D60 the new P&S?

[Clikon]

I'm reading the features blurb on the Nikon N60 (I'm considering aquiring one, to alleviate my NAS), and noticed that they (Nikon) appear to be marketing it as the new "point and shoot" (mrrogers will take note here). This reminds me of the thread on why so many people spend so much on high priced equipment when they don't particularly know what they are doing. Anyway...

Since the N60 is the newest Nikon, is it a camera in which Nikon is attempting to target those frustrated "non dSLR" people with? I know I've been frustrated with my non dSLR. This is what Nikon says about it in their "features" column:

Users will immediately appreciate the D60's fast 0.18-second start-up time and split-second shutter response, which combine to eliminate the frustration of shooting lag ? a common issue with many point-and-shoot digital cameras. With a fast and accurate autofocus and the ability to shoot continuously at up to three pictures-per-second, the D60 faithfully captures pictures that other cameras often miss. The D60 does all this while delivering extraordinarily vivid and detailed pictures, ensuring that fleeting expressions, special moments and memorable events are captured beautifully.

What do you think?

 

[Mav]

The D40 is the same (or better) camera with the same features for less money going on a year and a half now. The small text stuff you posted is just marketing BS that applies to the D40 too.

The only thing that really interests me in the D60 is the Active D-Lighting, which supposedly handles highlights a ton better than other cameras. Otherwise the D80 is a far more capable camera for just a little bit more money, and the D40 is 95% the same and actually better in some ways for $200 less. (i.e. cleaner high ISO performance, a stop faster in normal use, and superior 1/500s flash sync) (I own a D40 and D80)

 

[Clikon]

The D40 is the same (or better) camera with the same features for less money going on a year and a half now.

I'm so new, I have to ask. The difference in MP (D40: 6.1 versus the D60: 10.2) doesn't matter? I hate to open a can of worms with the MP discussion again, but strictly comparing the two, D40 and D60, the MP doesn't matter?

 

[Big Mike]

I will say that yes, it does matter...and usually, more is better...but as far as being the 'entry level' DSLR, designed to attract P&S shooters into the DSLR world...the D40 & D60 essential serve the same purpose.

 

[Clikon]

I just saw Big Mike's gallery...Big Mike, if you say so, then that's good enough for me. I'll gladly step down (in price anyway) from the D60 to the D40...Exactly what I was looking for. So glad I found TPF...

 

[Big Mike]

Well, all my shots were taken with a Canon...I'm just talking out my @ss when it comes to Nikon

If it were my decision...I would go for the newest model...the D60. As I said, more MP is good but certainly not the whole argument. Each generation of cameras, usually has several advancements...and it makes sense to me, to get the latest one so you don't fall too far behind the technology curve.

That being said, for many people, 6MP and a D40 will be enough.

 

[Clikon]

My first camera was a Kodak Discamera. Remember those?

Anyway, off to Ritz! D60 here I come!

 

[Mav]

I'm so new, I have to ask. The difference in MP (D40: 6.1 versus the D60: 10.2) doesn't matter? I hate to open a can of worms with the MP discussion again, but strictly comparing the two, D40 and D60, the MP doesn't matter?

If you do a lot of cropping (I don't) then a 10MP sensor might be worthwhile over a 6MP sensor. Like if you have a 200mm lens and really need a 300, but just stick with the 200 and crop the difference. You'll have plenty of image leftover with a 10MP sensor for a nice big high quality print whereas it might be fairly skimpy starting with only 6MP. A good example might be trying to get a shot of your kid at the opposite end of the soccer field. If you make a lot of prints larger than 3 feet wide, the extra MP's might be worth it too. I've made 3 foot wide prints from my 6MP D40 and they've looked great - just as good as the 10MP D80.

If you stick with the 6MP sensor of the D40 you get

- lower noise levels at high ISO
- better dynamic range at high ISO
- one stop faster base ISO (200 vs 100)
- superior and faster 1/500s flash sync (vs 1/200s), critical for removing shadows from people's faces during the day, or for stopping action at the same time (your kid on a swing during the day)
- $200 cheaper body that you can put into nicer lenses instead
- smaller file sizes that won't clog up your memory cards or drives as quickly
- better performance with cheaper lenses than the 10MP sensor, which is more demanding of lenses

I need better performance at high ISO and the 1/500s flash sync a lot more than I truly need 10MP (which is almost never), so I love my little D40. At the park one day photographing my daughter on a swing, I had to throw away a whole bunch of shots from my D80 just because the measly 1/200s flash sync on the 10MP sensor bodies couldn't balance out the harsh shadowing I was getting that you can with 1/500s flash sync. This is why some pros use Nikon D40's hooked up to their pro lenses. It's just about the only DSLR body on the market with a flash sync that fast. I honestly do wish that my more capable D80 had the 6MP sensor in it rather than the 10MP one, but at times I do need the extra capabilities of my D80, so I have both. (had the D80 first)

 

[Clikon]

Holy smokes, all I wanted was a hobby. Now I wish I were dead.

 

[Mav]

Welcome! :lmao:

BTW, be sure to read the D40/D40x/D60 "advisory" thread linked in my sig. Required reading for all prospective D40/D40x/D60 buyers. :mrgreen:

 

[Clikon]

That's a great thread, but didn't see anything specific to the D60. Probably because it wasn't out yet. Since I'm in the category "beginner - A" as opposed to "beginner - b", I'm assuming I'd be thrilled with the D60. I'd like to be able to take family portraits with a tripod and the self timer. it's like $120 every time the family goes to JCPenney for pics.

 

[sultan]

The P&S things is just marketing BS. Go for a D40 if you like nikon.

One more thing - in modern digital cameras, less megapixels = better IQ. Less MP = Less NR = More Detail

 

[Mav]

That's a great thread, but didn't see anything specific to the D60. Probably because it wasn't out yet. Since I'm in the category "beginner - A" as opposed to "beginner - b", I'm assuming I'd be thrilled with the D60. I'd like to be able to take family portraits with a tripod and the self timer. it's like $120 every time the family goes to JCPenney for pics.

The D60 has the same issues as the 40x/40 have in that it requires "AF-S" lenses for autofocusing (or Sigma "HSM", not sure what Tamron calls theirs) due to the lack of the in-body focusing motor that all past Nikons have had. If you don't care too much about having lots of different lenses then this probably won't matter, but you did mention the word "hobby" which implies you might. So I figured I'd mention it. Where's the "anti-D40" crowd today?

 

[sabbath999]

Sorry, Mav, I don't count as the Anti D40 crowd (at least not for what they are selling for today)... those things can be bought refurbed with a full warranty & a decent kit lens on them for under $400 these days... which puts them darn near in the disposable category as far as I am concerned. Hard to argue with a $400 DSLR... even if you outgrow it, so what? Keep it for a second body!

I will argue against the D40x (there is no advantage at all over the D40 except megapixels, and it is not as good as the D60 which replaces it) and the D60... simply because there is very little price difference between a D60 and the much more capable D80.

 

[Mav]

Well those are my thoughts too.