Nikon D40 vs. D60, which one?

[nicholasjh]

I'm looking to buy either the Nikon D40 or D60... I've been researching hard for two weeks but can't come to a conclusion. This is my first dSLR and looking to do photography just as a hobby.

I want both of them with an 18-55mm VR lens, and I will be looking to buy lenses in the near future and eventually another Nikon (but that's a long way off).

I'm in Australia, so in terms of price the D60 with 18-55mm VR is around $850.
The D40 isn't quite so simple- it normally comes with the standard 18-55mm non-VR, but that seems to be a waste of money, so I've been looking around for a good package with the 18-55mm VR. On eBay I can find the body for under $500, either second-hand or grey market... I'm OK with second-hand but not sure about the whole Hong Kong goods thing. If I can get a decent body then I can just buy the VR lens, and that'll give me a total of around $750.
If I choose not to buy the D40 on eBay, then the kit with with the non-VR lens comes to $650, and then the VR lens makes it $900, so the D60 is better value if I go that way.

Feature wise, I can't come to a clear winner. Compared to the D40, the D60 has:

10 megapixel sensor vs. 6
Lower base sensitivity (ISO 100 vs ISO 200)
Flash sync 1/250 vs. 1/500 sec
Auto ISO option includes ISO 200
Faster continuous shooting (3 fps vs. 2.5 fps)
EXPEED processing
Image sensor cleaning system with Airflow control system
Automatically rotating user interface (for using camera vertically orientated)
Stop motion movie function
Eye sensor
Electronic 'rangefinder' for manual focus
Active D-Lighting with dedicated button
In-camera Raw processing
New JPEG retouch effect


I have heard that megapixels really don't mean much, and if you want better quality look for decent lenses or improving your own photography skill. The D60 has a slower flash sync but has some other interesting features.

I really can't come to a conclusion between the two- I need help! Please don't recommend other cameras, these are the ones I've narrowed it down to, and I don't need more of them confusing me again.

If anyone has owned both, which one did you prefer? If you just have one of them of have done research yourself, what have you decided?

Thanks
Nick

[Digital Skunk]

If those features don't matter then get the D40.

Honestly, the D60 isn't much of an improvement other than those small details you mentioned. Expeed from what I am reading about is a processor in the D300 and D3, but just a "concept" in everything else with no clear definition as to what that means, that i could find anyway, things may have changed.

If you can live without the features listed and with the cash you save go for the D40. Personally, if the need for an uber small SLR arrises, I would go for the D40 over the D40x and D60, but that's just me.

[Techguy172]

The D40 is a fine starter and for it's low prices I would just buy it because the D60 isn't really that much better.

[epicwelshman]

First off I doubt you'd notice any difference between the VR and non-VR kit lens. If you'd be happy with the 18-55VR you'd be happy with the regular one, I know I am.

I succumbed to Nikon's marketing when I bought the D40x over the regular D40, but seeing the "new" D60 which essentially is a D40XS I'm not too pleased with them.

I vote for the D40.

[taylorwilsdon]

I vote D40. The IS kit lens is an improvement (same speed, but with IS or VR as Nikon calls it; you can shoot slower shutter speeds).

[PkennethV]

+1 for the D40. For the price of the D60 you can almost get a D80 (but that's a whole other beast).

[MadDoc]

If money is not an issue - get the D60 (bias: I own one, it is a fantastic camera), you will be future-proofing yourself.

I disagree that megapixels don't mean much. having 50% more MP means that you can blow your pictures up to a greater size (important for wall posters, etc) and if your framing is not great you can crop the higher resolution images with less loss of detail with more MP.

I think it comes down to the fact that the D40 is cheaper and has a faster flash sync speed - in every other respect the D60 is a better camera.

MadDoc,

[PkennethV]

I think it comes down to the fact that the D40 is cheaper and has a faster flash sync speed - in every other respect the D60 is a better camera.
The D40 also has less noise (hence the higher base ISO)

[iAussie]

Hi Nick, I'm a fellow Aussie and went through a similar decision making process about 6 months ago when I was trying to decide between the D40 and D40x (before the D60 and 18-55VR was released), but I'll see if I can give you some insight.

For the record, I got the D40 with 18-55 (non-VR), and I've taken about 5000 photos with it over the 6 months I've had it (including 6 weeks travelling around Europe), and I've been very happy with both the camera and the lens.


I'm in Australia, so in terms of price the D60 with 18-55mm VR is around $850.

That seems pretty cheap, and is most likely a grey-import price, what store or website is offering it for that price? Not saying grey-import is a bad thing, just make sure you know what you're buying.


The D40 isn't quite so simple- it normally comes with the standard 18-55mm non-VR, but that seems to be a waste of money

Optically, I believe the VR and non-VR versions are identical (sharpness, distortions etc), see this review (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/234-nikkor-af-s-18-55mm-f35-56-g-ed-dx-ii-review--test-report) for more details on the non-VR version, which like they say, is surprisingly sharp. For the price, most definitely not a waste of money :)

Price wise for the camera, I noticed that Harvey Norman is currently flogging off the D40 for pretty cheap at the moment, $600 with the 18-55 (online catalogue (http://www.harveynorman.com.au/catalogue/viewcatalogue.html?cat=109621)). I bought mine from Ted's, who have it for $650 at the moment (link (http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/2015661__.html)). Also try calling a few JB HiFi stores, I remember they had it pretty cheap when I was shopping around for mine.



