kalel wrote: I had a quick look into this. The D60 is the replacement for the D40X and over the D40 it has: - 10 MP sensor (as opposed to 6). - Vibration Reduction built into the standard lens. - Lower base ISO (100 as opposed to 200). - Sensor dust reduction system. - Active D-Lighting as seen in the D300. - Eye sensor (to control the screen display). So overall I'd say it's worth the extra £100 or so. Plus I don't think it's much bigger than a D40 and it's slightly smaller than a Canon 450D so it's still a compact sized DSLR. I'd replace my D50 with one if I had the money anyway .gif) |
Nikon D60 • Page 2
-
moggsy 3,859 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 18 years ago -
My point really is that it sits uncomforably between the D40 and the D80.
The D40's big advantage is it's size.
The D80's advantage is all it's extra buttons and controls and features.
The D60 has neither the size benefit nor those extra controls. It's a halfway house with none of the main advantages of the other two. -
pistol 13,018 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agoprawnking wrote:
I will bear that in mind, for the moment I will get used to what I got and try get my head around the camera itself. My other one is just point and click, this is a whole new world.
I'd recommend sticking the D80 in Aperture Priority and try different shots at different apertures to get a feel for what's going on. That way you'll learn about depth of field pretty quickly. Leaving it in A mode will make the camera pick the right shutter speed, so you won't have to worry about that.
I would also recommend picking up a Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens. They are cheap as chips and sharp as a tack.
ex D70 owner and now use a D200. -
moggsy 3,859 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 18 years agokalel wrote:
My point really is that it sits uncomforably between the D40 and the D80.
The D40's big advantage is it's size.
The D80's advantage is all it's extra buttons and controls and features.
The D60 has neither the size benefit nor those extra controls. It's a halfway house with none of the main advantages of the other two.
But the D80 costs £200 more. The £100 over the D40 is well spend IMO. As for size:
NikonD40
# Dimensions 124 x 94 x 64 mm (4.9 x 3.7 x 2.5 in)
# Weight - 475g without battery
Nikon D60
# Dimensions 126 x 94 x 64 mm (5.0 x 3.7 x 2.5 in)
# Weight 471 g without battery
So they're the same size (give or take 2mm on the width) - the D60 is 4 grams heavier though.gif)
-
I'm amazed at those proportions tbh. When I've held them in my hands the D40 feels significantly smaller.
Whatever, a D60 is a just a hamstrung D80 to me, whereas the D40 has it's own merits. I have a D80, but if I was loaded I'd get a D40 as well. D60 just makes me go meh. -
moggsy 3,859 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 18 years agoThe D40's main merit is that it's cheap as chips. £100 for the extras in the D60 is a no brainer IMO.
I can see I'm not going to convince you though Kalel -
GingerMagician 3,011 posts
Seen 7 years ago
Registered 18 years agopistol wrote:
Remember the 50mm f/1.8D won't AF on the D40/D40X/D60.
I would also recommend picking up a Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens. They are cheap as chips and sharp as a tack.
-
pistol 13,018 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agoGingerMagician wrote:
pistol wrote:
Remember the 50mm f/1.8D won't AF on the D40/D40X/D60.
I would also recommend picking up a Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens. They are cheap as chips and sharp as a tack.
oops...well spotted.
Still great as a manual lens, especially at that price. -
GingerMagician 3,011 posts
Seen 7 years ago
Registered 18 years agopistol wrote:
Absolutely.
GingerMagician wrote:
pistol wrote:
Remember the 50mm f/1.8D won't AF on the D40/D40X/D60.
I would also recommend picking up a Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens. They are cheap as chips and sharp as a tack.
oops...well spotted.
Still great as a manual lens, especially at that price.
I have it on a D200 too and it's easily my favourite lens - lightweight, pretty fast-focusing and way, way sharper than my 18-200 VR. -
pistol 13,018 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agoGingerMagician wrote:
pistol wrote:
Absolutely.
GingerMagician wrote:
pistol wrote:
Remember the 50mm f/1.8D won't AF on the D40/D40X/D60.
I would also recommend picking up a Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens. They are cheap as chips and sharp as a tack.
oops...well spotted.
Still great as a manual lens, especially at that price.
I have it on a D200 too and it's easily my favourite lens - lightweight, pretty fast-focusing and way, way sharper than my 18-200 VR.
If you're interested I can also recommend 2 others to go with your D200.
Tamron 17-55mm 2.8, which I upgraded to from the nikon 18-70mm. Brilliant lens.
And the Tamron 90mm SP DI 2.8 Macro. -
moggsy 3,859 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 18 years agopistol wrote:
Tamron 17-55mm 2.8, which I upgraded to from the nikon 18-70mm. Brilliant lens.
£250 for a not very sexy lens! Fook me. Am I just poor or not as debt laden as the rest of you?.gif)
-
£250 for a 2.8 all the way zoom is decent. The equivalent Nikon is over a grand. -
pistol 13,018 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agomoggsy wrote:
pistol wrote:
Tamron 17-55mm 2.8, which I upgraded to from the nikon 18-70mm. Brilliant lens.
