james_kellar2 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I was looking through the forums and found very few posts on the Nikon D60. I own 2 of these cameras and a D300 and can see no noticable differance in the pictures. The only big differance is in the ISO and noise reduction and focus points. The D300 is better at high ISO settings but for most of my shooting the Nikon D60 does very well. I am a professional wedding photographer the shoots in portrait journalistic style. Does anyone else have simular experiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 <i>The only big differance is in the ISO and noise reduction and focus points.</i> <br><br> Well... for a lot of people, that would be a total show-stopper, right there. That and the fact that you can sustain a much higher frame rate with the D300, and can use AF lenses that don't have built-in motors (which the D60 cannot). And of course, the D60 can't control Nikon's CLS-enabled remote strobes. Oh, and 14-bit, rather than 12-bit RAW files. <br><br> Doesn't matter, of course. If you can't tell the difference, and aren't worried about the physical differences in handling, weather sealing, etc... then you might as well save a ton of money on the body, and buy more/better lenses. For me - even if everything else in terms of features and performance were the same - the D60 is just much too small for me to like using it with larger lenses. The balance is awkward... and things like handling and ergonomics play (for me, anyway) a very big role in the quality of the images I'm able to produce. How lucky for us that we have so many choices, though! <br><Br> If you can reliably bring home the bacon using D60's, then you're way ahead of the game, money-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward chen Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I agree with Matt Laur totally. In normal condition, enough light, still objects, D60 can perform as well as high end camera D3. The only thing I consider to buy D60 is its relatively small and lightweight size. Though I like it rugged, heavy and big like D300+MB D10, sometimes I prefer compactness for casual shooting ie: family vacation, formal dinner, banquet, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene11664880918 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 "I am a professional wedding photographer" I'm sorry! I don't want to offend you but for a professional not being able to find anymore differences noise reduction at high ISO and better focus between these 2 cameras I find it laughable. I wouldn't hire you! By any chance do you shoot RAW? Again, sorry but all the differences are so obvious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 But Rene, wouldn't your statement be reinforcing the notion that only "good" cameras can make "good" pictures, independent of the photographer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene11664880918 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Michael... Nope! I know a D60 can take great pictures. My statement is about a professional photographer not being able to see differences between a high end camera and an entry level camera. If this was an amateur or a first time digital user it would be understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Rene, your comments do not address the specific question. Knowing nothing about about the OP other than his posting history, which indicates experience with wedding photography, I'm inclined to take things at face value and address the specific question rather than speculative digressions. Agreed? Let's stick to the actual question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartMoxham Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 The differences between the image quality of DSLRs is not really night and day any more. The D60 used the expeed processor so maybe the noise is better controled than say a D80 or D200. The AF on the D300 would come into its when when focus tracking and shooting fast moving subjects but you might not notice doing social photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 The D60 is capable of producing excellent images at lower ISOs. So I'm not surprised that you see little difference in image quality compared to the D300 except when lighting is dim. Ignore folks that criticize because you are using "non-pro grade' cameras as backups. What you are doing is reasonable, particularly since you probably use flash except, perhaps, when shooting the ceremony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 "I'm sorry! I don't want to offend you but . . " Why do people think that it's fine to be offensive after stating they don't want to offend? Come on, Rene'. THE D60 IS A BACKUP CAMERA. Yes, it only has one cross-type AF point. But so did my D200. No, you can't blast 8 fps with it. But who shots high frame rates at weddings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 "can see no noticable differance in the pictures." The OP is talking about image quality, not features. When it comes to image quality, James is absolutely correct (in good lighting or with flash). In fact, I have tested numerous cameras and brands (Nikon, Canon, Sony, DSLR and P&S) I have owned (or borrowed) over the years and find no differences in image quality at base or very close to base ISO. Similar to James, I am currently using 2 D40s as backup cameras to my main body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_hickie1 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 FWIW, I use a D50 as backup to a D300. Its high ISO capability is better than the D80 & D200, but does not have most of those features Matt identified the D300 as having (although it will AF with non AFS lenses & the matrix metering is more accurate than the D40 / D60). