Nikkor vs Nikon lens.
 

Is there a difference?

Also, anyone any experience of using a D60?

I'm after a DSLR which allows easy manual control.

I've had nothing but good experiences with Nikons compacts.

Thanks ginge:)

Lenses made by Nikon are branded Nikkor.

The D60 supercedes the D40x. It's a fine camera at its pricing and user-skill point. Canon, Pentax and others have similar cameras at that particular marketing point. Whichever you choose, you won't be making a mistake.

Agreed - I bought a D60 through Amazon.co.uk in April and have never looked back. It came with the standard Nikon (Nikkor)18-55mm lens but I bought a Nikon (Nikkor) 55-200 lens for close up shots. But this lens is best used with a tripod. The quality of the shots are good and you can work in RAW mode for additional quality.

The price of this camera is dropping all the time as I believe a new model has been released.

This is a big newbie question, I haven't been doing photography for very long but what is the major difference between the D60 and D40x? I've got a D40X at the moment, really love the camera being my first would like to go the next step but not sure what the real difference is.

Is it something that a newbie like me wouldn't really notice?

Have a look at this review

Nikon D60 Digital SLR Compared to D40x and D40

That should give you an idea between the 3 Nikons

To answer the question, I have to say I can't, cos don't know.

The names seem to be interchangeable, but I'd always thought that the Nikkor might be a slightly cheaper version. However, folk with lenses marked thus, do not seem to think they've gone down market.


I got a D50. The 6mp has never been an issue, and the money I saved getting a 'Refurbished' (obviously untouched) meant that I could put the 15-55 lens to one side, and get a good lens (off Craigslist) for the difference. my 18-70 really is a serious piece of kit. Good light-gathering with its 67mm glass at $240 used.

The higher pixel count is tempting, and I've looked at higher end cameras to get the detail. But the fact is that it just isn't worth having a lesser quality camera just to get more pixels. Wanting to print out to very large photos might change all this, but I do put the pics on a 50" hi def, and never have I been troubled by pixelation.

Nope. Lenses are Nikkor, bodies are now Nikon. I'd be interested to know which lenses your friends have that are marked Nikon rather than Nikkor.

Got me curious, so I fished them out again.

The kit lens is Nikon DS AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1.35-5.6 G ED

The bigger one exactly the same, 'sept for 18-70mm 1.35-4.5

Underneath, they are both marked Nikon DX SWM ED IF Aspherical the range and Made in Thailand.

Just taken the cap of the kit lens for the first time in ages, and the face rim shows both Nikon and Nikkor on the same ring. Ha! so does the picture on the link above. Seems to answer the question. :)


Has anyone got any opinion about the build quality of the 40 v the old 50? My son looked at upgrading the pixel count but shied away from the general feel of the body. My dreams of getting one of the new big array units vaporized with conversation with a certain NY company. Load of gangsters.

40 was replaced by the 40x, which was effectively replaced by the 60. From a 50, go to a 60 or 90 depending on the budget.

Preduk, if you have the 40x, the only real difference is that the 60 has a sensor cleaning feature. A complete list of differences was posted by Crewmeal.

Thanks for the input chaps.

A point to note about the Nikon D40, D40X, and the D60 is that these bodies do not have an in-built Auto-Focus motor.

This means, that you must consider very carefully what lenses you intend to use on your new camera.

So if you want to have lenses that Auto-focus you must buy only the newer AF-S type lenses that have their own built-in focus motor.

Otherwise, I think that all of these are fine.

If you want something a bit better, with more features then, I would advise looking at the older D80 which has just been replaced by the new D90 - So you could well find the D80 at bargain prices. These two do include a built-in Auto-focus motor so that they can use a much wider range of lenses.

Have a quick look here for some current pricing info..

We're talking about newcomers to DSLR. AF-S has been around since 1998. People don't have to be "careful", they have to use the lens which comes in the kit and go from there. Seasoned analog film users will be able to work this out for themselves. And with the D60 and D90 on the market, they won't get the D80.

Well said Bushfiva. Stop spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) ... OoT. :=


Also, to be honest, people using Nikon's consumer DSLRs are probably better off using AF-S lenses, preferably ones with VR too. There are lots of good ones out there... the 18-70 and 18-200 are both fine examples.

Non AF-S lenses are noisy too ! :cool:

Err - I wasn't spreading fear, uncertainty or doubt!

I merely stated a fact.

I have read of many adopters of D40's etc, trying to understand why there newly purchased 50mm F1.4 lens etc etc wont auto-focus!

