D40X or D60

[ali.r]

<p>Hello guys , I am a macro photographer & i have a panasonic FZ7 , i am upgrading it with a DSLR camera. I really love nikon DSLR'S beacouse i think that it is great choise for macro photography. However i want get one of nikon DSLR's with about 600$ ! Now i want that you help me for choice bitween D40X or D60.<br>

Tanx a lot & best wishes for you</p>

<p>***Ali***</p>

 

[bms]

<p>D60, IMHO, it is still in production and I have used it. But most important, you'll also need a Macro lens, so maybe you want to get a used D40 or D40x and bu a good Macro lens (Nikkor 60 or 105 Micro come to mind, maybe Tamron 90, Sigma 105.) Don't skimp on the lens. Or get a used Nikon 55 Micro, but you won't be able to meter. The P&S you had has a 5 cm minimum focusing distance... that will not be the case with the standard D60 kit lens.</p>

[keith_durnford]

<p>To be honest if you are really into macro then the body is neither here nor there, either one will be ok. Its the lenses that you want to be looking at spending the money on. If its insects and bugs that you like to photograph then you will want something 100mm +, anywhere up to 200mm to give you a better working distance from your subject, and so less chance to disturb it. Add to this a set of tubes or a TC and you are good to go. My personal use is a Sigma 150 mm 2.8 and a Sigma 1.4 TC giving me a focal length of 210mm, just about right for bugs.<br>

Also consider lighting, as this is just as important as the camera and lens.</p>

[maurycy]

<p>With D60 you are limited to AF-S lenses (the ones with built in motor). So you will not be able to use AF with older lenses. Not sure about D40. D60 will also give you more megapixels if you crop or print bigger posters.</p>

<p>I have D60 and I like it. Simple and small camera. It doesn't have live view so the only way to compose picture is to look thru viewfinder. With some macro shots, I would think preview on LCD screen would be beneficial.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>I've always thought that the D60 was just a renamed D40X with one or two minor negligible features that weren't there in the 40X.</p>

[james_pearson1]

<p>I have a D60, and I like it a lot. Both the D60 and D40X are limited to af-s lenses, if you want the auto focus capability. Some also say that with macro photography, there are situations where only manual focus will work, so maybe an older lens would be ok. I would recommend having a setup that will work with auto focus, so that you aren't limiting what you can shoot with that lens. The best thing for you to do is find a macro lens that will auto focus with the D60 or D40X (nikon af-s, sigma HSM, or Tamron built in motor), then add the price of the lens with the price of the camera. Next, look at using a somewhat cheaper and older non-af-s lens combined with a D90 or D80. These two cameras will auto focus with the older lenses and the new ones as well. See what the best price is. I would recommend getting the D80 or D90 and a good af or af-s lens. These cameras have more features and you will be happy not to be limited with lenses in the future. Good luck,<br>

James</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Nish is correct. It takes a while to figure out what the actual difference is between the D40X and the D60. The D60 should have been called D40Xs. Here are the actual minor changes.</p>

<p>http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Nikon-D60-Digital-SLR.shtml</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>The D40x's only real advantage over the D60 is its potentially low price. But it might not even be available anymore. Assume the price point is the same, the D60 is the obvious choice, but it has everything the D40X has and more. The D80 (very cheap brand new, as of now) and the D90 (newer technologies) are good alternatives, and so is the D40: an excellent choice in its own right. The obvious advantage of the D40 would be its good price-performance ratio. It can help you save up for a few nice lenses. The $470 AF-S 60mm micro f/2.8 on a D40 would make an excellent combo.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>with a $600 budget, it will be hard to get both a DSLR and a good macro lens. i'd get a d40 over both a d40x and a d60 (which are practically indetical cameras btw) since that money would be better spent on good glass or a tipod, cable release, flash, etc. a d80 would probably be a better choice if you want to have some AF capability with non AF-S macro lenses, but if you can't afford a dedicated macro lens like the tamron 90 or nikkor 60 you can get decent close-up performance from a cheapo 18-55 and some extension tubes. you might also want to look at the sigma 17-70, which has 1:23 magnification (slightly better than the 18-55) as well as HSM (sigma's version of AF-S).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you have $600 for only the body, you can buy a new D80 for around $540. The D80 will give you a much better viewfinder than either the D40x or D60 for critical focusing and the D80 can also AF with non-AF-S type AF lenses.</p>

[jay_moynihan]

<p>The main differences are:<br>

The D60 adds an anti-dust system, and has a processor (EXPEED or whatever it is called) one generation newer, than the D40x.</p>

<p> </p>

[eli_fox]

<p>If that $600 has to stretch over the body + lens, I would consider a D50. If it's just for the body get a D40. You won't see much of a difference between the D40 and D40X/D60 unless you're making posters. The D40 gives you excellent high ISO performance for the price and while it isn't the most feature-rich camera, it delivers on the most important thing that a camera can--image quality.</p>

[larry_kincaid2]

<p>Check out B&H. Seems like I just saw refurbished D40s in the $400s. </p>

[gerry b.]

<p>Just got a refurbished D40x from Adorama for $275.00: could not resist that price for a 10MP DSLR. I do not know if they are still available.</p>

[mike_reed2]

<p>Newegg has a refurbished D40X for $309, I bought one, and i'm real happy with it.</p>

[ali.r]

<p>Mike i am living in IRAN & in this place D40X is about 450$ & D60 is about 550$. Now with this costs i choice D40X ?</p>

[ali.r]

<p>One other question : I have a panasonic fz7 & is realy good camera for macro with diopter. I hear that SLR-LIKE cameras give an excellent DOF & light in same case with DSLR'S ! You prefer that i give a SLR-LIKE (like P90 or olympus sp590 or fuji s100 & ...) or Compact (like G10 or p6000 & ...) in return a DSLR ?!</p>

[andylynn]

<p>These "SLR-like" (instead I would say "large point & shoot") cameras used to be popular before DSLRs came down in price. Amazon is listing the P90 at $399 and the D40 with kit lens at $409. (The D60 kit is $524.)</p>

<p>Look at the lenses on these, for example the P90: 24x Zoom-NIKKOR; 4.6-110.4mm (35mm [135] format picture angle: 26-624mm) Do the math - the lens multiplier is 5.65, so the sensor is 6.37mm*4.24mm, which is 27mm^2. A D40's DX sensor is 432mm^2 - 16x as much sensor. Getting 12MP into 27mm^2 means making a lot of compromises. This, and being able to use F-mount lenses, are the reason a DSLR (even a low end one) beats a large P&S - I can't see spending the same money on a camera with a tiny sensor and no interchangeable lenses, even if the zoom range is really impressive.</p>

[munim]

Go for the D60. The D40X is no longer in production.

 

Ali,

 

"Excellent DOF" is not good for many types of creative photography. In many cases, you want to viewer to focus on one object in the picture. The shallow DOF is what makes Nikon D40 better than any Olympus DSLR or Canon G10, for example.

 

Andrew,

 

P90 at $399, D40 at $409. Hmm, it depends on what you want, really. If I didn't have my D90, I'll take both. D40 for

creative photos, wide angle and low light shots; P90 for long range shots and video. Much cheaper and convenient using

the P90 for bird photos compared to a cheaper tele such as Sigma 150-500.

 

For long range shots, I plan to sell my Canon S5 and get the P90.