Thinking of getting a back-up body for my D300. Logical choice was D60 but this review really makes me think twice
Another question is... would you guys think thank Nikon will update its D40 soon? I am guessing no since it just launched the D60 but seems that D40 will not be replaced and will target a certain price point in the market $400+ market. The D40 is 2 yrs old nevertheless.
Do you still think its a good buy?
#1. "RE: D40 vs D60" | In response to Reply # 0James23p Nikonian since 25th Apr 2004Mon 14-Apr-08 05:00 AM | edited Mon 14-Apr-08 11:53 AM by James23p
The D40x essentially was an upgrade of the D40 and the D60 seems to be the replacement of the D40x even though Nikon still lists both as current bodies. The D40 is right now one of the lowest priced DSLR bodies out there and takes great pictures but so does the D40x at a few more MP and the D60 with a few more features. I guess it depends on what you want to spend and if you find the extra MP and features of the D60 worth the money.
Now Ken Rockwell tends to be a lightning rod due to his style of reviews. I would ask we stay on topic and not Ken's style. Thanks All
Share, Learn and Inspire
I will use film until the last roll and last lab are gone. Go Navy
#2. "RE: D40 vs D60" | In response to Reply # 0ruca2k8 Registered since 27th Feb 2008Mon 14-Apr-08 07:08 AM
I think Ken Rockwell says some truths but also some mistruths.
I read him as naturally biased to the D40. I have the 40x and wouldn't go back if I had the choice. It's not the extra $100 that make you get better glass anyway, at least not for me. And with a larger image size, I can crop for some far subjects I will shoot in the future (maybe I can live with a 70-200/2.8 and not shed an extra $1000 for a 300/2.8, thereby saving me more than buying the D40 would).
In essence, IM(W)O, if I had the D40, would I buy the 40x? No, most likely not. Same goes for the D60. Unless I could find a good buyer for my D40 at least.
Same goes for now. Will I buy a D60? Likely not and I'll save for a second body, like a D300, keeping my 40x for vacations/everyday use.
Read more reviews if you haven't, and take all of them with an open mind and critical eye of your own.
If I didn't have any camera, I'd get the D60.
#3. "RE: D40 vs D60" | In response to Reply # 0blw Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Mon 14-Apr-08 09:30 AM
Personally, I'd completely ignore that review (and that reviewer). It's too hard to distinguish uninformed opinion from informed facts, both of which are common there.
Yes, I think the D40 will be replaced relatively soon, probably by another 6mp or 8mp body at an even lower price point.
However, both the D40 and D60 are excellent cameras as long as you don't need the features that they're missing (the ones I think of are compatibility with screwdriver AF lenses, DOF preview, more advanced AF system, and fairly different controls than other models).
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
#4. "RE: D40 vs D60" | In response to Reply # 0MotoMannequin Registered since 11th Jan 2006Mon 14-Apr-08 01:24 PM
KR's advice (I won't go as far to call it a review) is slanted to what's ideal for making 4x6 prints and/or posting web-sized on the internet, which is probably what most people do, and for which the D40 is more than enough camera. Be careful though, because that advice is given in the context of professional fine art photography, so it appeals very much to people doing the former and wanting to be the latter. If this is you, then get the D40.
Given the features and style of controls on the D300 body, I think the ideal backup would be a used D200, which are widely available in the $700-$900 range.
Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery
#5. "RE: D40 vs D60" | In response to Reply # 0Thu 17-Apr-08 01:03 PM
If I recall correct, both D40 and D60 are Kit cameras that come with 18-55 or 18-55 VR repectively, so if someone is selling them as body only, that means that they were opened. If you are looking for a backup body, I think you should probably spend a little more and get a D80 body which has the focus motor built in in the camera and will be more compatible with your existing lenses. (D60 body is $600 and D80 is $700). Remember that D40 and D60 will only autofocus with either AF-S or AF-I.
Demian - Nikon D40- Nikkor 55-200 VR
#6. "RE: D40 vs D60" | In response to Reply # 5CAtrike Registered since 22nd Jan 2008Thu 17-Apr-08 01:50 PM
>If I recall correct, both D40 and D60 are Kit cameras that
>come with 18-55 or 18-55 VR repectively, so if someone is
>selling them as body only, that means that they were opened.
By opened do you just mean the lens was removed? These are all interchangeable lens cameras (that come with body caps) so the term "opened" is meaningless.
#7. "RE: D40 vs D60" | In response to Reply # 6Thu 17-Apr-08 04:30 PM
By opened I mean the box was opened, not the camera, and someone removed the lens since they come standard with it. Anyway, the point is not that, but to consider that for 100 bucks you can get a way better camera than the D60.
