Digital SLR Camera

[David Schweizer]

Having sorted through hundreds of slides yesterday (you can tell I am getting bored!) I have decided that it is about time that I replaced my Nikon F60 SLR with a new Digital SLR. The problem is that they are pretty expensive, even second hand, so I do not want to make a mistake.

 

I rather like the Nikon and would like to stay with this make if possible, and have been told that the AF Nikkor 28mm - 80mm lense on the F60 will fit on some of the earlier Nikon digital SLR models. Does anyone know if this is correct, and if so which ones? I could then look out for a S/H body.

 

Alternatively, I have been looking at the D70 which at 6.4 mega pixel is more than I shall ever need, can anyone comment, or recommend an alternative, they seem to go S/H with an 18mm-70mm lense for between £200 and £300.

Edited January 10, 2010 by David Schweizer

[NB Willawaw]

I upgraded to a DSLR at Christmas and had a similar dilemma.

My camera has a f = 5.00 - 100.0 mm lens.

 

The problem that I had was that I wasn't prepared to pay the kind of money for a camera that a decent DSLR commands.

 

Also, my photographic experience is such that most of the manual adjustment features would be wasted on me.

 

So, in the end, I went for an improvement in what I used before, but within my price range and technological limits.

 

The photographic press seem to be pushing the Canon EOS at the moment.

 

Nikon have their D3000 for about £400 and this supports many AF lenses.

 

Can't find a listing on the D70.. is this an old model ?

Edited January 10, 2010 by NB Willawaw

[Guest]

Having sorted through hundreds of slides yesterday (you can tell I am getting bored!) I have decided that it is about time that I replaced my Nikon F60 SLR with a new Digital SLR. The problem is that they are pretty expensive, even second hand, so I do not want to make a mistake.

 

I rather like the Nikon and would like to stay with this make if possible, and have been told that the AF Nikkor 28mm - 80mm lense on the F60 will fit on some of the earlier Nikon digital SLR models. Does anyone know if this is correct, and if so which ones? I could then look out for a S/H body.

 

Alternatively, I have been looking at the D70 which at 6.4 mega pixel is more than I shall ever need, can anyone comment, or recommend an alternative, they seem to go S/H with an 18mm-70mm lense for between £200 and £300.

 

Hi David -

 

I had a Nikon D40 - if you could get one of these second hand it is a brilliant camera - I'm pretty sure the lenses you refer to will fit (though not all the functions operate). I passed it to my daughter when I upgraded to a Sony (but that's not compatible with your lenses)

 

It's latest incarnation is the D60

 

Nikon D60 link

 

Though I think these are now getting hard to find new.

 

For me either of these would do the job admirably.

[Tim Lewis]

Having sorted through hundreds of slides yesterday (you can tell I am getting bored!) I have decided that it is about time that I replaced my Nikon F60 SLR with a new Digital SLR. The problem is that they are pretty expensive, even second hand, so I do not want to make a mistake.

 

I rather like the Nikon and would like to stay with this make if possible, and have been told that the AF Nikkor 28mm - 80mm lense on the F60 will fit on some of the earlier Nikon digital SLR models. Does anyone know if this is correct, and if so which ones? I could then look out for a S/H body.

 

Alternatively, I have been looking at the D70 which at 6.4 mega pixel is more than I shall ever need, can anyone comment, or recommend an alternative, they seem to go S/H with an 18mm-70mm lense for between £200 and £300.

 

Am on my second Canon EOS DSLR (450D) now but Nikons are as good if not better in some areas. If you are looking for reviews this site is one of the best which includes a review of the D70 but remember that this review was comparing the equivalent cameras available in 2004.

 

I personally would not go fo the D70, it is an old camera which at 6.4mp has been left behind by the most basic of compact cameras.

 

A warning, in going down the DSLR route the camera body is only the start of your expenses, you will soon want to start adding extra lenses, flash etc and then it rapidly becomes an expensive, but enjoyable, hobby.

 

If you do not go down thw DSLR route there are some excellent compacts out there, I have just bought the Canon S90, not cheap but will do most of what a SLR will do.

 

The latest equivalent Nikon is the D3000 which is available for under £400.

