I'm looking for something more than entry level, but less than full professional. Both of these seem to fit the bill, but I wonder if:

a: I should consider something else
b: Anyone out there has experience with both of these and would recommend one over the other

I want to accomplish excellent photos. (like family, vacation, car shows, pens, etc.), be able use it with a light tent, etc...

I want it to be pretty intuitive, and have always liked Nikon in this regard. Even back in my 35mm days, I had a Nikon (F body) with different lenses.

Maybe it's brand loyalty, but this is the brand I seem to be drawn to when I'm out looking...

I am the proud owner of a D200, and I absolutely love it. I need to play around with pen photography with it....

It is a fully featured enough camera to be used at the professional level, but is not considered a professional camera. One of the things that I really like about it is that the body is made of metal, and is tough, water resistant, and dust resistant.

I think that if you do not compromise on features, whichever camera Nikon you choose will not disappoint.

Personally I own a D80 and think that the camera is about perfect for what you are looking for. The D60 does nothing for me, as it is little more than a tarted up D40x which is a poor mans D80.

The D80 has many features which are on par with a pro camera and the only thing that it is really missing is live view and good weather sealing. Many pros have D80s as their back up camera as it is basically a more economical version of the D200.

The build on the D80 is fantastic and there really is little to fault on it. Do buy the battery grip though as it makes the handling that much better.

The useability of the D80 is awesome, very easy to manipulate when you get used to it and takes wonderful images. It does take some setting up as out of the box it is a little dull and soft, but with sharpening turned on and the correct color space set, it is punchy, contrasty and razor sharp. One other tip, turn off the long exposure noise reduction, this does little except reduce your frames per second on anything less than a 1 sec shot. People always complain that the D80 is slow, but when you turn that off, you go back to 3fps. It's not a D3 11fps shooter, but 3fps is about all you will need for little league soccer or whatnot.

As for legacy lenses, I use an older 80-200 f2.8 on mine and it works awesome. The other good thing about the D80 is that it uses SD cards which are usually found in P&S cameras, so you probably have a few of them kicking around already. It does fill them up quickly though so be ready.

The other good piece of kit to get is a 50mm f1.8 lens. They are cheap as chips and sharp as a tack. Great for low light shooting and portraits.

check out my flickr page for some D80 images.
Sean's flickr page

Cheers,
Sean

I don't own either the D60 or D80 but I do own the lowly D40. I bought it nearly a year ago after being a Canon man for many years. This was my first foray in DSLR and went for the Nikon due to the poor reviews of the standard lens which came with the Canon 400D.

Does more than enough of what I am looking for.

One thing to check if you have other Nikon motorised lenses - the D40 does not have a lens motor in the camera body so will only autofocus with lenses which have a motor in the lens itself. The D80 does not have this restriction - I don't know about the D60

These two sites have helped me a lot:

http://www.dpreview.com/

http://www.dcresource.com/

Full reviews, sample images and comparisons - I´ve spent hours on both sites.

Perhaps you should check out this one:

Canon EOS 450D (Digital Rebel Xsi)

(Most probably going to be my next camera - not professional, but with all the features for an ambitious amateur)

Cheers,
Unic

I'm a diehard Canon user, having used them for over 10 years....so I love my Canon Digital Rebel XTI, but my father-in-law is a die-hard nikon guy. I often refer to Ken Rockwell's Photo site for tips and suggestions - he's a pro and he loves nikon. I think he recommends the D40 here as his "When I want a fun, light camera, I grab my D40. I only grab my big D200 when I've got something more serious to photograph" camera.

IMHO the right lenses, not the body, make the largest difference in the actual photos themselves.