Feature wise, I can't come to a clear winner. Compared to the D40, the D60 has:

...



Having used my D40 for about 6 months, I don't think I'm missing out on anything by not having the extra features of the D60, and I don't feel they're worth the extra couple of hundred dollars. As for the VR version of the lens, its only benefit is having VR (which can be useful sometimes) but even a cheap tripod will give you better results at slow shutter speeds.

My advice? Get the D40, its an great camera for the price. As for the lens, I'd suggest you start with the non-VR (since it'll almost definitely come with the D40 regardless of how you buy it), try it out for a little while (at least a few hundred 'real world' photos, not just an hour taking photos in your kitchen) and then decide whether to get the VR version (you may decide the money is better spent on other camera goodies!)

Good luck, I'm sure you'll enjoy the new camera regardless of what you buy :cool:

[nicholasjh]

That seems pretty cheap, and is most likely a grey-import price, what store or website is offering it for that price? Not saying grey-import is a bad thing, just make sure you know what you're buying.


D60 VR Link (https://www.camerasdirect.com.au/index.php/vmchk/digital-slr-cameras/nikon/d60-new/nikon-d60-with-18-55mm-vr-lens-kit.html)

I don't think it is, but I'm not 100% sure.

Anyway it sounds like the D40 is a good choice in terms of the camera, but I'm still not convinced about the lens... I will probably be doing a bit of people and action photography, and a lot of it will be handheld. Also I will probably be doing some shots in low light, and I have read that that's where the VR makes its mark. I've also heard that the non-VR is pretty slow and has a plastic feel, but if I have more info I'm happy to go with the D40 + non-VR.


I disagree that megapixels don't mean much. having 50% more MP means that you can blow your pictures up to a greater size (important for wall posters, etc) and if your framing is not great you can crop the higher resolution images with less loss of detail with more MP.


I probably won't be doing many posters or cropping, but thanks, it's something to keep in mind for the future.

I'm still torn, but the D40 price is looking more and more attractive. If I take the D40 with non-VR into consideration, it is more a matter of whether or not the D60 with VR is worth the extra money. From the replies it seems that it's probably not, but I'm still not 100%.

I've got a family friend who's a professional photographer, so I'll probably ask him as well, but thanks to everyone who has replied, and I'll appreciate more replies to help me make up my mind. :)

Nick

[cube]

If you're going to forgo the warranty, just get a used D50 or D70s (D70 would also be a possibility but see if Nikon would fix it for free in your country if it dies with BGLOD, maybe it must not be a grey import too).

If you go to a local shop, you can examine it, and they'll probably give you at least 4 weeks warranty. Paying a little bit more is worth it, I think.

But if you're buying used, check that it comes with all the original accessories, or it might not be worth it.

If you have a laptop, get a card reader and take it to the shop with you. Take a picture, and look at the EXIF data for the number of shutter actuations.

[iAussie]

D60 VR Link (https://www.camerasdirect.com.au/index.php/vmchk/digital-slr-cameras/nikon/d60-new/nikon-d60-with-18-55mm-vr-lens-kit.html)

I don't think it is, but I'm not 100% sure.

https://www.camerasdirect.com.au/index.php/faq/warranty/index.php

Unfortunately they don't make it very clear, but the one year "Australian" warranty included with the camera is through them (the shop) rather than Nikon, so its definitely a grey import (but like I said before, not always a bad thing, its just annoying when they're not very upfront about it).

Basically it just means if you have a problem you send it back to the store who'll then pay for it to be repaired, rather than you returning it to Nikon directly. I assume the only difference is that you might be without it for longer due to the transit times, but that's just my assumption so if anyone has done this before, is that all there is to it?


I've also heard that the non-VR is pretty slow and has a plastic feel, but if I have more info I'm happy to go with the D40 + non-VR.


Here's a photo of the two next to each other, the VR version is slightly bigger but apart from that, their physical build-quality will be the same.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr/D3S_4440-vr-vs-non-vr.jpg

When you say the non-VR is 'slow', are you worried that autofocus is slower? Cause once again, this should be the same between the two lenses. A 'slow' lens can also be referring to its maximum aperture, a 'fast' lens (eg with an aperture of f2.8) lets in more light and hence is often called 'fast', while kit lenses tend to be 'slow' because their max aperture is only f3.5 to f5.6 (which is the same for both the VR and non-VR versions). Here's some more info on lens apertures
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Exposure/Aperture_01.htm

[jhamerphoto]

Neither! IMHO, the D40, D40x and D60 are all a complete waste of money. The lack of integrated AF motor means you have to use Nikon DX (or comparable) lenses if you want to use autofocus, and this means more cost in the long run. If you want a Nikon, get a D80, it's worth the extra money. If you don't care about brand, I'd recommend an Olympus E-550 for much better features, a low price and great lens selection.

