i don't see the issue of 3 pt AF. those 3 are the most basic. jsut lock and re-compose isn't that tough. even though i have 52 pts now i still use center and re-compose.
Why Nikon need to update the D60
- Thread starter lightsaber
- Start date
- Status
i don't see the issue of 3 pt AF. those 3 are the most basic. jsut lock and re-compose isn't that tough. even though i have 52 pts now i still use center and re-compose.
gymak90
Senior Member
Why they are big: Or else you tell me how are they gonna stuff additional electronic components for more functions, in built battery grip (for D3) in D60 body?
Things do become smaller as technology improves. But right now, this is the best the designers can do. And you know it is the best design, because no company is going to waste material since it will raise cost of production.
Why are they heavy: There are advantages of being heavier. 1) If you mount a long/heavy lens, you can have the Centre of Gravity at your camera body/close to the body.
This means, it will less tiring to hold your camera when you got a big and heavy lens attached.
If you got the CG way out at the lens, you gonna have problems lifting the cam and shifting it in your hands.
I use a D70 and 70-200 f2.8, I have already felt the troubles of poor weight distribution.
2) Heavier usually translates to more stability. With proper holding techniques, you might be able to eliminate some camera shake.
gymak90
Senior Member
Of course I would say the more the merrier. But nowadays 3pts seem to be a stingy. Plus focus-lock can be difficult when shooting moving objects.
Speed of focusing usually depends on the lens. Lenses with in-built motor generally focus faster.
Accuracy of focus usually depends on the camera's computation. Somehow i find nikon cams focus more accurate than canon ones. When i used 20&30D, i had to delete so many off-focused shots. This is problem is aggrevated when shooting sports.
A beginner definitely will not be aware of such a situation as mentioned above and neither do they be concerned that they are going to use a heavier zoom or telephoto lens sooner or later.
Beginners always have a negative attitude towards weight, the lighter the better is the way to go for them and they won't have a clue as to why other photographers are willing to lug around a 8kg tripod just to mount a tiny D60 body with a 50-200mm lens.
But once they learned the basic and have enough knowledge that a sturdy tripod will help greatly in the process while they are shooting at anything below 1/8seconds.
In situations where a tripod is not allowed, a robust heavier camera body will produce sharper images at slower shutter speed hand held especially in very low light condition.
But how difficult it is for them to understand this until they ran into such pains when they found out that all their images are ruined due to camera shake or an unsteady hand.
Well said gymak90 and thanks for taking time to give such a detail explanation especially to all those who are seriously into photography for better or for worse. Just like as in any other learning environment either in the work place or pursuing a hobby, to help the beginner learner effectively to enjoy photography to the fullest the only way is through education and proper guidance.
no matter how I look at it, be it cg, stability, weight distribution etc, it doesn't make sense to purposely make the body heavy. If I want it to be heavy, I can always attach dumb bells to it which is of course madness, who would ever want to do that?
Weight is definitely a negative. The lighter the smaller the better. And I'm not buying the D90 becos it is too darn big and heavy. Too much of a burden.
Weight is definitely a negative. The lighter the smaller the better. And I'm not buying the D90 becos it is too darn big and heavy. Too much of a burden.
As the matter of fact, most beginners have problem with using the center AF point and then recompose. Besides, with D60, the camera can not focus anywhere like in contrast detect AF method (even through it is faster). Perhaps, no pro can believe but I have heard complains from a lot of ppl about the out-of-focus pictures from D60. The reason is simple, D60 only has 3-points AF system and many beginners do not have basic knowledege about photography.
My suggestions: 7 or 9 points AF points and take out Spot metering which does not ring even a bell for entry users.