My father is a diehard Nikon user. I guess it is because of his years of accumulating Nikkor lenses that has forced this, but they make good cameras! He right now has a D200, just like griffin. If you have quite a few lenses that are compatible with a digital body, don't go switching over the Canon. Since you are from the film days, you probably hate the plasticy bodies and lenses of recent years. Since you were a long time film user, I think the D## range will be a little disappointing in build quality. But of course, just like fountain pens, try first! Go to Henry's or something and play around, talking to the usually very knowledgeable staff. (No affiliation, etc. etc.). I think a good bet would be the D200, as prices should be dropping (it is a soon to be replaced model). If you like fast continuous shooting, the D60 might be disappointing. Thats about all that I know, for now.
PRAG

I did forget to mention that the D60 does not have an AF motor built in, much like the D40 and D40x. This is really only an issue if you have alot of aftermarket AF lenses, unless they are Sigma with the HSM then you will be manually focusing with them. If you plan on using new lenses, then all DX series and AI autofocus lenses from Nikon (as well as Sigma HSM lenses) will work.

The D60 is analagous to the Digital Rebel Xti, but both have lets say, consumer build quality. The D40 was very small for my hand, and the Xti even smaller. There are very few buttons to push to change functions like ISO and white balance. The D80 has direct access buttons for these funcitons and can have custom menus setup to only show the functions you usually use.

Also, the D80 has two access dials which can control aperture and shutter speed, so when you stop shooting in Automatic mode, you have the option and flexibility to set aperture and speed on the fly. I am pretty sure that the D60 only has the one dial and it changes function based on what mode you are shooting in.

The Canon alternative to the D80 is the 40D and it is a very nice camera. Comparable image quality, quick AF and very fast 6fps speed. I personally like Nikon lenses much more than the 3 tiered Canon setup and thus my going with Nikon.

The D200 is a viable alternative, and is now priced at what I bought my D80 for. Of course if you really want a humdinger then get the D300 at 12Mp and 8fps with the battery grip. This will most likely be my next camera, I would love the D3 but I cannot justify $5k on a body at this point. Just a quick note though on the D200, the D80 designers learned from the D200 and the image quality is actually slightly better on the D80. The D200 was never upgraded to take advantage of these lessons, but it is solid as a rock and shoots at 5fps. Both D80 and D200 have the same AF system with 11 points, which is much more than the Rebel and IIRC the D60 series.

Nikon is bringing out some really nice lenses of late as well, the 55-200 VRII and the 70-300 VR are really quite a bargain. The 18-55VRII is also a really nice lens for a starter, IQ is not as good as the top end lenses but it is cheap and light. Personally I am a fast glass lover, 50mm f1.8 and 80-200 f2.8 as well as a Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro are my staple lenses. I would love the 17-55 f2.8 but will have to save up for a while, it is not a cheap piece of glass.

Also check out flickr as there are groups setup especially for each camera model. There is also pbase which is a great resource for images taken from each lens and camera as well. Ken Rockwell is an ok source but know that alot of what he says is tongue in cheek and subject to change. Much of his review is opinion based and has little fact behind it. Entertaining yes, but maybe not the best source of information out there.

Cheers,
Sean

Digital SLR???

Do you write with a ballpoint pen?

For my photography I use, almost exclusively, Leica M series rangefinders. I have an M2 and an M6. If i need better quality I use the Bronica.

Digital SLR indeed, like using a disposal Bic ballpoint to write Oscar winning screenplays.

I have a D50 that I have been using for quite some time and absolutely love it...
IF I were to be buying a new camera today it would be the D80... it would do all you want it to do since you really do not need a PRO camera...
When I purchased mine I was looking at both the D50 and D70 and decided the lower price D50 would do all I needed... I just did not need some of the things on the D70...

Of course I am also a long time Nikon junkie... my first Nikon was a FTN back in the stone age....
One of the sweet things about Nikon Digital SLRs is that I can still use the autofocus lenses from my film camera and the non AF lenses if I don't mind manual focusing them...

Olympus e510 - 2 lens kit.

As above, check dpreview.com - this is a well-reviewed set up, the price is right, and with two lenses at that!

It's the one that I own and I have not been disappointed.