[nicholasjh]

Neither! IMHO, the D40, D40x and D60 are all a complete waste of money. The lack of integrated AF motor means you have to use Nikon DX (or comparable) lenses if you want to use autofocus, and this means more cost in the long run. If you want a Nikon, get a D80, it's worth the extra money. If you don't care about brand, I'd recommend an Olympus E-550 for much better features, a low price and great lens selection.

thanks, but seeing that i'm new to the whole dslr thing, i will probably only be using DX lenses in the future. i would love the nikon d80 but it is out of my price range, and the Olympus E-550 isn't sold in australia.

anyway thanks everyone for all you info and help, it sounds like the D40 + 18-55mm non-VR is a good choice, and it'll give me a chance to save for a nice lens in the future. i'll just make sure with my photographer friend, but i'll gladly take more help if anyone's got it.

thanks
nick

[Zer0]

hey nicholasjh..... I think thats the right way to go. You should not miss the VR too much on 18-55. I moved from Sony DSC H5 with anti shake technology to D40 and certainly dont miss not having the VR. You might however want to get the VR versions when buying longer telephoto lenses. Cheers

[PkennethV]

hey nicholasjh..... I think thats the right way to go. You should not miss the VR too much on 18-55. I moved from Sony DSC H5 with anti shake technology to D40 and certainly dont miss not having the VR. You might however want to get the VR versions when buying longer telephoto lenses. Cheers

Agreed. I moved to the D40 from an (Canon) S3IS. The fact the the D40's base ISO is 200 is makes up (in fact, I prefer it) for the lack of VR/IS. After seeing ISO 200 on a point and shoot...well...you just don't want to shoot anything over 100 with a point and shoot:p

Though yes, VR does make a difference in the 100mm+ range.

[Clix Pix]

Neither! IMHO, the D40, D40x and D60 are all a complete waste of money. The lack of integrated AF motor means you have to use Nikon DX (or comparable) lenses if you want to use autofocus

Slight correction here. With the D40, D40x and new D60 the limitation is that one needs to use AF-S lenses (Silent Wave autofocus) rather than being able to use regular AF (autofocus) lenses. Has nothing to do with DX, which refers to lenses specifically built for Nikon's digital SLR cameras with the 1.5x specifications. Most of Nikon's lenses are "FX," or "Full Frame," designed for use on its 35mm SLR bodies or on its DSLR bodies. To date Nikon has only one DSLR camera with Full Frame, the D3.

Some of Nikon's finest primes are AF-S full frame lenses.

One can use any of Nikon's AI-S or AF lenses on the D40, D40X and D60, but would not be able to autofocus and would need to manually focus with these lenses. Not really a big deal in most instances, and often MF is preferred, such as working in macro or extreme close-up photography.

[moesker007]

I have the d40x, though I should have got the d40. It's a great little camera, and I don't think the 60 is worth the extra $$. Just my 2 cents...

[compuwar]

Also I will probably be doing some shots in low light, and I have read that that's where the VR makes its mark. I've also heard that the non-VR is pretty slow and has a plastic feel, but if I have more info I'm happy to go with the D40 + non-VR.


VR/IS is only useful for camera/photographer movement, not subject movement. So, if you're wanting to shoot static subjects in low light, then VR helps, if you're looking to shoot people, then it's not as good as learning to use flash well. In that case, the higher sync speed wins out- in fact I'd probably chose on that alone, as it will allow more options for freezing high-speed subjects.

Other than the addition of the VR components, I doubt there's much difference in the two lenses, if any.

[nicholasjh]

awesome! thanks everyone for your input, i'll pick up a Nikon D40 + 18-55mm non-VR this weekend... i'll keep you posted.

also i hope this page can help anyone who is making a similar decision!

thanks
nick

[godmachine12]

I'll give you another thumbs up for the d40. I bought one last summer as my first dSLR and I love the camera. I'm still using it to learn on and I'm still shooting with the kit lens. I find sometimes I could use a little extra length, but I just move the best I can. Seriously though, it takes sharp pictures in the right conditions. It's small enough to take places without being too much of a burden as well. Price wise, you just can't beat the quality it puts out.

[Hmac]

There is speculation in knowledgeable circles that the D40 and D40X will be gone by the end of this year, with the D60 becoming the new low end of the Nikon lineup.

By Christmas... D60, D90 (replaces D80, which is rumored to be gone) , D300, D3, D3X, and maybe the D10 if it appears this year, according to Thom Hogan.

[NEiMac]

I think your making a good choice, I have the D50 and love it. :D I don't think the no autofocus in the camera is a huge deal, specially as time goes on, should be plenty of lenses to keep you happy.

[Terry222]

I'm going to mention the D80 as a minimum starter SLR if your going with Nikon. I've read that many reviews on the 40 and 60 and tried them out.

I purchased the D80 quite a while back as all the Nikon SLR's under it seemed to be missing one thing or another which I knew I would want as I got further into photography. Even something like the ability to use 3 shot exposure bracketing is so valuable for those odd lighting shots. If you do a side by side comparison with the Nikon models, you see each little thing they have left off certain models and they just know that you'll soon be forking out more cash for an upgrade.

