Novices head about to explode - Nikon D40 or D60, which lens etc...

Well what a joke that was. I gave my pitch to the guy in the shop and his first line of his reply was "its all down to the amount of pixels" :thumbsdown:

I am a total novice and I was explaining more about things than he was. He did not even know there was an 11 point focus on the D80 and he struggled to explain just about anything to me. This was a local camera shop and not a chain.

Gave me some literature to read and said I should compare the specs as that would help me out :LOL:

They were selling the D40 for £399.99 when it can bought from at least 8 places online for £279.99... what a waste of time that was.

I did get to handle the D40/X/80 and Canon 400 and if I were totally honest I liked the feel of the D40/X over the others. So bearing that in mind I am inclined to buy the D60 and be done with. Only issue there is that model is not in the cashback and extended warranty offer.
 
andrewc said:
well he shouldn't be working in a camera shop judging by the first line of his reply. I think the D60 should do you fine.
Click to expand...
The look on my face should have said it all really when he said that. I just knew it was going to all go downhill thereafter.

I am going to travel a bit further and go to another shop I know tomorrow.
 
Gazza_UK said:
So bearing that in mind I am inclined to buy the D60 and be done with. Only issue there is that model is not in the cashback and extended warranty offer.
Click to expand...

Just as good a choice as the other ones, really.

You won't know if it's really what you wanted it to be unless you're using it for a week or two a lot, though.
 
I have never been in a situation like this before where all the cameras get fantastic reviews. Which can only be a good things I suppose really.
 
Gazza_UK said:
I have never been in a situation like this before where all the cameras get fantastic reviews. Which can only be a good things I suppose really.
Click to expand...

They all get good reviews if reviewers take who they're made for into account.
In short, the D40(x)/D60 are made for people who'd prefer to use their cameras mostly like they use their compacts. They can exploit some of the more advanced functions of DSLRs, but they don't have to. They're meant mostly for football (a.k.a. soccer) parents or people who generally don't want to know a thing about the camera they use but they demand great performance. And this they seem to deliver, at least their popularity suggests so.

Then there's enthusiasts and people who want to know their toys and who demand features over program modes and fancy pants menus. That's me for example. I wouldn't go for the D40(x) / D60 unless I would have to go really cheap. Since I'm more comfortable with a big grip, I'd probably pass on the Canon 400D and 450D, even though they seem to be great cameras otherwise and they have more features that I value than the Nikons.

Honestly, if the Sony A200 has a grip like the D50, or perhaps even like the D40, I wouldn't bother with Nikon. Sony's offering is expanding rather quickly. It's not like the D40(x) and the D60 were bad, cameras, quite the contrary. But I like lots of features, even if I use many of them only once a fortnight. Pentax seems to be kind of frozen, struggling to get new lenses out, although their bodies seem to be very good. Olympus has some decent glass and the bodies aren't too bad spec-wise, sample photos are good too, except for iso 1600 and up, the the better lenses are rather expensive, although not that much than those of the other brands.

So if the A200 is within your budget, try it out if you can as well. If I were shopping for a DSLR today, I'd do that if I could.
 
Then you pop over to Ken Rockwell's site and he says this about the D60.

I wouldn't buy a D60 or a D40x. I would buy, and actually did buy, the superior and least expensive D40, which today sells for only about £233 ($470) complete with an absolutely excellent non-VR lens. The least expensive D40 has twice the sensitivity to light (ISO 200 base vs. ISO 100 base) and over twice the flash sync speed (1/500 vs. 1/200). The other features, like pixels and dust reduction, are just fluff. I've never had a dirt problem with my D40, and I change lenses a lot and have made 25,000 shots on my D40.
Click to expand...
 
If you factor in the whole total cost of ownership, you can see why Nikon and Canon dominate the market as there is much wider range of 3rd party accessories.

Until there is a common lens mount for x1.6 or FF cameras and the leading manufactuers sign up for it, then I can't really see the others challenging the big 2.

What they can do is subsidise things and try and get a foothold in the market, or in Sony's case use their marketing clout.
 