Check out the web sites mentioned by Unic, they're very good, and while you're there check out the offerings from Pentax.

Telltime,
You didn't mention if you have any lenses you want to still be able to use with your new camera.
If you don't I would suggest a serious look at the Canon S5 IS. Smaller than standard SLR size, no worry about lens changing for the most part and you have zoom from 12x optical to super macro. I work with a partner who was a high end professional photographer for 20+ years, sold his business and now just does some on the side for the buyer of his business. After borrowing my S3 IS for a couple days, he bought a s5 for his day to day camera before he even brought mine back. A lot of potential that can do most things auto and manual in a nice sized package.
Bill J.

FWIW, and it is just my opinion, and barring you don't have a drawer full of legacy Nikon lenses you have to live with.......

1. You set your budget.

2. You define the types of pictures you will be taking.

3. The lenses you choose with an SLR will come from that. ( This where the money goes as the lens will determine the picture.)

4. Then you buy the body that will take the lenses from 3. and will allow you to take the pictures in 2.

5. Most people waste way too much money on bodies and don't have enough left to buy the appropriate level of lenses.

6. If your going to shoot pens (jewelry) your going to have to buy or build a tabletop setup for that light tent and if your going to do the car shows you will probably want an external flash/Stroboframe setup. This will have to work into your budget also as the more versatile Nikon speedlight is pricey.

Addendum. As far as Ken Rockwell's point of view, you might want to take a look at the Leitz section of Pbase.com and see some of the garbage taken with the "worldsbestcamerasbeyondtheshadowofadoubtyadayadayada." Then go over to the Kodak section and look at some of the really good pictures taken with their "cameras for the masses."

Uh, I have a Canon A1 and AE1, can I be of any help? Well, then again, I kinda like fountain pens, too.

The D60 and D40 are fine cameras. I like my D40 because it's (relatively) small and does many of the things I want in a camera. It's what I would (and do) take on vacation. When I'm serious about the pictures I'm taking (or being paid to take them) I use a D200. More convenience features/configuration options, obviously higher pixel density, and heavier (easier to get stable hand held shots). However, the D60 shares the remarkable image processing hw/sw with the D3/D300 and these are currently considered by many to be the best cameras ever made. This is lacking in the D200.

The point about the D60 missing a focus motor can be significant or not, depending on the lens you use. Nikon makes a fantastic 18-200 zoom w/ vibration reduction that can be had for under $700. It will work with a D60 and may be the only lens you'll ever need.

Don't overlook a used D200. With the lens I just mentioned you'll be set for a long while.

Finally, in addition to the reference sites mentioned, you might want to check out kenrockwell.com.

Regards,

Bob

My better half is the photographer of the family, but I do dabble a bit.
We have a D50 and a D80 at this time and I've used the D40/D40x cameras through friends... From the bit I've used, and with my wifes input, the D80 is a great choice for pretty much everyone up to the professional photographer.

The D40 and D40x are a bit limited in their abilities (lack of AF drive as noted prior, etc...) and the D50 has been discontinued (was a great starter DSLR though) the D70x is a good camera but it is easily surpassed by the D80.... the D100,D200 and D300 are all nice cameras if you need the bells and whistles.

That all being said... when it came time for a new camera body in the OiRogers household the D80, D200 and D300 were our options... our needs were very similar to the OP's..."I want to accomplish excellent photos. (like family, vacation, car shows, pens, etc.), be able use it with a light tent, etc..." but also toss on the occasional wedding or other paid shoot... For the price the D80 is hard to pass up.

As many other replies have suggested... the body will only get you so far... Quality lenses are a must. If you have the older Nikon glass already, your half way there.

As far as memory systems go... don't worry about which type it takes, flash memory is cheap and getting cheaper by the month. Take a few bucks and grab a Canon S2IS, S3IS, S4IS or S5IS... great point and shoots that tuck nicely into the camera bag and are very handy to have about when the SLR is just too much camera.