One thing I wasn't totally happy with trying out the 40, 60 and especially the 80 was the noise levels. I expected a better quality of noise reduction for such a large name in camera manufacturing and felt as though they were almost taking the pi** with these lower end SLR's.

Perhaps the D300 has cleared everything up? I'll find out in a couple of months ;) If not, try Canon.

Terry

[termina3]

One thing I wasn't totally happy with trying out the 40, 60 and especially the 80 was the noise levels. I expected a better quality of noise reduction for such a large name in camera manufacturing and felt as though they were almost taking the pi** with these lower end SLR's.

Maybe, but the name doesn't have as much to do with it as the price tag. I'm not saying everyone should go buy the most expensive camera, but the price can be an indicator to quality.

[NEiMac]

I'm going to mention the D80 as a minimum starter SLR if your going with Nikon. I've read that many reviews on the 40 and 60 and tried them out.

I purchased the D80 quite a while back as all the Nikon SLR's under it seemed to be missing one thing or another which I knew I would want as I got further into photography. Even something like the ability to use 3 shot exposure bracketing is so valuable for those odd lighting shots. If you do a side by side comparison with the Nikon models, you see each little thing they have left off certain models and they just know that you'll soon be forking out more cash for an upgrade.

One thing I wasn't totally happy with trying out the 40, 60 and especially the 80 was the noise levels. I expected a better quality of noise reduction for such a large name in camera manufacturing and felt as though they were almost taking the pi** with these lower end SLR's.

Perhaps the D300 has cleared everything up? I'll find out in a couple of months ;) If not, try Canon.

Terry
:rolleyes: I disagree with this, nothing against the D80 or D300 great camera's I'm sure. Just seems to make more sense to get the cheaper camera, some great lenses, get to know what your doing, then buy the more expensive camera later on. IMHO

[Terry222]

Thinking about it, I now agree with termina3 regarding pricing.

I had more of the 'long run' in mind as an update is almost certain once the fingers start getting itchy with a 40 or 60 and I reckon the D80 would be the lowest for a 'starter' SLR and would keep a newcomer content for that much longer. The side by side comparisons shows which Nikon models have things added/left off.

Regarding the post by NEiMac I also agree but again the D80 would be the lowest I would personally go. Other wise I would skip the SLR's and use something like the Canon PowerShot 12.1MP G9 which my wife got a couple of days ago. It takes fantastic pictures, has RAW format and an excellent model to learn photography with.

Terry

[ChrisA]

[B]I'm going to mention the D80 as a minimum starter SLR if your going with Nikon.
Terry

If cost matters a better "starter" is to buy a used D50. Cost about $350. I'd much rather have a used D50 than a new D40.

One of the best features of Nikon is the large, robust used market. If your budget only allows you to buy at the low end, I think you are in general better off buying a used mid range model then a new low end model.

[nicholasjh]

thanks guys, still havnt seen my photography friend, but i sort of realised the D40 is the only one within my price range anyway:o i'd get a used one, and if anyone knows where i can find a large choice of used nikon dSLRs then by all means tell me, but i cant really find any at a decent price.

nick

[compuwar]

thanks guys, still havnt seen my photography friend, but i sort of realised the D40 is the only one within my price range anyway:o i'd get a used one, and if anyone knows where i can find a large choice of used nikon dSLRs then by all means tell me, but i cant really find any at a decent price.

nick

www.keh.com

No idea what import duties and the like do, or how KEH is with international orders though. Their FAQ says:

Yes, KEH does ship internationally. However, pursuant to our Nikon and Canon dealer agreements we cannot ship these manufacturers new equipment internationally. Also, items designated as drop ship cannot be shipped internationally.

If you are a first time international customer or an existing international customer using a new credit card you must be verified prior to your order being shipped. Verification requires you to fax to (404) 892-1251 or email to sales@keh.com a copy of the front and back of the credit card, and your passport or drivers license along with your order number and telephone number.

[Hmac]

Thom Hogan has suggested that Nikon is getting out of the low-end dSLR business and the D40 and D40x are going away. IIRC, he said that production ceased in December 2007. The price may drop when its replacement is announced (D90) and the D40/D40x are taken out off Nikon's websites.

[Everythingisnt]

If cost matters a better "starter" is to buy a used D50. Cost about $350. I'd much rather have a used D50 than a new D40.

One of the best features of Nikon is the large, robust used market. If your budget only allows you to buy at the low end, I think you are in general better off buying a used mid range model then a new low end model.

I totally agree. Used is the way to go

[stealthninja]

I totally agree. Used is the way to go

+1
I started out on the d40 and then decided to upgrade to a d70 which i bought used for less than the price of the d40.

[harcosparky]

VR/IS is only useful for camera/photographer movement, not subject movement.

Actually several CANON Lenses have Dual Mode IS.

Mode 1 - Handles camera shake on still objects such as in museum where flash is not allowed.

Mode 2 - Handles camera shake on horizontally moving objects, like panning race cars, horses, or athletes in action.

Here is a pic of the Mode Switch on an "L" Series lens though it is also included on non-L series lenses as well

[Hmac]

Actually several CANON Lenses have Dual Mode IS.

Mode 1 - Handles camera shake on still objects such as in museum where flash is not allowed.

