Hands-on with the Nikon D60 DSLR

It seems like big boys Nikon and Canon DSLRs have been slugging it out since, well, before the "D" was even a thought. This year, it's a fight over the entry-level end of the DSLR market with the Nikon's D60 facing off against Canon's EOS Rebel XSi. On paper at least, Nikon's offering is little changed from the D40x: 10.2-megapixel CCD, 3-fps shooting, sensor dust reduction, and of course, Eye-Fi enhancements. Of course, the real tale is in the images, so we'll hold judgement until we see the results of the EXPEED image processing concept.

Gallery: Hands-on with the Nikon D60 DSLR

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[Alijah @ Jan 31st 2008 2:33AM]

Which lens is on that right now? It looks like the AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G...

Either way... WANT

[Dean @ Jan 31st 2008 2:52AM]

Well, the lens goes from 18-55, so that would be my guess for it's focal length. It's VR, assuredly AF-S DX. I can't see it's aperture size, but I'm sure a little research would turn that up.

[webon @ Jan 31st 2008 3:21AM]

my money's on cannon

[David @ Jan 31st 2008 3:25AM]

First of all, its Canon. Second, wait for actual samples before you judge.

[webon @ Jan 31st 2008 3:52AM]

sorry, what I mean't is I already bought a canon... geesh your touchy

[David @ Jan 31st 2008 3:24AM]

You know that "Subject is too dark" feature would be a great add-on to Nikon's higher-level SLRs. I won't be needing it but it would still help when I hand the camera to someone else.

[eric.berthiaume @ Jan 31st 2008 4:18AM]

If you need a "Subject is too dark" on a SLR you need a photography course not a new SLR.

[Alijah @ Jan 31st 2008 4:42AM]

Agreed

[Rene @ Jan 31st 2008 5:02AM]

I suggest you use this beautiful piece of photographic kit to take pictures of itself if you want to publish them here. Just pop to the Loo (Sorry, Bathroom) and stand in front of the mirror....

[Shaun @ Jan 31st 2008 5:44AM]

Apparently you weren't using the D-60 to take the pictures for the gallery. There's this wonderful thing called exposure compensation. +1/2 stop for the win. But at least we have some nice silhouettes of the D-60 to look at.

[ajeet @ Jan 31st 2008 7:11AM]

this is a best camera for me.

[dan2600 @ Jan 31st 2008 8:22AM]

Pro-sumer cameras SUCK...ugh I'm so tired hearing about them!! Go all out and buy a Professional Camera or save your money a just buy a point and shoot. Prosumer camera's aren't worth the money for there wanna-be professional performance...they are exactly as they preform, and are for wannabe professionals.

I got a d70...waste of money, i should have paid the extra 700 and got a D300 -_-

[Matt @ Jan 31st 2008 8:41AM]

Way to sound like an arrogant prick. I have a D40, and it may be the cheapest DSLR, but it has so many features you don't find in a P&S.

[dan2600 @ Jan 31st 2008 8:53AM]

sorry to burst your bubble that you don't have a professional grade camera...so you can stop pretending.

The point I was trying to make is that prosumera camera are not worth the money. If you want to spend the money on a D40 you are better off getting a traditional SLR rather then Digital. You will get better quality out of it. I'm all about quality, and I think other then Professional,Digital Camera's Quality is crap in comparison to traditional. You can go on and on about it being easier and cheaper with digital, but well, when you consider photography an art form (which if you are spending the money on a SLR I hope you would be taking photos for that reason, otherwise your just a technophile with money to burn) easy isn't supposed to be a factor. Sorry to sound a bit like a troll on my first post, It's just frustrating that the features they focus on is speed and gimmicks on DSRLs rather then the main problem, and that being quality of the photos.

When I can take a photo at night and not get digital grain...I will be happy and I Will stop ranting on consumer grade DSLRs

[F3 @ Jan 31st 2008 9:22AM]

I didn't realize digital photography was an exclusive club and 1D's and Dx's were the passes.

Plenty of photographers are doing amazing things with cameras all the way down to the crummy point and shoots. The process has gotten faster, more accessible and more reliable than ever before now that shots can be reviewed immediately in the field. When that makes the difference between getting the shot and not getting anything, what do you think really matters? The tone gradation in shadows? Get a clue.

[KorruptioN @ Jan 31st 2008 9:25AM]

So you're one of those people who think paying more for a more impressive body will *always* get you better results? What exactly is wrong with a pro-sumer body? If somebody wants things like: better AF, faster response, better build-quality, and better ergonomics (the list goes on), isn't that the point of a mid-level pro-sumer camera? Not everybody needs to spend big money on a professional body.

Telling people to save their money and get a point-and-shoot instead? How ignorant is that? Even considering you're, "all about quality". Your D70s is still a great camera in the right hands. Doesn't seem that you're capable of using it to the best of your abilities.

