johninjapan2000

I second the motion for primes: the 85 f1.8 is great, for example.

As for zooms: I can't bring myself to buy, and keep, the modern amateur models, so I stick with my ancient 50-135 and 75-150.

I suspect the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 is nearly a perfect solution for this problem...but it's not Nikon and one probably has to inspect their copy carefully for IQ just to be on the safe side re QA.

john

Actually, I was attracted to the D80 as well. However, it has the annoying habit of giving bad exposures. Autofocus doesn't help much if the photo is wrongly exposed to begin with. And there was the problem with the first run of D80s having really bad noise, even worse than usual for the D80 series (See Thom Hogan's website). So, buying used is dangerous.

With regard to Shun's comment that no serious photographer should buy the D40/D60: are you kidding? With full manual control, an excellent 10MP sensor and state-of-the-art processing, there is great creative potential in this camera.

Technically, your comment, Shun, is defined as an "ad hominem" attack. Rather than producing evidence that the item in question is unsuitable (or argument untenable), you change the subject by attacking the personal characteristics (in this case, "seriousness") of the person choosing the item or making the argument. Sounds a bit snobby (there's an ad hominem for ya!). I expect better from this forum.

There is a reason why the aforementioned Thom Hogan leaves his D80 on the shelf and prefers his D40: No creative limitations, smaller weight, better exposures, equivalent sensor.

With regard to the possibility of early adopters being disappointed: remember, this is an updated D40 with technology derived from the D3/D300. The technology is proven (except the dust control, and other manufacturers have proven that). I see little chance for anything major going wrong.

Also, what seems to be happening is this: those photographers who have a bunch of old AF glass, but have gotten rid of or never owned even older fully manual glass, are championing the D80.

Those of us with either all-new AF-S glass or lots of manual lenses, seem to appreciate the D60 and its superior processor, better exposures and the promise of dust control. Not to mention, size and cost (the same reason John Shaw carried around FE-2s rather than F2s or whatever. Hey, maybe he wasn't "serious" hahahaha!)

In other words, everybody is defending what they already have rather than looking to the future.

I recommend that Victor look to the future.

Oh, and if it's snobbiness we are after, try this: "All autofocus shooters are merely point-and-shoot photographers". A good quote from circa 1987.

Hehehehehe.

john

Hi Tito: I completely agree with your positive attitude about the D50. I regretted selling mine but then it was too late.

I strongly considered getting a used D50 but two things are true:

1. I have never yet seen a used one on sale here in Japan. I think people love them too much. Nor are they common at KEH, for example.

2. I could get one on an online auction, but after paying shipping, I would be too close to the cost of a fully new camera like the D40 or D60, purchased locally.

So, I can live without the in-body autofocus for now (I honestly used to use my Nikkor 35-150 Zoom and other manual lenses alot on the D50) and I will appreciate the Active-D lighting and other features of the D60.

I have no experience with the EM cameras so I am happy to defer to you there.

The D50 really is a marvelous camera. It has had a longer lifetime than I expected, partly because of the D40's lack of autofocus. I wish I had kept mine. Live and learn.

john

I was going to buy a LN- D40x from KEH, but I discovered that the price difference between their used item (58,400 yen with shipping) and a new D60 with a full Nikon warranty (bought here in Japan) is only about 8,000 yen (70 bucks). In other words, 541 dollars versus 611 dollars (at 108 yen to the dollar).

For that kind of money, I'll take the longer warranty. And I am happy to have the following features as well, all absent on the D40 series and present on the D60:

1. Active D-lighting. Anything that enhances detail is good.

2. Digital rangefinder, to help me with my manual focus lenses.

3. Auto-shut-off for the LCD, to extend battery life. The great thing about digital, compared to film, is that you can shoot away without regard for piling up film cost. But...you must have the battery. So, this auto-shut-off blends well with that.

The other items (EXPEED, anti-dust, and stop-motion-movies) have a value which, shall we say, remains to be seen. But, I bet they help sell cameras.

john

By the way: Why are so many people saying "you can't use all the lenses"???

This is so opposite of the truth that...well, I won't say it.