Mode 2 - Handles camera shake on horizontally moving objects, like panning race cars, horses, or athletes in action.

Here is a pic of the Mode Switch on an "L" Series lens though it is also included on non-L series lenses as well


VR lenses are the same, but neither of those modes would stop blurring due to subject motion. As compuwar said, image stabilization only affects blurring due to camera shake. That switch only affects the axes that the coils move the lens element to compensate for movement of the camera - two-axis compensation vs one-axis.

IS/VR might give you 1-3 stops of extra shutter speed on the low end (depending on your technique). It might allow you to shoot hand-held with crisp static images without a tripod at 1/15 second - but if the subject is moving, waving arms for example, image stabilization won't help.

[harcosparky]

VR lenses are the same, but neither of those modes would stop blurring due to subject motion. As compuwar said, image stabilization only affects blurring due to camera shake. That switch only affects the axes that the coils move the lens element to compensate for movement of the camera - two-axis compensation vs one-axis.

IS/VR might give you 1-3 stops of extra shutter speed on the low end (depending on your technique). It might allow you to shoot hand-held with crisp static images without a tripod at 1/15 second - but if the subject is moving, waving arms for example, image stabilization won't help.

I agree to a point, but the idea of the second mode is to minimize shake in one axis over the other. It is intended to allow the use if IS in action/sports photography. Lets be realistic, in action/sports photography some blurring is desired. A runners arms blurred while his torso/head is clear ... shows motion, but that is a function of shutter speed.

Personally, several of my lenses have IS, but I almost never turn it on.

[pysl]

I am using D40

[futuremac]

I have a D40 and love it. Don't forget the SB-400 Speedlight! I picked one up from Ted's for less than $130 delivered, excellent size for this SLR, and works exceptionally well inside the house bouncing the light. Bouncing the flash makes a HUGE difference indoors(only if you have white ceiling), a negative is you can't bounce it when you turn the SLR in portrait. Ken Rockwell.com does a fair job comparing the D40 with the other Nikons and has a workaround(though lame) to deal with the portrait flash bounce.

I like the D80, but it's BIGGER. Why do we use LCD's vs CRT's? Because of the size difference. The D40's size is one of it's best features, and the build quality is excellent. The non-VR is a small issue, VR is more useful when you get the 55-200 lens.

[Hmac]

I agree to a point, but the idea of the second mode is to minimize shake in one axis over the other. It is intended to allow the use if IS in action/sports photography. Lets be realistic, in action/sports photography some blurring is desired. A runners arms blurred while his torso/head is clear ... shows motion, but that is a function of shutter speed.



Yes. As I said, one-axis vs two-axis.

I agree, and that's where the discussion started. IS/VR won't stop subject blur, only blur due to camera shake. Only sufficiently fast shutter speeds will stop subject blur.

[ertemplin]

I would have to say that the d60 is probably the best way to go, just because it has a 10mp image sensor instead of 6. Also, I think that the d60 actually has a better built in flash than the d40, and it really makes a difference. Good luck, and I'm sure you'll be extremely happy with whatever you get.

[Digital Skunk]

IS/VR might give you 1-3 stops of extra shutter speed on the low end (depending on your technique). It might allow you to shoot hand-held with crisp static images without a tripod at 1/15 second - but if the subject is moving, waving arms for example, image stabilization won't help.

Correct. And I hope people won't be using their VR lenses while on a tripod either.

Lets be realistic, in action/sports photography some blurring is desired. A runners arms blurred while his torso/head is clear ... shows motion, but that is a function of shutter speed.

Personally, several of my lenses have IS, but I almost never turn it on.

It depends on what the photog wants to capture. If they want movement and blur or not, is up to them.

I agree about VR as well. It burns battery life to have it on all the time. I usually use it in my 70-200 while hand holding. But clamoring for it in a 17-55 is a bit unnecessary.

[nicholasjh]

hi everyone
i picked up the d40 today, it is amazing! the quality is just incomparable to p/s, which was expected, but the results are just so much more satisfying. obviously i dont have any other SLRs to compare with, but i'm really happy with my decision.

my next lens will probably be the 55-200mm VR unless something else comes out... and in a couple of years time i'll hopefully get a used mid-range model.

so thanks everyone for your help

nick

[futuremac]

hi everyone
i picked up the d40 today, it is amazing! the quality is just incomparable to p/s, which was expected, but the results are just so much more satisfying. obviously i dont have any other SLRs to compare with, but i'm really happy with my decision.

my next lens will probably be the 55-200mm VR unless something else comes out... and in a couple of years time i'll hopefully get a used mid-range model.

so thanks everyone for your help

nick

Brilliant. Now get a SB-400 flash. Ted's still has it cheap http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/2045539__.html

Turn that flash up to a white ceiling for great pic's indoors.

[Cheffy Dave]

Neither! IMHO, the D40, D40x and D60 are all a complete waste of money. The lack of integrated AF motor means you have to use Nikon DX (or comparable) lenses if you want to use autofocus, and this means more cost in the long run. If you want a Nikon, get a D80, it's worth the extra money. If you don't care about brand, I'd recommend an Olympus E-550 for much better features, a low price and great lens selection.

