D40 vs. D40X vs. D60

I was talking to someone who is thinking of getting an entry level Nikon D-SLR. I would like some feedback on these models. Pros / Cons etc.
I shoot with a D70 so can give him some tips on Nikon and its features.

Thanks and Merry Christmas!

Don Gorczynski
www.naturewildphotography.com

D40--lower megapixel.
D40x--same sensor as D80
D60--same sensor as D80, replaced D40x

None of these three have motors for autofocus and must use Nikon AFS or Sigma HSM lenses. They also don't support Nikon CLS off camera flash. They can flash sync up to 1/1,000 second though, I think. They are all very small cameras and suited for travel. Biggest limitation is need for AFS lenses. The D40x and D60 are very similar.


Kent in SD

Kent already mentioned the biggest quirk with those models: They require AF-S/HSM lenses to use autofocus. However, for somebody just starting out, this may be less of a problem than for somebody with an extensive arsenal of older AF-D lenses. Additionally, Nikon has finally released the 50/1.4 AF-S G, at last, D40(x)/D60 users can enjoy a reasonably fast prime without paying big bucks or wandering off to Sigma. The recent kit lenses (18-55 DX, 18-70 DX, 18-135 DX, 18-105 DX) are all AF-S anyway, so no sweat about that.

The AF module of the cameras is rather basic - only three AF points (that comes from somebody who enjoys 51 AF points on a D300, which is probably a bit overkill ).

I think the main question is whether "someone" is going to make large prints, shoot things that need lots of cropping, or loves big numbers.

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then I'd certainly go for the D60. Otherwise, in case of budget constraints, the D40 may be a viable option, too. The D40 uses the fairly old 6 MP sensor already used (in variants) in the D100, D70(s) and D50. With every iteration, Nikon apparently optimized the readout and processing (I don't know how much the sensor design itself changed, but allegedly very little), yielding a highly optimized ouput - read: rather good image quality from that low-resolution sensor. While at base ISO, the 10 MP cameras (D40x, D60) have an obvious resolution advantage (assuming the lens is good enough), when the ISO reaches 800 or 1600, that advantage is gone. So, what all this means is - the D40 is a 6 MP camera, but even though one with good image quality, 6 MP is not really state of the art anymore.

The D40x and D60 are very similar cameras (or in other words: the D60 wasn't exactly a big upgrade). Notable is the presence of a sensor dust reduction mechanism and use of EXPEED processing in the D60. Availability of the D40x may be limited by now, and not many bucks can be saved (at least over here - dunno what things look like where you live), so I don't think it make a lot of sense to shop for one instead of a D60.

That being said, the D40 and D60 are due for an upgrade (the D40x is discontiued already, IIRC). So, maybe waiting until the spring trade-fair season is over may bring about a camera that has live view and the D300/D90 sensor. That would be a killer cam, but maybe a few bucks more expensive. Or there may not be an announcement at all. You never know...

cheers

BG

I agree with much of what Basil said. I use a D40 and am very happy its overall usability and with the sharpness that I have seen in 10x15 prints. The tradeoff with the D40x is higher noise because the pixels are smaller. Personally I didn't feel that the cost-up was worth it. I would recommend that your friend save the extra money the D40x costs and spend it on filters or another lens instead.

I have had my D40 for nearly a year, and I'm very satisfied with the bang for the buck. It does lack two features, an ISO of 100 setting and auto bracketing, neither of which is a severe limitation. The primary reason I bough the D40 was, all my old film camera filters fit this lens. For 90% of my shots I use the 18-55 mm lens it came with. I also purchased a 55-200 lens. If I had to do it over, probably would have gotten a single zoom for the entire range. Concerning its 6 mp, Scott Kelby is his book "Digital Photography" states, unless you are going to print poster size, save the money on the mp and buy a good tripod, its mainy advertising hype to part you from your money. 6 mp will get you a 13x19 print. Since my printer can only handle up to 8x10, it still allows a fair amount of cropping, while maintaining image quality.

My only regret is I did't buy it sooner. Hope this is useful - Greg

I'll toss this in, though I don't own any of them and have never shot with them.

I recently finished a week of shooting with 8 or 10 other photographers, some of which were using 80's and 40's, while others were using Canon. I used a D2X.

Each evening we would sit around comparing results for the day on our laptops. If there was any difference at all between any of the models, it certainly didn't show up in comparisons of original capture. Post processing for very large prints might dredge them up, but I'm certainly thinking about one of them as a backup. Thinking "backwards," if your friend opts for one and gets real serious about photography, the model certainly will still be useful after an upgrade to a more advanced model. If not, I think either will still give great service.