Nikon D40 vs. D60, which one?

[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

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]

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 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 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?? 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?? 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)