Nikon D40 or D60

[th31d10t]

I am looking at purchasing a D-SLR within a few days and was just wondering which camera would be best to purchase. I will just be using it for casual shots. It will most likely be vehicles, landscapes and maybe some shots people.

 

[Jason]

If by casual you mean snapshots you are likely buying way more camera than you need. I would look at point and shoot camera's with a good zoom range. However, the D40 is a great starter SLR and I even carry one in my saddle bags on the bike since it is small and light for an SLR which makes it great for traveling.

Be careful, lenses are addictive and pricey.

 

[Bob Ayers]

The D40 will do fine for you! Both cameras need AF-S or AF-I lenses for autofocus, because there is no autofocus motor in the bodies.

Check this out for a side by side comparison:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...debyside&cameras=nikon_d40,nikon_d60&show=all


Definately don't waste your money on a P&S camera.

 

[Jason]

Definately don't waste your money on a P&S camera.

Are you saying you would recommend someone buy a DSLR for casual snapshots? Are you looking to build an audience for lenses you maybe got bored with and are looking to sell?

 

[th31d10t]

I actually already have a few P&S Cameras. I am looking for more than a normal P&S and that is why I am looking at these two. I have always been happy with Nikon cameras. I have owned a few P&Ss and used a few SLRs.

 

[Bob Ayers]

Are you saying you would recommend someone buy a DSLR for casual snapshots? Are you looking to build an audience for lenses you maybe got bored with and are looking to sell?

There isn't that big of price difference between the D40 and a good P&S.
And with the D40 (or any DSLR) you can always expand capabilities with lenses in the future, if you do get interested in photography. This isn't
possible with the P&S. If you don't develop an interest, the Nikon's hold their value, and you can sell it.

I'm not interested in selling any of my lenses!

70 200mm f/2.8 VR:

17 55mm f/2.8:

85mm f/1.4:

105mm f/2.8 VR:

 

[Jason]

There isn't that big of price difference between the D40 and a good P&S.
And with the D40 (or any DSLR) you can always expand capabilities with lenses in the future, if you do get interested in photography. This isn't
possible with the P&S. If you don't develop an interest, the Nikon's hold their value, and you can sell it.

I'm not interested in selling any of my lenses!

That's cool with me. Like I said, I have a D40 to take on bike trips. The D200 is too big in the bags. If I brought that I would have to leave my undies at home. Plus, I can use the same lenses.

 

[Bob Ayers]

That's cool with me. Like I said, I have a D40 to take on bike trips. The D200 is too big in the bags. If I brought that I would have to leave my undies at home. Plus, I can use the same lenses.

I have this packpack, and it holds ALL my photography equipment, and my laptop, which I use for post-processing photos when traveling:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...P34705_PEF_CompuTrekker_Plus_AW_Backpack.html

I carry this on the plane with me, never "checked".

 

[Bob Ayers]

Are you saying you would recommend someone buy a DSLR for casual snapshots? Are you looking to build an audience for lenses you maybe got bored with and are looking to sell?

The biggest difference between P&S, and DSLR cameras is the size of the image sensor. This is also why the DSLRs are more expensive, and also why
a P&S can't match the IQ of a DSLR.

Notice in this link that the sensor size on a Nikon D40 is: 23.7mm X 15.5mm (1.6 MP/cm²) and the sensor size on a Panasonic P&S is: 6.13mm X 4.6mm (36 MP/cm²). With the larger sensor (and larger pixels) on the DSLR, the SNR is much better than the small sensor on the P&S, which gives a much better IQ, especially at high ISO levels.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...&cameras=nikon_d40,panasonic_dmcfz28&show=all

And, as previously mentioned, much better glass is available for a DSLR!!!

 

[Jason]

I don't doubt the benefits of an SLR. My wife has been in to photography for years. I have spent more on camera stuff than I have on motorcycles!! LOL I just didn't think he was looking for anything more than a snapshot camera in which case the SLR's benefits would not be realized. Actually, for many people that are new to camera's the settings on an SLR alone are confusing.

 

[Bob Ayers]

I don't doubt the benefits of an SLR. My wife has been in to photography for years. I have spent more on camera stuff than I have on motorcycles!! LOL I just didn't think he was looking for anything more than a snapshot camera in which case the SLR's benefits would not be realized. Actually, for many people that are new to camera's the settings on an SLR alone are confusing.

If you re-read the OP, the question was which to buy, a D40 or D60... And you can operate either of these cameras in "AUTO MODE" like a P&S until you learn the basics of a DSLR.

 

[Jason]

If you re-read the OP, the question was which to buy, a D40 or D60... And you can operate either of these cameras in "AUTO MODE" like a P&S until you learn the basics of a DSLR.

I caught that. But you know as well as I do that many people just buy an SLR to have one, while they have no idea or intention on using the features that make them what they are.

 

[The Fox]

th31d10t, I would personally not recommend either of those. I recommend a good used D80 or if you are not invested in Nikon(you already have nikon lenses/ flashes) a used canon system with a good lens. The problems I have with those Nikon's is the lack of an AF motor in the body. This might not be a problem, but to get AF the lenses are a little more expensive because you will be unable to get good used lenses that used that motor. I dislike Nikon's choice on this matter because I have some good lenses that i use on my canon system(with an adapter), such as the 85mm F1.4. That lens is great for sports, and AF is nice to have with fast moving sports that you have to move around a lot.
The Canon system I bring up because of the price for good used bodies. You can get a used 20D/30D for less then $500 for the 30D, and $300 for the 20D. Get one of those with something like the new canon kit lens, the 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS, or the 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS USM. That kit will run you around $600 and $700 with the latter lens. The things you will get with a 20D/30D bodies is they are much faster, 5FPS vs 3FPS. They have better noise levels then the older/ lower line of the Nikon system. Even being older they are still better at high ISO. You also gain better build on the bodies, plastic on the Nikon vs Magnesium on the Canon. Canon also has a much better line of lenses in the there professional line, "L".
Just because I think this is going to get brought up, I shoot Canon personally, but I also shoot Nikon. I personally own a Canon 20D, 5D, and 1d mk IIn, Mamiya RB67 with 22mp ZD back and a Hasselblad 500c. Two of my co-owners shoot Nikon, one with 2 D200's and the other with a D300, D700, and 2 D3's(soon to be on D3 and a D3x). I like the Nikon, but they pissed me off long ago with there professional service. Canon has been on top for a while until Nikon stole plays from Canon's playbook with the CMOS sensors and FF. Now it is a dead heat between them with them just leap frogging each other now a days. All that matters is you get the camera that you need.
Nick

 

[Bob Ayers]

Canon has been on top for a while until Nikon stole plays from Canon's playbook with the CMOS sensors and FF.

Good thing Nikon didn't steal Canon's AF or flash system!!


And Canon stole the high res. LCD display from Nikon on their 5D MKII.

 

[Bob Ayers]

I like the Nikon, but they pissed me off long ago with there professional service.

I think Canon holds the record for pissing off customers with their 1D MKIII AF problem!

And then there is the high failure rate on the new 5D MKII:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml