Nikon D60 vs Canon 500D

[Sprint]

a friend of mine is looking at buying a new camera for a position she has as a part time photographer with the local rag

her budget is $2,000, and she has considered either a 500D or a D60..... which would be best, or is there a better alternative out there for her?

[JLo]

With that budget I would be chasing a D90 and not the D60. It will get her two kit lenses 18 -105 & 55-200 if she haggles a bit.


Cheers

[Sprint]

With that budget I would be chasing a D90 and not the D60. It will get her two kit lenses 18 -105 & 55-200 if she haggles a bit.


Cheers

yea, seems she's changed her mind overnight and its now 500D vs D90

[dmdigital]

500D is really comparable to Nikon D3000 and D5000. The 50D is the closest Canon to a D90. The D3000 is really the replacement for the D60.

Nikon D90 is much better environmentally sealed than either Canon and a far more solid build. The Nikon kit lenses aren't great but the Canon kit lenses are terrible. The other camera to consider is the Pentax K-x or K7.

At the end of the day she has to be comfortable using it and so the best advice is to go to a store and have a play with each of them.

Have a look at dpReview: Digital Cameras Side-by-Side, 5 cameras: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp'method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos50d%2Ccanon_eos500d%2Cnikon_d3000 %2Cnikon_d5000%2Cnikon_d90&show=all)

[JLo]

500D is really comparable to Nikon D3000 and D5000. The 50D is the closest Canon to a D90. The D3000 is really the replacement for the D60.

Nikon D90 is much better environmentally sealed than either Canon and a far more solid build. The Nikon kit lenses aren't great but the Canon kit lenses are terrible. The other camera to consider is the Pentax K-x or K7.

At the end of the day she has to be comfortable using it and so the best advice is to go to a store and have a play with each of them.

Have a look at dpReview: Digital Cameras Side-by-Side, 5 cameras: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp'method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos50d%2Ccanon_eos500d%2Cnikon_d3000 %2Cnikon_d5000%2Cnikon_d90&show=all)

I don't entirely agree with the point about lenses. Image clarity in the digital world has a lot to do with the actual sensors and how 'all' sensors have gaps between the receptors. To complete the image within these gaps the light info is estimated, which introduces a 'softness' in the image. Yes there are crook lenses, but in general they are better than yesterdays. There are always 'kit' lenses and there are always 'pro' lenses.

Cheers
JLo

[dullbird]

after going from a kit to a quality I agree with Derek.....

the body is important but I don't think as much as a good lense is.

Kit lenses are OK for a start....but not if you intend to get serious or its your profession IMHO.

[dmdigital]

I don't entirely agree with the point about lenses. Image clarity in the digital world has a lot to do with the actual sensors and how 'all' sensors have gaps between the receptors. To complete the image within these gaps the light info is estimated, which introduces a 'softness' in the image. Yes there are crook lenses, but in general they are better than yesterdays. There are always 'kit' lenses and there are always 'pro' lenses.

Cheers
JLo
Don't disagree with you, the actually ability of even the cheapest lenses is improving all the time. Considering the fact that most kit lenses are almost entirely plastic and not glass and metal. What I was referring to was the robustness and operation of the lenses. The Canon ones are a lot cheaper build quality and IMO not as well made as the equivalent Nikon lenses. I've compared the 18-55 Canon and Nikon lenses and you have to look twice at the Canon to make sure it's not some cheap copy. They have a very low grade feel to the zoom and focus.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Don't disagree with you, the actually ability of even the cheapest lenses is improving all the time. Considering the fact that most kit lenses are almost entirely plastic and not glass and metal. What I was referring to was the robustness and operation of the lenses. The Canon ones are a lot cheaper build quality and IMO not as well made as the equivalent Nikon lenses. I've compared the 18-55 Canon and Nikon lenses and you have to look twice at the Canon to make sure it's not some cheap copy. They have a very low grade feel to the zoom and focus.

Nikon certainly build their stuff pretty heavily. I put my D80 next to an equivalent Canon at a christmas party and the Nikon is significantly heavier than the Canon equivalent.

Light cameras are more prone to camera shake than heavy ones, particularly in windy environments and when the photographer has been exerting themselves. :o

[JLo]

I agree Derek. I use Nikon for many reasons. I still use manual focus lenses that are twenty years old.

I think that too greater an emphasis is placed on lenses when there are many factors not taken into consideration when comparing film vs digital (because thats what we are doing). One of the biggest is the computer screen in front of you when you review images and what compression does to the image when viewed over the net. Have also read many a thread where people have spent a few $k on a lens and still say they are not getting any better results.

Cheers
JLo

[dullbird]

I agree Derek. I use Nikon for many reasons. I still use manual focus lenses that are twenty years old.