My suggestions: 7 or 9 points AF points and take out Spot metering which does not ring even a bell for entry users.
shakyhand76
New Member
That is why one of the most common advice to beginer on this site before buying a DSLR is to try out the camera and have a feeling of the weight, ergonomic and comfortness in handling it. What is the point for you to buy a D90 if you feel it to big and heavy for your hand? I bought a D60 5 months back, and initially I wanted to buy D80 but my pocket don't have enough $$$. I feel both of the cameras are perfect for my handling compare to 400D and A100.
gymak90
Senior Member
Thank you very much. I believe your are in a better position to explain such things since your English is much better than mine.A beginner definitely will not be aware of such a situation as mentioned above and neither do they be concerned that they are going to use a heavier zoom or telephoto lens sooner or later.
Beginners always have a negative attitude towards weight, the lighter the better is the way to go for them and they won't have a clue as to why other photographers are willing to lug around a 8kg tripod just to mount a tiny D60 body with a 50-200mm lens.
But once they learned the basic and have enough knowledge that a sturdy tripod will help greatly in the process while they are shooting at anything below 1/8seconds.
In situations where a tripod is not allowed, a robust heavier camera body will produce sharper images at slower shutter speed hand held especially in very low light condition.
But how difficult it is for them to understand this until they ran into such pains when they found out that all their images are ruined due to camera shake or an unsteady hand.
Well said gymak90 and thanks for taking time to give such a detail explanation especially to all those who are seriously into photography for better or for worse. Just like as in any other learning environment either in the work place or pursuing a hobby, to help the beginner learner effectively to enjoy photography to the fullest the only way is through education and proper guidance.
Oh yes just to add, for pro bodies, consider the tough rugged build and weather seals to be another reason for the extra weight.
I won't say things are purposely made heavy. There is limit to how much weight-saving you can do, based on current technologies. You can't expect a 747 to weigh like a car?
And pro bodies are selling well, despite the weight, shows that people are accepting the weight?
Personally, if things go too small, I would have trouble finding space to place my palm and fingers.
And sadly, most high quality lenses e.g. 14-24 f2.8, 17-55 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and telelenses are heavy. If you have realised, these lenses cover almost the entire focal range. So while pros around the world, are capturing moments in stunning beauty, you can't do likewise because you find the necessary equipment too heavy or lack the muscle to do the job? Until things become lighter to suit you, it's your loss you know?
Last edited:
lightsaber
New Member
I think you guys have a point. Weight may benefit some advanced photographer and I think Nikon already has a great offerings in the likes of D90, D300, D700 and D3 in that market. Some photographers love a sturdy well built camera packing all the features even though it costs five arms and three legs. These guys love the heavy duty gears.
However, what if a photographer wants a compact light weight camera with capabilities to cater to 80% of the scenarios at 20% of the cost? Not your Nat Geo celebrity shooters but Mr Tan and Ms Tay next door who has to carry three babies and two toddlers in order to maximize the Singapore government's baby bonus?
These people may know a thing or two about photography and make regular posts on clubsnap. Oh ya, and they have been Nikon users. Dad probably used to own a D300 but had to sell it off because now the family needs to buy European imported milk instead of melamine enriched eastern brands. They still want great pictures of their kids using a fast focusing dSLR with reasonable number of focus points. What are their current options? Naturally it is D60....
Definitely they not expecting a super light weight camera costing 20% the cost of D700 (50% the cost of D90) to have all the features of these advanced cameras while still maintaining a minimal weight and size.
It would be nice though, if slight more advanced features, better lens compatibility and perhaps a few more AF points be added to the D60. Why more Af points? Every time Mr Tan tried to take a picture of Mini Tan 2.0 by using focus lock and shift, he ended up with a photo of a hand or a leg
I think there is no denying that the D60 has been selling very well. Why don't Nikon just cut the price of D60 and push it down to the D40 level. Remove D40 and add in a slightly more advanced model between the D60 and D90? That way the people who loved the minimalist design of D60 can still enjoy the camera, and the recently downgraded Mr Tan with a bad back can buy the new camera?