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene11664880918 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Uhmm.... A direct answer... When shooting in optimal conditions or under control environment the IQ of a D60 and D300 most probably be equal but when the shooting gets tougher I'm sure the D300 would shine. Sometimes just by having all the controls in front of me it helps to get a better picture. I am not a born photographer, I don't have the art in me. I just like the action of taking pictures and to play with electromechanical toys. Coz I know it, I always look for advice. Being weak minded I'm VERY INFLUENCED by the opinion of professionals. I'm not ashamed to admit it and don't think I am the only one either. If I was about to make a jump from a D60 to a D300 this question would had throw me off. Maybe that's why I didn't appreciate it. Sorry for being offensive and honestly I'm not trying to offend but I know the results of speaking openly and saying what I think. I apologize. Rene' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_c12 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Great results can come from a P&S. Cruddy results can come from a D3. It's the skill of the eye and brain behind the tool that makes a photograph. I seriously doubt there are many folks that could tell the difference in a print between a D40 and D3 if the person behind the eyepiece knows his/her stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_kellar2 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Share Posted October 11, 2008 First off I know there are many more differances between the two cameras. For weddings I only use the D60 because of the compact size and it takes great pictures. I never had any lighting issues inside or outside during weddings. If I was shooting outdoor sporting events whre I needed faster response and higher ISO without noise the D300 beats the D60 hands down. As for a professional not being able to use a D60 for primary wedding use, get a life. I have done 23 weddings with the D60 and all my clients are happy with the work I have done. The weddings I have done with the D300 are the same quality as my recent D60 weddings. Most of the time I use the D60 over the D300 even for portraits unless it is a highend client and I bring out the D300 for show mostly. When I shoot sports events or any event where lighting may be an issue I will only use the D300. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_kellar2 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Share Posted October 11, 2008 Rene' Villela , Oct 11, 2008; 01:33 a.m. "I am a professional wedding photographer" "I'm sorry! I don't want to offend you but for a professional not being able to find anymore differences noise reduction at high ISO and better focus between these 2 cameras I find it laughable. I wouldn't hire you! By any chance do you shoot RAW? Again, sorry but all the differences are so obvious!" I never shoot RAW only large format jpeg. See the above post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 <i>I seriously doubt there are many folks that could tell the difference in a print between a D40 and D3 if the person behind the eyepiece knows his/her stuff.</i> <br><br> Normally I grit my teeth when I see comments like that, and don't say anything. But about once out of a hundred time, I have to chime in: <br><Br> You'll definitely see the difference if the shot you need happened in between the frames (per second) that the D40 can achieve. You'll definitely see the difference if the camera was unable to track focus on a lower-contrast subject in awkward light. You'll definitely see the difference if the D40 has failed because you had to use the camera in a light drizzle, and its lack of weather sealing has killed the camera. You'll definitely see the difference if you had to shoot at f/2.8 in a dark church at ISO1600. <br><br> The difference in results will be plainly obvious when <i>anyone</i> looking at the image is looking at one that was shot under challenging circumstances. And one of the reasons you hire a professional is because they know what to do in, and are equipped to deal with challenging circumstances. <br><br> The best tools available can indeed be part of a crappy image. But the best photographer in the world can't change the noise specs, or speed, or focusing sensitivity, or ruggedness of a camera meant for consumer use. The first and most important "feature" of a camera is that it actually <i>works</i> when it's most important that it works. Lightweight consumer-grade bodies simply can't take the knocking around and grinding use that a beefier body can take. <br><br> Another key distinction between the two grades of bodies is the externality of the camera controls. Shooting in a dynamic situation (say, a wedding party that's moving between an indoor and outdoor reception area, etc) means making quick changes to how the camera is behaving. Consumer-grade cameras bury some of that in menus, while higher end bodies bring everything that matters out to distinct physical controls. Again: the shot you miss while you're thumbing your way through menu options on the LCD display is definitely inferior to the shot you get because you don't have to do that. <br><br> The question isn't whether any of that is true. The question is whether or not one's high-stakes shooting is taking place at a measured pace, in fair weather, in good light, under circumstances that allow you to be very gentle with the equipment. The more of those things that are <i>not</i> true, the more that people looking at your images (or the lack of them) certainly <i>will</i> see the differences in the equipment used. <br><Br> Don't mean to rant. But almost all of the questions we see here about blurred, dark, noisy, problematic images DO come down to the equipment running into the boundaries of its useful working range. And those questions aren't about photographing jungle caves full of fruit bats under a full moon - they're about volleyball games and social photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_kellar2 