Gazza_UK said:
Then you pop over to Ken Rockwell's site and he says this about the D60.
Click to expand...

I usually ignore that guy completely.
Not that he wouldn't have some good points, but many of those that I can make from my experience differ from his by, sometimes, quite a bit.

I stand by what I wrote before, you should grab the D40 if you don't crop much.

andrewc said:
What is he trying to say? I use ISO 100 a lot of the time (and sometimes wish I had ISO 50)
Click to expand...

I think he's trying to say that if the lowest sensitivity of the sensor is higher, it should be able to somehow make better use of the light available.
 
I was in a similar position a few weeks ago, I went to Focus and looked at all the cameras I could get my hands on in the upto £500 bracket. I found I personally liked the Nikon cameras and set my heart on a D40x or D60. I then saw Paul adverise his D40x on here which was under a year old and at a very good saving on the new price, so I brought it :D
I received it last week and have to say it's just like new and I have really enjoyed using it and learning what the various settings can do.:thinking:
I have huge amounts to learn and am enjoying using my first DSLR, which I'm sure will be far more capable than me for a couple of years at least :)

Enjoy whatever you buy
Darren
 
Hi I was in the same dilemma and ended up buying the D40, it feels good to me and as I think it will take me a while to get used to the basics it suits me at the moment. Must admit though I did like the feel of the D80 but couldn't afford it at the moment! Thought I was better off getting the cheaper model to learn with and spending more on extra lenses, filters etc when the need arises. My aim is to be able to take good shot with what I have before I move onto a more advanced model. Hope you get sorted soon.
 
Many thanks for all the advice so far... it really has been very much appreciated.

What I am wanting to do is to find a camera shop who will let me put my SD card in each camera and take some pics... then I can view them at home and make my mind up from there.

I am thinking 10MP is what I will need as I will be doing some wildlife shots and that will require some cropping.
 
As the Nikon cashback/warranty offer lasts till the end of June + that the D40x is being discontinued... I am sitting on the fence and watching the prices.

I also have a very good idea on the lenses I want now for the photography that I am interested in.

When purchasing things I always like to see what's being said in various forums and ask my own questions, as I have done here. I also like to look at Amazon in the UK and USA and see what user reviews are like.

For the D40:

UK 27 reviews with 16 being 5 stars
USA 296 reviews with 243 being 5 stars

For the D40X:

UK - 19 reviews with 15 being 5 stars
USA - 101 reviews with 81 being 5 stars

The rest are virtually made up of 4 star reviews.

So both these cameras get exceptional praise in the UK and USA.
 
If it helps, I was in the same position as you a month or two back. Trying to choose between the d40 and d40x or splashing out on d80 or 2nd hand.

I picked the d40x in the end. Tis a cracking lil camera and I am learning loads from it.

Hope this helps

Geoff
 
Was just going snap up the fantastic offer at Jessops and bag a D40 + kit lens for £233. But they have obviously had many orders and they have put the price up now :razz:
 
Why are Nikons so cheap? For the price of a new D40 you can't even buy a second hand 20D. Damn superior canon products.
 
Right I have got my money together for my eventual D40 or D40X... sold my old camera etc :)

I now realise there are a few other things that I will need.

I already own a Velbon CX 560, so I see little point in wasting say £90 on another tripod.... unless someone can convince me otherwise.

Either an SB400 or SB600 flash, any preference to which one?

Camera bag - I have seen Lowepro Slingshot 200 mentioned a few times on various forums. But that is a rucksack type bag, was wondering if like a satchel type bag would be better?

A spare battery and lens cloth.

I see lens filters mentioned a lot... what do I need those for and which ones do I require?

Some new lenses to go with my camera, I fully appreciate that the kit lens will suffice till I get used to things, but I like to plan ahead :)

As in my first post... landscapes/wildlife/family+friends and some insect+flower macro shots... will be the areas I am interested in.