I'm a Nikon user myself with a Nikon D70 and a Nikon D300 and was trying to be helpful. :rolleyes:

I love my old Nikon Coolpix, but I miss the ability to have any manual control over the lens ( either to throw things in the background out of focus, or to maintain a large depth of field for landscape shots). I also miss the manual B setting. (the compact has a fireworks mode which is a bit hit and miss.)

I take it that the autofocus mode can be turned off?

And will the software be the same ?

Thanks, ginge:)

There are no doubt some good lenses that have easy to use rings, but I find that while DX lenses usually can be clicked to Manual, they are harder to manipulate than the fine old lenses, and I end up using tricks to use the automatics. ie pointing at a brighter scene at the same length, then holding the button till I'm on subject. I went into digital photography thinking that virtually all my work would be manual. Frankly, the auto systems are so good that I find it hard to beat them. Shots at 12" or less are the exception.

Kit lens c$50, has AF/M slider on the side.


Talking of B settings, this was still in the Bucket from JB, so easy to re-show. Taken by camera in the reflection - even though the angle doesn't look right.

I didn't want to flash at the critter.

While it wouldn't win any prizes for photography, I had no idea that it would be a 1.5 second shot. I was astonished that it didn't give more shake than it did. No anti-vibration device.

What I'm again trying to emphasize, is the importance of spending a good proportion of your budget on the lens. Same shot with the kit lens wouldn't have had any significant detail.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...age00001-3.jpg


Although it's an expensive item, I tried out the the hi-selling 18-200 $700 inside Worst Buy. I'll post comparison pix when I get a moment.

You'll have as much control you want. Autofocus can typically be switched of at the body, at the lens, or simply overridden by grabbing the focus ring even when in autofocus mode. You can do full auto, aperture priority, shutter priority, fully manual or whatever.

The camera shoots two formats: jpegs and RAW The camera can shoot both at the same time. RAW gives you much more control over the final image. I believe you get basic RAW conversion software in the D60. You can also do substantial post-processing in the camera, if you wish. People tend to use their favorite software for manipulating images, ranging from free to very expensive.

The D60 kit lens supercedes the one with the D40x and is reportedly much better, though I haven't used it.

It's not worth arguing over, but your post was worded in such a way to imply that AF-S was something new and hence a fair amount of attention was needed when selecting a lens.

The fact is that the vast number of Nikkor lenses the average consumer is likely to come across in your average high street shop are going to be AF-S not AF.

Some love it, some hate it. I prefer the 70-200 over the 18-200, but for holiday lightweight backpack moments, the 18-200 is quite handy.

As others have said though, budget priority should go on lenses, not camera.

Thanks chaps:)

correction
 

To update an earlier posters error - don't you just hate it when people guess!!

The D40X did not replace the D40 as the D40 is still current. The D60 replaces the D40x.

The new D90 replaces the D80

Sorry to be pedantic, but .....

If you take a cursory glance at the Nikon catalogue, you will find the D60 being presented alongside the D40x.


Nikon UK - Products - Catalogue - Digital Cameras - SLR - Consumer


The eventual plan may be to kill off the D40 series, but for the time being, you should see them side by side in the shops.


Whether anyone wants a D40 is another matter .... :cool:

Come on guys, get a grip on reality.

1) In any market I can find, the D60 kit is cheaper than the D40x kit.

2) The D60 body is better than the D40x body.

3) The D60 kit lens is better than the D40x kit lens.

The only reason the D40x is listed is because there's unsold stock. So now tell Gingernut why he should buy a D40x.

mixture wrote

To be pedantic; :E

Now, take a look in any Shop or On-line outlet and find a D40X.

You won't find it, as earlier stated correctly; it was replaced by the D60 using the same sensor. Any D40x stock has long since been sold.

You will find in the consumer range the D40, D60, D80 (until all stock is sold), and the D90 (The replacement for the D80).

You said earlier, it's not worth arguing over!

Agreed, I'm not here to argue; I made a valid point that you misconstrued for some reason best known to yourself. Many people after buying a new camera with kit lens; look at what other lenses they would like to own.

Quite often they go for the nice cheap Nikkor 50mm F1.8D lens that is widely available for around £79.00 and guess what, it's not AF-S!

So my reason for pointing out the AF motor issue was valid and something a potential buyer might want to know.

You appear to be on some kind of mission? Not sure why you're getting so upset about others posting their responses here. :ugh:

To the OP, I think the D40 is a great introductory DSLR and I have seen some wonderful images produced by it. It is however, fairly basic just 6MP and getting a bit long in the tooth. However it's not all about the Megapixels. The D60 introduces some more features and is 10.2MP. I'm sure you would be happy with either camera.

