I was comparing with the D40, note the D40x.

Worst case the OP has an extra lens and still saves several hundred dollars over the D60.

I don't think the D40x is discontinued yet (still on the Nikon website), but yes, this is definitely a replacement for it. This is not, however, a replacement for the D40.

First, the D40 is around $300 less than the D60. Not sure about lens vs. no lens, etc...

The OP stated he would not be changing lenses, thus the dust removal system does not affect him/her. Frankly, dust is not the end of the world and even if OP does need to change lenses once in a while, dust can be dealt with.

As for RAW+JPEG - this is something for the OP to decide if he/she really needs. RAW is good for post adjustment, but frankly, you need a lot of time to be able to manually adjust everything. If OP just wants to take good pictures and not worry about adjusting them later, then JPEG is perfectly fine and will give as good results as RAW. And if the OP does want to shoot RAW, then a simpe batch-convert is trivial. The only problem comes when you want to shoot RAW but are without your computer and need to see the pictures. But I don't know if OP will ever be in this situation and at that point the question of whether this feature is worth $300 is raised.

The D40 does have one feature that neither the D40x nor D60 have - faster flash sync which is needed for fill flash (up to 1/500 exposure). This is better than even the D3 and equivalent to the D70. On the other hand, the D60 supports the wireless flash while the D40 does not. If the OP wants off-camera flash capability then this is a factor to consider.

I also just noticed the OP stated he wanted at least 10 MP. If so, yeah, you'll probably need to go with the D60 or higher. But realize that more pixels will (in these entry level cameras) mean lower light sensitivity and frankly, the difference between 6 MP and 10 MP is not very significant. Take a look at Ken Rockwell's opinion on this and the NY Times articles he links to.

Dust can still get on the sensor via the zoom, even if you never take the lens off.

I've had stubborn dust that wouldn't come off with my rocket blower and I've had to resort to sensor swabs - it's not hard to do, but it also isn't that easy or quick, either. And yes, you can PS out spots to some extent, but for me personally, the dust-off feature seems like a nice one and worth a premium, if it actually worked.

with modern raw processing software such as adobe lightroom, very little additional time is needed compared with jpeg.

higher megapixel counts have nothing to do with sensitivty. that's a property of the sensor itself. the reason the base iso of the d40 is 200 instead of 100 as in the d40x is because it's a completely different sensor. both the 6 megapixel canon 10d and 10 megapixel 40d start at iso 100.

however, more megapixels in the same size sensor means smaller individual pixels which means more noise per pixel. thus, for high iso, the d40 might be better than the d40x. however, the difference is not that huge. having 10 megapixels offers a little more flexibility in cropping without compromising the quality too much. of course, if the images are intended for on screen viewing, both are arguably overkill.

as for ken rockwell, quite a bit of his web site is factually incorrect, and he even admits as much. there are numerous other resources available online without that nonsense. from http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm :

This is true. However, the whole point of RAW is to fidget with the settings on a photo-by-photo basis to theoretically produce the best rendering. Automatic rendering is easy...but fixing a photograph is not. And thus the question for the OP to answer would be whether he/she wants to fiddle with photos or whether he/she just wants to print them.


True, and I haven't looked into the performance of the D40 since I wouldn't really consider buying it for myself. I did want to point out that the base sensitivity is lower which implies a good likelihood of higher noise at comparable ISOs between a D40 and D40x/D60. Simply the fact that the sensor has 4 MP more in the same area implies it will have more noise unless the quality is better (which I doubt it is).

I think he makes many very good points on his website. I do not subscribe to all his theories but what I do like about him is that he judges cameras based more on their use than on their specifications. I have not really seen any other sites that do this to the same extent that he does. Now, if I really followed everything he did, I would be shooting wide on everything, only using basic JPEG, and using a D40 with 18-200, none of which I'm doing. I think that unfortunately his style puts many people off from reading his website which is a shame since there are good pieces of information scattered around that are harder to find elsewhere. Regarding the megapixels...read the NY times article as well.

Which is precisely why RAW+JPEG is such a great freaking feature!

You shoot in JPEG only and find out later you need RAW for a few critical images and you are SOL.

