Nikon D40 or D60? Torn!

Flora

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Living
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
First and foremost, I am a novice, so I do not know a whole lot about the DSLR cameras.

If one were to chose between these 2 models, which would be the best way to go. I read on a review that the D40 does not have an auto-focus driver in camera, so you have to buy more expensive lenses with the driver built in. My question is...is this reason enough to completely forego the D40 for the D60??....I am really stuck between these 2 models. Any input, pros/ cons would be greatly appreciate.
 
The D60 does NOT have a built-in AF motor either.


WOW, being the newest out, I just assumed that it did. Considering all other aspects of each, do you have an opinion on which way to go??
 
No need to worry about the drive motor issue. Both cameras have the same issue. And according to the D40 and D60 users. The lens issue is not really a problem unless you have some older lens you have to use, especially for beginners.

Now, question for you. Do you want to print your photos in Poster size all the time?
 
No need to worry about the drive motor issue. Both cameras have the same issue. And according to the D40 and D60 users. The lens issue is not really a problem unless you have some older lens you have to use, especially for beginners.

Now, question for you. Do you want to print your photos in Poster size all the time?


Good point! The higher pixels really doesn't matter to me, since like you suggested, I will not be printing out posters! Thanks for the input.

The major difference that I see is that the D60 has the Dust Reduction...how important is this?? Does anyone with the D40 have issues with this?
 
Good point! The higher pixels really doesn't matter to me, since like you suggested, I will not be printing out posters! Thanks for the input.

The major difference that I see is that the D60 has the Dust Reduction...how important is this?? Does anyone with the D40 have issues with this?

Even if the camera has dust reduction, it usually not working well, or not work as it advertised. Please see below
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125221

A lot of people here recommend going with D40. It is cheaper and in some way is better than the D60 such as the flash sync speed. And often you can use cost difference between the 2 cameras for a better lens.
 
Get the cheaper body, buy used or refurbished if you can. Spend your money on the best glass you can possibly afford--sell small children if need be.


Ha, that's great! I do hear that the go all the way with the lenses, they will last a lifetime.
 
Get the cheaper body, buy used or refurbished if you can. Spend your money on the best glass you can possibly afford--sell small children if need be.


Is there a "Small children for sale" forum here? If so, I know of a couple I could sell.:lol:
 
I'd go for either a D40 or a D80 (I have one of each), but not a 40x or 60. I don't consider either of those to be a particularly good value unless your needs are very basic and you really do need the extra few megapixels. The D80 is a far more capable camera than the 40x or 60 for hardly any more money. And the D40 has some big advantages over all of these for a lot less. Like a faster base ISO of 200 vs 100, better high ISO performance (less noise at high sensitivity settings, thanks to not having its sensor clogged with too many pixels), and much faster flash sync of 1/500s vs only 1/200s. This is great if you're trying to freeze kids running around during the day when you have harsh shadowing from the sun that you need to fill in. 1/200s is too slow for a lot of motion, and won't fill in shadows nearly as well. The only time I find the extra megapixels useful is if I need to crop a shot a lot, but I rarely crop so most of the time the extra pixels go wasted but cost me in the meantime in other ways.
 
I'd go for either a D40 or a D80 (I have one of each), but not a 40x or 60. I don't consider either of those to be a particularly good value unless your needs are very basic and you really do need the extra few megapixels. The D80 is a far more capable camera than the 40x or 60 for hardly any more money. And the D40 has some big advantages over all of these for a lot less. Like a faster base ISO of 200 vs 100, better high ISO performance (less noise at high sensitivity settings, thanks to not having its sensor clogged with too many pixels), and much faster flash sync of 1/500s vs only 1/200s. This is great if you're trying to freeze kids running around during the day when you have harsh shadowing from the sun that you need to fill in. 1/200s is too slow for a lot of motion, and won't fill in shadows nearly as well. The only time I find the extra megapixels useful is if I need to crop a shot a lot, but I rarely crop so most of the time the extra pixels go wasted but cost me in the meantime in other ways.



That is some really great advice, much appreciated. I was leaning towards the D40 for the cost benefit.
 
D40 all the way!

And i dont feel like i have to go into detail, Mav pretty much cleared it up (as usual)
 
I would go with the D40, for all the reasons Mav described. The high-ISO quality is really outstanding, and the 1/500s flash sync helps a lot with outdoors fill-flash. And even with cropping, I've printed some 8X10 photos being cropped to 1.3mp and they look surprisingly good. I wouldn't go any larger than that with 1.3mp, but with 6mp you can print some pretty good-looking 30 x 20s.

In fact, from my mind, the only advantage of the D60 is that the kit lens comes with Vibration Reduction, but other than that, D40 all the way!
 
I'd go for either a D40 or a D80 (I have one of each), but not a 40x or 60. I don't consider either of those to be a particularly good value unless your needs are very basic and you really do need the extra few megapixels. The D80 is a far more capable camera than the 40x or 60 for hardly any more money. And the D40 has some big advantages over all of these for a lot less. Like a faster base ISO of 200 vs 100, better high ISO performance (less noise at high sensitivity settings, thanks to not having its sensor clogged with too many pixels), and much faster flash sync of 1/500s vs only 1/200s. This is great if you're trying to freeze kids running around during the day when you have harsh shadowing from the sun that you need to fill in. 1/200s is too slow for a lot of motion, and won't fill in shadows nearly as well. The only time I find the extra megapixels useful is if I need to crop a shot a lot, but I rarely crop so most of the time the extra pixels go wasted but cost me in the meantime in other ways.
Yep.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top