As for lenses, the 18-55 VR is quite good I believe.
Although, I've not tried that one myself. I have the 18-70 and 16-85 VR - both are really sharp and I would recommend those. The 18-135 is pretty good but has a plastic mount, so not as sturdy. The 18-105 D90 Kit lens is also now available and seems to be good too.

The 18-200 is OK especially for travelling with only one lens say.

The 70-200 F2.8 is in another league and is pro quality. If you want more range than 200mm the 70-300 VR is probably a good option

cheers OOT.

There's certainly a lot of bang for the buck in that lens. I'm unhappy with my own sample, though. Historically, people were told that it's pretty tough to go far beyond 200mm hand-held, and here we are offering 450mm (equivalent) lenses telling people that the VR will automagically fix things up. Well, VR is indeed great, but it's not magical.

Sharpest lens I've got at the moment appears to be my old 20-35mm f/2.8, which is scary if true, because it never reviewed well on chromatic aberration. 18-200 is a great "one lens fits all" thing. My 12-24 is pretty good. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is wonderful at night but you have to think a bit.

Ginge, if you're still reading this thread, you have an E7600 and you like taking pics of bosoms. If you're going from an E7600 to a DSLR because you think your pictures will get automagically better with some mysterious aspect of manual control, think on this: the best camera is the one that you always have with you, and the one others aren't concerned about. I'm a Nikon guy, but my pocket camera is currently a Ricoh GX200. You should check it out: all the manual controls you want, and it slips into a pocket. You don't have to get a DSLR to take very acceptable pictures with as much control as you want.

As I've cried into by beer on many occasion. Stunning spring morning out of Norwich. Coltishall says, "XX look to your left." There above the Norfolk countryside was a Spitfire that had formated on me. One of many fine pics -that I didn't get. :{

Guess I deservedthat!

I will look at the Ricoh.

I don't necessarily mean that's the right camera for you, I mean it's representative of cameras that give you far more control over the image than your current E7600. Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1and Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 are another class of camera that might attract you. Anyway, have fun searching for your new toy :-)

Thanks for the advice.

I do agree, the best camera is the one which is with you.

Indeed my firsr camera was a "Kodak Retinette" bought by the 'eld fella when he was a soldier. Was an old thing, but took great shots.

I have had some experience with an slr (I own a film slr, but now "enjoy" the advantages of digital).

I'm not a great photographer, but the slr allowed me more creativity, which the compact doesn't allow-eg there used to be a way of increasing the sharpness of everything in the shot, by selecting a small aperture and sliding the infinity point on the lens to the edge of the focus limits for that aperture. Invariably, I needed a tripod, but the results were good.

There's other stuff where it's hard to fool the compact, like shooting into light, or long exposure night shots. And focusing on one point exactly. (Sometimes possible by half holding down the shutter button-but fiddly).

Cheers again.

Pentax has a cashback offer going at the moment that includes the K200D. This is one of their cameras newer that has image stabilization in the body, which means that you don't need special lenses.

I have one of their older DSLR bodies (*ist DS), with a mix of old and new lenses, and I like how Pentax makes a point of lens compatibility. It works with every lens they've ever made, even "dumb lumps of glass" from the 70s, though it doesn't add automatic focus or exposure to manual lenses that don't have those.

Pleanty of new ones available on Amazon .... no doubt other places too. :ok:

On the other stuff.... I'm not going to bite, sorry..:p .... I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone, just trying to correct some incorrectness.

Perhaps I could have worded slightly differently, yes, but forum postings are not really meant to be mulled over like letter writing ...... :cool:

So many of the new Nikons look kind of ‘plasticy'...just haven't got that solid feel of the older ones. Am I right in thinking this and can someone give me a quick comparison to try to get this overall quality issue sorted?

When I started with digital, for most people that wanted Nikon SLR, it was the D70. It was quite expensive and used prices were very high, given that it was a 6.1 Mp. (as against Canon's XT at 8 mp)

The D50, I thought, was a down-graded version at a more user-friendly price, and I chose one of these because - A, I couldn't detect a significant difference between the 8 and the 6, ( I borrowed the Canon for a couple of days from the Uni. ) But I could detect a difference in the build quality compared to Canon.

Also, I allowed myself to be influenced by a well known reviewer, who said that he was unbiased and paid for all his own kit, but it was Nilon or Nikon. And never mind the Mp.