The distinguishing characteristic of the D40 and D60 series is that they have the GREATEST lens compatibility of any Nikon DSLRs ever made.

Please don't confuse "autofocus" with "use". It is unfair to people who might not understand the true situation.

Autofocus is not essential for most photographic subjects at most times. Even high-speed sports have been successfully photographed with manual focus. I believe the item used was called, let me see, oh yeah, now I remember: SKILL.

Having said that, autofocus is lovely when you have it. They both are (autofocus AND skill).

john

I'm going to buy the D60 very soon. Here is why:

Background: I had a Minolta Maxxum 7000 autofocus in the late '80's. When I got back into photography in the late '90's, I decided to go with classic manual Nikons. I followed famous photographer John Shaw's advice and got an FE-2. Most of the lenses I bought were manual (only exceptions: 24mm, 50mm, and 85mm).

I also had an F90 (N90) and a D50 and loved them, but still often used manual focus lenses. I guess you could say I have been mostly a manual focus guy.

Now, my reasoning:

1. At first, I was put off by the single command dial and lack of top LCD on the D60. Then, I played with a D60 in the shop. Guess what? At the push of a well-placed button, the single command dial can be used for both shutter speed and aperture. Very quick, intuitive, easy. Also, the back LCD is sooo big and has such a wide viewing angle, that it effectively functions as both a back and a top LCD. I can see the info on the back LCD when the camera is nearly upright! Sounds strange, but it is true. I was pleasantly surprised that both of these, to me, important issues were addressed so well.

2. I am committed to carrying a camera everyday. I carried a Fuji F810 compact for years. It has been a great camera for me, but in side-by-side tests the Nikon D50 gave better image quality (no surprise, but it was not by as much of a wide margin as you might expect. There is reason why dpreview has given the Fuji F810 its highest recommendation: IQ. DSLRs often get the highest rating; compacts relatively rarely do). So, anyway, the camera needs to be SMALL and LIGHT and it needs to be usable with all of my lenses (autofocus being irrelevant at present). The D60 fits this description.

3. Cost. I need to be non-paranoid when I carry it around because I will literally have it with me everyday. At 66,000 yen ( or a bit more with a memory card inside) I can afford to lose it/break it and replace it if necessary. Yet, it still has the excellent "electronic film" inside.

4. Warranty. I want one. Used doesn't work so well here, the warranties being shorter. So, a used D80 (even if it wasn't beyond my weight limit) won't fill the bill.

It is true that it would be nice to have autofocus with the three above-mentioned lenses (especially the 85mm), but not at the cost of size and weight. The D50 was actually a bit too big and heavy.

I anticipate using the D60 with either a 24mm and 50mm kit, or with any single one of my lenses (the 24 and 50 being the only lenses small and light enough to carry together).

That's me. The soon-to-be proud owner of a digital FE-2. ;-)

And in the future, perhaps I will get a D300.

john

Further note: Has Nikon abandoned this angle-of-view space in the DX format? I have been looking at their lens line-up, and I see no zoom lens in either the DX or FX format which, when used on DX, translates into the decades old 80-200 range (or thereabouts).

Makes one wonder if Nikon is really committed to the DX format. Such a venerable and popular angle-of-view and they have nothing that matches it.

Jest thinkin'...

Just another quick note:

Based on everything I have seen and read: the 1.4 is simply optimized for shooting wide open, isolating subjects with a nicely blurred background.

The 1.8 is optimized for general shooting (which, emphatically, includes portraiture).

One lens is a specialist, the other a generalist. They both achieve greatness in their respective areas.

Which kind of shooter are you?

Answer that question and you know which lens you need.

j.

Keep your 1.4.

I am yet another person who has not shot with the 1.4. So my opinion is worth every penny you paid for it! But, this is my thinking:

Photodo rates the 1.8 a "4". This is very nearly the top score. A very few lenses received "4.2" or some such. The lenses which are considered "great" by other reviewers tend to get in the high 3's to low 4's. There are no scores higher than about 4.4 among the Nikons (and maybe only one of those). So, the 1.8 is good enough for sure. Right up there with other legendary lenses. Indeed, it is only the existence of the well-built 1.4 that prevents the 1.8 from being a legend in its own right.

