Help for a Canon User

[gregf]

<p>I shoot primarily with Canon 1 and 5 series, but my father want to get a DSLR, either a Nikon D-40 or D-60 (and I won't pressure him into Canon, if he want's Nikon, then that's fine with me). I really had difficulty navigating Nikon's site's for the tech spec's, so I have some questions I hope you can answer.<br>

1) I assume both are APS-C sensor's<br>

2) Is there an ISO difference between the two?<br>

3) Does either perform noticable better at higher ISO's?<br>

4) How noticable is noise?<br>

5) What is the difference in AF beween the two?<br>

6) Any difference in metering between them?<br>

7) I imageine the kit lens isn't all that great, can you recommend a decent comsumer lens for me to get him (something in the range of 24-70mm)<br>

8) Are the processor's the same, or does the 60 have a newer generation processor?<br>

9) How decent is a 6.2MP for enlargements<br>

I pretty much assume that he will shoot in "Green Box Mode" (Canon term for auto eveything), but if he wanted to expand, does the D-60 offer more flexability.</p>

<p>Any other advice would be appreciated. Thanks</p>

[mark_gonda]

<p>Here you go. Give this a try...<br>

<cite>http://www.<strong>nikon</strong> usa.com/Assets/Common-Assets/PDF/<strong>DSLR</strong> _Compare.pdf</cite><br>

I don't own either one of these so I cannot answer some of your questions but I have owned D70, which is 6.1 MP sensor. For enlargements are fine up to 10x8 without any issues, assuming that you don't crop too much.<br>

Cheers!</p>

[eli_fox]

<p>1) Yes, both are cropped sensors. You'd have to get a D700 or D3/X to have a full-frame.<br />2) Is there an ISO difference between the two? D40's lowest setting is 200, D60's is 100. <br />3) Does either perform noticable better at higher ISO's? D40 performs slightly better.<br />4) How noticable is noise? Depends.<br />5) What is the difference in AF beween the two? Nothing. They have identical autofocus systems.<br />6) Any difference in metering between them? Nope. <br />7) I imageine the kit lens isn't all that great, can you recommend a decent comsumer lens for me to get him (something in the range of 24-70mm)? A 24-70 f/2.8 would set him back nearly $2,000 if that's what he wanted to spend. I would recommend the 18-200 though ;) It's a great walkaround lens and it seems like he wants a walkaround camera.<br />9) How decent is a 6.2MP for enlargements? Being a 1D/5D owner, I'd think you would understand what MP is good for what print size?</p>

[bmm]

<p>Caveat is that I don't own either of these but nevertheless I'll try to distill what people generally say for you:<br>

D60 is newer and ~10MP, D40 is older and ~6MP. D40 is however well regarded for its price in terms of noise control and image quality. Based on my own use of a D80 I would expect that for most uses both models would perform acceptably to ISO800 in terms of noise. Both are DX / APS-C format.<br>

Looking at specs it seems like D60 has the current EXSPEED processor whereas this is not specified for D40. Also I note D60 has Active D-Lighting (highlight/shadow control in camera) which may be of use. Other features have been tweaked but these seem to be the two main ones.<br>

Many here expect D40 to soon be removed from the current range. Some expect a replacement, others expect the D60 to remain the sole entry-level offering (and this makes more sense to me).<br>

The consumer zoom lens of choice in Nikon land seems to be the 16-85VR. This fits the range you want and goes a touch wider (obviously important on DX / APS-C format). The other very popular zoom which is a step up from kit lenses but still clearly consumer grade is the 18-200VR, but obviously that flexibility comes with some (though not overwhelming) compromises in terms of image quality. Given your post I'd head straight to the 16-85VR.<br>

Key factor is that neither model has an auto-focus screw drive in the body which means neither will be able to autofocus older lenses and primes (apart from the brand new AF-S 50/1.4). But with mainly consumer zooms mounted this should not be a major issue.<br>

Finally, SB400 is a very cheap, very compact external flash unit which allows more power and also bounce (in landscape mode only). Might be a very good thing to consider for a "green box mode" shooter as you put it - something to improve images quite a bit but still "in scale" with what a point-and-shooter might want to carry and use (i.e. it is much smaller than even the most modest of the full-spec pro flash units).</p>

[gregf]

<p>I guess I should have said the lens I was looking for would be something along the lines of 24-70 on FF! So I think I will get him the 16-85 (which would probably be about 24-110 on FF?). </p>

<p>I assume that on Nikon lenses, there are the crappy lenses, the good consumer lenses (around $500) and the pro lenses ($1500 and up). Well, he can deal with a variable aperture.</p>

<p>I find it interesting that the D40 only goes down to ISO200, but in my experience on the Canon bodies, the only difference betweem 100 and 400 is two f-Stops, there is no differnece in granularity like there is on slides.</p>