I was thinking of eventually getting the Nikkor 70-300mm VR for my close up wildlife stuff, seems to get excellent reviews. Then toying with selling the kit lens straight away and maybe either buying the new VR version that comes with the D60 or get the Nikkor 18-70mm... but that has no VR.

However I see there is a new Nikkor 16-85mm VR come out... which if it gets good reviews, then that might be a possibility instead.

I suppose quite a lot of people like to get a lens they can keep on the camera for most of time, without having to change constantly. The Nikkor 18-200mm VR seems to be very popular.... but over £400.

The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 is a very popular prime lens but wasted on me as it does not have AF. But I have seen some awesome pics taken with it. Also what are these prime lenses mainly used for.

I defo see me getting the bug here.... and moving onto a better camera in a couple of years time.

Another thing is a macro lens.... any suggestions on a reasonably decent one that won't break the bank?

I do have some savings tucked away... but don't like dipping in unless I REALLY have to. Normally sell some old tat off to gather funds :)

Comments/feedback very much appreciated (y)
 
Best to start off with some budget level gear until you find your feet with it. Sigma 70-300 APO comes recommended as a budget solution but don't know if its D40/X compatible. A 50mm f1.8 prime is good for low light work, and with extension tubes or close up filters can yield surprisingly good close up photos.

Tripod should be OK, best to try it with the new kit and see how sturdy it is.

Filters - personally I manage without, apart from a Circ Polariser. Some people say you need one to protect the front element from damage, but I tend to use either a neck strap or hand strap (or both)
 
andrewc said:
Best to start off with some budget level gear until you find your feet with it. Sigma 70-300 APO comes recommended as a budget solution but don't know if its D40/X compatible. A 50mm f1.8 prime is good for low light work, and with extension tubes or close up filters can yield surprisingly good close up photos.

Tripod should be OK, best to try it with the new kit and see how sturdy it is.
Click to expand...
But the Nikkor 70-300 is a good lens...? I would sooner buy the Nikkor lenses if they are the better ones.

Just noticed quite a lot of people have bought the 18-135mm as their main lens for the D40.... and then actually gone and purchased the 70-300mm.

Heck far too many lenses with far too many getting good reviews.
 
I only have a Sigma 500 Super DG and it's been great so far, powerful and cheaper than SB600.
I'd suggest a blower like this one:
dry-aa1900.jpg


I have a Slingshot 300 AW and it's excellent. You can get the camera out in a few seconds.

You don't really need any filters, but a circular polariser is always handy to have... if the front of your lens doesn't rotate. I think the 18-70 mm Nikkor has a non-rotating front element. A Sigma 17-70 mm HSM is a good choice too.
The 70-300 VR Nikkor seems to be very good, too.

The Nikkor 16-85mm VR should be quite expensive.

You could grab a monopod and not care about VR much.

Primes are often used for low light stuff like concerts and such, F1.8 and less seems to work very well. I don't have one, but the 50 mm F1.8 looks very good, the Sigma 30 mm F1.4 HSM looks even better (although the CA seems to be a bit of a problem with it, though).

The 18-200 Nikkor is known as a great zoom, but you can always grab something cheaper, a 18-200 mm OS HSM Sigma could serve you well.

The cheaper macro lens you can get atm is a Sigma 50 mm F2.8 macro lens, as far as I know. You could attach a Raynox (or a Nikon or a Canon) close-up lens on the 70-300 VR and see if it works well enough for you.

I hope the above helps a little.
 
Gazza_UK said:
But the Nikkor 70-300 is a good lens...? I would sooner buy the Nikkor lenses if they are the better ones.

Just noticed quite a lot of people have bought the 18-135mm as their main lens for the D40.... and then actually gone and purchased the 70-300mm.

Heck far too many lenses with far too many getting good reviews.
Click to expand...

Choices, choices hey!

:LOL:

The two kit lenses - the 18-55 is great - the 18-70 is better - but most d40's only come with 18-55.

I have the Nikon 70-300 (non VR) - it is a cracking lens for the money - and a great starting point in my opinion.

And as others have said - you can't go wrong with the 50mm 1.8 lens.

Hope this helps?

