D60 vs. D3000

skysailor

I can get a NIB D60 for about $100 less than the D3000. Or, I could "bite the bullet" and get a D90, however I think the D90 would be overkill, for me at least. The difference(60 vs. 90) would be $$ glass.
What is the "real" gain with the D3000 over the D60?
Thanks in advance. Lyle

NikonsandVstroms

skysailor wrote:

I can get a NIB D60 for about $100 less than the D3000. Or, I could "bite the bullet" and get a D90, however I think the D90 would be overkill, for me at least. The difference(60 vs. 90) would be $$ glass.
What is the "real" gain with the D3000 over the D60?
Thanks in advance. Lyle

For 100 dollars on the surface it looks like the D3000 is the way to go. The bigger screen is nice, but the big reason is the AF system.

The D60 has a 3 point AF and I have a similar set up on my Olympus E-420, it works most of the time but not having vertical AF points is annoying. The D3000 has a system based on the D200's old one with 11 points. I have this on my Fuji and love it.

Now for the D3000 VS D90
D90=better sensor, cleaners high ISO, and a tiny bit more resolution but not really noticeable.

D90 has dual command dials which is nice, but I made due with the D50's single one for years so this is not a deal breaker in my opinion at least.

D90 has video

D90 can use non-AF-S lenses (D3000 can only use Nikkor/3rd party lenses with built in motors, now most new ones have it so your biggest issue is if you wanted used lenses).

D90 has a top display among with lots of different things that might fit you better. Again using my personal experience my E-420 doesn't have one and it hasn't been an issue for me. My suggestion on this part is handle both see how they feel in your hands.

The D3000 would handle your base needs no problem especially if this is your first DSLR. So go out get a couple lenses, see where you take most of your shots, then buy the more expensive glass in that range. By then the next D90 will be out or D400 and you will know a lot more about how to work a DSLR and your own photography/what you need in a body.

Mav

+1 on the screen. Having the hi res screen on the D90 really helps you check you pics to see if you've managed to get sharp focus rather than waiting to get home and find it's not so sharp

skysailor

Then there's always the Xsi.....

NikonsandVstroms

skysailor wrote:

Then there's always the Xsi.....

Or Olympus E-620

What kinds of photos do you take?

Joves

NikonsandVstroms wrote:

For 100 dollars on the surface it looks like the D3000 is the way to go. The bigger screen is nice, but the big reason is the AF system.

The D60 has a 3 point AF and I have a similar set up on my Olympus E-420, it works most of the time but not having vertical AF points is annoying. The D3000 has a system based on the D200's old one with 11 points. I have this on my Fuji and love it.

Now for the D3000 VS D90
D90=better sensor, cleaners high ISO, and a tiny bit more resolution but not really noticeable.

D90 has dual command dials which is nice, but I made due with the D50's single one for years so this is not a deal breaker in my opinion at least.

D90 has video

D90 can use non-AF-S lenses (D3000 can only use Nikkor/3rd party lenses with built in motors, now most new ones have it so your biggest issue is if you wanted used lenses).

D90 has a top display among with lots of different things that might fit you better. Again using my personal experience my E-420 doesn't have one and it hasn't been an issue for me. My suggestion on this part is handle both see how they feel in your hands.

The D3000 would handle your base needs no problem especially if this is your first DSLR. So go out get a couple lenses, see where you take most of your shots, then buy the more expensive glass in that range. By then the next D90 will be out or D400 and you will know a lot more about how to work a DSLR and your own photography/what you need in a body.

Pretty much hit it on the head. The D90 gives you more lens choices. The other two are limited in my opinion because of this. It is one of the gripes I had with Nikon.

jziegler

I have a D60, and if I were to buy today, I'd probably get a D3000 or a D5000. I'm happy with my D60 and it meets my needs. But the 11 point somewhat faster AF module would help out greatly at times. Especially when I'm photographing running greyhounds. The D90 does support more lenses, but I haven't come up with anything that I'm likely to use that doesn't have an AF-S (or equiv. 3rd party) lens. You didn't mention the D5000, but it might deserve some consideration as well. The folding screen has some good uses, and live view mode does as well.