£250 for a not very sexy lens! Fook me. Am I just poor or not as debt laden as the rest of you?
It's a gorgeous lens and I picked mine up for about £220, from Hong Kong. -
kalel wrote:
What, the Nikkor f/2.8 17-55? No it's not. It's under £800 and that's in the UK. Get it from Hong Kong on eBay and it would be even cheaper.
£250 for a 2.8 all the way zoom is decent. The equivalent Nikon is over a grand. -
MrED209 wrote:
kalel wrote:
What, the Nikkor f/2.8 17-55? No it's not. It's under £800 and that's in the UK. Get it from Hong Kong on eBay and it would be even cheaper.
£250 for a 2.8 all the way zoom is decent. The equivalent Nikon is over a grand.
Was thinking of the 24-70.
Still, £250 is great value for that Tamron. -
Ah. But that's not equivalent is it! 
Yeah £250 for a zoom that's 2.8 all the way is a great price, not sure what moggsy is talking about, although to be fair are Tamron known for their build quality? I'm always a bit reticent about buying a non-Nikon brand, which is why I don't have many lenses! -
moggsy 3,859 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 18 years agopistol wrote:
moggsy wrote:
pistol wrote:
Tamron 17-55mm 2.8, which I upgraded to from the nikon 18-70mm. Brilliant lens.
£250 for a not very sexy lens! Fook me. Am I just poor or not as debt laden as the rest of you?
It's a gorgeous lens and I picked mine up for about £220, from Hong Kong.
I can appreciate the extra stop or two it gives you - but how much sharper is it than a standard 18-55mm Nikon lens? Noticeable without zooming in to a high magnification? -
moggsy 3,859 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 18 years agoMrED209 wrote:
Ah. But that's not equivalent is it!
Yeah £250 for a zoom that's 2.8 all the way is a great price, not sure what moggsy is talking about, although to be fair are Tamron known for their build quality? I'm always a bit reticent about buying a non-Nikon brand, which is why I don't have many lenses!
I'm talking about (as ever if you read any of my previous posts in the photography section) a resistance to spending money on photographic equipment for the sake of it.
I'm quite often fighting a one man battle in this forum though. -
pistol 13,018 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agoMrED209 wrote:
Ah. But that's not equivalent is it!
Yeah £250 for a zoom that's 2.8 all the way is a great price, not sure what moggsy is talking about, although to be fair are Tamron known for their build quality? I'm always a bit reticent about buying a non-Nikon brand, which is why I don't have many lenses!
I have 2 Tamrons and both are awesome. -
GingerMagician 3,011 posts
Seen 7 years ago
Registered 18 years agopistol wrote:
I currently have the 50mm f/1.8, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (another superb lens, but much heavier than the Nikkor as it has the focus motor onboard - therefore a good option for the D40/40X/60 crowd), plus the 18-200 VR.
If you're interested I can also recommend 2 others to go with your D200.
Tamron 17-55mm 2.8, which I upgraded to from the nikon 18-70mm. Brilliant lens.
And the Tamron 90mm SP DI 2.8 Macro.
So, I'm thinking a wide angle is the next purchase - really want to get out and try my hand at some proper landscapre stuff.
Was thinking the Sigma 10-20 for a long time, but am now leaning towards the new Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 - that extra stop could come in handy for the times when I want to use it indoors, plus it's had better write ups in terms of sharpness. -
GingerMagician 3,011 posts
Seen 7 years ago
Registered 18 years agoI take the point about people's skills as photographers but - come on - this is a gaming forum.
People on here spend inordinate amounts of money on their hobbies. How many have got piles of unplayed games on their shelves? Or have spent eye-watering sums on new graphics cards every year or so? Or buy gadgets of various degrees of uselessness?
Buying photography kit is just an extension of the gadget whore that hides within all of us - but it seems to provoke a very self-righteous tone from the "technique is what you should be working on" crowd. Who's to say people aren't doing that as well - I know I certainly am. -
pistol 13,018 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agoBill Door wrote:
Yeah you are Moggsy. I don't know how many people here are so fantastic at photography/composition that they need to spend a lot more to realise their ambitions over what the kit lens gives.gif)
Well my reasoning on getting the 2.8 Tamron was that I had sold my Nikon 18-70mm to go towards a Sigma 150mm which I was using for tennis. I then needed a wider carry around lens that allowed better indoor shooting than the Nikon 18-70mm. A friend had the Tamron 17-55mm and I tried it, and loved it. So I bought one.
It wasn't anything to do with me thinking the Tamron was miles better than the Nikon. It was just timing. -
I think the 3rd parties are underrated. The cheaper plastic Nikons are really not all that great in terms of build quality (or sharpness). My Tamron and Sigmas are easily as good as my cheapo Nikons. The only advantage the Nikons have is that they tend to focus far quicker. -
moggsy 3,859 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 18 years agoGingerMagician wrote:
I take the point about people's skills as photographers but - come on - this is a gaming forum.