However, what if a photographer wants a compact light weight camera with capabilities to cater to 80% of the scenarios at 20% of the cost? Not your Nat Geo celebrity shooters but Mr Tan and Ms Tay next door who has to carry three babies and two toddlers in order to maximize the Singapore government's baby bonus?
These people may know a thing or two about photography and make regular posts on clubsnap. Oh ya, and they have been Nikon users. Dad probably used to own a D300 but had to sell it off because now the family needs to buy European imported milk instead of melamine enriched eastern brands. They still want great pictures of their kids using a fast focusing dSLR with reasonable number of focus points. What are their current options? Naturally it is D60....
Definitely they not expecting a super light weight camera costing 20% the cost of D700 (50% the cost of D90) to have all the features of these advanced cameras while still maintaining a minimal weight and size.
It would be nice though, if slight more advanced features, better lens compatibility and perhaps a few more AF points be added to the D60. Why more Af points? Every time Mr Tan tried to take a picture of Mini Tan 2.0 by using focus lock and shift, he ended up with a photo of a hand or a leg
I think there is no denying that the D60 has been selling very well. Why don't Nikon just cut the price of D60 and push it down to the D40 level. Remove D40 and add in a slightly more advanced model between the D60 and D90? That way the people who loved the minimalist design of D60 can still enjoy the camera, and the recently downgraded Mr Tan with a bad back can buy the new camera?
gymak90
Senior Member
Well it takes time to learn and also reading the manual thoroughly.
I've heard of people not knowing what focus-lock and recompose it, despite it being mentioned in the manual.
As I've said, people expect for more AF points, to make their money worthwhile. Provided the user knows how to select the AF points in the first place. If a beginner tries to place his subject at the corner of the frame, yet use centre AF point, it's just sad that the picture will never be sharp.
If the beginner wants the subject to be sharp, he should improve his skills or get a p&s (what an irony :bsmilie
I would agree 5,7,9 AF points will make a good little brother of D90. I think spot metering is quite useful, in fact I use it most of the time. Why remove?:dunno:
So you mean prior to F5, people were not able to take great pictures of their kids? Whether 1 focus point or 51 points, you need to know how to use it to give you what you want. 3D focus tracking is only as smart as you are. More often than not, the camera may select some focus points which you do not want if you let it do so automatically. Even if you set it to "closest subject", you have to make sure no foreground falls into any of the focus points. And if you want to use the directional keys to select your focus points manually, then I think 'lock-focus-recompose' is faster. It really depends on how you use it.
Definitely they not expecting a super light weight camera costing 20% the cost of D700 (50% the cost of D90) to have all the features of these advanced cameras while still maintaining a minimal weight and size.
It would be nice though, if slight more advanced features, better lens compatibility and perhaps a few more AF points be added to the D60. Why more Af points? Every time Mr Tan tried to take a picture of Mini Tan 2.0 by using focus lock and shift, he ended up with a photo of a hand or a leg
It's not that bad really... Yeah.. I'd like more features but now I'm already finding that an 18-200VR on the D60 is a bit front heavy. With the small grip, it can be quite hard to hold steady. No problems with D300 or even D70 as they feel quite balanced. D60 definitely has it's unique place in the market segment.
I think there is no denying that the D60 has been selling very well. Why don't Nikon just cut the price of D60 and push it down to the D40 level. Remove D40 and add in a slightly more advanced model between the D60 and D90? That way the people who loved the minimalist design of D60 can still enjoy the camera, and the recently downgraded Mr Tan with a bad back can buy the new camera?
I think the time will come when the price of D60 will come down. D40 also has its own place in the market. I view D60 as more of an upgrade to D40X. If you look at the prices of PnS and prosumer, the D40 is already not much more expensive. Some higher end PnS like Pana LX3 are already more expensive. I think the prices are already pushed quite low at this moment.
lightsaber
New Member
Hehe, sorry I wasn't taking pictures during the F5 era...