It has been said here already a few times, but it will not hurt repeating, the quality of the lens will have the most dramatic effect on the resulting image. The faster the lens the better, in fact invest in a few fast prime lenses, my staples are a 50mm f1.7, 28mm f2.8 and a 135mm f2.8. These are all 1980's era Minolta Rokkor AF glass originally bought for a 9000/7000 setup I used back then. I also have two Rokkor zooms of the same era, a 35-70mm and a 70-210mm both are a constant f4. All of these lenses are metal construction and have a real quality feel, which transfers over to the images. The AF lens mount is the same as the Sony, so if I ever go digital no prizes for guessing which body I will go with

I see my lenses as an investment, in fact although I have the original 7000 body still, I recently bought a few more 35mm bodies on Ye Olde Fleabay, as I have a project on the go that really needs film, and in particular slide. I traded the 9000 about 15 years ago when I bought a Bronica ETRS, now that is a camera that has GOOD lenses. Somewhere I have the report when they compared the Bronica lenses with the Zeiss lenses on the Hasselblad, makes interesting reading. Bearing in mind that the retail price for one of those lenses was probably three times the price of a digital camera outfit and you get the idea.

So once you get up to the pro-consumer level, the camera is down to personal preference, the lenses are what will make or break the image quality. Most CCD chips have issues once you start to push them to high ISO levels, so fast lenses do a lot to alleviate this if you want the highest quality. You also get better depth of field too, as f8 on a f1.7 lens is a World away from f8 on a f5.6, which is where many zooms are at.

I don't have a zoom lens for the Bronica, I just use my feet There is also a discipline shooting on film that can get lost in the digital world. The Bronica gives me 15 images on a single roll of 120, OK yes I have interchangeable backs and I can swap to a new roll quickly. But my point is, limited images makes you think about the picture before you take it, whereas with digital there is a tendency to shoot a load and correct it in Photoshop. Which is fine, but why start with a mediocre image in the first place? The more you get right in the camera, the less you need to do in post processing.

Also if the rumour mill is correct, the D80 is about to be replaced with the D90, which could have the new geration of Sony CCD in it which means better resolution. So there could be deals to be had on D80 kit, always worth a try

I'm another Nikon fan...I've owned my D50 for 2-1/2 years now. After 6500+ pictures I've had zero problems, and remain very impressed with it.

Have you actually played around with the D60 and D80? The D60 is much smaller, so if you have large hands, you probably won't like it. I can't stand the smaller DSLRs like the D40, D60, Rebel XT, etc. That's one reason I didn't even consider the cheaper Canon DSLRs when I purchased mine.

As for the D80, you may want to wait. When Nikon released the D200 a few years back, the D80 came out a few months later with a good bit of the D200's functionality in a lighter, cheaper, plastic-body. What I'm getting at is that given the recent release of the D300, someting like a D90 might be coming out within six months.

Then if you decide the extra price/features of the D90 aren't worth it, at that point the price of the D80 might have fallen.

Good luck! I agree with you about ergonomics...I find my D50 to be very intuitive to use.

Brian

I'll dissent here, but only slightly.

I don't think you could go wrong with either of the two big brands: Nikon and Canon. Probably Pentax as well.

I was a "Nikon guy" for many years. I didn't have a large arsenal of lenses, and used a 35/2.8 on a Nikkormat for 98% of my photography for 10 or 15 years. When I decided I wanted to upgrade to autofocus, since I didn't have a lot of lenses I wanted to carry with me, I decided to look at other brands besides Nikon. And to seriously look at them, holding them in my hands and playing with all the controls - to see which ones made sense and were most comfortable to me. Canon won by a large amount. I just didn't care for the newer Nikon user interfaces, but did feel good about Canon. So, that's what I went with. When it came time to move to digital, I did have a fairly good supply of lenses I didn't want to replace, but luckily, the user interface I liked so much in my film camera carried over (as much as it could from film to digital) to the digital cameras, so I was happy to stay with Canon.