:thinking:
 
Gazza_UK said:
But the Nikkor 70-300 is a good lens...? I would sooner buy the Nikkor lenses if they are the better ones.

Just noticed quite a lot of people have bought the 18-135mm as their main lens for the D40.... and then actually gone and purchased the 70-300mm.

Heck far too many lenses with far too many getting good reviews.
Click to expand...

Most of those people got a 70-300 mm to complement their 18-135 / 18-55 / 18-70 etc. for more 'reach'.

The Nikkor is better, but at least twice as expensive. A new version of Sigma 70-300 mm APO DG macro that should AF on the D40 has been announced. The older Sigmas can't AF on the D40, unless they have a HSM.
 
Slapo said:
I only have a Sigma 500 Super DG and it's been great so far, powerful and cheaper than SB600.
I'd suggest a blower like this one:
dry-aa1900.jpg


I have a Slingshot 300 AW and it's excellent. You can get the camera out in a few seconds.

You don't really need any filters, but a circular polariser is always handy to have... if the front of your lens doesn't rotate. I think the 18-70 mm Nikkor has a non-rotating front element. A Sigma 17-70 mm HSM is a good choice too.
The 70-300 VR Nikkor seems to be very good, too.

The Nikkor 16-85mm VR should be quite expensive.

You could grab a monopod and not care about VR much.

Primes are often used for low light stuff like concerts and such, F1.8 and less seems to work very well. I don't have one, but the 50 mm F1.8 looks very good, the Sigma 30 mm F1.4 HSM looks even better (although the CA seems to be a bit of a problem with it, though).

The 18-200 Nikkor is known as a great zoom, but you can always grab something cheaper, a 18-200 mm OS HSM Sigma could serve you well.

The cheaper macro lens you can get atm is a Sigma 50 mm F2.8 macro lens, as far as I know. You could attach a Raynox (or a Nikon or a Canon) close-up lens on the 70-300 VR and see if it works well enough for you.

I hope the above helps a little.
Click to expand...
Help you say help.... :LOL: I am going to be bleeding bankrupt before I even book the big holiday next year :LOL:

I am making so many notes its untrue. Also reading no end of threads on this site, DP Reivew and Cameralabs :)

Keep the info coming when available.... its most certainly appreciated... and that's to all who contributed in this thread.... and who will hopefully continue to do so. I love this forum already :)

BTW... I know I said D40...then D40X and then said sod it I am getting the D60.... but its the D40 where my money is going.... defo made my mind up on that now.

Would have snapped that Jessops offer up too if they had not put the price up to £300. What's the point in putting an offer on...then all of a sudden the interest is higher than expected, so you up the blooming price :shrug:
 
Dalton said:
Choices, choices hey!

:LOL:

The two kit lenses - the 18-55 is great - the 18-70 is better - but most d40's only come with 18-55.

I have the Nikon 70-300 (non VR) - it is a cracking lens for the money - and a great starting point in my opinion.

And as others have said - you can't go wrong with the 50mm 1.8 lens.

Hope this helps?

:thinking:
Click to expand...
Is there anywhere that lists lenses and then goes to explain what their main uses would be for?

I have not seen a bad thing said about the 50mm 1.8 but is that a lens best served in a body with the motor? As its quite a cheap lens really for the amount of praise it gets.
 
Gazza_UK said:
Is there anywhere that lists lenses and then goes to explain what their main uses would be for?

I have not seen a bad thing said about the 500mm 1.8 but is that a lens best served in a body with the motor? As its quite a cheap lens really for the amount of praise it gets.
Click to expand...

Kit lens is for general use - and is surprising how much it will get used. Great walkaround lens.

I got the 70-300 for more 'reach' as I am interested in motor sports and the kit lens is simply not long enough for this. You state you are interested in wildlife photography - so you would need longer zoom than 'kit lens'.

However you may not feel you need this much reach - and 80-200 may be sufficient.