I think you brought up a very interesting point. It is true that sometimes technology can help as much as hinder you. This is true even for other things apart from camera.
oly is also using 3 AF points in their entry lvl bodies.
of cos it would be good to go back to the 5 AF point system use by the d50, problem is how to keep production cost down so that the price of the cam can be cheaper.
is always good to have more but the no of AF do spoil some ppl to an extent that given so many AF points, they only used the center one 80% of the time.
i agreed that 3 AF point is limiting, so long as you focus on a bright subject (not a shadow one), there are less chances of getting overblown shots.
the kit lens also tends to hunt a bit, so best is to focus on something bright in low light conditions.
of cos it would be good to go back to the 5 AF point system use by the d50, problem is how to keep production cost down so that the price of the cam can be cheaper.
is always good to have more but the no of AF do spoil some ppl to an extent that given so many AF points, they only used the center one 80% of the time.
i agreed that 3 AF point is limiting, so long as you focus on a bright subject (not a shadow one), there are less chances of getting overblown shots.
the kit lens also tends to hunt a bit, so best is to focus on something bright in low light conditions.
Last edited:
The other thing about accuracy is that the centre AF point is always the most accurate one because more sensor elements are allocated for it and it is most likely to be cross type also.
I think it's not just about keeping the cost down. It's about keeping the size down as well. The AF module itself take up space at the bottom of the mirror box. So the more AF points you have, it will take up slightly more space also.
lightsaber
New Member
I do agree that that in essence, perhaps only one AF point is required. Some accomplished photographers may not even need AF because they use MF lenses.
...and people were happily taking pictures before metering, WB, Image Processing and other features were included in a camera.
While not impossible to take pictures with 1 AF point, many do agree that having a few more (like 5-9, NOT 51 ) would make things slightly more convenient for some. As mentioned by some, AF points does have its uses in some scenarios.
However, we are talking about a modern camera positioned in an extremely competitive entry level market. And many of the competitors, especially Sony and Canon has products which seems to be slightly better spec'ed than the D60. The A200/A350 been selling very well and may even sell better than the D60 in some markets. I was just thinking that perhaps its time Nikon update the D60's spec a bit.....
Just to quote a paragraph from dpreview:
"In reality the biggest challenge the D60 faces is the competition; there's been an explosion of small, affordable entry-level SLRs in the 18 month or so since the D40 first appeared, and though I've never actually used live view outside the studio there's no denying it's a strong selling point at this end of the market, as is in-body stabilization. Cameras such as the Olympus E-410 (and its promising successor the E-420) offer a fuller feature set in an equally small (and affordable) body, and you can't ignore the imminent arrival on the shelves of Canon's seriously beefed-up (though pricier) forthcoming new entry-level model, the EOS 450D, not to mention the new Sonys or the Pentax K200D."
I think there is no denying that the D60 needs an upgrade, even if not the AF points. Simon_84, thanks for pointing out that the oly has 3 AF points as well
...and people were happily taking pictures before metering, WB, Image Processing and other features were included in a camera.
While not impossible to take pictures with 1 AF point, many do agree that having a few more (like 5-9, NOT 51 ) would make things slightly more convenient for some. As mentioned by some, AF points does have its uses in some scenarios.
However, we are talking about a modern camera positioned in an extremely competitive entry level market. And many of the competitors, especially Sony and Canon has products which seems to be slightly better spec'ed than the D60. The A200/A350 been selling very well and may even sell better than the D60 in some markets. I was just thinking that perhaps its time Nikon update the D60's spec a bit.....
Just to quote a paragraph from dpreview:
"In reality the biggest challenge the D60 faces is the competition; there's been an explosion of small, affordable entry-level SLRs in the 18 month or so since the D40 first appeared, and though I've never actually used live view outside the studio there's no denying it's a strong selling point at this end of the market, as is in-body stabilization. Cameras such as the Olympus E-410 (and its promising successor the E-420) offer a fuller feature set in an equally small (and affordable) body, and you can't ignore the imminent arrival on the shelves of Canon's seriously beefed-up (though pricier) forthcoming new entry-level model, the EOS 450D, not to mention the new Sonys or the Pentax K200D."