Demian - Nikon D40- Nikkor 55-200 VR
#10. "RE: D40 vs D60" | In response to Reply # 6glennaa11 Registered since 27th Aug 2004Mon 21-Apr-08 12:49 AM
I have seen the D60 listed for sale as body only from the very reputable Penn Camera but it is currently listed as "out of stock" on their website so I suppose that may mean that it will be offered as body only at some point.
I have a D40 and have made prints up to 13x19 that look awesome.
#12. "RE: D40 vs D60" | In response to Reply # 0
Last week, I upgraded to a Nikon D300. I still love my little D40, now the perfect backup body. It is such a fun camera, and has a lot of charm. And most importantly, takes great pictures. Yes, the D300 is close to professional grade. And years from now, digital cameras will never have the collector/classic status that film bodies now enjoy. But a lot of enthusiasts like myself are going to recall warmly how that great little camera got them started in digital photography.
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D
Nikkor 55-200mm VR-I
Nikkor 18-200mm VR-II
Nikon SB-400 Speedlight
Nikon SB-600 Speedlight
#13. "RE: D40 vs D60" | In response to Reply # 0
As a backup to a D300 (or D200 for that matter), the D40/40x/60 cameras are less than ideal IMHO. The reason I believe this is that they use different batteries and memory cards than the D300. I believe that a backup camera should share these items with the primary camera, not just to reduce costs, but to reduce clutter and confusion as well.
Then there is the matter of the Nikon CLS and Commander Mode availability from the built in flash - it is absent from the D40/40x/60 models. If you use off camera flash, you will have to buy an SU-800 for the backup camera.
Autofocus compatibility with non AF-S lenses is also an issue if you have a collection of nice fast prime non AF-S lenses. Manual focus through the viewfinder of a D40 series camera is not the best option.
For a backup to a D300, a nice condition D70 or D70s is a good choice. While it has half the pixels of the D300 (same as the D40), it shares the same battery and memory card type. The D70 has CLS commander mode capability. It has an AF motor in the body for lens compatibility. Plus, the D70's have the advantage of an electronic shutter and 1/500 sec. flash synch speed (which the D300, D40x and D60 lack).
As MotoMannequin pointed out, the D200 would also make a fine backup to the 300. It also shares lens compatibility, CLS, batteries and memory cards and also the remote connector. The D70 cameras use a different remote shutter system.
The D70s is smaller and lighter than the D300 and fills the roll of a backup camera well. You should be able to find a mint D70s body for half the price of a similar D200. The D200 would also be an excellent choice if budget is not the primary concern.
I like the D40/40x/60 series cameras (I do!). I am sure that the 6 MP sensor in the D40 gives a cleaner image than the similar sensor in the D70, if only because of newer electronics. But in the role as a backup camera to a D300 they are less than ideal.
#14. "RE: D40 vs D60" | In response to Reply # 13texxter Nikonian since 18th Feb 2006Thu 24-Apr-08 03:21 AM | edited Thu 24-Apr-08 03:22 AM by texxter
I agree completely with the comments about the D40/D60 as a backup for a D300. I own a D300, my current body, with a D200 as a backup, meaning the D200 is in a bag just in case the D300 breaks or needs to be sent for service. It doesn't get used at all because the D300 works like a charm.
Having said that, I have a D40x, which I love, and its NOT a backup, it's a different camera that gets used a lot as a P&S replacement. Whenever I travel I carry a tiny bag with my D40x and the Nikkor 18-70, plus the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 beauty. I love to go *anywhere* and still be able to create good images without having to carry a large bag. The big, expensive lenses stay home unless the travel is for the sole purpose of doing photography.
#15. "RE: D40 vs D60" | In response to Reply # 0
#16. "RE: D40 vs D60" | In response to Reply # 0
You do not say what your definition of backup is. It has a completely different meaning for a professional and an amateur. If you are a professional and really use the powerful features of the D300, then no the D40 or D60 would not an adequate substitutes. If you are an amateur, and just want another camera if your goes in for service, then I would certainly go with the D60 or a D40.
As a matter of fact I have a D300 and a D60. I love the D60 when I want to travel light. When on vacation I take both cameras and my wife uses the D60 and I use the D300. Prior to this we used a D200 and a D40. All great cameras.
It's great to have a nice small light weight camera when you carry it for 8 or 10 hours! The D60 is perfect for that when you do not need the sophistication of the D300.