40d vs d90

M

mart77

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,058
Edit My Images
No
Hi, i currently have a d60 and im starting to feel im getting beyond the cameras ability.

Im looking to upgrade to either of the above but really not sure which direction to go in.
My main interests are cityscapes and landscapes. Im not that bothered yet about being locked in to either canon or nikon as the money isnt a big factor for me and certainly wont be in the d90 40d range still.

So im wondering what would be the better option for me at the moment.

Thanks
 
mart77 said:
So im wondering what would be the better option for me at the moment.
Thanks
Click to expand...

The best option would be to forget buying a camera and buy a good lens instead. Not what you want to hear but it's the straight up truth.

The D60 is an awesome camera capable of producing superb images when combined with capable glass.

The next step would be to determine your focal length requirements, what kind of stuff do you shoot? Then figure out what lens would meet those requirements best.

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED, awesome landscape lens approx £938.99 from warehouse express.

Good glass = costs.
Expect to pay anything from roughly £600 to £1700, never the less, thats were your dough needs to be going, not on another body.
 
Thats perfect, that suits me just fine, i like the camera just the quality is a bit naff at any range and it looks washed out, i had thought it was me but then looking at other d60 pics on the stock lens it was the same, reasonable close up and washed out at any distance.
So ill be looking at a new lens then.

What lens would you recommend for doing closer up stuff in cities, such as alleyways, bridges, streets and so on.

Tomas Whitehouse said:
The best option would be to forget buying a camera and buy a good lens instead. Not what you want to hear but it's the straight up truth.

The D60 is an awesome camera capable of producing superb images when combined with capable glass.

The next step would be to determine your focal length requirements, what kind of stuff do you shoot? Then figure out what lens would meet those requirements best.

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED, awesome landscape lens approx £938.99 from warehouse express.

Good glass = costs.
Expect to pay anything from roughly £600 to £1700, never the less, thats were your dough needs to be going, not on another body.
Click to expand...
 
mart77 said:
Thats perfect, that suits me just fine, i like the camera just the quality is a bit naff at any range and it looks washed out, i had thought it was me but then looking at other d60 pics on the stock lens it was the same, reasonable close up and washed out at any distance.
So ill be looking at a new lens then.

What lens would you recommend for doing closer up stuff in cities, such as alleyways, bridges, streets and so on.
Click to expand...

That depends mate, a good all round cityscape lens would be the big momma I posted, the 17-55 f/2.8, you'll fall in love the the IQ and never want to sell it up. 17mm is nice and wide so you'll have no complaints there.

It's a lot of dough though, a cheaper alternative will always be compromising quality IMO, I'm a real sucker for good lenses and I have quite a fussy standard.

If you were about to shell the same amount on a D90, then, if it were me, I'd save up a little more and grab the 17-55 2.8.
lLooking about for a second hand one is also an option but make sure your getting good condition.

We have our own answer to Ken Rockwell on TP when it comes to Nikon lenses, his names Puddleduck (Andy Drake), he must have tried, tested, sold and re-bought just about every lens that Nikon have made, if there's one guy who can recommend a good lens, it's Andy :thumbs:
 
Ok that lens sounds good to me, ill do some online research as well, will the d60 not be a huge limiting factor on a lens of that quality, for instance, would i see huge difference between the d60 and d90 on that good quality lens?

thanks again:)

Tomas Whitehouse said:
That depends mate, a good all round cityscape lens would be the big momma I posted, the 17-55 f/2.8, you'll fall in love the the IQ and never want to sell it up. 17mm is nice and wide so you'll have no complaints there.

It's a lot of dough though, a cheaper alternative will always be compromising quality IMO, I'm a real sucker for good lenses and I have quite a fussy standard.

If you were about to shell the same amount on a D90, then, if it were me, I'd save up a little more and grab the 17-55 2.8.
lLooking about for a second hand one is also an option but make sure your getting good condition.

We have our own answer to Ken Rockwell on TP when it comes to Nikon lenses, his names Puddleduck (Andy Drake), he must have tried, tested, sold and re-bought just about every lens that Nikon have made, if there's one guy who can recommend a good lens, it's Andy :thumbs:
Click to expand...
 
mart77 said:
Ok that lens sounds good to me, ill do some online research as well, will the d60 not be a huge limiting factor on a lens of that quality, for instance, would i see huge difference between the d60 and d90 on that good quality lens?

thanks again:)
Click to expand...

Basically, no. But there are other factors too (e.g. What ISO you shot at as obviously the D90 is better at high ISO's.

There are cheaper alternatives to that lens and while they may not be *quite* as good, they come very close on IQ. Particularly with the Tamron 17-50.
 
Sam_G said:
Basically, no. But there are other factors too (e.g. What ISO you shot at as obviously the D90 is better at high ISO's.

There are cheaper alternatives to that lens and while they may not be *quite* as good, they come very close on IQ. Particularly with the Tamron 17-50.
Click to expand...

i like doing city shots around iso 400, this gives me really nice lighting on the camera. i think thats within the d60s range ok, would just be nice to have sharper pics. at any iso tbh. beyond a certain range its just not happening.

will look at the tamron as well
 
just looking at the lens review of the lens i have, it says its not bad anyway?

