sdstud212001

I'm pretty convinced I am going with the NIKON D60 the thing is I dont know if I really need all the extras they are offering on the Amazon site.

They have packages with an extra lens and stuff. How much if it is junk and what do I really need.

check it out http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_1_...prefix=nikon+d

tc

www.dpreview.com

The Nikon kit lenses are VR (Vibration Reduction) and pretty good for the money

Have you checked out the D5000?

Outsane

I would get the d40 any day over the d60

faster flash sync speed and much more

Outsane

From KenRockwell.com

The Nikon D60 is a replacement for the almost identical D40x.

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.

The D60 is less sensitive to light then the D40 (its default ISO is only ISO 100 compared to the D40's default ISO of 200). Its less sensitive to light because the pixels have to be made smaller to cram more of them into the same-sized sensor. Smaller pixels collect fewer photons than larger pixels. 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. OOPS!

Save your money and get the D40 instead. The D40's faster sync speed is invaluable for use with flash outdoors, and the extra light sensitivity in normal use will help make sharper pictures. These three cameras (D40, D40x, D60) otherwise, for most users, are identical. Compare them in person and you'll see. Megapixels don't matter.

Snow Runner

I have a rebel XSi that is working awesome so far... def worth taking a look at... But if your a Nikon person I understand

tc

The ONLY part of that post that is correct.

sdstud212001

Great now I am more confused than ever, if megapixels dont matter why are they putting more and more in cameras?

awareness

Though they're a little pricey, I'm totally falling in love with the Olympus E-P1 from the retro styled Pen series "3/4" DSLR's.

tc

Because the manufacturers have done such a good job of brainwashing the consumers. Basically, the pixels are getting so small that the chances of a light photon hitting them is getting small, and the sensor loses sensitivity to low light. Some websites publish the pixel density - all things being equal (and they rarely are), a lower pixel density will result in better pictures in low light, which is actually where most pictures are taken.

A few camera makers have bucked the MP trend - namely Fuji and Panasonic - and their cameras are generally highly regarded for image quality.

The only thing you need MP for is making tight crops and large enlargements. If you're not going to print pictures bigger than 8x10", anything over about 8MP is wasted.


Same here until I read the review on www.dpreview.com, which is a shame, because a small, interchangeable lens camera is JUST what I would like. The other micro four thirds camera - Panasonic DMC-G1 - was rated considerably higher, but it's a bit bigger and not nearly as attractive as the Olympus.

awareness

I wonder if I'd go to hell for letting the visual asthetic of such an expensive camera hold so much sway with me.

Thanks for the link.

tc

You and I would be there together then ...

exist

I know this thread is a little old but I thought I'd do my best to give you a hand with your soon-to-be-Nikon purchase..

First off, aside from the D60 + 18-55 lens, you'll need a memory card.. That's pretty much it if you want to just get out and shoot. I'd recommend picking up a camera case (larger than your camera, to allow for another lens / flash etc down the road..) But for now, the 18-55 that comes with the D60 is a fantastic lens for the money - but if you could find a place local that would let you swap the 18-55 for an 18-105vr without going crazy with the cost I'd advise that as the extra reach will really help when you start getting into things more.

Down the road once you get into the groove more, if you decide you want more, I'd look into the Nikon 70-300vr lens to be able to zoom in and get closer to your subject.. When I go off roading and shooting I almost exclusively use my 70-300 and haven't found a reason to upgrade from it (the next logical upgrade would be an 80-200 2.8/70-200 2.8 but you're getting into 3-4 times the price when you go there..) I don't want to confuse you with numbers and lenses and all that fluff at this stage - just letting you know whats out there and whats worth looking into if you find yourself limited by your kit lens.

As for accessories I'd recommend picking up a filter for every lens you have, a UV filter doesn't tint or (typically) degrade image quality (obviously depending on brand.. I use Hoya and B+W filters personally..)

Down the road I'd be considering..
- second battery
- another memory card, or two.
- another lens
- a flash

And once you get comfortable with what you have and find you want something more, look into radio controlled flash triggers and more light, but that's getting into things a little deeper and I'd recommend just grabbing a D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D5000 and just using it and enjoying it.. Get the bare essentials so you aren't constantly busy swapping things and you don't have 40 things to learn how to use, and when you feel you need to upgrade - upgrade at that point.

.... Hopefully that helps a little. The camera's listed above are so close in what they offer (aside from the '5000 and the movie mode etc..) that you shouldn't notice a huge difference between them.. If you get into D5000 price ranges I'd recommend stepping up to the D90 as it's a better quality camera over all.. But if you want a very easy to use camera with all the manual functions to learn on - the D40/D40x/D60 is right where you want to be.

Evilmunkey

Check out (B&H) BHPhotoVideo.com <--- best company to order and talk to over purchasing a DSLR. I personally use a Canon XSi and the thing on the megapixels is all relative to how large you plan on printing your photos. Also when you look at a DSLR get one that is pure camera, no video mode - its supposed to be meant to take photos only (also one less function to break in the event that it does). Also the debate between Nikon Vs. Canon is all just based on personal preference there is no complete difference between the two companies (IMO).

