth of field preview button whereas the D60 doesn't have one. This might be handy for some folks.

- The XS is fully compatible with all current Canon lenses whereas the D60 lacks a AF motor in the body and must rely on the more expensive AF-S lenses if you want auto-focus.

In the end, they're pretty evenly matched and it boils down to personal preference. I would go with the Canon, but then I'm biased towards Canon at this point so my opinion isn't all that valuable. Each person must make up their own mind as to what they want and which system suits their needs. No matter what you decide, both will serve you quite well.

As for the A200, I wouldn't go with Sony. I would stick with one of the two big dogs for support (from other photogs if you join a group), access to a huge used market of modern lenses and accessories (surf the boards for deals) and I don't care for the proprietary hotshoe mount.

you might be bias towards canon.... but you know the facts, there should be no disputing the facts...
 
for those of you who diss the nikon cameras "below d90" check this out Bokeh 365! - a set on Flickr . its a matter of lenses more than bodies. so i would stick with either canon or nikon. you can't go wrong with any of these two.

I can take some awesome pictures with a pinhole camera and a sheet of photosensitive paper, too... that doesn't mean that a cardboard box isn't a limited camera.
 
for those of you who diss the nikon cameras "below d90" check this out Bokeh 365! - a set on Flickr . its a matter of lenses more than bodies. so i would stick with either canon or nikon. you can't go wrong with any of these two.
I don't think anyone said the D60 can't take a nice picture. All of Nikon's offerings from the D40 on up are capable of taking high quality pictures.

There are limitations to the D60 that aren't present in their more evolved products like the D90 though. The CCD sensor for example. While at lower ISO's there's no question CCD sensors take very good pictures, when you get up to ISO 800 and beyond the CCD starts to fall on its face. That's a problem for many people who later discover that they need to shoot in low light and their camera doesn't produce the quality of images they would like.

I also wouldn't consider the D40, D60 or even the new D5000 because they lack an in body AF motor. While it's true Nikon is moving towards the AF-S lenses and the line-up is quite comprehensive (albeit expensive), you're still restricted on lower cost options. You're also restricted in the 3rd party lenses you can use and still have auto-focus. For me this is a seroius deal breaker.

This seems counter-intuitive to me as most people buy a D40 or D60 because of budget concerns. Why then do you design the system so that it must use the most expensive lenses in Nikon's line-up if you want it to function with basic features like auto-focus?

That's why I wouldn't buy anything below a D90.

But what suits me certainly isn't a universal standard. There are plenty of people who get great use out of Nikon's entry level cameras. Again, it's all based on personal needs and shooting styles. There's no universal "right answer".
 
But what suits me certainly isn't a universal standard. There are plenty of people who get great use out of Nikon's entry level cameras. Again, it's all based on personal needs and shooting styles. There's no universal "right answer".
:thumbup:
well said
 
well, i have the d40 and that lens combo...like many people here.

and like many people here, it suits me well. ive been perfectly happy with it, and have been doing my best to expand my photo knowledge with the equipment i have.

that;s a good deal if new...i think i paid 599 for my setup about a year ago, so it seems to hold its value.

people are so funny when it comes to the D40...does it suck that bad?

let us know what you decide.
 
people are so funny when it comes to the D40...does it suck that bad?

No the camera does not suck at all. In comparison to a lot of higher end DSLR's, yeah it certainly lacks a lot of features but it's a totally usable camera for most people wanting a good shot.

I think people should approach a camera purchase like that of a car. Most people's first car was probably bought used, ran fine but you had to roll down the windows by hand, only had cassette, had the crappy little wheels with hubcaps and bore the name Oldsmobile, Buick, or Diahatsu. But unless you bought a real piece of junk, the car would get you from point A to point B just as any other car would. Sure the ride there might not have been luxurious but it serves the same purpose. Now when you go to buy your next car, you can really appreciate all the nice little gadgets and things you didn't have before.

There's no sense in throwing a bunch of cash at something you don't even know if you'll like in a couple of months. My advice: Find a used version of any of the mentioned cameras and get used to using a DSLR, then sell and upgrade if you feel your feature set is limiting. I learned the hard way that buying your first DSLR brand new is a waste of money if you're on a budget and when you want to upgrade, you'll take a major loss on your investment.

FYI: This is advice from a Nikon whore...:lol:
 
No the camera does not suck at all. In comparison to a lot of higher end DSLR's, yeah it certainly lacks a lot of features but it's a totally usable camera for most people wanting a good shot.

