File :-(, x, )
Nikon D60 vs Canon 400D Guu
Hey /p/
sorry to ask again
Can't seem to make up my mind. Each articles I read makes me change it :p
So here it is, narrowed down to a final clash :p

-Canon EOS 400D with kit lens 18-50 540€

-Nikon D60 also with kit lens 18-50 590€

To be known also that my father got this old Nikon F70 [stuff is like 25 years old] and two Nikkor lenses 24/120 and 75/300 that might go on a modern nikon and that he'd be willing to lend to me.[to be known also that I'm into landscape mainly and urban scenes mainly]
Help me /p/, I can't seem to make up my mind but I need to before tomorrow
Pic: my neighbourhood with my actual camera, a shitty cellphone :'(
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNokiaCamera Model6300Camera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Gallery 6.0.6000.16386Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:11 17:34:28Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1600Image Height1200
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2006:06:25 21:55:38Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width413Image Height604
>> M/A !n21TE7QU8U
Nikon.
Nikon kitlens > Canon kitlens.

Also: if your dad has Nikkor lenses, use them. Dont be stupid and choose the brand you already have stuff of.
>> Anonymous
Nikon D50 with a 20/2.8.
>> Anonymous
Nice picture taking into consideration it was taken on a phone.

Anyways, I'm kind of biased here, but I'd suggest going with a Nikon since you already have lenses + the kit lens is of less suck. I wouldn't really suggest a D60 though.
>> Anonymous
Personally I prefer Nikon's least expensive D40 over the D60 or D40x. The D60, D40x and D40 are actually exactly the same cameras, differering only slightly in their internal electronics but greatly in their prices.

THe D60 is actually a D40 body with a few more card-clogging pixels, a VR lens and adaptive dynamic range, but a slower maximum shutter speed with flash.

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. These three cameras (D40, D40x, D60) otherwise, for most users, are identical. Compare them in person and you'll see. Megapixels don't matter.


I had my hands on a D60 back in January 2008. The D60 is an excellent camera, but for most of the people who will buy it, it's the same thing as the $300 less expensive D40. I'd suggest getting a D40 and putting the $300 towards more lenses and/or a bouncable flash.
>> Anonymous
>>149049
If he picks any of those he'll be harassed here to no end.
>> Anonymous
fuck you gear thread
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>149049
I dunno, I think the D60 actually has some real advantages over the D40. 3fps vs. 2.5, and an electronic rangefinder to make manual focus easier without a decent focusing screen, plus the various advancements Nikon's made in image processing and interface. I agree that the D40x is made of meh, but the D60 actually has some real advantages.
>> Anonymous
>>149078

For the extra cost i cant really see any real advantages that most ppl will notice. If it had a focusing motor that would probably add a lot.

I hope nikon dont make this a habit and just simply spew out body after body with minor specification changes.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>149108
>If it had a focusing motor that would probably add a lot.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure we've seen the end of in-body motors at the low end. I wouldn't be surprised if the D80 replacement when it comes out won't have an in-body motor, even, though I'd hope they'll have brought out some fast primes with in-lens motors by then.

>I hope nikon dont make this a habit and just simply spew out body after body with minor specification changes.
I don't think the spec changes (at least between the D40 and D60) are that small. It's just that the massive (arguable) flaw of the lack of a focus motor overshadows the advantages there are. Along with the little speedbump of the utterly forgettable D40x. People look at the D40x compared to the D40 and don't see much of an advantage, and they see the D60 compared to the D40x and they don't see much of an advantage, but they don't add together the two small bumps into one moderate bump between the D40 and D60.

I'd say the D60 is at least as much of a jump from the D40 as, say, the XTi from the XT.
>> Anonymous
>>149078

you've just been ken rockwell'd

ahahahahahah
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>149329
So wait, lemme get this straight:
You're mocking me because I haven't memorized everything on Ken Rockwell's site and you have?
>> hal9000 !a4fa8BKGtQ
I wanted to post saying ken rockwell was a tool, and attatching that image that's on his site of him with like 17 dslr's hanging from his neck, and saying "look, see? a tool," but I can't seem to find the image.

Also, I wear a leather jacket and cowboy boots when I shoot; I'm fucking rad, not a tool at all.
>> Anonymous
>>149332

shut the fuck up you faggot
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>149344
That was a pretty awesome comeback.