nikon choices

[Sachphotography]

Just FYI. Stepping from a d40 to a d60 would be about the biggest waste of money. The cameras are almost identical. I would move to a d80 or d90 body at the very least. You could move up to a d200 for about the same price range.

 

[Sachphotography]

while the D90 and D5000 did add video (and it's a stupid addition)

+1 on that. /\/\/\/\

 

[Rere]

I'd advise you to check out exactly what the D60 has in relation to the D40. Believe me it's a lot: Like 10.2 mp--which for me is great since I print large images for my clients, and two methods of dust reduction--which, by the way, are awesome!!!!! I haven't had to clean this camera and I've had it a year--have to clean my D100 and D70 constantly after a few lens' changes; and the wonderful light weight--the reason some of the other cameras are more expensive is the material that they are made from--metal (more expensive and a pain to carry in the field) instead of the heavy-duty lighter-weight material that the D60 body is made of.. But in the long run, nobody knows how long one will hold up over the other. And by the time the lighter cameras' bodies give out newer, lighter, and more mp cameras will also have come and gone).

I'd list more reasons here, but you'll get more from your own research and not the opinions of people out there who do not own the d60 (or tested the quality of the images) or who really haven't researched it themselves and are saying what they have read or heard from other people who also haven't personally done this.

Now I'm doing what I'm advising you not to do, and that is to listen to a quote from another photographer close to me. He said that the D5000 is basically a "point and shoot" camera. I personally don't know how much truth is in this statement, but I do know, personally that one cannot say that about the D60.

Just some of my thought and opinions. To each his own.

Good luck on whichever camera you choose

 

[Jeffro]

Let us know when you decide!

 

[kundalini]

i need something a lil faster and higher megs so i can prvoide my yearbook production this year with a pic that isnt blurry like alot of the one they had this year

The D40 is more than capable to handle that need. The higher FPS or MP's is not the answer. There are three answers that come to mind straight away.

1) Learn how to properly expose for your shots.
2) Learn good shooting techniques.
3) Get yourself an external flash and learn about how light works and how to manipulate light.
.
.
okay, 4) better glass.......

Just FYI. Stepping from a d40 to a d60 would be about the biggest waste of money. The cameras are almost identical. I would move to a d80 or d90 body at the very least. You could move up to a d200 for about the same price range.

Couldn't agree more. :thumbsup:

 

[Rere]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sachphotography
Just FYI. Stepping from a d40 to a d60 would be about the biggest waste of money. The cameras are almost identical. I would move to a d80 or d90 body at the very least. You could move up to a d200 for about the same price range.

Couldn't agree more. :thumbsup:

Okay, I'm presuming that you and the first quote writer are using a D60 and know the exact differences between the two cameras? See the previous page with my post.

 

[kundalini]

Okay, I'm presuming that you and the first quote writer are using a D60 and know the exact differences between the two cameras? See the previous page with my post.

Your presumption is incorrect, but I do know how to read specs.

I'd advise you to check out exactly what the D60 has in relation to the D40. Believe me it's a lot: Like 10.2 mp--which for me is great since I print large images for my clients,.

6MP will still give a very clean enlargement if exposed correctly.

and two methods of dust reduction--which, by the way, are awesome!!!!! I haven't had to clean this camera and I've had it a year--have to clean my D100 and D70 constantly after a few lens' changes;

A $15 Giottos air blower works wonders.

and the wonderful light weight--the reason some of the other cameras are more expensive is the material that they are made from--metal (more expensive and a pain to carry in the field) (metal) instead of the heavy-duty lighter-weight material that the D60 body is made of.. (plastic).

Using the heavier metal bodies is like doing curls with dumbbells without the gym membership that never gets used.

But in the long run, nobody knows how long one will hold up over the other.

I’d give the edge to metal chassis since there are still many out there that are several decades old and still in use and clicking happily away.


The point was not to say the D60 is not worth having, but instead, the upgrade fron the D40 to D60 is not a financially viable option. Stepping forward of the D60 is where one should be looking to upgrade. I still have my D80 and like it very much when I want to go small and lightweight. But it can't hold a candle to the D300 or D700.


This is my opinion only.

 

[Rere]

Well, thanks, Kundalini for being so nice about our differences of opinion. You really do keep to the PACT. I could keep arguing (like telling you that some commercial clients will not hire you if you don't have at least a 10 or 12 mp DSLR, and that I had to blow out my other two DSLRs constantly, which was really a pain to do), but, I've hijacked this thread too much as it is.

Just wondering if the D40 has Active D Lighting. I love it on the D60, keeps detail in the highlights and shadows if the contrast is too much for a properly exposed picture. My D70 and D100 lack this and do not produce near the quality images that I get from the D60.

In the future I'd like to upgrade to something like the D300. But don't want the weight of the d300. So bought some books on the d60 and have learned a lot more about this camera than I ever could from the specs online or the manual that came with it. For now, I'm about to order the Sigma 150-500 OS lens for Nikon and the teleconverter, which has good reviews.

By bringing out all of these different models and lenses so often, Nikon (and other companies) keep us buying, don't they?

Love this website!!!!!

 

[SrBiscuit]

i need something a lil faster and higher megs so i can prvoide my yearbook production this year with a pic that isnt blurry like alot of the one they had this year

The D40 is more than capable to handle that need. The higher FPS or MP's is not the answer. There are three answers that come to mind straight away.

1) Learn how to properly expose for your shots.
2) Learn good shooting techniques.
3) Get yourself an external flash and learn about how light works and how to manipulate light.
.
.
okay, 4) better glass.......

