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

[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

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.

[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....now I'm lost! where did film enter the comparison

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