With RAW+JPEG you are covered, and today's cheap, high capacity SD cards mean that file size isn't an issue.


Ken Rockwell "reviews" equipment he has never seen or touched - the guy is an idiot with a singular skill of driving page hits to his site in order to generate revenue – but I suppose that is just my opinion – except the "reviewing" equipment he has never seen thing – that is objectively stupid.

I don't dispute that, though I'd prefer RAW+JPEG Fine for that. However, if it was me, I wouldn't spend $300 for the improvements we've listed when I could just always batch convert RAW to JPEG. I was simply pointing out the differences and how it would affect the OP. Personally, I always use RAW files anyway even though I use the RAW+JPEG setting. However, had I had to make this choice when I was buying my DSLR...I don't know what I would have done.

As I said, there is a lot of information on his site that is worthless and a lot that I think is worth reading. If you believe everything you read, then his site is not for you. However, although some of his "reviews" are only comments based on what he has heard, it's not hard to tell them apart. All of his hands-on reviews are fairly detailed and provide much more than just the specs.

shooting jpeg is certainly convenient. for instance, images can be quickly emailed or printed at a kiosk. also, depending on the camera, one can generally shoot more jpegs until the buffer in the camera fills. on the other hand, there is no need to fidget with raw images. they show up on screen based on automatic settings, adjustments can be made if desired, and then the images can be printed, emailed, put in a web gallery, etc. both raw and jpeg have their place. my point is simply that raw is no more work than jpeg is.

noise is simply a function of pixel size. higher megapixel counts with the same size sensor and the same sensor technology means smaller pixels and thus more noise. newer sensors are less noisy than older sensors, so direct comparisons can't always be made by pixel count alone. only if one pixel peeps at high iso settings is it possible to tell the difference. shoot both at iso 100, they'll be virtually indistinguishable.

there is some useful stuff on his site, but it's difficult to weed it out from the garbage, especially for someone who isn't intimately familiar with the technology and visiting his site to learn something. as he says, he does it for fun, not for accuracy.

i have read it. david pogue took photos with an unnamed 13 megapixel camera (most likely a canon 5d, but it's strange that he never stated what it was) and then downsampled the images for the lower resolution images. he did that to avoid any issue with which cameras he chose, but the problem is that downsampling a higher resolution image will produce a better quality image than simply using a lower resolution camera. the result also is very dependent on the downsampling algorithm. his test was more about photoshop techniques than of three different cameras with different megapixel counts.

the benefit of more megapixels is that one can print larger and/or crop without losing quality. the rule of thumb is 300 pixels per inch for a very sharp print and 200 pixels per inch for an acceptably sharp print. thus, a 6mp camera (3008x2000 pixels for the d40) is suitable for an 8x10-11x14 inch print, and a 10mp camera (3872x2592 for the d40x) is suitable for an 11x14-16x20. even pushing it a little further to 150 ppi can sometimes produce acceptable results. most people print 4x6 inch prints, if they print at all, or they view the images on screen. for that, even 6mp is overkill. nevertheless, extra megapixels are nice for cropping when one doesn't want to lug a big telephoto lens.

Noise is actually a function of much more than the pixel size. The quality of the electronics, the quality of the sensor, and even temperature (among many other factors) all contribute to noise. It is easier to have a higher signal to noise ratio with larger pixels because you can collect more light but its also very possible to have more pixels and lower noise. Astronomical CCDs routinely perform very long exposures (minutes long) and after fairly routine noise subtraction produce very clean images.

This is true, but he later published another article where he admits that this is not the best way to do it. In that article, he describes how one of his readers worked with him to perform another test. In that test, they took one camera and shot the same object multiples times such that when cropped around only that object the same picture was presented but with 3 different megapixel counts. Only 3/50 people correctly figured out which picture had which resolution.

OK - so let's summarize for the OP re: the stated criteria

I would recommend the Nikon D60 (body only should be available next month) + Nikon 18-200 mm VR lens. This should be well under the $1500 budget constraint, and a versatile enough solution that s/he won't have buyer's remorse anytime soon. Zoom range is adequate to reduce lens changes to a minimum, it fits the megapixel requirement, and you get image stabilization with this solution. It also fills the bill in terms of the desired 10 megapixel minimum.