The 1.4 is unrated at Photodo. But, one very respected reviewer loves it and rates it higher than the 1.8.

The point is: They are both at the "great" level. So, if you can easily afford the 1.4, keep it. But, if you simply can't afford to keep it and you need that focal length, then sell it and buy the 1.8.

I bought the 1.8 for size, weight, and especially, financial reasons. But, if I already had the 1.4, I would not sell it.

Selling camera bodies is often good, in my opinion. But, I hate to sell lenses. They simply keep their value to me longer. High quality optics should be kept, cherished, and used.

j.

Not too mention that, in this day and age of high ISO digital bodies, it simply isn't necessary for most shooters.

Also, wide open apertures tend to be of lower quality. So, even when available, they are used largely as a last resort or when isolating the subject is absolutely the first priority.

j.

Response to Gerald: I am not a professional photgrapher and I certainly respect your opinion with regard to back-ups, BUT:

With film cameras so cheap, I wonder if using a film camera as a back-up might not be suitable after all? Of course, if one already owns the film camera, even better.

I can imagine a scenario where a 80-200mm was attached to the film camera and, say, the Sigma 50-150 (which has gotten great reviews) was on the digital. Might be a good way to go.

As for the "load" of memory cards: I dunno, I'm not sure it is such a load, they are not so heavy and the extra film and cards could easily go in a small pack.

Just an idea. I defer to those who have greater practical experience.

j.

Ian, here is a short list of items which will cause digital to improve your photography:

1. High ISO performance.

2. Ease of stitching, which makes any competent DSLR a medium format

machine at the very least.

3. Money saved by not buying film (because you can use that money for

other things that will improve your photography-lighting, etc).

4. Instant feedback so you can see mistakes *as you make them* and

learn just that much faster.

I love film and film cameras but there is no contest, in my opinion.

My next photographic purchase will be the D300 (I have already owned a D50). It's as good as done.

j.

Why don't you check out Bjorn Rorslett's naturfotograf? He has lots of lens info? Depending on the exact version the 28mm is either great or terrible. I think he says the AF versions (with a 0.3meter close focus limit) are terrible. But you should check it out.

j.

I don't have much experience with the pro bodies, but come to think of it I did look through the viewfinder of a F6? F5? and it was a whole 'nother experience compared to my FE2 or F90 or D50.... Just glorious.

I don't recall the viewfinder of the D3, though I am sure I have looked through it at the shop.

j.

Interesting. Are you sure it is not just a viewfinder issue, (as that is the only thing you see through on a camera)? Or, do you mean when you get the slides/prints they match what you see with your eyes better than digital does? Or do you mean you wish you had a 14mm lens on your DX-format camera so you could get pics with a similar view to your 20mm lens on a full-frame?

I have not missed the "full-frame" yet and I don't really expect to do so. As a sometimes user of medium format, I do not consider any 35mm format to be full-frame. I think there is no full-frame, it is all arbitrary and depends on what you are used to (which is two ways to say the same thing).

I do miss the excitement of choosing film, however (though full-frame also exists in digital, it is beyond my finances). That was fun! I miss it, but I also recognize that loading was a hassle at times and I often missed shots because, guess what?!, the film ran out and needed reloading. Not too mention having to entrust my irreplaceable film canisters to some stranger.

I think it's cool, though, that you are still involved with film photography. I get the urge to buy film now and then and, someday, I may just give in to it and load up my FE2. ;-)

j.

Nikon's warranties are only regional?? This is unprofessional. A good reason to distrust Nikon. Any company that has so little faith in its products....

I have lots of Nikon lenses and have owned many bodies, but this is the first time I heard that their warranties are valueless outside the region of purchase.

Alexandre, enjoy your travels for now, don't obsess about it...and kick their butts when you get back home.

The salesperson should have made it explicitly clear that the warranty was worthless as soon as you crossed a border. It was no more your duty to check on this than it is the duty of a car purchaser to check every component of a car to make sure it won't blow up when he drives it around the block. You got screwed.

