[Closed] Nikon D60 v D3300

Or am I better off buying a new lens for my D60 (I only have the 18-55 kit lens?

Depends on what you want to do with it?

Erm, take photos, print off photos, hang said photos: The usual stuff. Mainly landscape stuff 8)

Given the choice of upgrade a d60 to a d3300 or new lens....if it were me, I'd be going for a new lens.

Given that you mention landscapes, perhaps something like a wider angle lens than you currently have? Tokina 11-16 2.8 or similar?

Yeah, that is one of the lenses I'm looking at. That or the Sigma 10-20. However, the I don't believe the Tokina autofocuses with the D60, so that may be an issue.

I think you would see more benefit with a lens, though that kit lens is actually pretty good. A D5200 would be a bigger step up.

Yeah, I'd like the 5200, but that represents a step-up in cost as well.

IIRC the D40,D60 can't drive a 'manual' lens and need ones with a built in auto forcus motor. From the D80 onwards they can drive manual lenses.

IIRC the D40,D60 can't drive a 'manual' lens and need ones with a built in auto forcus motor. From the D80 onwards they can drive manual lenses.

Yep, hence why that Tokina would be manual focus only.

footflaps - Member

IIRC the D40,D60 can't drive a 'manual' lens and need ones with a built in auto forcus motor. From the D80 onwards they can drive manual lenses.

Somewhat confusingly, the D40/D60 were bought out after the D80 but were a more budget offering. They indeed had no in-built autofocus motor.
They seemed to then morph into the D3000/D5000 range and I have a feeling that the no focus motor continued with the new numbering.

The D80 turned into the D90, but then went to d7000 numbering (I guess to match the rest of the product range). I think they all have focus motors built in.

It's definitely checking that any lens you buy has a focus motor built in (most will have) if you intend to keep the D60, or even if you 'upgrade' to a 3000 or 5000 series.

Just found this Wikipedia entry. Yellow shaded camera numbers have no autofocus motor.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nikon_DSLR_cameras

mikey74 - Member

Yep, hence why that Tokina would be manual focus only.

How so?

If you mean this lens....

http://www.tokinalens.com/tokina/products/atxpro/atx116prodxii/

The product description says:

[i]The main update to this lens is in the Nikon mount, the AT-X 116 PRO DX-II has an internal silent focusing motor to allow the lens to AF on Nikon bodies that do not have an AF drive gear and motor.[/i]

so it will auto-focus on a body without built in motor, from the sounds of it as long as you go for the latest version.

Ah, they must have released an updated version, over the one that came up on Google earlier. Thanks.

On a more general note: I could possibly stretch to a SH D90 or D7000 body, but I'm not sure how much of an upgrade they would be, and probably a new lens would be the better bet.

You gonna get one, then!? 😉

A D7000 would be a significant step-up.

But at the end of the day, the lens is the more versatile end of the camera. If you don't feel your current body is holding you back, what is the point of 'upgrading it'?

Perhaps think of it like this: what are the specific issues with your current body that are holding you back?
Speed?
Number of focus points?
Battery life?
Ergonomics? etc......

Or do you just want new shiny shiny??

If you were shooting lots of low light stuff, then I think a body with a 'cleaner' sensor in low light would be a sensible buy.....

I actually like the D60: However, one thing that has always annoyed me since I got it is the poor focusing in low contrast/light situations. The lack of focus points isn't really an issue as I learned using one focus point, and how to focus and then recompose whilst maintaining the focus.

With regard to your other points:

Speed? Seems fine to me.
Battery life? Again, seems OK.
Ergonomics? I quite like it, although the light weight does make holding steady a bit harder.

A higher resolution for larger prints would be useful.

The D80 turned into the D90, but then went to d7000 numbering (I guess to match the rest of the product range). I think they all have focus motors built in.

They do, I've had all three. Still got the D7000, although I mainly use a D4.

I really can't justify a D4 😥 but SH D90 or D7000 may be possibilities.

D7000 is an excellent body and quite cheap SH.

This brings me back to the dilemma of whether to go for a new lens of a new body: I can't afford both at the moment.

As the kit lens is actually fairly decent, I'm tempted to go for a new body.

New lens. Definitely

But to be honest, you're better off learning how to use it properly with the current lens, then you're onto a winner - unless you're competent (I don't mean pro level, but understand the basics of exposure - ISO, aperture, shutter speed)

Yep, I'm pretty confident with those elements of photography.

D7200 for improved low light shots...

Alternatively, the D500 is due shortly. Just don't expect much change out of £2k 😯

Make sure a s/h D7000 has had it's firmware sorted out, there was some issue with back focusing or something iirc.

If you're confident already then you can manual setting most of the camera side of things, and if you're doing landscapes you won't need clever autofocus tech

So apart from getting more megapixels, or going to a full frame, I'd have though that a better lens will be much better vfm

Make sure a s/h D7000 has had it's firmware sorted out, there was some issue with back focusing or something iirc.

You can download the latest firmware for any Nikon camera free from their website. Updating is trivial, copy the image to the SD card, stick it in the camera, find 'update firmware' in the menu and click OK.

Ben: I tend to use manual for everything, even casual shots.

I'm now thinking a sh d7000 body and a nikon 35mm 1.8 prime

I've progressed from a D40x to a D90 to a D7000. The D90 was mainly an upgrade to use a non-motor lens. The D7000 was a megapixel upgrade. I think a secondhand D7000 would be a good move personally, it's more programmable, I find the huge increase in focussing points really useful and with more megapixels you can crop a shot without a major loss in quality.
I've got the Sigma 10-20 and whilst it's really cool for certain effects, I don't really rate it as a landscape lens. It's so wide that unless there's something interesting in the foreground, you'd be better off stitching shots to make a panorama.