I think that too greater an emphasis is placed on lenses when there are many factors not taken into consideration when comparing film vs digital (because thats what we are doing). One of the biggest is the computer screen in front of you when you review images and what compression does to the image when viewed over the net. Have also read many a thread where people have spent a few $k on a lens and still say they are not getting any better results.

Cheers
JLo


are we:confused:....now I'm lost! where did film enter the comparison:confused:

I thought we were comparing two digital cameras with the suggestion to go with a particular brand due to the quality of a kit lens

[JLo]

after going from a kit to a quality I agree with Derek.....

the body is important but I don't think as much as a good lense is.

Kit lenses are OK for a start....but not if you intend to get serious or its your profession IMHO.

With reference to lens quality because thats what you are referring to...

[dullbird]

With reference to lens quality because thats what you are referring to...


mmmmmmmm no still lost,:(

who is comparing film? I certainly wasn't I was talking kit lens to quality lens on my D80 there is a big difference in picture quality. No one has suggested film other than yourself which is why I'm lost when you said that is what we are comparing

[dmdigital]

OK, the film comparison snuck past me too:confused:

That said I think what JLo is referring to is the fact that the modern DSLR is actually able to bring out problems with the older lenses in some cases. The sensor technology has got that good that the thing that is holding some things back - especially in the Pro end of the market - and one reason why more pixels is not always better is the lenses. This is why we are now seeing things like Nikon's "Nano" coating technology and also changes to the AA filters, micro lens structures and other slices of the camera's sensor to improve the light transfer.

Oh by the by the D5000 has the same sensor as the D90 I believe, just a lesser processor and not as good a body.

[dullbird]

and doesn't the D90 carry the same sensor as the D200?

[dmdigital]

and doesn't the D90 carry the same sensor as the D200?
No that would be the D300. D200/D80 were CCD new ones are CMOS.

[dullbird]

I was going to say 300 but thought I was getting ahead of myself

[dmdigital]

Well to be correct its actually the D300s now.

[JLo]

Yes I was off at a bit of a tangent (the mathematics side of me or is that too obtuse?).

I was trying to clarify something that so many people misunderstand/confuse/or not consider. You now review and judge the quality of your image on a computer screen at a resolution that you never did with film. That is how many draw their conclusions about image clarity and hence lens quality. No its not build quality as DM mentioned so yes it was slightly off topic but you can't really point to one thing without considering the other issues because it becomes a bit misleading.


The D90; a bit like a Discovery, not a Defender and not a Range Rover. Now that is off topic.


Cheers
JLo

[PSi]

I wonder if all newbies seeking advice on "which camera should I get?" end up more confused by the answers than before asking the question.

To simplify the issue, there are only two criteria: 1) Image quality; and 2) Everything else.

1) Image quality from most DSLRs is pretty much the same for pretty much of the time, assuming most people shoot in pretty decent light conditions, or bang on a flash when it gets dark, and are happy with any picture that's sharp.
The challenging conditions that the expensive kit are better at may account for less than 5% of the needs of the average photo enthusiast but, much like cars, you may have to pay 300% more for a 3% improvement.

2) Everything else includes build quality, robustness, weather proofing, handling and feel, how good a camera looks, how the name sounds, need to upgrade, resale value, ease of finding used bits, etc.

I've had a 3-month-old D70 fail abt 3 weeks into a 6-week once-in-a-lifetime expedition across the Sahara (Egypt to Morocco) 5 years ago. I have no photos of Algeria and Morocco. Didn't even carry a P&S as spare since I never had a camera fail on me before then. I know Murphy now.
So I am now pretty keen on robustness even though the D70's image quality was as good as I needed then, and even now.
I went up to D300, then D700, which I have just swapped with a mate for his old D300 to use as my backup and am now awaiting arrival of my D3s ... each upgrade does offer an improvement in image quality but each is also about 100% more expensive than the previous.
I have also been going from kit lenses to mid-level and now to the pro stuff - all bloody expensive, heavy and bulky - but I have peace of mind knowing they will endure better.
On hindsight, I should have just saved up and bought the good stuff right away, but then lessons learned the hard way are the ones that are most well remembered.
To sum up my experience, it'd be "Know what you want to shoot, and get the best kit you can afford for that kind of shooting."

[Butts]

1) Image quality from most DSLRs is pretty much the same for pretty much of the time, assuming most people shoot in pretty decent light conditions, or bang on a flash when it gets dark, and are happy with any picture that's sharp.
The challenging conditions that the expensive kit are better at may account for less than 5% of the needs of the average photo enthusiast but, much like cars, you may have to pay 300% more for a 3% improvement.

......

To sum up my experience, it'd be "Know what you want to shoot, and get the best kit you can afford for that kind of shooting."

Perfect sum up, great words. ;)