<p>I don't think he will be employing older primes (or even anyother modern lens), if he were to do so, then it would certainly be time to upgrade to the prosumer bodies. I think after reading the responses, I am leading towards suggesting the D60. If for no other reason 6MP seems pretty small (it's not like I beleive in the higher the MP the better, but camera's in the 10-15 range seem like they provide the best definition for the price, 6MP seems just so 2003ish).</p>

<p>One thing I look forward to is seeing his camera. Actually playing with it to see how different it is versus the Canon's. While I certainly won't make and judgements based on that (how can you compare pro-bodies by one company to entry-level by another), I do look forward to seeing how the other half lives.</p>

[bmm]

<p>Lens assumption generally correct except that there are some exceptions at the "low" end - eg 18-55 kit lens is quite well regarded for sharpness and the main drawback cited is its plastic lens mount which is regarded as being flimsy. 18-200VR is a controversial lens as it is hugely flexible - obviously - and quite good image quality considering, but there are certainly some distortion compromises - also some people note softness at the long end, but this is subject to debate probably reflective of sample variation. Have a look at some of the gallery pics of people who use this lens (see Matt Laur and Richard Armstrong for a start) and you'll see some amazing work done with it from which you can judge for yourself. I think it is Nikon's best selling current lens by some margin. I have it myself and it is wonderful as a travel lens especially when I don't want to switch between primes (eg on the beach, in dusty conditions, in the rain etc) But I don't think it is disputed that the 16-85 technically outperforms it in its more limited focal length range - and yes, that translates roughly to 24-110 in FF terms.<br>

Given the choice in front of you I'd go D60 but reality is you can't lose. Both cameras are pretty good within the limitations of their price-point / feature-envelope.</p>

[eli_fox]

<p>"One thing I look forward to is seeing his camera. Actually playing with it to see how different it is versus the Canon's. While I certainly won't make and judgements based on that (how can you compare pro-bodies by one company to entry-level by another), I do look forward to seeing how the other half lives."<br>

<br /><br>

From my experience when deciding between Nikon and Canon, the lower-end Nikon bodies are far better-built than their Canon counterparts. They don't necessarily produce better images (XSi stomps on D40 and D60 from what I've read), but after holding a Rebel the D40 and D60 feel like pieces of granite. The gap in build quality decreases as you move up in the ranges, but IMO the only Canons that truly equal their Nikon counterparts are the 1D/s vs. D3/X.</p>

[marek_stepien]

<p>Gregory,<br>

There is a only few difference between those two cameras.<br>

1. D60 has 10.2 M sensor and D40 has 6.1 M sensor<br />2. D60 takes 3 frames per second; and D40 2.5 frames per second.<br>

Other than that I do not remember other differences. <br />I have D40 and I like it. If I would choose again, I would choose D40.<br>

D40 with 18-55 lens costs now $409 at amazon.com - that is stealing. <br />D60 with 18-55 lens costs $516, that is not bad either.<br>

I would add Nikon 55-200 VR lens to it for about $150 (there are two versions of that <br />lens - with VR and without, I would definetely choose with VR, that means Vibration Reduction). <br />Both lenses 18-55 and 55-200 VR are pretty good. <br />Testers say that they are better than corresponding Canon lenses.</p>

 

[mike_bisom]

<p>Hhhhmmmm what can I add to what's been said. No ISO difference between the two but the Canon will be noticeably better at higher ISOs. Each of these Nikons use a CCD chip whereas the Canon uses a CMOS chip. No real AF or metering difference between the two HOWEVER, it does use a less expensive lens mount that many "older" Nikon lenses may not AF and/or meter with. I believe all the lenses mentioned are fine, but just make sure the lens YOU want works OK. That said, I do prefer Nikons consumer lenses over Canons consumer lenses. And you can't compare a Nikon D40/60 to a Canon 1 or 5 series by a long shot. The D40/60 is a very, very, consumerish DSLR. Now the D90- that uses a CMOS chip and will give the Canons a run for their money in terms of low noise. Along with a slew of other great features... but it's also almost twice as much.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>I'd go with the D60. You should be advised that the inexpensive 18-55 kit lens is sharp by any measure, sharper than far more expensive Nikkors, including the two others mentioned, and feather-light, but the range, which btw, is far greater than that which Cartier-Bresson used to become a legend, may not be enough for your dad's intended use(s). The feel _is_ plasticky, but it works perfectly well. It also uses smaller, less expensive filters than the other lenses mentioned. I would also consider the Tamron 17-50, even though it lacks VR.</p>

<p>The weights: 18-200 weighs 19.8 oz. The 16-85 weighs 17.1 oz. The Tamron 15.2 oz. The 18-55 VR weighs 9.3 oz. On a lightweight camera like a D40 or D60, a heavier lens turns the rig into a nose-heavy, down-pointing thing. YMMV. One could add a 50/1.8D (5.5 oz) to the kit lens, for less money than any other lens mentioned, less total weight, greater sharpness, and gain available light capability (which may/may not matter to your dad). Good Luck.</p>

<p> </p>