 

Tim

Edited January 10, 2010 by Tim Lewis

[Chris J W]

If you've already got Nikon lenses, I'd go for a Nikon body. Try looking for a s/h D80,D50 or D70s - they shouldn't be too much these days. All are either fully manual or fully auto, and take damn good pics.

 

A great site to have a wander through is www.dpreview.com

 

Edit to add :- but if you want to start from scratch, then it's really a matter of taste and price-range. When it boils down to it they're all much-of-a-muchness unless you're a high-end professional.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Chris J W

[NB Phoenix]

Having sorted through hundreds of slides yesterday (you can tell I am getting bored!) I have decided that it is about time that I replaced my Nikon F60 SLR with a new Digital SLR. The problem is that they are pretty expensive, even second hand, so I do not want to make a mistake.

 

I rather like the Nikon and would like to stay with this make if possible, and have been told that the AF Nikkor 28mm - 80mm lense on the F60 will fit on some of the earlier Nikon digital SLR models. Does anyone know if this is correct, and if so which ones? I could then look out for a S/H body.

 

Alternatively, I have been looking at the D70 which at 6.4 mega pixel is more than I shall ever need, can anyone comment, or recommend an alternative, they seem to go S/H with an 18mm-70mm lense for between £200 and £300.

 

 

Hi David

 

I have found this company very helpful Digital Depot They do mail order and are very good with infomation at the end of a phone line.

 

Regards

 

John

[koukouvagia]

A warning, in going down the DSLR route the camera body is only the start of your expenses, you will soon want to start adding extra lenses, flash etc and then it rapidly becomes an expensive, but enjoyable, hobby.

 

I've had a Canon EOS 400D for a couple of years and I'm very pleased with it. One expense that I wasn't prepared for was sensor cleaning. The camera has a self cleaning function, but every so often the sensor picks up dust which won't go away. This happens if you change lenses a lot or you use it in dusty conditions.

This first time this happened – where every photo had an annoying smear - I took the camera to a specialist who charged an arm and a leg for a one minute cleaning job.

I've since bought one of these excellent kits and do the job myself.

[davem399]

David

 

Don't get too caught uo in the hype of going for lots of megapixels, especially on a comapct camera. DSLR's with 6 MP can give equal or better results than an 8 - 12 MP compact, due to their much larger sensor. Compacts with small sensors and lots of MP's can produce "noise". I believe that Canon have reduced the MP's on their latest "G" series compact cameras in an effort to reduce noise.

 

As stated by other posters, the latest entry level is the D3000, which has replaced the D60. If going for a secondhand Nikon, models such as the D50, D70, D70s and the D80 (all discontinued) have the autofocus motor in the body, which allows auto focussing of a wider range of lenses. The discontinued entry level models such as the D40, D40x and D60 do not have this motor and so rely on lenses that have a focus motor in the lens itself to autofocus. You can still manually focus lenses without the built in motor on these models. These tend to be older lenses. The latest D3000 and D5000 also lack the built in motor but, if bought with the kit lens, this contains a motor. The Nikkor lenses containing a focus motor are designated AF-S, not to be confused with AF lenses without the motor.

 

Dave

[Byeckerslike]

Hi David,

 

There is some good, sound advice here, the only extra that I can offer is the following:

 

Only buy a camera from a manufacturer who is already acknowledged for the quality of their 35mm SLR optics (Lenses are still vital!)

 

Also, pay attention to the speed of image writing to the memory / media if you are keen on sports or bracketing exposure photography, many an opportunity could be lost whilst waiting for the image to be stored.

 

Happy dithering!

 

Rob

[churchward]

I use a D70s and still happy with it but you may want to consider more modern releases of Nikon DSLRs.

 

I would check on the Nikon website for compatibility with any Nikon lenses as I have found that most will work fine with the D70s ( I had Nikon film SLRs and lenses before going Digi) some may not have full function but can still be usable. Like a lot of things quite a bit of nonsense is talked about compatibility when you get the info from a friend of a friend basis.

 

Also don't be too swayed by larger pixel levels a D70s is relatively low in comparison to latest DSLRs and compacts but the quality of the lens, CCD and metering system all count to it is not just a numbers game. Many 12 million pixel compacts are not very good as the CCD is too small for so many receptors to be crammed in and produce large picture files but disappointing results. I use a Nikon compact too it is very handy and small and useful with 10million pixel CCD and X5 optical zoom but it still doesn't take as good a picture as the D70.