Just FYI. Stepping from a d40 to a d60 would be about the biggest waste of money. The cameras are almost identical. I would move to a d80 or d90 body at the very least. You could move up to a d200 for about the same price range.

Couldn't agree more. :thumbsup:

aaaaaaaaand that's the ballgame.:thumbup:

 

[kundalini]

Aww, c'mon Rere, I was having a bit of fun while at work and waiting for three Project Managers to return calls for answers.... that's all. Not poking fun at the D60 or their users.

I keep the Active D-Lighting set to OFF in camera, but use it quite often in Capture NX after exporting from Lightroom 2. There's only a few tools in CNX that are worth keeping the resource hog of a program on my computer and ADL is one of them.

The Sigma 150-500mm weighs in at +4lbs.......... hmmm, maybe that gym membership ain't such a bad idea after all.

I thought the PACT was for critique btw.

 

[peanutbuttersports]

well the d40 doesnt keep up with the sportrs i shoot

i need something faster and higher megs cause of the thing i use the shots for

 

[Sachphotography]

I'd advise you to check out exactly what the D60 has in relation to the D40. Believe me it's a lot: Like 10.2 mp--which for me is great since I print large images for my clients, and two methods of dust reduction--which, by the way, are awesome!!!!! I haven't had to clean this camera and I've had it a year--have to clean my D100 and D70 constantly after a few lens' changes; and the wonderful light weight--the reason some of the other cameras are more expensive is the material that they are made from--metal (more expensive and a pain to carry in the field) instead of the heavy-duty lighter-weight material that the D60 body is made of.. But in the long run, nobody knows how long one will hold up over the other. And by the time the lighter cameras' bodies give out newer, lighter, and more mp cameras will also have come and gone).

I'd list more reasons here, but you'll get more from your own research and not the opinions of people out there who do not own the d60 (or tested the quality of the images) or who really haven't researched it themselves and are saying what they have read or heard from other people who also haven't personally done this.

Now I'm doing what I'm advising you not to do, and that is to listen to a quote from another photographer close to me. He said that the D5000 is basically a "point and shoot" camera. I personally don't know how much truth is in this statement, but I do know, personally that one cannot say that about the D60.

Just some of my thought and opinions. To each his own.

Good luck on whichever camera you choose

The D60 is what it is. It is not a bad camera. After using one I felt it was a little lacking. Yes it shoots 10.2 but that is about where the goodness stops. Trying to differentiate between the d40 and d60 is very small. They are almost identical in every aspect. I have used them both side by side. I choose the D80 over both of those cameras as it is a significant step up. The point I was trying to make was that moving from the d40 to the d60 would be a move that would not offer very much at all.
Heavier materials area pain to handle in the field? WHAT? I would so rather be shooting with a durable magnesium body than a flimsy plastic body. I was shooting waterfalls today in 5 feet of water with my camera about 6 inches out of the water. I would want a heavier body that has better water protection. I sports is what he is shooting. I would say move to the D200. It has a body that has better water resistance for shooting in rain and has a better FPS for sports. I would not shoot sports on a d40/d60. Plus moving up to a d200 or similar would offer the ability to use non AFS lenses due to the fact it incorporates the motor in the camera itself. And um just FYI the Mag bodies are going to hold up for a lot longer than the plastic body will. They are made to be more rigid and long lasting. The better bodies will run circles around plastic bodies. seriously.......

 

[Rere]

I also shoot sports--mainly Taekwondo testings and tournaments. I've used my D70, D100, and D60 with the SB 800 speedlight. Get good results with all.

My friend, another photographer who is also a pro, has the D200 and because it's so heavy uses it mainly in her studio. To each his own. I'm in pretty good shape---Kundalini--(got my black belt last year in taekwondo), but I think you can be quicker in sports, wildlife, and every kind of photograpny with a lighter camera. Plus when you put a 4 lb (like the Sigma 150-500 OS lens) onto the camera you add more weight, and I feel the lighter weight for this is a plus--not a minus.

That's my own opinion, though, since I hate tripods and don't use one even in the studio setting. With my studio set-up I move around the room with my camera a lot. Believe me, with pets (I do a lot of pets with their families), this is important. I also use the Nikon 18-200 VR lens, among others,and love the VR and OS lenses.

In my studio (either at home or on location with studio strobes I use the small flash on the camera to set off the strobes. In fact, the pictures are better with the D60 than with my other two DSLRs and to use it in with the strobes I don't have to go into the CSM menu to set it up like I do with the other two cameras.

Has anyone here heard of a possible D400 that Nikon might bring out? Read some rumors on other sites.

 

[itznfb]

c'mon now... the D40/60 has nothing on the D80/90/200/300

as far as a D300s/x/400 or whatever it may be... no one knows. i talked to a Nikon sales rep and he said he didn't even know. (he very well could have been lying) but all he said was there are new products coming out in august. that could be a new lens bag for all i know though.

 

[Crazydad]

well the d40 doesnt keep up with the sportrs i shoot

i need something faster and higher megs cause of the thing i use the shots for

I still say the best investment right now would be glass. If you are going to be shooting basketball, the kit lens with either body is not going to cut it. You really need a faster lens.

I would suggest the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM. It will auto focus on the D40 and is a sharp lens. The larger aperture would allow you to get a faster shutter speed so the shots aren't "blurry".

I would use that for a while and save up for at least the D90 or D300. Just jumping to a new body for a higher mp count doesn't make sense if you are not getting a faster lens.