Done and done.

the dominant source of noise in a digital camera is photon counting statistics which is directly related to pixel size. other factors such as read noise, thermal noise, etc. are negligible, except in the darkest areas. see roger clark's excellent analysis:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...mance.summary/

cropping and enlarging is not the same as using actual cameras because now you've introduced different sensor sizes. nevertheless, for prints 8x10 or smaller, it will be virtually impossible to discern a difference between 6 and 10 megapixels. however, for larger prints or if one crops, it is likely to be noticeable.

The D40 misses one of the biggest advantages of going with Nikon over Canon - lots more used Nikon lenses, as the D40 only supports the newer motor-in-lens options ... going with the D80 (a hair under $800 for the body only) gets you both a much sturdier and more capable camera AND compatibility with older lenses that need an in-body focus motor.

If I didn't have existing Canon lenses from the film days, I'd have gone with a D70 when I went digital. As it stands, if it's in budget - and it sounds like it would narrowly be for the original poster - I think the D80 is the best value for someone going for a new DSLR.

If you can't afford the D80 or won't ever want to look at used lenses, Canon starts looking a lot more attractive, and I'd recommend the Rebel XTi over the D40. I'm not sure which of the mid-line Nikons (D50/D60) support(ed) the focus motor.

As for a single lens, if you need a long zoom, one of the Sigma/Tamron options mentioned up-thread are your best bet. For a moderate zoom, the Canon 18-85 (84?) IS is a very very good all-purpose lens, and I believe Nikon has something like an 18-135 out there...

I shot a ton of RAW+JPEG when I first got my Rebel XTi. With the prolifieration of software with can handle RAW (including the native viewer in Vista once you install a codec) I don't find having the JPEG around worthwhile...

Not unless the OP already has a couple of large CF cards, a bag, a spare battery, whatever filters s/he prefers, etc. In that case you are looking at $1500-1600.

The 18-200 is a good lens, I own it too, but unless the OP knows that s/he needs the 35mm equivalent of a 300mm telephoto then I would at least wait for the upcoming 16-85 to compare.

[1] The 18-200 is a relatively big and heavy lens, [2] I have never gotten used to/ OK with the huge amount of lens creep/slop this expensive lens has, [3] IMHO the 24mm equivalent of the 16 is of much more value as a travel lens than is the 300mm equivalent of the 200, [4] it is likely [though we will have to wait and see] that the 5x 16-85 will have better image quality/fewer optical compromises than the 11x 18-200 [simple physics suggests this might likely be the case], [5] the 16-85 is a smaller and lighter lens yet still has VR-II and finally [6] the 16-85 will cost no more and perhaps even less than the 18-200.

Just a few thoughts.

Cheers.

I just ordered an 18-200 to see if I can get a decent sample. I don't really need the 200 on the long end (120 would probably do it) but the 24-120 is at least a generation old (two?) and only about $150 less so I went for the newer lens.

All that to say that I don't see a current generation lens that really has the features I'd like:

-Max f/4 across all focal lengths
-Current gen VR
-18-120 or so to be wide enough yet long enough that I would quite rarely have to switch lenses

Well at this point, you might as well get the D80. You get full compatibility with AF lenses for $780 on Amazon for body only vs. the D60 kit which is $750. And its available now, not in two months (Amazon shows availability for the D60 kit as March 29). Add in the 18-200 for another $670 and you get $1450. Then, if OP ever wants to buy a slightly older lens, he'll be able to use it.

Or he can get a D40 for $490 and save almost $300. I was merely pointing out the fact that for a savings of $300 the OP loses a few features. Whether the OP needs those features or not, I don't know. If I upgrade my camera, I'm not going to buy a D40 because I need the features of the D80 or D300. But if OP is a casual shooter then the D40 seems fine and he can always upgrade the body in a year or two when today's body will be obsolete and the new $500 bodies will have 20 MP sensors.

I think that if we want to continue this discussion the OP really needs to chime in regarding what he/she needs and not what we assume he/she needs. If 10MP, wireless flash, and RAW+JPEG are worth $300, then that's the OP's decision.