People on here spend inordinate amounts of money on their hobbies. How many have got piles of unplayed games on their shelves? Or have spent eye-watering sums on new graphics cards every year or so? Or buy gadgets of various degrees of uselessness?
Buying photography kit is just an extension of the gadget whore that hides within all of us - but it seems to provoke a very self-righteous tone from the "technique is what you should be working on" crowd. Who's to say people aren't doing that as well - I know I certainly am.
The sums involved in photography kit are far greater than the sums involved in gaming though. The main reason being that you can't buy professional gaming kit where as it's quite easy to stray into this category in photography. -
GingerMagician 3,011 posts
Seen 7 years ago
Registered 18 years agomoggsy wrote:
The sums being bandied about in this thread aren't anywhere near "professional" though. £250 for a lens is pretty much directly comparable to the cost of a top-of-the-range graphics card.
GingerMagician wrote:
I take the point about people's skills as photographers but - come on - this is a gaming forum.
People on here spend inordinate amounts of money on their hobbies. How many have got piles of unplayed games on their shelves? Or have spent eye-watering sums on new graphics cards every year or so? Or buy gadgets of various degrees of uselessness?
Buying photography kit is just an extension of the gadget whore that hides within all of us - but it seems to provoke a very self-righteous tone from the "technique is what you should be working on" crowd. Who's to say people aren't doing that as well - I know I certainly am.
The sums involved in photography kit are far greater than the sums involved in gaming though. The main reason being that you can't buy professional gaming kit where as it's quite easy to stray into this category in photography.
As I said, I take the point about kit being less important than technique - it's just that people constantly chirp up with those kind of comments in these threads as if they're talking to complete beginners who don't know that already.
Personally, I find it pretty condescending. It's someone's hobby - if they want to spend money on kit and they can afford it, so what? Not having a pop at anyone, just my opinion. -
Bill Door wrote:
Yeah you are Moggsy. I don't know how many people here are so fantastic at photography/composition that they need to spend a lot more to realise their ambitions over what the kit lens gives
Technique is everything, but experimenting with different lenses, particularly when you are a novice, is a pretty important part of the learning process.
It seems to me that newbies often go a bit nuts with new equipment and then chill once they’ve found what works for them, settling into the smug self-righteous “it’s not what you buy, it’s what you know” phase. -
moggsy 3,859 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 18 years agoGingerMagician wrote:
moggsy wrote:
The sums being bandied about in this thread aren't anywhere near "professional" though. £250 for a lens is pretty much directly comparable to the cost of a top-of-the-range graphics card.
GingerMagician wrote:
I take the point about people's skills as photographers but - come on - this is a gaming forum.
People on here spend inordinate amounts of money on their hobbies. How many have got piles of unplayed games on their shelves? Or have spent eye-watering sums on new graphics cards every year or so? Or buy gadgets of various degrees of uselessness?
Buying photography kit is just an extension of the gadget whore that hides within all of us - but it seems to provoke a very self-righteous tone from the "technique is what you should be working on" crowd. Who's to say people aren't doing that as well - I know I certainly am.
The sums involved in photography kit are far greater than the sums involved in gaming though. The main reason being that you can't buy professional gaming kit where as it's quite easy to stray into this category in photography.
As I said, I take the point about kit being less important than technique - it's just that people constantly chirp up with those kind of comments in these threads as if they're talking to complete beginners who don't know that already.
Personally, I find it pretty condescending. It's someone's hobby - if they want to spend money on kit and they can afford it, so what? Not having a pop at anyone, just my opinion.
Sorry if you find it condescending but it's ok, I'm a lone voice anyway (apart from Bill of course) and I don't speak up very often.
I think it's nice to have that counter argument every now and then though. You never know - just this very discussion here may make someone think twice about buying that nice new shiny lens that they don't really need.
Plus more expensive does not always mean better for the purpose. The standard 18-55mm Nikon is one of the sharpest lenses that Ken Rockwell owns. So you're paying £250 for an extra stop or two of light. Serious waste of hard earned that. -
Bit like the D60 not being worth the extra cash over the D40
-
moggsy 3,859 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 18 years agokalel wrote:
Bit like the D60 not being worth the extra cash over the D40
I wondered if anyone would mention that and Kalel you have not let me down
It's all to do with value though - the D60 upgrade over the D40 is good value. The lens upgrade mentioned previously isn't. All IMO of course. -
moggsy wrote:
As he says, the 30mm is for shooting indoors in low-light - it's pretty much the only thing I use it for. Perfect for parties, etc.
Plus more expensive does not always mean better for the purpose. The standard 18-55mm Nikon is one of the sharpest lenses that Ken Rockwell owns. So you're paying £250 for an extra stop or two of light. Serious waste of hard earned that.
All lenses that go as wide as f/1.4 are going to have a degree of softness when wide open. Love Ken as I do, some of his tests are somewhat contrived - when would you ever take a shot of that type with those settings? I know he's illustrating a point, but still...
Listen, I'm not denying that cheap kit can be good kit - my sharpest lens (50mm) is also the cheapest!
.gif)
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