So, my dissent is not an anti-Nikon bias, I simply recommend that you hold the cameras and play with them enough to determine which feels best in your hands. If you do that, the correct choice for you should become obvious. Depending on what your needs are, I don't think you could go wrong with any of them.

HTH,

Lee

FWIW - I use my legacy minolta glass on the Olmpus e-510.

I think that's what most have been getting at, and I agree....it's what feels best to you. For the OP, make sure to play around with them before purchasing. I think Nikon and Canon are pretty equal on quality/technology for DSLRs, so it more boils down to feel.

Small digicams are another story, and I've seen and personally experienced numerous problems with Canons...I'll never buy another small Canon digicam again.

Do they use the Minolta A mount or do you have to use an adaptor? I was under the impression that my only choice for digital and keep all my expensive lenses was to go with Sony?

Thanks,

Jim

Hi Jim,

If you don't mind manual focusing (MF), you could also go with Canon. You need an adapter to do so, either with or without focus confirmation built in. The latter are slightly more expensive.

In essence, provided you can get an adapter, any camera body will work provided the flange to sensor distance is larger than the camera you use the lens on. Since Canon has about the shortest flange to sensor distance in APS-C and FF land, you can use almost any lens with it, provided you can get an adapter for it. The Olympus has a 4/3 sensor, so personally I would not invest in that, unless you need a very small dslr.

Warm regards, Wim

IMO, yes. If you want to stay in the Nikon camp, either get a D300, or a D90 when it comes out. Nikon just started using cmos sensors, with their D3 and D300 models, and noise (comparable to grain in film, kinda), is a LOT less than with their older CCD sensors. These sensors also attract less dust.
Also, the D80 is by now a camera to be replaced, so if you insist in getting one, wait a bit longer.

If you have to insist: the D80. It'll alow you to use all of Nikon's lenses, including their older ones, without any hitches.

Well, you can use many cameras to accomplish that. Excellent photos are made by the photographer, only to a smaller degree by the gear. Yes, good gear helps, just like it is easier to do a job with good gear than the cheapo stuff. Not in line with the increase in price, but that is true for anything.

In that case, stick to Nikon, don't switch. If you were happy with Nikon in your film days, if you do get something else you will always be secondguessing yourself.

Now, like many people said, lenses are most important, over the body you choose. Generally, lenses are the investment, and the camera body is a consumer item with a short life cycle, these days anyway.

If you still have your old lenses, you can reuse them with a dslr. Except for the D3 and D-X series, all of the current Nikon bodies are APS-C bodies, with a 1.5 X crop factor. This means that the result you get with any lens, when compared to old film bodies, is that you get an image enlargement, or crop, with a factor of 1.5X linear. You have to take this into account when thinking about lenses, because if you like wide angle lenses, you generally need a lens especially manufactured for the format. In order to get a 24 mm FoV, you need a 16 mm lens for APS-C to get a similarly wide view.

Other than that, it is all budget. If you can afford a D300, I would get that. If you can afford to wait for a while, you could maybe wait for the D90. It'll be here before Christmas, and maybe sooner, I am sure. If you can't wait that long, a D80 is a good camera. If you want to play first, I would get a D40X first, and only if you can't find one anymore, a D60. They are essentially the same camera, and a D40X is going to be cheaper than a D60.

For family shots generally a standard zoom suffices. The new 18-55 VR is a nice starter lens, as is the 18-135, or, good for vacation too, the 18-200 VR. They are not very fast lenses, though, IOW, don't have large maximum apertures.

For car shows I would personally like an (U)WA zoom, a standard zoom, and maybe a short tele(zoom), preferably a fairly fast one, for isolation of the subject.

For pens, a relatively short macro lens is great; OTOH, unless you want to do nib close-ups, you don't need to get all that close, so you could maybe get away with many lenses in the 50 to 100 mm range, provided they don't have too much distortion. BTW, a relatively short macro lens could double as a reasonably fast short telelens too.
Ideal for pens, IMO, is a tilt-shift lens, like the PC-Nikkor 85. However, this is a rather expensive piece of equipment.