Nikon calls itself an international company that caters to globe-trotting professionals. This clearly implies international support for products.

And let's not have any Nikon shills arguing with me. Some things are just wrong.

Best of luck Alexandre.

The idea that Nikon eliminated the in-camera autofocus to cut costs is not correct. It sounds like good logic (like WMD, I guess haha!) and, happily for Nikon, it implies "cost to the consumer" but the evidence proves otherwise.

The cost of the Nikon D50 when it came out? 400 dollars. I know because I bought one. New and from my local shop. The cost of the D40 (also with 6MP)? Yes, exactly.

Point proved. Case closed. Enjoy your new D40/D40x, but know this: Nikon stripped it for marketing and profitability reasons, not cost-to-the-consumer reasons. Any idea to the contrary is pure urban mythology. No yellow-cake here folks.

john in japan

Jeffrey: My mistake and my apologies! I was interpreting the "75" as meaning 75mm. Oops! That is a 6-inch refractor! For 1100 bucks! Wow! Now, you are going to see a good bit of color, unless I miss my guess. But, if you are going for "Deep Sky" objects, that large aperture will help you.

Having said that: if you ARE going for the faint stars and nebula, a Dobsonian or other reflector would be more appropriate. Refractors are really best for the Moon and planets, in my opinion. These are relatively bright objects which don't require great light-gathering power but which really appreciate fine, unobstructed optics (ie, an APOchromatic refractor).

Anyway...you are gonna have fun no matter what you do. :-)

John

Hi again, Jeffrey,

The LXD75 looks like a good achromatic scope. Be advised you will probably see some color with a scope like this. You might also want to note that my Tak, without mount, cost about the same, was 1mm larger, and was an Apochromat (so, no color aberrations. Or any other aberrations, for that matter). This cost about 1100 dollars and included the projection-eyepiece holder (a heavy, finely machined accessory) for taking photographs at full eyepiece power.

I was lazy, but you can find a good, used mount for a reasonable price (above, I was talking about an expensive, new Tak mount).

I guess I am saying this: you won't go "wrong" with a Meade. They are solid. But, there are reputed to be a fair number of Taks on the used market (so, even cheaper than mine, which was new) which will perform to a higher standard. Heck, there is one on ebay right now (they rarely make it to the 'bay; I think they sell used through more specialty channels, clubs, etc).

Anyway, best of luck. I am hankering for the Sky 90 Takahashi. Right now they are selling the OTA for 1,995. Hmmmm. Resale value will be no less than 80% of that, I'm sure. Hmmmm. Will last a lifetime. Hmmmm. Already talked to the wife about it. Hmmmm. :-)

John

Frank: I was speaking of a normal collision, not dropping. I wouldn't care to bet on survival with either hood type if I dropped the lens. Fortunately, in 20 years of on-again-off-again photography, I haven't dropped any equipment yet. <knock on wood>

I do agree with your point, however.

I don't quite fully agree with the point about the f/1.8 not needing a hood. For purposes of screening out light (afterall, this is the main purpose of the hood!), I certainly do agree. However, here in crowded Japan, I really like to have the rubber hood on to act as a bumper, regardless of light. It has helped, now and then. People pop up around me unexpectedly all the time. Need to grow an eye in the back of me head.

Best of luck,

John

I use the rubber ones as John Shaw has suggested (I think it was him). This is because the rubber acts like a 'bumper'; a metal hood will directly transfer all of the force of a collision into the lens while the rubber will absorb it.

Some people, however, claim that the rubber hoods obstruct the AF-assist light. You can easily try this yourself and see with the particular lenses you are planning to use. I have had no problem.

So: one vote for rubber! :-)

John

Lex: No, not at all. I thought you were quite nice about it, considering that there I was with major egg on my face. :-) I finally let Ken get my goat (unintentionally on his part, I'm sure) and what happened? I was totally off base. Just goes to show: it's best to be diplomatic 'cause we might just be WRONG. :-)

So, everyone: Ken has pics and a generally very well done review. Make sure you check out his "index", etc.