Cygnus Studios

jziegler wrote:

The D90 does support more lenses

That is enough reason alone to forgo the D40/60/3000/5000. The fact that AF-S lenses cost more should at least be considered. Add to this some of the best glass ever made for the Nikon lineup does not auto focus or meter properly is another reason.
Most people buy the cheap lineup based on price alone, and if you do any amount of research you will find that owners of the D40/60 are the least satisfied of any current Nikon user. Most learn of the limited lens line after the fact. Then they learn that they have to pay more for lenses. That combination is a problem waiting to happen.
Before anyone considers these systems, they should spend a few minutes on the B&H website taking note of all the glass that is not supported by these systems. Why limit yourself when you do not have to?

Find anyone who is not happy with the D90, 300, 700 or D3.

NikonsandVstroms

Cygnus Studios wrote:

That is enough reason alone to forgo the D40/60/3000/5000. The fact that AF-S lenses cost more should at least be considered. Add to this some of the best glass ever made for the Nikon lineup does not auto focus or meter properly is another reason.
Most people buy the cheap lineup based on price alone, and if you do any amount of research you will find that owners of the D40/60 are the least satisfied of any current Nikon user. Most learn of the limited lens line after the fact. Then they learn that they have to pay more for lenses. That combination is a problem waiting to happen.
Before anyone considers these systems, they should spend a few minutes on the B&H website taking note of all the glass that is not supported by these systems. Why limit yourself when you do not have to?

Find anyone who is not happy with the D90, 300, 700 or D3.

The D90 still wont meter with MF glass :cry

The funny thing is my Olympus E-420 will no problem, makes you wonder if my Olympus can meter with old Nikkor glass why Nikon has crippled their cameras.

jziegler

Cygnus Studios wrote:

That is enough reason alone to forgo the D40/60/3000/5000. The fact that AF-S lenses cost more should at least be considered. Add to this some of the best glass ever made for the Nikon lineup does not auto focus or meter properly is another reason.
Most people buy the cheap lineup based on price alone, and if you do any amount of research you will find that owners of the D40/60 are the least satisfied of any current Nikon user. Most learn of the limited lens line after the fact. Then they learn that they have to pay more for lenses. That combination is a problem waiting to happen.
Before anyone considers these systems, they should spend a few minutes on the B&H website taking note of all the glass that is not supported by these systems. Why limit yourself when you do not have to?

Find anyone who is not happy with the D90, 300, 700 or D3.

I'll respectfully disagree with some of what you wrote. I bought a D60 knowing the lens limitations, looked at what was available, and decided that for me, there is nothing that I am likely going to want that is not available in AF-s (or HSM...) The variety of AF-s glass is quite large now, and growing. All of the DX lenses except an oddball fisheye are AF-s. All of the Sigma DC lenses are HSM. That covers the wide and normal lenses very well. Recent telephotos all work too. The smaller size and lighter weight baby bodies make for a better travel camera if you try to travel as light as I do. They do have a place, and not just with unknowing beginners. Also, if you look at some other forums, the D40 owners fanatically love their cameras in a way that I don't see for most of the others.

All that said, my next camera will quite probably be a D90 replacement or a D300s recplacement, but I will still keep the D60 for when I want to travel light. The D90 has many advantages, but the D3000 deserves recognition for what it does well.

Jim

Cygnus Studios

jziegler wrote:

there is nothing that I am likely going to want that is not available in AF-s (or HSM...)

Let's see, the Nikkor 50mm F1.8, Nikkor 28mm, 50mm F1.4, 35mm F2.0, 24mm F2.8, 85mm F1.8, 60mm F2.8 macro, 18-35mm, 24-85mm, 180mm F2.8, 80-200mm F2.8, 105mm F2.0, 80-400mm, and the stunning 14mm, do not work properly on the D40/60/3000/5000 systems.


Now of course there are a few equivalent AFS lenses that cost $125 to $300 more than those listed, but there are numerous lenses on the above list that have no equivalent.

Again, my question was why limit yourself if you do not have to?

skysailor

The lenses mentioned will work with the D90?