[melkaren]

I am a user of Nikon DSLR's, the D70 is now very old technology, the D40 is an excellent camera and at an affordable price, although you most likely have to buy second hand, if you go for new and can afford it, get the D90....try reading this chaps reviews....

 

Visit My Website

[Dominic M]

I like Nikon too. I've always had them as 35mm film cameras and now as digital. And if you have Nikkor or compatible lenses stay with it. What melkaren says above is correct - the D70 is an old beast now and you can acquire the body for £100 or so. The D90 looks great. I have a D200 which is excellent but not that cheap - my trick is to wait until the new model comes out. So when the D300 appeared, prices on D200 bodies dipped noticeably.

[nb Innisfree]

Regarding pixels we have used a basic Fujifilm 1.3 Mp for the last 7 or 8 years and tho it's slow it takes excellent pics. So as stated the amount of pixels isn't the be all and end all.

[Guest]

Regarding pixels we have used a basic Fujifilm 1.3 Mp for the last 7 or 8 years and tho it's slow it takes excellent pics. So as stated the amount of pixels isn't the be all and end all.

 

+1

 

Pixels are not everything, unless that is you are blowing stuff up to poster size on a regular basis hence why I mentioned the D40 if you can get one perfectly adequate at 6 mp, just because some compacts do on average now I would guess tice this and more - it doesn't always make for a better image.

 

However as has been pointed out above (I'd forgotten this) the D40 (and some of it's followers) requires hyper sonic motor (HSM) lenses with the autofocus motor in each lens rather than the camera body - this indeed means the A/F unction will not work with earlier lenses - pity because its a cracking little camera in all other respects.

[nb Innisfree]

+1

 

Pixels are not everything, unless that is you are blowing stuff up to poster size on a regular basis hence why I mentioned the D40 if you can get one perfectly adequate at 6 mp, just because some compacts do on average now I would guess tice this and more - it doesn't always make for a better image.

 

However as has been pointed out above (I'd forgotten this) the D40 (and some of it's followers) requires hyper sonic motor (HSM) lenses with the autofocus motor in each lens rather than the camera body - this indeed means the A/F unction will not work with earlier lenses - pity because its a cracking little camera in all other respects.

 

Some years ago we clubbed together and bought my father-in-law a top of the range Sony, I forget the model number but it was the one with 10x optical zoom, the lens body hinged from the main body, a very handy feature that enables you to take low shots without having to crouch down or lay on the floor. It was then very powerful with 5Mp! but it is still a fabulous camera which is packed with features which then was very unusual but often is standard now I think. Be nice if it could be upgraded, don't know if that's a possibility.

[Guest]

Some years ago we clubbed together and bought my father-in-law a top of the range Sony, I forget the model number but it was the one with 10x optical zoom, the lens body hinged from the main body, a very handy feature that enables you to take low shots without having to crouch down or lay on the floor. It was then very powerful with 5Mp! but it is still a fabulous camera which is packed with features which then was very unusual but often is standard now I think. Be nice if it could be upgraded, don't know if that's a possibility.

 

My Sony A 350 is an SLR and the screen does exactly that - it is very useful.

 

It's not common on SLR's but becoming increasingly common, and is the reason I gave my D40 to my daughter and changed because at the time Nikon didn't do a model with a tilt out screen - they do though now if you really want this feature and want to stick to Nikon -

 

 

Nikon D5000

 

Pricey though and it's not always a feature that SLR photographers go for.

[nb Innisfree]

My Sony A 350 is an SLR and the screen does exactly that - it is very useful.

 

It's not common on SLR's but becoming increasingly common, and is the reason I gave my D40 to my daughter and changed because at the time Nikon didn't do a model with a tilt out screen - they do though now if you really want this feature and want to stick to Nikon -

 

 

Nikon D5000

 

Pricey though and it's not always a feature that SLR photographers go for.

 

With the one I am referring to the whole body swivels not just the screen, which I assume precludes it from being an SLR as user is only able to look through lens electronically. If I understand correctly to do fine focussing etc requires the ability to view subject optically rather than electronically?

[Guest]

With the one I am referring to the whole body swivels not just the screen, which I assume precludes it from being an SLR as user is only able to look through lens electronically. If I understand correctly to do fine focussing etc requires the ability to view subject optically rather than electronically?

