Lazyweb: which entry-level Nikon setup to go for?
I’ve been thinking about getting a DSLR for a number of years now, and I think the market and my reluctance to buy stuff have finally converged at a point where I’m ready to dive in. Some preliminary research has me settled on the entry-level Nikons, as they’re agreed on to have a better UI, and the d60 I held in a camera store felt better than the Canon XTi.
Remaining questions, then: d40 or d60? Is the kit zoom worth anything, given its lousy low-light performance, or should I just stick with the recommended Sigma prime lens? The D60 is a bit newer, and sports 10 megapixels rather than 6 — is that worth $115?
- Nikon D40 w/ Nikon 18-55/3.5-5.6 lens: $399 from a reputable seller (you can’t get just the body for any less than that)
- Nikon D60 w/ Nikon 18-55/3.5-5.6 lens: $575 from a reputable seller
- Nikon D60 sans kit lens: $515 from a reputable seller
- Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras $375
So, the options range from $399 for the cheaper body & subpar zoom, up to $950 for the D60, kit zoom, and prime lens, with stops in between for D40 + prime at $775, and D60 - kit zoom + prime at $900.
Actually, there’s also the Nikon 50/1.8 lens for a measly $115. Good lens but a bit on the telephoto side for a DSLR to serve as an all-rounder. So forget I mentioned it.
How about it, photo fans? Any advice?
Update: Thanks for the comments! Also, I’m finding Ken Rockwell’s The Megapixel Myth to be a persuasive argument towards the d40 & the better lens.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I’m a Canon guy, but here’s my two cents:
1. I would definitely go for the D-60. MP’s aren’t everything, but $175 for the additional res and features seems like a nice return.
2. The lens question is tough. On my Canon I have an image-stabilized 18-55 and the 50/1.8 you mentioned. I use the 50/1.8 whenever possible, but that is still not often. I originally had an un-stabilized 18-55 kit similar to the one you are considering. I didn’t like it - partly due to low light behavior, but also image quality.
If I were you, I’d start off with the prime 30 you mention, but plan on adding one additional lens when you get the cash. Personally, I’m not sure I could live without a second lens for more than six months. My second lens would either be a general purpose zoom with good low light behavior, or perhaps the awesome 18-200 VR (sadly there is no Canon equiv for this lens).
Let me me know what you decide! -Shilad
July 31st, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Hey Joe,
I’m not sure all the ins and outs of the D40 vs D60, I can say I have been shooting with a D80 for a while and love it and it seems like any of the Nikons would be a good choice.
I do have two lenses though a Nikkor 18-135mm and a fixed focal length 50mm. So anyway my 2ยข would be to buy the D40 and save the cash in case you “need” another lens.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:05 PM
I’ve been shooting Nikon for over a year now and simply love it. I have a D200 and I’d say to actually consider trying to find a D200 used.
The 18-200 is a pretty killer lens. I carry the 18-200 and the 50mm 1.8 always. The D40 and D60 are pretty good, but a used D200 is much more pro. Forget megapixels. I definitely want a 30mm 1.4 myself.
Fast glass definitely is key. Ken Rockwell has excelent points and is great.