DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,

I’m a first time poster. I don’t even own an SLR yet, so this post is firmly in the ‘noob request for advice’ genre. I’m buying my first DSLR soon and I think I’ve narrowed it down to a Nikon. In my price bracket that means a D40 or a D40x/D60 (I’m bracketing the D40x and D60 because they’re pretty similar).

Now I thought I had it worked out. The gist of what I had got from the reviews was: you only need the 10MP sensor if you’re doing really big prints, otherwise the 6MP of the D40 will do just fine. Then I read this from kenrockwell.com:

“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. ..

.. The D60 is just a D40 with more pixels, but slower shutter speeds with flash outdoors and less basic light sensitivity due to the smaller pixels needed to jam more of them onto the same-sized sensor.”

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm

Is his interpretation of the differences between the 6MP and the 10MP sensor correct? I had thought the 10MP sensor would take sharper pictures due to its higher resolution, even though that might not be noticeable with normal-sized prints. But now I am confused. Can anyone unconfuse me?

Hi, and welcome.

Ken is often correct. And often not.

While you may, or may not, agree with his summation, you also need to understand and assess the relevance of his comments, which, for the majority of users, I would say isn't all that high. For me Ken is a little bit like going to a Tandy store: it's great for entertainment value, but would you actually buy electronic components from them?

Ok, and yes, the D60 is essentially a D40x, and thus the D60 is a D40 with a bigger sensor. The difference between 6MP and 10MP is not as big as it sounds, and it will mostly only manifest itself if you want to do larger prints.

Or perhaps if you need to crop your image. In that case, yes, it can make a difference, and perhaps that difference might be critical. You can crop a D60 image to about 60% of its size (making the subject apparently larger for a given print size) and you will still have the same resolution that you did when you started with the D40.

The suggestion that the D60 is less sensitive to light is almost laughable. The lowest available ISO value is, for the most part, irrelevant. Yes, the pixels - photosites, actually - need to be smaller to fit the greater number into the same space. But the sensor technology underlying the D40 derives directly from the D70 and is now ... five years old. The D60's underlying tech is somewhat newer, and that means it's more better/efficient/more modern.

The D60 does not have to use a longer shutter speed or wider aperture to make an image. Exposure value is exposure value is exposure value, and that means that for any given quantity of available dark (or light) and a nominated ISO value, you will have exactly the same combinations of shutter speed and aperture values available to you, regardless of whether you're using a D40, D60, D3x, 5DII, 40D ... doesn't really matter at all.

Furthermore, correct exposure is not simply what the camera suggests to you: that is merely an indication of what the correct exposure might be, but it's then up to you to accept, reject or modify the camera's suggestion. Oh yes, that's an advanced concept, and yes, modern cameras to a damn good job of this and mostly get it right.

The use of flash, outdoors, in sunlight, is another rather advanced technique; you mentioned that this is your first DSLR?

Now, getting back to the question: shop around. The current pricing regime is crazy - certainly, Nikon are doing a good job of withstanding the pressure of the Pacific Peso's meanderings in holding their pricing down. Do this before Christmas if you can, as I believe that prices may be rising early in the new year.

We found, when we investigated the pricing (about three weeks ago, as it happens) is that the D60 is actually cheaper than the D40 ...

Go to JB HiFi. Go to Hardly Normals. Paxtons. Your local alleged Camera House. Ask for pricing on all three models, and look for pricing on different kit combos. Wander into Ted's in the city, and ask for Michael, and do the same. Michael's a member here, and he has looked after a number of members with very good pricing.

Dear Gary,

Thanks for a very comprehensive and informative response. I could see a kind of logic in Rockwell’s comments, but overall it just didn’t sound right. Surely Nikon would not release an outright inferior camera to replace the D40—Canon et al. would eat them alive.

Anyway, I might yet buy a D40 on price. I have indeed been shopping around—the best I’ve seen it for is $574 with an 18-55mm non-VR lens (Dick Smith), cf. the best deal I’ve seen on a D60 has been $699 (Ted’s).

Where did you find the D60 for less than the D40??

Anton

I have the D60 and am very happy with the results it produces (and so are some on the net). I would pay the extra and get the uptodate model rather than a runout model that you will be trying to improve in 6 months time. Just a thought.

D40x for a DSLR newbie.
I am no DSLR newbie having owned a D70 for 4 yrs. I bought the D40x+18/55 & 55/200 VR lenses as weight/my age (77yrs) have become a consideration, the larger screen on the back was a big plus also.
The camera is excellent,both lenses are fine, the VR being a great help & do reduce this oldies camera shake at lower speeds hand held.
Advice Try both cameras in your Hands & see how it feels, if you like it Buy it! I love mine!
ps the D70 has been traded in for a D80 this has same 10 mp sensor & a large screen on the back.
Harry7mc

J.Davis wrote:I have the D60 and am very happy with the results it produces (and so are some on the net). I would pay the extra and get the uptodate model rather than a runout model that you will be trying to improve in 6 months time. Just a thought.

Well, I got the D40x .. but it is virtually the same camera as the D60. The main difference is that the D60 has an auto sensor cleaner, but I figure I can get an air puffer!

If I were to get a better model in future, it'd be something currently beyond my price range, a D90 or something like that .. but only if the extra features were of real help to me with the types of photographs I was interested in!

odysseus wrote:Dear Gary,

Thanks for a very comprehensive and informative response. I could see a kind of logic in Rockwell’s comments, but overall it just didn’t sound right. Surely Nikon would not release an outright inferior camera to replace the D40—Canon et al. would eat them alive.

Anyway, I might yet buy a D40 on price. I have indeed been shopping around—the best I’ve seen it for is $574 with an 18-55mm non-VR lens (Dick Smith), cf. the best deal I’ve seen on a D60 has been $699 (Ted’s).

Where did you find the D60 for less than the D40??

Anton

the d40 pack at DIck Smith does not have the new 18-55VR lens. not only does the new model have VR but its also alot sharper. personally i;d get a d60 if you want Nikon but id seriously consider looking at the canon Xs aswell.

the d40 pack at DIck Smith does not have the new 18-55VR lens. not only does the new model have VR but its also alot sharper. personally i;d get a d60 if you want Nikon but id seriously consider looking at the canon Xs aswell.

I got the D40x, which has the old non-VR lens. I guess I'll see how I go with it. If I do decide to go up to the new lens, it can be had for $225 (+p+p) at Camera Action; not a huge cost to upgrade.