Picking A Nikon...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by macAllen, May 28, 2009.

  1. macAllen macrumors 6502

    macAllen

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #1
    Hey guys I need some opinions on to which dslr should I get. I'm just really confused as to which one suits me. I was only considering the Nikon d40 and the Nikon d60.

    Heres my situation...
    -Money can be stretched but not so far into getting a d80 or d90 and therefore am only looking at the d40 & d60.
    -I want more bang for my buck.
    -I'am trying to get into the dslr world and getting out of the point and shot because my photography is gotten to the point were other people want me to take photos for them. So i guess you can call me an amateur.
    -Does Megapixel really matter?
    -Do i really need the dust air flow and the sensor shaker thingy?

    -And I need one that will be use for like 3years till i can get an update to a d90:)


    Oh and I will be buying either this (their both 2 lens kit)

    d40

    http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/SLR1160.htm

    or

    d60

    http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/SLR1193.htm

    Thanks fellow mac members
     
  2. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #2
    Stay way from both.

    No internal autofocus motor, etc. etc.

    For the lower-end DSLRs, I'd think more about Canon and Pentax these days if I were you.
     
  3. dL. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    #3
    I don't see anything wrong with the lack of AF motors. Sure it can't AF with the old gears, but most beginners are happy with the 18-55 (Kit lens), 55-200 VR, and perhaps the new $200 35mm f1.8 which can also autofocus with the D40 and D60. It's cheap and a great lightweight lens for low light and portrait.

    I started with the D40 last year and with the only exception of the cheap 50mm f1.8 not being able to AF with my D40, I had no limitations with my needs. Now that the 35mm AF-S f1.8 is out and cheap, it's even better to get a D40/60.

    Most importantly, which camera feels best for you?

    For the $100 difference, you get 4 more megapixels so you can crop more, but you get a slower flash sync speed and also an EXPEED processor to process your images. Tough choice.

    dL
     
  4. platypus63 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Location:
    Zanzibar Land
    #4
    Also the 18-55 in the D60 has VR, but the D40's kit 18-55 does not have VR. That was the main difference between the two kits for me.
     
  5. Razeus macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #5
    If you must get a Nikon, just get the D40. The D60 is a waste of everyone's time.
     
  6. iTiki macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2007
    Location:
    Maui, Hawaii
    #6
    I started with a D40 and now have a D90. Both have been excellent for my needs and I have had no regrets with either purchase.
     
  7. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #7
    I mostly agree with Luminosity, but will put it this way to the OP: search "Nikon D40 lens compatibility," and read as much as you can about this "incompatibility" and cameras from the D40 all the way to D5000. Then decided what you want to do. If you still want to buy a D40 or a D60, go with the D40 instead, and buy some good Nikon glass for it.
     
  8. NintendoChick macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    #8
    I own a D40, and love it. I was on a tight budget, and the D40 was a perfect choice.

    Put the money you save towards a nice lens. :)
     
  9. tejota1911 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    #9
    For $100 difference, I'd get the D60. If the price difference was larger, I'd go with the less expensive D40. Both are good cameras.

    I originally purchased the D60 for my wife and I. Shortly thereafter decided I wanted something a little more advanced. So, I gave the D60 to my wife, which was plenty for her, and purchased a D90 for myself. Now, we don't have to fight over the camera, and can each take our own pictures. Then when we get home, we can check out each others shots. Another side benefit is we can share lenses.
     
  10. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #10
    I'd try and look for a D80 instead. It has a much, much better viewfinder, a focus motor and is overall a very nice camera.
     
  11. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #11
    Get the least expensive body and get nicer glass.

    If I was you, I'd get a refurbished D40 body only and spend some extra cash on nicer glass to keep from here on out, especially if you are set on this format.
     
  12. Razeus macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #12
    The D40 and the D90 are the only options for a Nikon. Everything in between is unnecessary and a waste of time.
     
  13. Hmac macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    #13
    The screw drive AF is necessary mostly for old Nikon legacy lenses. Otherwise, it's unnecessary.

    No, you don't need the dust shaker thingy. Just about any dust that that will work on will also be easily removed with a blower. You will likely find it useful to know how to clean your own sensor for the situations where the blower (nor the dust shaker) will work.
     
  14. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #14
    Those "legacy" Nikons are in many cases the most current lenses for a given focal length (i.e. the 85mm 1.4/1.8).
     
  15. Conan1111 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
  16. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #16
    I wouldn't pay more than a hundred dollars for a D40 now. It seemed like a toy when I had it, and I'm sure it would now more than ever.
     
  17. Hmac macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    #17
    That doesn't make them any more relevant, nor any more useful to the OP. Any lens he's likely to buy for his consumer-level D40 will work just fine.
     
  18. macAllen thread starter macrumors 6502

    macAllen

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #18
    Ok just to end this...

