Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Nikon D-60 (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t619793-nikon-d-60-a.html)

rfdjr1@optonline.net 06-12-2008 04:35 AM

Nikon D-60
 
Five years ago, just before my Daughters wedding, I bought a Nikon D-100. I've
loved the camera. But now I'm looking at these new D-40 and D-60 models. Besides
the nearly double megapixels, how much more am I getting if I bought one of the
new ones? And would I be able to use the lenses from the D-100 on the newer
models? I spent $2,000 on the D-100 and a lens five years ago. It almost hurts
to see a camera with twice the resolution for one third the price. Thanks.


Alex Monro 06-12-2008 10:53 AM

Re: Nikon D-60
 
rfdjr1@optonline.net wrote:

> Five years ago, just before my Daughters wedding, I bought a Nikon
> D-100. I've loved the camera. But now I'm looking at these new D-40
> and D-60 models. Besides the nearly double megapixels, how much more
> am I getting if I bought one of the new ones? And would I be able to
> use the lenses from the D-100 on the newer models? I spent $2,000 on
> the D-100 and a lens five years ago. It almost hurts to see a camera
> with twice the resolution for one third the price. Thanks.


The bottom of the range Nikon models (D40, D40x and D60) don't have an
autofocus motor in the body, so are only capable of autofocus with
lenses having a focus motor built in (AF-S, AF-I). You should be able
to manual focus though, with a focus confirmation indicator.
--
Alex Monro
Exeter, UK
Running on Linux (Kubuntu 7.1)

rfdjr1@optonline.net 06-13-2008 04:53 AM

Re: Nikon D-60
 
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:53:18 -0600, timeOday <timeOday-UNSPAM@theknack.net>
wrote:

>rfdjr1@optonline.net wrote:
>> Five years ago, just before my Daughters wedding, I bought a Nikon D-100. I've
>> loved the camera. But now I'm looking at these new D-40 and D-60 models. Besides
>> the nearly double megapixels, how much more am I getting if I bought one of the
>> new ones? And would I be able to use the lenses from the D-100 on the newer
>> models? I spent $2,000 on the D-100 and a lens five years ago. It almost hurts
>> to see a camera with twice the resolution for one third the price. Thanks.
>>

>
>If I were you I would DEFINITELY compare images side-by-side before
>making that call (you can probably find standardized test images from
>both at dpreview.com). Twice the megapixels does not give you twice the
>resolution. If both cameras produced perfect pixels it would be sqrt(2)
>or about 40% better resolution, but even that's probably a high estimate
>since usually the more pixels the lower quality each pixel is.
>
>Is your D100 lacking in resolution? Are your images pixellated because
>you make big prints or crop heavily? If not I wouldn't be worried by a
>number.



Thanks. In fact, I do very little printing, just archiving all my pictures on
disks. The printing I do has yet to be bigger than 8 x 10. I'm not a
professional (obviously). Just an average guy who likes to take pictures but
likes good equipment for all my endeavors. So I treated myself to the Nikon for
my Daughters wedding. It's actually my third Nikon, the two previous being 35mm
cameras. I still have my 6006 which I haven't used since getting the SLR
digital. I guess I'm good with the D-100 then.


saycheez 06-13-2008 05:22 AM

Re: Nikon D-60
 
There is little to be gained going from 6 to 10 mps for most users who do
not print larger than 8.5 x 11.
Noise levels and dynamic range are not significantly better in the 10mp
sensor used in the newer cameras either.
I do not recall if the d100 shares the same viewing system as the D70, small
and dim. The viewfinder is vastly improved in the D80 (larger/brighter) and
can be an objective reason to upgrade. Unfortunately manual focusing remains
somewhat of a guess because of the type of viewing screen used.
The D40 and D60 are aimed at users who will mostly use auto/jpeg modes and
somewhat obscure manual options.
The D300 is a real upgrade, not for the megapixels, but for the lower noise
levels, especially at higher ISOs. This is a juicy lure but for most users a
mostly invisible benefit compared to the steep cost of a D300.
When Nikon comes out with a more reasonably priced dSLR with the D300 sensor
I may give it a look.
If you are a devotee of complex, in-camera jpeg options the newer Nikons
have infinite combinations. If you find jpegs useless and shoot raw those
options are a non-starter.
I have never shot a single jpeg with my Nikon dSLRs and have no clue if all
those in-camera processing options actually work.
The most compelling reason to upgrade, however, is undeniable: nothing beats
a new toy.
Whoever dies with the most toys wins.



David J Taylor 06-13-2008 05:34 AM

Re: Nikon D-60
 
rfdjr1@optonline.net wrote:
[]
> Thanks. In fact, I do very little printing, just archiving all my
> pictures on disks. The printing I do has yet to be bigger than 8 x
> 10. I'm not a professional (obviously). Just an average guy who likes
> to take pictures but likes good equipment for all my endeavors. So I
> treated myself to the Nikon for my Daughters wedding. It's actually
> my third Nikon, the two previous being 35mm cameras. I still have my
> 6006 which I haven't used since getting the SLR digital. I guess I'm
> good with the D-100 then.


Do remember to remove any batteries from now unused cameras.....

Cheers,
David



Paul Furman 06-15-2008 04:40 PM

Re: Nikon D-60
 
Alex Monro wrote:
> rfdjr1@optonline.net wrote:
>
>> Five years ago, just before my Daughters wedding, I bought a Nikon
>> D-100. I've loved the camera. But now I'm looking at these new D-40
>> and D-60 models. Besides the nearly double megapixels, how much more
>> am I getting if I bought one of the new ones? And would I be able to
>> use the lenses from the D-100 on the newer models? I spent $2,000 on
>> the D-100 and a lens five years ago. It almost hurts to see a camera
>> with twice the resolution for one third the price. Thanks.

>
> The bottom of the range Nikon models (D40, D40x and D60) don't have an
> autofocus motor in the body, so are only capable of autofocus with
> lenses having a focus motor built in (AF-S, AF-I). You should be able
> to manual focus though, with a focus confirmation indicator.


Anything less than a D80, D200, D300 will have a smaller dimmer
viewfinder. Bring your lens to a shop & try it on side by side to
compare, I think you will want to keep the D100. If you rely on AF, this
might not matter to you in which case a D40x or D60 have bigger LCD
screens, faster operation, more MP, less noise, etc. Anything less than
a D70 may disappoint in terms of the amount of menu diving and octopus
maneuvers needed to make manual adjustments. Again this may or may not
bother you and the smaller size might be more important.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.