Some good sites for lens reviews are http://www.photozone.de (in English), http://www.photodo.com and http://www.slrgear.com .

BTW, personally I own a Canon 40D, which is my 4th dslr, after a 350D and two 400Ds, and a bunch of lenses (17) and other equipment. I chose Canon (choice between Canon and Nikon), mostly because of ergonomics, and ease of use for me - I have funny eyes, and the Canons allow me to focus manually, the Nikons don't; the image never gets sharp for me with Nikons; probably due to the larger exit pupil of the Canons.

I think you need to hold the cameras for a bit, play with them, and see for yourself what suits you best. Currently, there really aren't any bad dslrs anymore, but you need to be aware that you buy into a system, and that needs to cater for what you want and find important in a system.

Anyway, HTH, warm regards, Wim

I'm a Canon user. Started out that way when I went to my first Autofocus body. Hated the Nikon Autofocus and the user interface on that vintage of cameras.

Since then things have improved and now its an either or... I usually tell people to choose the brand based on their legacy glass (if they have any) and then on intended use and the depth of lenses in the ranges suited to their intended us.

There isn't any real difference in quality/functionality anymore.

Go with the body that has the features you will use. The big ones for me are Mirror lock-up, and DOF preview, as these are less common features on lower end bodies that are crucial to some types of pictures.

FYI:

dpreview.com just posted a review of the D60. It looks liek a decent enough camera/

Warm regards, Wim

If you like Nikon, this is the site:


http://bythom.com/


D60 and D80 are equally valid cameras for the money. I am an happy D70 owner.

Cheers,

you cant really go wrong with canon or nikon, to help choose look at which system offers the best lenses and accessories that you want. also, and which feels good to handle. the lens that comes with a package generally isnt that good so budget for something half decent.

I'm a happy D40 owner. I've had the camera six months and taken 2,000+ photos with it. I like it's smaller body and thought the D80 felt uncomfortable. I've been really impressed with the quality of the camera. My only gripe is on the D40 there is only 3 autofocus points. I've lost many a photo because the camera didn't focus where I wanted.

I think my next one I will try something in the D80 range again, but I have at least another year before I upgrade.

For me, after using digital dslr's since 2004 and normal slr's before that. The only big difference between all the digital dslr's on the market is handeling and full frame or crop.

They all take good pictures and take good high ISO's. When digital slr's were upcomming the difference was bigger but these day's they are about the same. The big difference in image quality will be from the lens.
Offcourse I am talking about camera's from the same league. No Hasselblad H3D against a nikon D40x.

So the big thing when choosing a camera is:
- Witch one do I like the most when using. You can only tell this by testing them yourself. For example in a big electronicshop.
- Do I want to go full frame (Canon 5D, 1Ds or nikon D3)
- What sort of lenses will I need.

I would prefer a canon 40D with 300mm f/4 IS over a canon 1D mk3 with 75-300mm lens. Altrough the 1D is a better camera, the 40D will take the best pictures.

If you have the money for a D80 with a nice zoomlens like the 17-55/2.8 or a D300 with a standard lens. Take the D80.

The forums of Fred Miranda ( http://www.fredmiranda.com/ ) is a nice place to ask this sort of questings. There are a lot of people who now everything about lenses, camera's ect. and who can help you with it.

Good luck!

Do you like the M8?
Rangefinders are great fun using. I used to take more streetphoto's and a rangefinder is great for it. I almost bought a M6, loved the handeling of it, but they are still so expensive. For the same money you could buy a new Zeiss ikon wherefor you also can buy lovely lenses. So I did ( ) not buy it. Still thinking some time to throw all the digital canon stuff out, exept a 30D with 17-40 lens for the standard shots, for a M or Ikon.

Here is a nice forum about rangefinders:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/