    Money is not a problem for either the d50 or the d60. So when it comes down two both

    d40
    http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/SLR1160.htm
    or

    d60
    http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/SLR1193.htm

    which one?

    from what i hear from you guys is that the d60 came with a VR DX lens
    Does this VR DX matter to a first time dslr photographer?

    Thanks for your opinions so far!
     
  19. Dave00 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    #19
    I was in this situation not too long ago. Unfortunately Nikon released alot of cameras with similar specifications and names, and it was hard to plow through the confusion. However, I got the D40 and have been quite pleased, and I'm sure it'd suit the needs of the OP well. As someone starting out, the older Nikon lenses are really not going to be of interest, so that's a non-issue. The best thing about the D40, other than the price, is that it has a very fast sync speed, which you don't get on the 'higher-end' D60. D60 does have active d-lighting, but adds only marginally to the quality. One thing to consider when deciding between the D40 and D90 (or the newer D5000) is whether you need to use the LCD to frame your pictures. I wasn't aware that the LCD on the D40 was only for photo review, not composition; you have too look through the viewfinder to compose. This was a challenge for me, as I've gotten some of my best shots by composing with the LCD on my P/S, because of the unique angles you can get when you don't have to look through the viewfinder. However, this is sort of a tradeoff in any DSLR, even those with "live view", because even when the lcd is used as a viewfinder, the image lags behind real-time, so you can't reliably use it to shoot split-second shots (babies, sports, etc.)

    I got a great deal from Ritz on the D40 with 15-55 and 55-200VR. Make sure for the longer lens you get the VR, otherwise it's hard to get shots without a blur unless you use a tripod.

    Dave
     
  20. telecomm macrumors 65816

    telecomm

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Location:
    Rome
    #20
    I got a D60 kit with those lenses (it's 18-55 for the wider lens, and that was a VR lens in the kit I got), and my only regret is not also getting VR on the 55-200.

    For what it's worth, expect most people to recommend what they themselves bought. The bottom line is that most of the usual choices for entry level DSLRs are great, and you're bound to be happy with what you decide to get.
     
  21. namethisfile macrumors 6502a

    namethisfile

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    #21
    the VR (Vibration Reduction) feature matters to all level of photographers from beginners to pros. and the best thing about it is that it's transparent. just flick the VR switch and ur ready to use that zoom at its highest focal length and take some great action shots. W/o the VR, u would be limited to slower shutter speeds, which would result in 'action shots' coming out a bit blurry. not totally 'frozen' like some good sport photos u see in magazines.

    since budget is of no issue, i would pick the d60 over the d40. that $100 goes a long way w/ the VR lens, the better interface, higher megapixels (not for cropping like someone said, but more importantly, the higher megapixel count allows u to print larger pictures, if u so choose). the reason why cropping a picture in post is bad is because it's not a good practice. it's better to frame ur shot beforehand. and there are many advantages to this. one of which is that it makes u a better photographer.

    so, in the end, the jump from 6 MP to 10 MP w/ the d60 should warrant someone to go for the higher MP count and in this case, the d60 is a good buy, in my opinion. The only reason why you wouldn't care for this jump in MP is if u know for a fact that u will never print ur pictures in a bigger size.

    with the nikon af-s 35mm 1.8 lens that just came out, the d60 looks even better.
     
  22. LittleCanonKid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    #22
    VR or IS doesn't do anything to stop the said moving subject. All it does it help cancel out your own movement, and thus allowing you to handhold at slower speeds. Just because you can handhold at 1/60 or something doesn't mean that the dog that's romping around is going to come out clear. VR only helps out with one part of the equation. If you really wanted to freeze action at something like an outdoor sports game, you'd be at 1/1000 and camera shake would probably be nonexistent at those speeds.

    Concerning the bolded, I'm confused here. WITH VR, you can handhold at slower speeds, but that doesn't help with subject motion. WITHOUT VR, you can't handhold for quite as slow speeds.

    But for still subjects, VR does help and it would be appreciated more on a telephoto.
     
  23. namethisfile macrumors 6502a

    namethisfile

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    #23
    Whooops! my bad! You're right. It was I who got confused. I was going the opposite end of the spectrum, thinking VR allows one to shoot at higher shutter speeds when its purpose is the exact opposite. as you mentioned, VR allows one to shoot at lower shutter speeds in telephoto. VR and high shutter speeds would cancel each other out. so, again, your explanation makes more sense and thanks for clearing that out.
     
  24. ckseid macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #24
    Get the one with VR lens. You can shoot more in low light situations.
     
  25. Dman77 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    London, UK
    #25
    I was in this situation a while ago, I went for the D60 with a 55-200mm (non-VR) lens and have just bought an excellent 2nd hand 18-55mm lens (again, non-VR) from ebay. I can't comment on how much difference VR makes, I haven't had any blurred shots and haven't used a VR lens, but what I have is fine for my needs, as a complete amateur. I'll never be a pro photographer, I have a cheap tripod for the nice landscape shots and it all does exactly what I need it to do, and gives me great shots.
     

Share This Page