Waste of money??:eek: NOT.
The lack of AF motor is a non issue for him as he is starting out, It is an issue if you have a drawer full of older Nikon lenses, but even then it is an issue only because you'd have to manually focus them (poor baby) Other than having to manually focus they will work, but I digress.
He doesn't want a D80, his topic was D40 or D60 . In answer to his question, I say D40, it was my first Digital SLR after years of Match needle Canon FTB's, a 2 early F1's as well as an F1N (all still in working ,pristine condition)
The D40 is currently available on Amazon for $465.
Go for it, it's a wonderful digital SLR, and my first Nikon.;)

[Phrasikleia]

Waste of money??:eek: NOT.
The lack of AF motor is a non issue for him as he is starting out, It is an issue if you have a drawer full of older Nikon lenses...

Isn't it true that no wide or normal length prime lenses--neither old nor new-- will autofocus on a D40?

[compuwar]

Isn't it true that no wide or normal length prime lenses--neither old nor new-- will autofocus on a D40?

First of all, no- it's not true, but the only new normal Nikkor prime to date is the 60mm Micro. As Nikon replaces its old primes, it's making them AF-S- prior to the 60, the 105VR, 600VR, 500VR, 105VR, 300VR and 200VR were all upgraded- though the 105 and 200s are the only ones that weren't already AF-S or AF-S II. Given the quality of the newer zooms though, and relatively static prime market, there's no telling if Nikon will replace all the old primes or not- which is likely why the shorter focal lengths are at the end of the list- the focal lengths are covered by multiple zooms of sufficient quality for most pros, and most consumers are covered by the kit lenses and aren't likely to purchase in the same focal lengths.

In terms of a D40 buyer though, the only other Nikon primes in the normal price range of the target market is the 24mm, 35mm and 50mm. While the 50mm lenses are a bargain- they're not all that profitable, the 35mm is the "normal" angle of view for a 1.5x crop factor body. The 24mm isn't a stellar lens at all IMO- I doubt that other than aperture there's anything it does that the kit zoom doesn't do- and it and the 28mm simply aren't "wide enough" on APS-C. Given that, I'd expect the 35mm to be about the only real candidate, though I suppose they may see a 50mm as interesting with the FX offerings, though it'd probably be better to see a new 14mm that works well on digital, as the $1700 current offering gets bad reviews on a digital body, but that's outside the price range of most D40 buyers anyway.

Sigma offers a (new) 50mm/1.4 HSM, and 30mm/1.4 HSM, 10mm HSM fisheye and 4.5mm HSM fisheye which should pretty-much cover a D40 or D60 user who wants wide but doesn't want to use the kit lens for it. These days ultra-wide on APS-C is a zoom- either a 12-24mm or a 10-20mm. The Nikon 12-24 is AF-S and the Sigma 10-20mm is HSM, so the only issue there is price- typically if you're getting a D40 or a D60 it's because (a) it's your first DSLR and (b) it's cheap. By the time you outgrow the kit lens in (a) you'll probably be ready for your second DSLR. If it's (b,) then you're probably not going to get a bunch of lenses soon either.

[Phrasikleia]

In terms of a D40 buyer though, the only other Nikon primes in the normal price range of the target market is the 24mm, 35mm and 50mm.

And those three will autofocus on a D40?

[cube]

And those three will autofocus on a D40?

The only Nikon primes autofocusing on the D40,D40x,D60 are teles and superteles costing $$$$.

[compuwar]

The only Nikon primes autofocusing on the D40,D40x,D60 are teles and superteles costing $$$$.

The 105mm isn't that expensive, and the 60mm certainly isn't a telephoto.

[compuwar]

And those three will autofocus on a D40?

No, those are the only real candidates for an AF-S upgrade that would fit the D40 profile. As I said, the 60mm Micro is the only new prime in the category "normal or wide" and it was updated to AF-S. Sigma's 30mm 1.4 is a tad wider than "normal" but works just fine- I wouldn't expect the 24mm to be worth getting an update (my AF-D copy stays on the shelf because it sucks compared to the ancient 20-35mm zoom at the same focal length.) I don't see D40 users clamoring for an updated 14mm prime any time soon, which is the only prime that's wide enough on APS-C to be wide, and frankly that's not that wide today and Sigma makes one that will AF on the D40 anyway.

At this point, if you want wide on APS-C, you're more likely to get a 12-24 or 10-20mm zoom than a prime, and while I don't see many D40 owners spending $600-$900 on an ultra-wide zoom that's close to the kit lens's widest focal length, but they'll work if they do.

Sigma's 50/1.4 starts shipping in the next week or so, and has HSM. Sigma's 30/1.4 has been around for a while and has HSM.

So, you've got the following AF-available prime lenses for a D40

4.5/2.8 (Sigma fisheye)
10/2.8 (Sigma fisheye)
14/2.8 (Sigma)
30/1.4 (Sigma)
50/1.4 (Sigma- released late June '08)
60/2.8
105/2.8
150/2.8 (Sigma)
180/3.5 (Sigma)
200/2
300/2.8 (4 versions- 3 Nikon, 1 Sigma)
300/4
500/4 (3 versions)
500/4.5 (Sigma)
600/4 (3 versions)
800/5.6 (Sigma)

[Hmac]

From a marketing standpoint, I'm sure Nikon has tried to evaluate how many D40 owners want a prime lens, and whether or not it's a smart marketing move to address that demand, whatever it is. I suspect the majority of D40/D40x purchasers are satisfied with their kit lens.