I honestly don't know how I lived without 50mm 1.8 for so long, only picked my copy up last week. It is a prime lens - ie fixed length - but gives much better quality of picture - so therefore perfect for portraits etc. You would probably have to manual focus with this lens on D40. But don't let that put you off! And when you use this sort of lens wide open - ie. f1.8 - it gives beautiful effect of blurring background whilst keeping subject in focus.

Hope this helps?

:shrug:
 
Dalton said:
Kit lens is for general use - and is surprising how much it will get used. Great walkaround lens.

I got the 70-300 for more 'reach' as I am interested in motor sports and the kit lens is simply not long enough for this. You state you are interested in wildlife photography - so you would need longer zoom than 'kit lens'.

However you may not feel you need this much reach - and 80-200 may be sufficient.

I honestly don't know how I lived without 50mm 1.8 for so long, only picked my copy up last week. It is a prime lens - ie fixed length - but gives much better quality of picture - so therefore perfect for portraits etc. You would probably have to manual focus with this lens on D40. But don't let that put you off! And when you use this sort of lens wide open - ie. f1.8 - it gives beautiful effect of blurring background whilst keeping subject in focus.

Hope this helps?

:shrug:
Click to expand...

It helps then it just makes me ask more questions :)

I defo see me getting that prime lens then. Will come in handy for taking pics of my Great Niece with a Great Nephew on the way :)

I am getting confused with the zoom lens though for wildlife. I know the 50-500mm is a very good lens and I think its Mike who has posted some fantastic pics that he took with is on these forums. But that's a bit out of my price range really.

I see me with 4 lenses.

Either kit lens or upgrade to the VR version.... 18-70 or 18-135.

The 50mm 1.8

A macro lens

Then a lens for zoom.... thought the 70-300 was the one but not sure now. I might go to the odd air show too...so would the 70-300 be ideal for that... or is that another can of worms opened :(
 
Gazza_UK said:
It helps then it just makes me ask more questions :)

I defo see me getting that prime lens then. Will come in handy for taking pics of my Great Niece with a Great Nephew on the way :)

I am getting confused with the zoom lens though for wildlife. I know the 50-500mm is a very good lens and I think its Mike who has posted some fantastic pics that he took with is on these forums. But that's a bit out of my price range really.

I see me with 4 lenses.

Either kit lens or upgrade to the VR version.... 18-70 or 18-135.

The 50mm 1.8

A macro lens

Then a lens for zoom.... thought the 70-300 was the one but not sure now. I might go to the odd air show too...so would the 70-300 be ideal for that... or is that another can of worms opened :(
Click to expand...

Makes sense to go for 4 lenses from what you have been saying.

However - I wouldn't really bother with VR on kit lens - is it really necessary? Maybe save the cash there and go for VR on long zoom (either 80-200 or 70-300) - that makes more sense to me!

You could always get Tele Convertors for extra reach - if you really need more than 300mm- as lenses get very expensive with reach of more than that.

Have a look at this link for details on current Nikon range of lenses...

http://www.europe-nikon.com/family/en_GB/categories/broad/4.html

:)
 
Dalton said:
Makes sense to go for 4 lenses from what you have been saying.

However - I wouldn't really bother with VR on kit lens - is it really necessary? Maybe save the cash there and go for VR on long zoom (either 80-200 or 70-300) - that makes more sense to me!

You could always get Tele Convertors for extra reach - if you really need more than 300mm- as lenses get very expensive with reach of more than that.

Have a look at this link for details on current Nikon range of lenses...

http://www.europe-nikon.com/family/en_GB/categories/broad/4.html

:)
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.

Defo going for the prime I mentioned and the 50-300 VR.

Not sure what to do with the kit lens yet. Tempted to get the 18-70 or 18-135 and sell the 18-55.

I wonder if this macro lens will be worth the price tag.... just come out and waiting detailed reviews.

Getting my list together nicely here now (y) Now where did I put my bank robbers ski mask :thinking:

I know the SB400 and SB600 are very popular flashes.... would the 600 be OTT for me?

I forgot... I notice the Sigma 10-20 lens is yet another popular lens... am I right in saying that's the wide shots... probably landscapes?
 