I think people should approach a camera purchase like that of a car. Most people's first car was probably bought used, ran fine but you had to roll down the windows by hand, only had cassette, had the crappy little wheels with hubcaps and bore the name Oldsmobile, Buick, or Diahatsu. But unless you bought a real piece of junk, the car would get you from point A to point B just as any other car would. Sure the ride there might not have been luxurious but it serves the same purpose. Now when you go to buy your next car, you can really appreciate all the nice little gadgets and things you didn't have before.

There's no sense in throwing a bunch of cash at something you don't even know if you'll like in a couple of months. My advice: Find a used version of any of the mentioned cameras and get used to using a DSLR, then sell and upgrade if you feel your feature set is limiting. I learned the hard way that buying your first DSLR brand new is a waste of money if you're on a budget and when you want to upgrade, you'll take a major loss on your investment.

FYI: This is advice from a Nikon whore...:lol:


well said :thumbup:

sometimes i get caught up and feel like...man, i bought a $hitty camera...
but then i take it out, take some pics, and im pleased.
would i like to use old nonAF lenses?...sure i guess...would i like 4,000 focal areas?...maybe...but for now my 3 lenses are working, and i use my 3 focal areas just fine.

last month best buy had another crazy online sale for the D200, and i was THIS close to pulling the trigger...but im glad i didnt because at this point i would be $500 poorer, and i probably am not ready for a camera of that magnitude.

awwww i like my little D40....and i think i made the right choice staying in Nikon's camp.:D
 
I don't think anyone said the D60 can't take a nice picture. All of Nikon's offerings from the D40 on up are capable of taking high quality pictures.

There are limitations to the D60 that aren't present in their more evolved products like the D90 though. The CCD sensor for example. While at lower ISO's there's no question CCD sensors take very good pictures, when you get up to ISO 800 and beyond the CCD starts to fall on its face. That's a problem for many people who later discover that they need to shoot in low light and their camera doesn't produce the quality of images they would like.

I also wouldn't consider the D40, D60 or even the new D5000 because they lack an in body AF motor. While it's true Nikon is moving towards the AF-S lenses and the line-up is quite comprehensive (albeit expensive), you're still restricted on lower cost options. You're also restricted in the 3rd party lenses you can use and still have auto-focus. For me this is a seroius deal breaker.

This seems counter-intuitive to me as most people buy a D40 or D60 because of budget concerns. Why then do you design the system so that it must use the most expensive lenses in Nikon's line-up if you want it to function with basic features like auto-focus?

That's why I wouldn't buy anything below a D90.

But what suits me certainly isn't a universal standard. There are plenty of people who get great use out of Nikon's entry level cameras. Again, it's all based on personal needs and shooting styles. There's no universal "right answer".


The problem is you are simply judging them based on their features, and specs. Some people (including myself) cannot think about a D90 because of costs...therefore we have to look at the D40, D60, and so on.
 
The problem is you are simply judging them based on their features, and specs. Some people (including myself) cannot think about a D90 because of costs...therefore we have to look at the D40, D60, and so on.
I do actually think about this, and that's why I said what suits me doesn't necessarily suit others. I simply said I would not buy a Nikon below the D90, I didn't say I wouldn't buy a Rebel (same price point as the D40/D60).

One thing I fail to understand about Nikon's product line is why they offer affordable DSLR's which lack a $20 part (AF motor) which then forces budget minded shoppers to buy their most expensive lenses vs. their more affordable lenses if they want auto-focus. It also seriously limits the number of 3rd party lenses you can buy that also support AF.

That's why if I were on a tight budget, I would go with Canon as all of their current lenses from the least expensive to their most expensive work on every Rebel body made. The same is true of 3rd party lenses, you can make use of all of them made for the Canon EF mount.
 
awwww i like my little D40....and i think i made the right choice staying in Nikon's camp.:D
Don't let what others think shape how you feel about your camera. All that's important is that you enjoy your camera, which you do. We all have different wants and needs... we all have different tastes. One size most certainly doesn't fit all.

There are LOTS of happy D40 owners running around. Why? Because it's a great entry level camera. Even if it does lack a few features I deem to be important, who cares? Most folks never miss what they don't have until some loud mouth like me gets on a discussion forum and blurts all sorts of stuff out. :)

Here's where you and I have a serious disagreement.

You need that D200. They are giving them away right now! If I were a Nikon shooter, I would buy one just to have for general purposes.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top