Well, that was then, and the difference was ‘only' 2mp. Now 10 is the base line I would think.

Now that we have a whole new range of Model numbers, is there a 10 Mp equivalent to the split between the 50 and the 70 above?

And as importantly, how does the build quality and general functionality of this new range, compare with the old D70?

Try picking up a D200, D2X, D300 or D700 - Along with the D3 and the New D3X - all are made of magnesium alloy and feel very solid indeed!

The D70 was a nice chunky size but a little lighter than one might expect; as it was made of polycarbonate on top of a metal chassis.

I still think if feels nice in the hands, compared to much of its competition though!

Try comparing with the Canon 350D, 400D, 450D etc.

Yes, I tried picking up one of the hi-end ones, but they told me to put it down again 'till I'd paid.:}


So, at 10mp What feels chunky at under $750 ?

Digital Photography Thread
 

As mentioned previously after some disappointing pics from Biggin Hill with my trusty £50 Benq point and click I took some advice from people on here and invested in a second hand Nikkon D100 body.

Its a fantastic camera and I have been playing with it for a month or so now with a 55-200mm f4-5.6G ED AF-S DX NIKKOR Zoom Lens - which is giving me some good results.

I wish to get some more lenses and maybe some filters - I feel I stand out as a bit of a perv taking pics of my 9mth old on the swings with such a big lens lol - so I was looking for a lens a tad more appropriate in size for the family type pics where no zoom is required - any ideas, suggestions and best places to purchase.

Another question is I shoot in RAW generally and convert to JPG on the PC, apart from the reduction in speed are there any other pitfalls in doing this (storage is not a problem as have 2x4gb flash cards). I am thinking of purchasing some filters to play with but are they much better than using something like photoshop to apply the filters ?

Any hints would be gratefully received.

Cheers

I've got an 18-70 67MM wide angle. No AV, but a very good all rounder.

I would have thought it would have complimented your existing lens well.

It has very good write-ups below, and one bloke had got the lens that I want, the famed 18- 200 and he repurchased the 18 - 70 again cos he missed it so much. Word to that effect.


Nikon | 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G-AFS ED-IF DX Autofocus Lens | 2149


They had one used for $ 179 tother day.

Re filters, you can do most effects in Photoshop. I'd suggest simply a UV filter partly to, well, filter UV and partly to protect the lens, plus a circular polarizer to control reflections, water, cloud contrast etc.

re shooting in Raw and converting on computer - that's pretty much the standard "workflow". A friendly program for doing this is Google's Picasa, which is free, while for more Pro work you'd look at something like Adobe Camera Raw. Both do non-destructive editing, so your Raw files remain unchanged, like film negatives, and the JPEGs you create are the "prints".

Historically, a good Portrait lens has been a prime (non-zoom) lens in the 85 - 110 mm range, but with the smaller APS-C sensors in these cameras, the equivalent is 50 - 80mm. (I don't know what Nikon has in that range, though, or whether that camera can handle old lenses.)

Filters: there are things some filters can do that you can't replicate on the computer. One is a Polarising filter, to reduce glare from e.g. water. Another is to use a graduated filter to e.g. darken a bright sky. In both cases it's not just an effect, it prevents part of the image "blowing out" and lets you capture more detail from darker areas of the frame.

Cheers for that - will look into picasa etc.

Best price I have found on the 18-70 lens so far is £175 (new or 150 seond hand) so far. I am not expecting something for nothing but trying to go a little cheaper as I am by no means any expert or professional lol so if a lesser quality option is availble pls let me know. I do appreciate I have moved towards the higher end of photgraphy so must pay the price as the lens are expensive but.......... damn its expensive lol.

Now if you could just let me know where to get all the lens' for around £20 each that would be just fine ! hehe - just kidding of course, I will pay what I need to pay (with bitching and cursing) of course.

I've just brought a Canon 400D body on E-Bay for £220, and after some research ended up paying the same again for a refurbished 29-135mm IS Canon lens. If when you think you have settled on a lens, read the reviews at: Nikon / Nikkor (APS-C) Lens Tests

Filter wise, yes a good UV filter will protect the front lens element from dirt and scratches, don't buy a cheap one as they cause reflection problems, a lens hood is a good thing as it also helps reduce reflections, a rubber one is fine as you can peel it back out of the way at wide angles to prevent vignetting. The only other filter I have bothered with is an infra-red one but that's just for experimentation really.

As for RAW, it's the best for quality, but do all your adjustments of the image in that format and then make a copy of it as a jpg etc keeping the original RAW so that you can re-work it at any time.