Were the D40x and D60 downgraded versions of the D40?

miurasv

miurasv

Messages
339
Name
Steve.
Edit My Images
Yes
Ken Rockwell says on his website that the D40x (10.2mp) and D60 (10.2mp) are downgraded and more expensive versions of the D40 (6mp). Is there any truth in this and if so what's downgraded about them or what's higher spec about the lower mp D40 over the D40x and D60? Thanks in advance.
 
:thinking:

No, he's talking ballhooks. The only benefit that the D40 has over the 40x and 60 is that it has a hybrid shutter that allows it to have a 1/500 flash sync speed, other than that :shake:
 
Nikon would tell you the D40X and the D60 were superior to the D40. Rockwell raves about the D40 such that it is the camera for anyone but professionals.
 
Please PLEASE ignore everything that K. R*ckwell says. He is well known as a self opinionated money making machine. Don't even mention his name because Google will pick it up and promote his site even more. He is despised on many forums (most notably photo.net).
 
You've gone reading the net after making a purchase again haven't you! :bonk:

The order would go something like this; D40, D40x, d60.

All are good camera's though. Don't worry about it.
 
TheOracle said:
Please PLEASE ignore everything that K. R*ckwell says. He is well known as a self opinionated money making machine. Don't even mention his name because Google will pick it up and promote his site even more. He is despised on many forums (most notably photo.net).
Click to expand...

That's fair enough however I think you'd find it hard to argue his guides (particularly Nikon Remote flash setup) are rubbish, they're actually very good. I take his reviews with a lorry load of salt though...
 
sdb123 said:
You've gone reading the net after making a purchase again haven't you! :bonk:

The order would go something like this; D40, D40x, d60.

All are good camera's though. Don't worry about it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your replies. SDB123, do you mean the D40 is first in order or last?
 
miurasv said:
Ken Rockwell says on his website that the D40x (10.2mp) and D60 (10.2mp) are downgraded and more expensive versions of the D40 (6mp). Is there any truth in this and if so what's downgraded about them or what's higher spec about the lower mp D40 over the D40x and D60? Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
If you want to know what KR was getting at, why not just read his site? Here's what he says:
The Nikon D60 is a replacement for the almost identical D40x.

Personally I prefer Nikon's least expensive D40 over the D60 or D40x. The D60, D40x and D40 are actually exactly the same cameras, differering only slightly in their internal electronics, but differing greatly in their prices.

The D60 is actually a D40 body with a few more card-clogging pixels, a VR lens and adaptive dynamic range, but a slower maximum shutter speed with flash.

The D60 is less sensitive to light then the D40 (its default ISO is only ISO 100 compared to the D40's default ISO of 200). Its less sensitive to light because the pixels have to be made smaller to cram more of them into the same-sized sensor. Smaller pixels collect fewer photons than larger pixels. Since the D60 is half as light sensitive, the D60 has to use twice as long a shutter speed or a larger aperture, which makes it more likely to make a blurry picture than the D40. OOPS!

Save your money and get the D40 instead. The D40's faster sync speed is invaluable for use with flash outdoors, and the extra light sensitivity in normal use will help make sharper pictures. These three cameras (D40, D40x, D60) otherwise, for most users, are identical. Compare them in person and you'll see. Megapixels don't matter.
Click to expand...
The D40x was announced March 5, 2007 and discontinued in January 2008. It is replaced in 2008 by the almost identical D60.

Save your money and get the D40, which I find to be superior, even for hundreds of dollars less, because the D40 has faster sync speed and double the light sensitivity in normal use (ISO 200 base vs. ISO 100 base.)

It's the same as the D40 with a few more pixels (the sensor comes from the D80), a slightly faster frame rate, a much slower maximum flash shutter speed (sync) and a whopping 33% price increase.

It's great: the same as my D40. I love my D40. I'd much rather have a D40 or D40x over any other DSLR priced under $1,300. Luckily, the D40 and D40x only cost half that.

I'm not that excited about the D40x, because is loses some of the things I love about my D40: it costs $200 more and has a much slower sync speed. I don't care about resolution.

For now, I'd pass on the D40x and get a D40 instead. They are the same camera, and the D40x costs much more for no significant change in quality or performance.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for that StewartR. I think I had read that before and forgotten I'd read it but yesterday only saw the bit I quoted in my question. Thanks for providing the bigger picture and clarification of what he means. I do like the sound of a D40 (as I do the D40x and D60) and it's cheaper than the other two. Seems like a great little camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top