Gazza_UK said:
Thanks for that.

Defo going for the prime I mentioned and the 50-300 VR.

Not sure what to do with the kit lens yet. Tempted to get the 18-70 or 18-135 and sell the 18-55.

I wonder if this macro lens will be worth the price tag.... just come out and waiting detailed reviews.

Getting my list together nicely here now (y) Now where did I put my bank robbers ski mask :thinking:

I know the SB400 and SB600 are very popular flashes.... would the 600 be OTT for me?

I forgot... I notice the Sigma 10-20 lens is yet another popular lens... am I right in saying that's the wide shots... probably landscapes?
Click to expand...

I don't have a flash - but sure someone will be along to advise which is best!

Sigma 10-20 is super wide lens - and would be well suited to landscapes.

Nikon macro lenses are very expensive - and the one you have linked to is quite a short focal length - if you really want to get into macro - try cheaper options first - ie. extension tubes. Or perhaps a Sigma version (cheaper). Before you commit yourself to an expensive piece of kit. Once hooked you may consider the 105mm VR macro. Which is a much more usable length in my opinion.

:)

Forgot to mention - i would go for 18-70 kit lens - think it is best rated. Also leaves no 'lost' focal range - if you get 70-300 lens.
 
:LOL:I'm confused.
Have you made your mind up yet mate?

I bought a D40 a couple of weeks back...It's a suberb camera and now for under £300, you can't go wrong.

My photographic interests are Landscape and wildlife.
I've found the kit lens is pretty versatile and should serve me well for landscape shots.
I'm looking at buying a 70-300 at the end of the month which should do me for the wildlife side of things.

Being new to dslr's I've found the D40 to have a very nice learning curve with some excellent preset features.
I'm now mainly using the camera manually, but if I'm unsure of a situation, I know I can rely on one of the preset modes to get pretty decent results.
 
Busby said:
:LOL:I'm confused.
Have you made your mind up yet mate?

I bought a D40 a couple of weeks back...It's a suberb camera and now for under £300, you can't go wrong.

My photographic interests are Landscape and wildlife.
I've found the kit lens is pretty versatile and should serve me well for landscape shots.
I'm looking at buying a 70-300 at the end of the month which should do me for the wildlife side of things.

Being new to dslr's I've found the D40 to have a very nice learning curve with some excellent preset features.
I'm now mainly using the camera manually, but if I'm unsure of a situation, I know I can rely on one of the preset modes to get pretty decent results.
Click to expand...
If you were to read this long thread from start to finish... then you would be very confused :LOL:

Yes I am getting the D40... not bought yet... just watching prices/offers.... as the cashback runs till end of June.

I am just researching lenses now... but the 70-300 VR is defo on my list of purchases :)
 
I started with an 18-70 and 70-300 kit lens set up, they were fine for a while, but then I thought i`d try the 10-20 for landscapes, a 105 sigma for macro, then I wanted a bit more reach so got an 80-400, then I bought some primes and a 17-55...............arrrgggghhhhhhhhhhhh.

Now i`m skint......:LOL::LOL::LOL:

Damned addictive hobby this, i`m sure you`ll love it.....(y)
 
fracster said:
I started with an 18-70 and 70-300 kit lens set up, they were fine for a while, but then I thought i`d try the 10-20 for landscapes, a 105 sigma for macro, then I wanted a bit more reach so got an 80-400, then I bought some primes and a 17-55...............arrrgggghhhhhhhhhhhh.

Now i`m skint......:LOL::LOL::LOL:

Damned addictive hobby this, i`m sure you`ll love it.....(y)
Click to expand...
Yes the Sigma 10-20 is on my hit list and I am sure I read somewhere that the Tamron 90mm is a very good macro lens.
 
The 10-20 may as well be glued to my D70s, its a cracking camera and lens set up.....(y)
 
I am trying to find where I read and saw pics from the Tamron 90 and Sigma 105 and where the Tamron was said to be way better.
 
And then you start buying tripods, monopods, filters and on and on and on......:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top