"I'm impressed: it's sharp at all apertures and focal lengths all over the frame. I can't find any real fault with this lens. Of course at small apertures you'll get diffraction which is a matter of the laws of physics. Sharpest apertures, presuming you have enough depth-of-field, are around f/5.6 - f/8.

It's as sharp as any other lens I have on a 6MP camera. It also is quite free from lateral chromatic aberration, called "purple fringing" by amateurs. Points of light or b/w lines at the corners stay crisp. If you have a really bright light to the sides there is a tiny bit of magenta spill, but less than my other lenses.

Camera magazines love to rain on the parades of cheap lenses that work great by pointing out that the cheap construction may not hold up over time. This could lead to looseness in the zoom assembly which might degrade sharpness. So what? Even if it does it's cheap enough to throw away after Nikon USA's 5 year warranty runs out. Guess what? I also used a $1,500 pro zoom once that also was worn out. I'd have no concerns owning this lens."
 
The problems I see with the Nikon D60 is that certain lenses won't work as well on this body because it doesn't have a focus motor built into the body. Don't get me wrong, its a good camera, but I just see this as a rather large limitation with this camera body.

However, totally agree with previous comments, definitely invest in glass.
 
At the risk of asking the obvious are you shooting in Raw to get the best out of the D60? I have D60 and D90 and really dont see any significant difference in the images until you get to higher ISOs
 
how about this lens guys
Nikon 16-85mm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm.htm

on that website its very highly rated. might be an idea?

reading the kenrockwell review of the 1k priced 17-55m lens
"Personally I prefer my lighter 18-55mm kit lens, which gives about the same results optically for digital,"
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1755.htm

makes me wonder why nikon even make any other lenses at all at that rate, im confused. Noticed that in most reviews the standard stock 18-55mm lens comes out best anyway in the comparisons. am i really missing something here?
 
Hi, you need to take anything that uncle Ken says with a large pinch of salt. At one stage he was extolling the virtues of the 18-200 lens as replacing a whole kitbag of other lenses :cuckoo:

If you usually don't shoot at an ISO above 400 then your D60 should be fine. As mentioned previously, are you shooting in RAW? This will enable you to significantly boost your images in PP. (should this be necessary). I would think that your D60 should be more than adequate for the type of shooting you mention.

When it comes to lenses - if you are looking for full compatability with your D60 then you need to look for AF-S lenses (in the Nikon range) these lenses have other suffixes by other manufacturers e.g. HSM and Sigma. These lenses have a motor built into them and will allow you to use the full range of the cameras features.

That depends mate, a good all round cityscape lens would be the big momma I posted, the 17-55 f/2.8, you'll fall in love the the IQ and never want to sell it up. 17mm is nice and wide so you'll have no complaints there.
Click to expand...

If your budget stretches that far, then this is an excellent choice and a useful range for your crop sensor. If you later want to change to a full frame body, you may want to change your lens as well as this lens is optimised for crop sensors.

There are cheaper alternatives to that lens and while they may not be *quite* as good, they come very close on IQ. Particularly with the Tamron 17-50.
Click to expand...

This lens has received very good reviews if you get a sharp copy If you are on a tighter budget then this would seem to offer a widely regarded alternative.

HTH,

Alan
 
Thanks for that, that seems to make a lot more sense, cos i was reading a load of his reviews and was starting to get the strong impression that there was little point in nikon making lenses at all. I think nearly every one i read at some point mentioned he thought the stock 18-55 was better and i was thinking what the hell is the point then, lol.

Anyway, regarding the tamron, do you know if this has the vibration reduction? is there a halfway step between the tamron and the top end nikon mentioned? feels like a ton of money to spend on the lens but if it makes that much difference i might just do it.

Thanks:)

Hooky said:
Hi, you need to take anything that uncle Ken says with a large pinch of salt. At one stage he was extolling the virtues of the 18-200 lens as replacing a whole kitbag of other lenses :cuckoo:

If you usually don't shoot at an ISO above 400 then your D60 should be fine. As mentioned previously, are you shooting in RAW? This will enable you to significantly boost your images in PP. (should this be necessary). I would think that your D60 should be more than adequate for the type of shooting you mention.

When it comes to lenses - if you are looking for full compatability with your D60 then you need to look for AF-S lenses (in the Nikon range) these lenses have other suffixes by other manufacturers e.g. HSM and Sigma. These lenses have a motor built into them and will allow you to use the full range of the cameras features.



If your budget stretches that far, then this is an excellent choice and a useful range for your crop sensor. If you later want to change to a full frame body, you may want to change your lens as well as this lens is optimised for crop sensors.



This lens has received very good reviews if you get a sharp copy If you are on a tighter budget then this would seem to offer a widely regarded alternative.

HTH,

Alan
Click to expand...
 
The Tamron 17-50mm doesn't have Tamron's version of the VR system. Doesn't need it IMHO.

Great lens. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top