Also if you plan on getting a DSLR I would invest in a program called Adobe LightRoom 2 (only around $200), works great when your working w/ Raw files (.CR2)

tc

BS. The only difference between "live view" and video mode is writing it to the card - and if that "breaks" you're screwed either way.

To some degree. Both make fine cameras, but Nikon makes better DSLR's and Canon absolutely kicks Nikon's butt on compacts.

Outsane

Canon vs Nikon..

Get whatever your generous friend has so you can use their lens!

Evilmunkey

Not completely true in most cases alot of the parts are replaceable in the DSLR's (mirrors, focus screen, and image sensor) but of course you need to be knowledgeable in that area to fix them. Also I'd like to see proof on that statement of Nikon DSLR's being better than Canon's (write-up, factual evidence)

And there is truth in what your friends have so you may borrow their lenses, 'cause they aren't that cheap. like right now I'm debating between a Canon 55-220 f/4L w/ IS which runs $1250 or to get my cat back exhaust and headers for the 4Runner, lol but the lens will make me money.

And really (to stay on topic) Get what is comfortable to you, if you have access to a Camera store to where you can test out the cameras you're interested in

tc

www.dpreview.com

Pick ANY Nikon DSLR that has their "full review". They will always have comparisons to the competitor's similar model. Every DSLR I have seen gives the Nikon a slight edge over the Canon. Conversely, on compacts, every Canon absolutely blows the Nikon out of the water.

The whole concept of SLR is outdated in the digital age. Why do you need to worry about wearing out a shutter or mirror slap or any of that when you have a digital sensor, not film back there? It absolutely cracks me up when I read reviews about how critical a viewfinder is for framing pictures, and then they claim that it's excellent with only 92% accuracy ... whereas the cheapest compact has 100% accuracy through the screen. Perhaps the greatest revolution in photography is underway right now with the release and development of the micro 4/3's system all the advantages of seeing exactly what the "film" will see with none of the drawbacks.

Hayes

I love my Nikon D40. It's a great camera.

As for all the extras, it depends on what you do. I do a lot of nature and auto photography, which I use the 18-55 lens that came with the camera. I do some track photography, for which the 55-200 is mediocre. I really need a lense that gets in the 300-400 range, simply for the distance of subjects. A lot of my auto photography would benefit from a fisheye lense. You need to ask yourself what you are going to do with the camera.

One thing I really suggest is a good bag and a tripod.

exist

Evilmunkey : The Nikon/Canon debate is not personal preference, it is fact.. Nikon has a better flash system. A better autofocus system. Better noise control. etc.. If you want to honestly go tit for tat between Nikon and Canon look at any of the thousands of reviews between similar cameras and you'll see Nikon has the edge more often than not. I'm not going to get into a huge debate but my view is they are not the exact same and they are not just personal preference..

Also I wouldn't recommend only getting an SLR to take pictures.. If it can shoot video - shoot video with it as well, why the hell not? That's like saying don't buy an extended cab unless you have a family.. you don't need the extra room.. I wouldn't buy a camera right now JUST because it has a video mode - but I wouldn't avoid one.. I didn't want live view on my Nikon, but it has it.. I wasn't about to avoid the D300 because of a feature I don't like.. I just don't use it..

Outsane : Actually a really good idea.. that's something I tell friends of mine when they want to look into an SLR.. I have a large collection of glass and bodies so if they want to try something before they buy - feel free..

Evilmunkey : Look at the 70-200 f/4 L instead, it's cheaper and if you're comfortable spending 1250 - get the 2.8 version... Plus you'll be able to find it, I'm not aware of the 55-220 existing.

tc : shutters do wear out, they still exist in digital.. ground glass still gets scratched.. sensors do burn up.. Also compacts have far less accuracy with the view finders as they are not through the lens based so what you see is not what you get.. and I'm not sure what view finders are getting reviewed in what you're reading because the "92%" business would refer to how much of the frame is seen through the viewfinder, on full frame you tend to get 100% and on most dslr's you have 98 or 99%..

And the 4/3rds system is not without drawbacks.. You'll have more noise by sticking more megapixels into a smaller sensor like the 4/3rds sized sensor.. It's like what Canon keeps doing - sticking a hundred mp on a crop sensor makes it more obvious how bad your lens is or isn't, and makes noise worse.. But when someone sees 18mp in a body for less than another manufacturer (like Nikon) that only has 10, most consumers jump on it.. (more megapixels means it's better.. right? well.. no..)

Hayes : Like I said in a previous post, look into the 70-300vr if you want something cheap that gives you that range, or if you have the budget - consider the 300 f/4 prime..

tc

exist - maybe I wasn't clear ...

With digital, there is NO need to have a shutter. Really. You turn the sensor on and off and get all the other crap out of the way of the image.

I agree compacts viewfinders (the few that have them anymore) are not accurate. That's why you use the screen - which is PERFECTLY accurate. You are directly looking at the "film" being "developed" real time.

Agreed, the 4/3's sensor is still a little small, but it is still WAY better than any "compact" camera, and if the concept of Micro 4/3's takes off, I don't see why someone couldn't come out with a full-frame camera that omits the mirror box and all the downsides that come with it.