I wouldn't bother with the 35mm prime - I got one because I felt I needed one, but I never used it. Fortunately I bought mine used so I resold it for little to no loss.

However, I have the old version of the Tokina lens and it's fantastic. Really, really good lens - I can thoroughly recommend it.

As for a new body vs a new lens, the d60 is now an 8 year old camera. Things will have moved on in every sense, particularly in its high ISO capability, so even if you got a new lens first, I would definitely budget for a body upgrade in the next few months. A used d7000 or d7100 would be great.

. Things will have moved on in every sense, particularly in its high ISO capability

They do, but for average stuff it is fine. E.g. if you do low light stuff and use a tripod, you can just use a longer exposure and keep the ISO low, so the D60 will still take very good night time shots.

For balance I have a 35mm 1.8 (on a D90) and I use it more than any other lens I reckon. As above though it depends on usage.

I would second not wanting a wideangle lens for landscapes, I use mine for tight interior shots. But I'm not a landscape photographer.

There was a secondhand D90 on here a while back for bobbins - that might be a good investment. It's a step down from the D7000 but not a massive one, and a lot of the improvements were video related iirc.

Also as above the D60 is capable of some cracking shots - but the D90 IS better, especially at high ISO. Mine has nicer tones than my D60 too but that might be due to the horrific abuse the D60 has suffered.

I recently bought a D90 with kit lens for £150 from EBay, it's awsumz..

For landscape stuff, apart from more MP, what's the benefit of a different camera?

If you have a tripod and the right filters, surely lens are of more benefit?

I have the Nikon 35mm f1.8 lens, I mostly used it for taking pics of people, as I could use a nice big aperture for quick shutter speeds and soft background/foreground. Got some great shots of my Lab when he was a puppy too

I have a Nikon D40, which I bought in 2007/2008. Shamefully, I mostly use my iphone 6 now!

Shamefully, I mostly use my iphone 6 now!

Same here!

[D7000 and D4s owner]

Hmmm still tempted by the D7000

Decisions decisions

Just get the D7000, then....!?

It is sounding more and more like you have already made the decision & are looking for suitable justification of that decision. 😆

Get it bought.....

I've got a D80, had it from new.
It's poor at high ISO compared to more modern stuff, but that's the only real drawback.
Only notice it at poorly lit gigs.

The metering is all over the place as standard though, seems to be just this model that suffered, but you can work around it.

If you wan't something with a built in motor, anything from a D90 onward would be ace.

If you don't, I'd get a nice wide angle zoom (my Sigma 10-20 is nice but a bit soft) and keep the current body.

The focusing on my D60 is the thing that really gets on my nerves.

It's done: A SH D7000 is on it's way.

"For landscape stuff, apart from more MP, what's the benefit of a different camera?"

More recent cameras will have much better high ISO capability, higher dynamic range and better RAW processing. The D7000, for example, will also have stuff like video capability vs the D60, and generally better features and technology all round. In theory, it will help to take better quality pictures.

Personally, I'd retire (sell) the 18-55 kit lens, and invest in some better quality lenses. Any advantages a new body will have, will be hampered by that basic lens. I've owned one and it's really not great. It's only real plus is that it's small and light. Something like the 17-55 f2.8, 16-35mm f4 or 16-80mm f2.8-4 will be significantly better, if you want a zoom, but pretty expensive. Primes such as the 35mm f1.8 will offer significantly better picture quality. For landscapes, you'll be wanting to look at a 16,18mm or 20mm prime, but again, expensive. For portraits, then the 50mm f1.8 is actually relatively inexpensive, and fantastic quality. With longer zooms, again you'll find the cheaper 'kit' 55-200 type lenses being inferior to the much more expensive large-aperture stuff. But if you're on a budget, then at least these will offer the ability to take pictures at all. Photography isn't cheap once you start to get a bit more serious about it.

For now, concentrate on taking better pictures with what you have. Work out what you love about photography, and concentrate on that, rather than about equipment.

clodhopper - Member

For now, concentrate on taking better pictures with what you have. Work out what you love about photography, and concentrate on that, rather than about equipment.

Did you miss this post??

mikey74 - Member

It's done: A SH D7000 is on it's way.

Posted 19 hours ago

😆

I best tell "Steve", the delivery man, to turn around then 😆

"Did you miss this post??"

No. Obviously the OP wanted a new camera body, so that's what they got. I'm just passing on sound advice I and many others have received. Advice that helped me become a better photographer, and even earn a bit of money doing it. 😆

But for anyone in a similar position, wondering about equipment; learn to use the kit you've got to it's full potential, then when you've reached the limits of your current gear, it's then time to 'upgrade'. Other advice has been to invest in lenses, and I'd echo that.

Sometimes you just have to go 'New Body' I used to be a Sony chap (A100) did the new body and company switch and things are better than ever (plus STW help)

Plus nothing can beat that new camera smell

Clod: I have learnt how to use the camera I've got. I've found the limitations and chosen to upgrade. You do make a valid general point, though.

How are you getting along with the D7000 then? Are the 'improvements' significant, or more subtle? Any features that you've benefitted from?

I took it out yesterday for the first time and I have to say it's a revelation. I know there's always that "new gadget" feeling with these things but the features and general functionality provide a tangible improvement. The things that annoyed me about the D60 are no longer there and it just makes photography a more pleasurable experience.

I love the ability to be able to assign functions to buttons as well.

Physically, it feels much better in the hands as well: The D60 always felt quite small and light, which didn't necessarily translate into a positive, IMO. The larger size and increased weight of the D7000 just feels better in use.

So far, all good, thanks

The two program mode buttons are handy, I configured them with a Sports and a Landscape profile and pretty much just used those.

6 fps is also half decent for Sports (although you really need 20+ for fast action stuff).