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Share Posted October 11, 2008 Matt youare right about the differances. I have never shot any wedding in the rain or in a dark church. Every wedding I have ever shot was well lit and in good weather conditions. The receptions were also fairly well lit except for some outdoor settings but thats why I have a D300 to cover those times. The few times the church dimmed the lights the B&G were still well lit and the photos always come out well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterq Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Quite frequently there's a statement about the differences between a pro and an amateur photographer. Now, IMO a pro is someone who earns his/her living with photographs, an amateur is doing that for his/her joy only. Competences, performance, technical know how, etc. are different criteria. The OP says that he doesn't see much difference in the results between pics made with D60 and a more expensive one. The conditions he meets are no qualification of the cam, but I find his approach just smart: why get the more expensive gear if the results aren't that much different? Even pro's need to spend their money efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddes Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Personally I have gone from a D80 to a D300. Is there a difference in IQ. Maybe. But I cannot say for sure. I am certain that 90% of my d300 pictures could have been made with my D80 with the same result. But, and a very important but, many of them would not have been made. The D300 has brought me features that, for what I do, facilitate "getting the shot". I like low light informal portraits. With a 50 f1,4 and 1600 ISO, it works. I the studio, the live view allows me camera positions that before were a pain, literally back pain. Finally what sold me on my purchase for me was the facility in adjusting the controls on the camera (less time somewhere in a menu). These are all thing that are specific to ME and what I like to shoot. For someone else, another camera would be better. For example, I could not care less about rapid fire. I will admit a like the heft of a D300. It helps me be more stable. Then, I could get a job as a bouncer. I have petite photographer friends who are better then me and they like light cameras. Get what you need, to do what you need to do. Fit for you is the most important point Edmond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_thomas9 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I rely mostly on my flash so I don't consider high iso as a major factor. I'm a D40X owner and I mainly shoot portraiture. Though I'm very satisfied with the results, I do wish sometimes the D40/D40X/D60 has more focus points just like the D300's 51 focus points. Focusing on the eyes with certain angles just don't cut it with the 3 focus points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_mareno Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I would go further than that James. I have an old Olympus digital P&S camera, a better (but still older) Fuji E550 P&S, and the image files from the D70 and D50 cameras I used to own. The Fuji P&S does shoot RAW, for whatever that's worth. I shoot film now, but when I was using the Nikon DSLR's I saw right away that assuming it wasn't a high ISO shot ALL my digital cameras took essentially the same pics. If I were to show you pictures of the little P&S's along w/ the Nikon DSLR's there is no way you would know which came from which unless the DSLR had been shot wide open w/ a fast lens, something the P&S's can't do . It seems a digital sensor is a digital sensor is a digital sensor. No matter what the nuances or processing software might be, it's still a digital image. Which is one of the reasons why, ahem, I went back to film for my gallery work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 <i> It seems a digital sensor is a digital sensor is a digital sensor.</i> <br><br> Well, if the last time you checked on that premise it involved a D70 rather than one of the newer flavors, I can see why you might think that. But it's most certainly not the case. Regardless, you're sort of un-making your own point with the "assuming it wasn't a high ISO shot" part. Because, just like with film, that's where the boundaries are. And those boundaries have moved since your last test. A lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_c12 Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Matt - I'm not at all criticizing those who use high-end gear. I think everyone here knows the advantages in terms of ruggedness, fast AF, ISO, controls, etc., etc.. If I earned my sole living from taking photos, I'd own the high-end gear. My point is that the IQ, in the OP's circumstance, is likely not to be different in a substantive way...maybe not at all....and that's in fact what he reports. The new technology is fantastic and I marvel over how far we've come and where we'll go in the future. However, I have to sometimes wonder about the dependencies that this generation of photographers has....fast AF, high ISO sensors, a million focus points, 16 thumbwheels, etc. What would they have done just 20 years ago with MF equipment and a roll of film with fixed ISO? Just given up? Things certainly have changed....it seems the camera itself has become the most important facet and self-worth of the photographer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshloeser Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Just speaking for myself, I think film cameras are terrific. I briefly had an F3 and really liked it. Unfortunately, film processing was prohibitively expensive, and I don't think the image quality was worth it for me. I count myself as fortunate to be old enough to remember a time when digital cameras didn't really exist in the mainstream market yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now