If Thom Hogan's predictions are correct and the D40/D40x goes away, leaving the D60 as the bottom of the lineup, the whole issue of Nikon revising their prime lens lineup in order to accommodate a single low-end camera becomes much less urgent.

[cube]

Looking at what some people need, there sure should be a D50/D70/D70s replacement.

[nicholasjh]

if i probably won't be using autofocus very often, and taking into account that i hav an 18-55 3.5-5.6, what would be the best lens, prime or otherwise, for now and the future? i know that everybody shoots different things, but what are some people's personal preference, that is reasonably affordable? i was thinking a nikon AF 50mm 1.8, but i don't really know.

[Hmac]

The reason for the popularity of the 50mm lens in general is that, on a 35 mm sensor/film frame, it gives about the same field of view as the human eye. That was then...now, on a camera where the image circle is cropped by a factor of 1.5, it would take a 35 mm focal length lens to provide that function - the 50mm lens is now actually a telephoto lens. The attractiveness of Nikon's legacy 50mm f/1.8 lens is that it's dirt cheap and very sharp. As Nikon begins the switch to full frame, maybe the 50 mm will become even more popular to the point where updating it with Silent Motor focusing would make sense, but it's likely to cost quite a bit more.

[nicholasjh]

The reason for the popularity of the 50mm lens in general is that, on a 35 mm sensor/film frame, it gives about the same field of view as the human eye. That was then...now, on a camera where the image circle is cropped by a factor of 1.5, it would take a 35 mm focal length lens to provide that function - the 50mm lens is now actually a telephoto lens. The attractiveness of Nikon's legacy 50mm f/1.8 lens is that it's dirt cheap and very sharp. As Nikon begins the switch to full frame, maybe the 50 mm will become even more popular to the point where updating it with Silent Motor focusing would make sense, but it's likely to cost quite a bit more.

so does that mean my "DX" 18-55 at 50mm will be less than the non-DX AF 50mm f/1.8? thats what seems to be the drift from the website and from research. either way, the 50mm 1.8 seems pretty good, but i'm sure theres plenty of other primes out there.

i was looking at the new sigma 50mm 1.4 hsm but then it came out in australia for 10 000...

EDIT: it's only $700- mustve been changing the site.

[Hmac]

so does that mean my "DX" 18-55 at 50mm will be less than the non-DX AF 50mm f/1.8? thats what seems to be the drift from the website and from research. either way, the 50mm 1.8 seems pretty good, but i'm sure theres plenty of other primes out there.

i was looking at the new sigma 50mm 1.4 hsm but then it came out in australia for 10 000... is there any justification for that price outside of hsm? hsm means it can autofocus with d40 and i guess its also quicker and quieter, but most pros probably dont use autofocus very often... i know i won't and i'm just starting!

Yeh, your DX zoom at 50mm will give a field of view that's equivalent to a 50 mm lens. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 will give you a field of view equivalent to a 75 mm lens.

I don't know much about Sigma lenses. I have a Nikon 50mm f/1.8. It performs well, but frankly I never use it. I like zooms.

IMHO, it's not so much that the Sigma lens is expensive, it's that the Nikon is cheap. It's an all-plastic body and it's made in China. Especially by comparison to the pro lenses, it looks cheap and it feels cheap. It's a good value, no question, but IMHO the fact that it provides a nice crisp image for $110 USD is the most attractive thing about it.

[Poncho]

To quote Ken Rockwell:

"Personally I prefer Nikon's least expensive D40 over the D60 or D40x. The D60, D40x and D40 are actually exactly the same cameras, differering only slightly in their internal electronics, but differing greatly in their prices.
The D60 is actually a D40 body with a few more card-clogging pixels, a VR lens and adaptive dynamic range, but a slower maximum shutter speed with flash. Since the D60 is half as light sensitive, the D60 has to use twice as long a shutter speed or a larger aperture, which makes it more likely to make a blurry picture than the D40. Save your money and get the D40 instead."

See: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm

[66217]

Yeh, your DX zoom at 50mm will give a field of view that's equivalent to a 50 mm lens. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 will give you a field of view equivalent to a 75 mm lens.


I'm almost 99% certain that what you are saying is incorrect. The crop factor would always exist in non full-frame cameras. What DX lenses have is that Nikon made something in the construction of the lens that permitted them to make a 12-24mm lens for example.

So with the 12-24, you get a wide end of 18mm. Not 12mm.:)

Also, I have the understanding, that if you put this lenses in a full-frame camera, it would loose the wide end. Because the FF camera would need to cut out the corners of the image for it to appear correctly.

[cube]

?? :confused:

Sigma has since a long time a FF 12-24mm lens, but it's f4.5-5.6, not f4 like Nikon's DX.