 

Sorry misunderstood -

 

Generally yes optimum focussing is achieved optically, or so I think some purists would have us believe.

[David Schweizer]

Thanks for all the advice, it has led me onto a few sites listing which Nikon cameras are copmpatible with my existing Nikkor AF lense, so I will be studying them.

 

I appreciate the observations about outdated technology, but my needs will not be that demanding, and a Digital SLR over 6 mepapixel will be more than adequate for my needs. At the moment the only Digital camera I have is a 2 megapixel Fuji compact, which I bought for putting pictures on eBay, so anything will be a vast improvement on that.

[Robbo]

With the one I am referring to the whole body swivels not just the screen, which I assume precludes it from being an SLR as user is only able to look through lens electronically. If I understand correctly to do fine focussing etc requires the ability to view subject optically rather than electronically?

 

Not anymore, my Canon has a live view, which you can zoom in on to the focus area, it's very handy when using a large aperture!

[Guest]

Thanks for all the advice, it has led me onto a few sites listing which Nikon cameras are copmpatible with my existing Nikkor AF lense, so I will be studying them.

 

I appreciate the observations about outdated technology, but my needs will not be that demanding, and a Digital SLR over 6 mepapixel will be more than adequate for my needs. At the moment the only Digital camera I have is a 2 megapixel Fuji compact, which I bought for putting pictures on eBay, so anything will be a vast improvement on that.

 

Hi again David - I think the challenge will be to get one at a decent price as the newer (read generally more expensive) ones you need to get to be compatible with your lenses will be at the pricier end. As already said the D40 which will clearly satisfy your pixel requirements @ 6.1 mp needs the 'matched' HSM lenses to get the AF to work.

 

One of the earliest Nikon DSLR's that does not need the dedicated HSM lenses was the D50 - generally considered now to be well superseded but it too will satisfy the pixel count requirement you have. It was superseded by the D40 which was smaller body wise partly because Nikon swapped the A/F motor location from the camera body to the lenses.

 

I used to have one of these too and found it took great pictures too, getting one now in good condition might be a challenge.

 

Good luck in your hunt....

[Robbo]

Thanks for all the advice, it has led me onto a few sites listing which Nikon cameras are copmpatible with my existing Nikkor AF lense, so I will be studying them.

 

I appreciate the observations about outdated technology, but my needs will not be that demanding, and a Digital SLR over 6 mepapixel will be more than adequate for my needs. At the moment the only Digital camera I have is a 2 megapixel Fuji compact, which I bought for putting pictures on eBay, so anything will be a vast improvement on that.

 

Although older DSLR cameras are still decent, new ones are much better at low light stuff. Of course this depends on where your using the camera, if it's always outdoors in good light a good point and shoot (like the canon g10) is very capable and more likely to be carried with you.

 

I would look at the photography you like to do and choose the camera on that as the best camera is the one you have with you.

[Yoda]

You might even think about a camera that also is a video camera, like the Panasonics with HD. They take single shots as well so you could have both worlds for £350.

[Speedwell]

After much research, I bought SWMBO a top of the range superzoom FZ28 from Panasonic for her specialist church photography. It's an absolutely brilliant camera with 18X zoom lens from Leica. As far as I can see, it does anything a proper SLR can do unless one needs to use very long or very short focus lenses. All the settings are visible in the eye level viewfinder, which also benefits light amplification in low light conditions. For a detailed review see the "Trusted reviews" website.

Arthur

[Robbo]

After much research, I bought SWMBO a top of the range superzoom FZ28 from Panasonic for her specialist church photography. It's an absolutely brilliant camera with 18X zoom lens from Leica. As far as I can see, it does anything a proper SLR can do unless one needs to use very long or very short focus lenses. All the settings are visible in the eye level viewfinder, which also benefits light amplification in low light conditions. For a detailed review see the "Trusted reviews" website.

 

Well any camera should be able to take photos, so any camera does anything a proper SLR can do, but if you take the photographer out (as the camera is only as good as the photographer is), a "proper" DSLR will take better images mainly due to the sensor size and lens quality. Of course the better the quality the more £££ you'll be spending, and most photographers (including me), would be better to spend money going on a course rather than a new fancy lens or camera!