[Hooterman @ Jan 31st 2008 10:04AM]

This is one thing that really irratates me. As someone who doesn't have a lot of photography experience but who is fascinated by what people can do with nice cameras (such as this), it's very easy to get put off by people like Dan.

I am looking to get a DSLR so that I can start to learn more about photography and the fancy tricks that are not really possible with a PnS. I don't see the need for me to go out and buy a $2,000 camera to do this. Now if I was planning on trying to make a living with my pictures sure I can see why the extra money would be worth it.

I guess I just don't understand why there seems to be a lot of snobs in photography, oh well...

[Jae @ Jan 31st 2008 10:48AM]

If you can't take good pictures with D40, you won't take good pictures with D300 or D3. I think dan2600 should put up some his photo works for us to be inspired. Otherwise most of us here will label you as just an "Equipment Measurebator". (from Ken Rockwell's 7 levels of photographers).

In regard to the main topic:
There's no good reason to buy D40x over D40 and I don't see any for D60 either.

[Matt @ Jan 31st 2008 11:11AM]

I didn't claim to have a pro grade camera. I just know that I really enjoy taking photos with my D40, and they look better than what I've taken before. The reason for choosing a D40 over a film SLR is that I don't need to get the film developed and I can take many more photos.

[Eric @ Jan 31st 2008 11:23AM]

As a professional for 23 years, I can tell you Dan2600 doesn't know what he's talking about. Even the cheap Nikon D40 will beat film at almost any task (other than looking like film in the image). Prosumer cameras give people much, much better quality than the biggest megapixel/tiny sensor PHd cameras (push here dummy). So he needs to stop telling people what they need until he gets a bit more of a clue.

I use an $8,000 DSLR (1Ds Mark II) at work, and I have a Nikon D200 at home. I am planning on getting a D3 soon. Just transitioned myself from film cameras over the past six years at home and at work. Sold all my own personal Leicas and didn't have a camera at all for several years other than my work cameras. There's a place for every level of camera, even in the hands of us professionals.

As for webon's comment about betting on Canon. They're sure a good bet, but I wonder if he's aware that Nikon is #1 in sales of DSLRs? Canon has a good chunk of the pro market sewed up, but on the much larger amateur end, Nikon reigns supreme.

As for the story's comments about "since Ds" well, Nikon and Canon have been slugging it out in the SLR market since 1959 when they both introduced their first SLRs.

[Mikel Daniel @ Jan 31st 2008 11:26AM]

Wow Dan2600, you are going to make this easy. So unless that was a typo, you said you bought a D70, which is a 4 year old camera btw (cameras are replaced on a 2 year cycle), and expected it to meet current standards of photography? How can you even compare it to the D300 when it was released during the time of the D100. You are a whole 2 generations behind bud. Also, it is absolutely ignorant to think that a more expensive camera lets you take better photos. Any passing knowledge of photography will let you know that it is all about the photographer and the glass; the camera is nothing but a middle man. You put a crappy lens on an expensive pro camera and you'll still come away with sub par images if you photography skills are lacking.

I mean I all about wrote off your comments about your photos having noise during HIGH ISO NIGHT TIME SHOTS. Perhaps you haven't looked at some old photographs in a while, but guess what, they had grain too. Granted, film grain is different from digital noise, and can even be desirable to some photo buffs, but noise is a part of photography. Newer cameras just have far more aggressive noise-reduction techniques.

I do agree with you on one front; too many new of the new features are gimmicks by companies used to give their cameras an edge in the market, especially in the consumer grade spectrum. However, heavy competition paves the way towards innovation, which is always good =)

[supersonic @ Jan 31st 2008 8:06PM]

taking great photos isn't about the price (or weight) of your camera, it's about the person behind the viewfinder.

had a d50 and took great photos with it. Similarly, i had a cybershot P&S that also took great photos. I also have a friend who shot sunset with an instamatic cam that was good enough to be published in an art folio.

i think that it's really great that people who can't shell out 1000k and up can now have access to dslrs. what's wrong with more people getting exposed to the craft right?

[jsrockit @ Mar 7th 2008 1:24PM]

Ok, while Dan2600 seems to be smoking crack, I think a better camera can give you better results on a more consistent basis. Sure, I've made great photos with a Holga back in the day, but in most situations...I would have rather had my leica. That said, I just bought the D60 and am trying to get back into photography. I'm not a wannabee anything...just looking to have fun with a camera. There is alot of room between novice and professional. Being a professional doesn't mean you know everything about photography...it just means you make a living from it. That means that the guy making photos in Sears of annoying people all day is a professional. I bet a large handful of those guys and gals could give a crap what camera they are using as long as it doesn't interfere in their job.

[photopro1 @ Apr 8th 2008 3:55PM]

I've been a professional for 20 years. My work has been published around the world, and I'm here to tell people like Dan2600 that it's talent - not equipment - that make s a photo-pro.

A real pro with a pinhole will outshoot a poser with a D-300 any day of the week.

Spend all you want...but, if you don't have an eye for it, all the D-300's in the world won't help you.