[66217]

?? :confused:

Sigma has since a long time a FF 12-24mm lens, but it's f4.5-5.6, not f4 like Nikon's DX.

I was talking about Nikon DX lenses. That being DX doesn't means that a 50mm DX lens would not have the 1.5x crop factor.

In fact, the DX means that it is a lens constructed for digital cameras without FF. It helps make a different construction to obtain wider lenses who conserve the sharpness and quality.

[cube]

But you can EFFECTIVELY go wider on FF than on DX.

[66217]

:):rolleyes:

Of course. But that's the whole point of DX, to bring digital SLR closer to FF cameras. It'll never be the same, but it do brings you closer.

If you got a D3 with a 14-24, you'll be able to go wider than a D300 with a 12-24 DX.

[ChrisA]

Yeh, your DX zoom at 50mm will give a field of view that's equivalent to a 50 mm lens. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 will give you a field of view equivalent to a 75 mm lens.

Here is how to figure it out yourself. Then you don't have to depend on advice you get here, half of which is wrong.

Draw a scale diagram. A 50 mm lens acts just line a pin hole whould if placed 50mm away from the sensor. You can draw a picture.....

The DX frame is 24m wide, Draw a 24mm long vertical line on paper. For a 50mm lens draw a dot 50mm to the left of the line centered relative to the line connect the ends of the line to the dot making an equilateral triangle. The angle at the vertex that point left s the len's angle of view.

[66217]

Here is how to figure it out yourself. Then you don't have to depend on advice you get here, half of which is wrong.

Draw a scale diagram. A 50 mm lens acts just line a pin hole whould if placed 50mm away from the sensor. You can draw a picture.....

The DX frame is 24m wide, Draw a 24mm long vertical line on paper. For a 50mm lens draw a dot 50mm to the left of the line centered relative to the line connect the ends of the line to the dot making an equilateral triangle. The angle at the vertex that point left s the len's angle of view.

I am confused. Now I don't know if what I said is correct. Could you explain a little further what exactly DX is?

[nicholasjh]

Yeh, your DX zoom at 50mm will give a field of view that's equivalent to a 50 mm lens. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 will give you a field of view equivalent to a 75 mm lens.


i'm still pretty sure you're right, despite what people have said. The 50mm 1.8 can be used as a kind of medium telephoto prime around 75mm on a DX body, but once i get a full frame it will be normal view.

that's what pretty much every informational website says.

[66217]

OK, I'll leave some links for people to read. I still maintain my point: DX lenses don't change the actual field of view on a non FF digital camera. A 50mm focal length would always be that, you can't change that. What happens is that Nikon DX lenses go wider.

So, a 50mm DX lens, and a 50mm non-DX lens, would give you the same field of view on the D300/D80/D60/D40, etc.

Link 1 (http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2596&p_created=1053428342&p_sid=Na7Rxoci&p_accessibility=0&p_lva=61&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9ODcmcF9wcm9kcz0xOSwyMDUmcF9jYXRzPTAmcF9 wdj0yLjIwNSZwX2N2PSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=&p_topview=1)

Link 2 (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-lenses.htm)

Link 3 (http://www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=426341)

Link 4 (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=83038)

[leighonigar]

Just for clarification, the 18-55mm DX will give the same field of view, when set to 50mm, as the 50mm prime, when on the same, DX camera. The image circle is probably too small on the DX lens to do the comparison on film/FX.

As the sensor is 1.5x smaller than film a 50mm on DX (digital, except D3, Kodak etc) has the same field of view as a 75mm lens would on a film camera.

This is all. I think people get it, but there seemed to be a bit of muddling.

[nicholasjh]

ok cool, i get it now...

so, the question now is, what lens is best as my next option, keeping in mind a fairly low budget?

[66217]

ok cool, i get it now...

so, the question now is, what lens is best as my next option, keeping in mind a fairly low budget?

I would first suggest to wait some time and really see what you are missing with your current lens. It might be you need a faster lens, a good lens for landscapes, or a good portrait lens, a telephoto, a micro lens, etc.

What do you like the most to take photos of?

[nicholasjh]

ahhh... well i haven't had much chance to go out yet, weather's been bad and i've been pretty busy. so at the moment i guess it's a lot of things- flowers, street, beach, dogs at beach, sunset and landscape.

i probably shouldnt make a decision until i've been out and about, but does anyone hav a lens recommendation for any of the things i mentioned?

nick

[nicholasjh]

thanks everyone

[cube]

ok cool, i get it now...

so, the question now is, what lens is best as my next option, keeping in mind a fairly low budget?

I just got a Sigma 17-70 in mint condition for a D70 at a very nice price.
But it's not HSM. To get something similar on a D40/D40x/D60 I would have had to spend $100 more for a used Nikon 18-70, or $150 more for a new Sigma with HSM.

Also these Sigmas open at f/2.8 at 17mm, which the Nikon can't do at 18.

Also, while DxO supports the older Sigma and the Nikon on the D70/D70s, only the Nikon is supported on the D40x/D60, and none of these on the D40.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/313-sigma-af-17-70mm-f28-45-dc-nikon-review--lab-test-report

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/235-nikkor-af-s-18-70mm-f35-45-g-if-ed-dx-review--test-report