D40 or D60? And Can I use old Tamron 135 lenses?

<p>I'm looking to get a new camera, but I'm unsure whether it is worth spending more on the D60 or go with the cheaper D40. People say that the 6MP is as good as 10, but I'm not convinced. If you're shooting raw, what are the difference? I also have a Pentax SLR and some Tamron lenses, can I uses those on either camera (If I got the D40, I could spend the money I saved on a light metre)?<br>

I currenently have a Fuji Finepis S9600, which seems like a good camera, but does rubish JPEGs and grainy RAW. The xD cards are also 1/5 of the speed of the Nikon's SDs.<br>

Should I keep saving and get a camera that's a lot better than my current one, or invest now?</p>

<p>Thanks for your help!</p>

<p>even if your own tamron lenses were nikon f-mount, they wouldnt AF with either a d40 or d60. RAW vs. JPEG has nothing to do with megapixels, it s about having wider latitude in post-processing.</p>

<p>sounds like you're ready for a new camera; what about a d80, which will AF with more lenses than a d40/d60?</p>

<p>I have D60 and I like it. Before that I was using 6 megapixels camera from another brand and while it was a great camera, I really liked the megapixels upgrade when switched to 10mp one. For casual snapshots 6mp is more than enough but when I did some portrait work, I wanted to have more flexibility cropping.</p>

<p>There's a lot to be said for a D40. It's light and cheap and does better in low light than 10-12MP CCD DX cameras. But it doesn't use Pentax lenses, Nikon lenses that are not AF-S don't autofocus on it, and its kit lens isn't VR like the D60's, which is important. It does seem like Nikon is serious about filling the holes in the AF-S lens lineup but it's still a problem.</p>

<p>Go to a store and try the cameras - if you're happy with a D40/D60 and the lenses you can get for it there's no really, really good reason to get a more expensive camera. Since you wouldn't be able to use your Pentax lenses anyway you might as well also look at the Canon lower end offerings.</p>

<p>Mark Gannon Feb 9, 2009<br>

Why not spend a little more and purshase a D90. I just purchased it and really like the features it offers. Plus the new sensor in it is just like what the D300 has in it at a fraction of the cost. I use the 18-70 and 50mm shooting sports photo`s. They both do a great job for the buck. I do have a 80-200 2.8 for my inside and outside sport shots.<br>

Good Luck!</p>

<p>The D40 should have better high ISO performance. The D60 will have a larger file. Neither will have auto focus with AF or AF-D lenses as they lack a focus motor in the body. The D80 if you can find one has a larger file and focus motor as well as a nicer viewfinder but I did not care for the high ISO performace of this sensor. The D90 is more but has all of these features and more if it makes a difference to you then it is the way to go. You will probably have to or should invest in new lenses for any of these Nikon bodies. I would go to a camera store to get a better feel for the differences. That is how I made my choices.</p>

<p>>> "People say that the 6MP is as good as 10, but I'm not convinced. If you're shooting raw, what are the difference?"</p>

<p>More pixels doesn't make a better camera or image. It simply means that your image is larger. In real world situations, the difference brought by more pixels would allow you to print the images larger (physically); while image quality, and especially noise could degrade or "suffer" to an extent to the inherent problems with small pixel size and high pixel density.</p>

<p>With that said, I must say that the D40 is a really nice camera. It's a good value too (for a while during November and December 2008, the D40 kit was going for $410 at B&H). The only nice-to-have feature the D60 has that the D40 lack would be anti-dust. A meaningful upgrade from the D40 would be the D90, or a heavily discounted D80.</p>

<p>"Nikon lenses that are not AF-S don't autofocus on it"<br /> <br /><br /> Andrew, maybe you already knew but this is also true of the D60.</p>

<p>If you don't see yourself using non-AF-S lenses, or you don't mind focusing manually, go for it. The D40 and D60 are true values right now with their prices continuing to plummet. On the other hand, if you CAN keep saving, I say wait until you can afford a D90. It would be worth the time. With a D40/60, you would be itching to upgrade because there are clear holes in their feature sets. The D90 has none of their faults, and none of the D80's for that matter.</p>

<p>Don't forget that you can mount almost every old (and often cheap) Nikkor lens ever made on your d40/x/d60, if you don't mind manual focus and guesstimating your metering. There's a pretty large community of folks who use the 'baby' Nikons this way.<br /> As for megapixels, it depends on what you want to do with the pictures, I would say. I print 16x20 all the time from my d40 (heresy!) and they look fine - because they're on the walls of my apartment and nobody who comes here gets close enough to tell how bad they look :)<br /> You could also get one of the Pentax DSLRS and use the lenses you currently have.</p>

<p>I have the d60 and i am happy with it.i knew from the very beginning what were the good parts and the bad parts.so it doesn't have af,so what ? at first no camera has af and pictures were great.i don't remember ansel adams using any af on his cameras....really,if you don't do this for a living then d60 will suit your needs just fine;or save a little more and buy d80 or d90.with the right amount of light and a clean lens you can get pretty good images.before you buy anything decide what you want from a camera and see if you'll be satisfied what what d60,d80 or d90 has, then buy it.good luck!</p>

<p>I find myself saying this a lot but consider a used D70. They can be had for roughly $250 used right now, have two control dials, autofocus on non-AF-S lenses and just have a much sturdier feel to them. The one bad thing is the smallish screen size, but only you can really decide if that's important. I agree that you should go check them out in stores.<br>

Another thing I'd like to mention, people bring up the non AF-S issue a lot, but for someone getting their first DSLR I think it becomes less and less of an issue. Like most people starting out you're going to pick up 2, maybe 3 lenses that will likely consist of a prime lens such as the 50mm f/1.8, one of nikon's 18-X zoom lenses, and maybe a third lens with a longer zoom. Now the 50mm isn't AF-S so it won't autofocus on the D40/x or D60, but nikon is about to release a 35mm f/1.8 that is AF-S and will. For someone starting out I think that this will likely become the must have prime, and it largely eliminates the general "must have an internal drive motor" sentiment. <br>

Again, go to the store and see what feels right to you and fits into your budget, and consider buying used.</p>