I think there is no denying that the D60 needs an upgrade, even if not the AF points. Simon_84, thanks for pointing out that the oly has 3 AF points as well
I do agree that that in essence, perhaps only one AF point is required. Some accomplished photographers may not even need AF because they use MF lenses.
...and people were happily taking pictures before metering, WB, Image Processing and other features were included in a camera.
While not impossible to take pictures with 1 AF point, many do agree that having a few more (like 5-9, NOT 51 ) would make things slightly more convenient for some. As mentioned by some, AF points does have its uses in some scenarios.
However, we are talking about a modern camera positioned in an extremely competitive entry level market. And many of the competitors, especially Sony and Canon has products which seems to be slightly better spec'ed than the D60. The A200/A350 been selling very well and may even sell better than the D60 in some markets. I was just thinking that perhaps its time Nikon update the D60's spec a bit.....
Just to quote a paragraph from dpreview:
"In reality the biggest challenge the D60 faces is the competition; there's been an explosion of small, affordable entry-level SLRs in the 18 month or so since the D40 first appeared, and though I've never actually used live view outside the studio there's no denying it's a strong selling point at this end of the market, as is in-body stabilization. Cameras such as the Olympus E-410 (and its promising successor the E-420) offer a fuller feature set in an equally small (and affordable) body, and you can't ignore the imminent arrival on the shelves of Canon's seriously beefed-up (though pricier) forthcoming new entry-level model, the EOS 450D, not to mention the new Sonys or the Pentax K200D."
I think there is no denying that the D60 needs an upgrade, even if not the AF points. Simon_84, thanks for pointing out that the oly has 3 AF points as well
Oly is in a totally different ballgame. They are using the four thirds format which already gives them advantage in the size of the mirrorbox, prism etc. Lenses are also physically shorter to give the same picture angle. There is no comparison at all. :dunno: Yes, definitely they are able to pack the cameras smaller but it's not quite a fair comparison.
I always felt Oly has not done a good job at all in scaling down the size of the body despite its advantage of using the 4/3 sensor.
When I hold the E420 and D60, there's not much diff. In fact its about the same size. And on top of that the 420 do not have IS and poor high iso. And not to mention the E520, its crazy! Its so much bigger than the D60.
I'd rather buy a D60 or D40 than a E420 if size is a concern. They all cannot be put into a pocket anyway.
However, Oly did well in its scaling own the lens particularly the pancake lens. But the body in general are still way too big.
Yes, size is just as important as image quality.
When I hold the E420 and D60, there's not much diff. In fact its about the same size. And on top of that the 420 do not have IS and poor high iso. And not to mention the E520, its crazy! Its so much bigger than the D60.
I'd rather buy a D60 or D40 than a E420 if size is a concern. They all cannot be put into a pocket anyway.
However, Oly did well in its scaling own the lens particularly the pancake lens. But the body in general are still way too big.
Yes, size is just as important as image quality.
Size is important. But I actually prefer the camera to be bigger to fit my big hands.
And I have no problems at all with the weight that comes with it. Personal preference, I guess.
Back to the topic, D60 was only released this year. So I doubt Nikon will be in a rush to replace it, although it was probably a mistake on their part not to include features like live view which appeared in comparable products from competitors soon after D60 was released.
I think the next update will see a camera replace the D40, which will have better specs than the D60, hence placing the D60 on the lowest segment of Nikon DSLRs.
And I have no problems at all with the weight that comes with it. Personal preference, I guess.
Back to the topic, D60 was only released this year. So I doubt Nikon will be in a rush to replace it, although it was probably a mistake on their part not to include features like live view which appeared in comparable products from competitors soon after D60 was released.
I think the next update will see a camera replace the D40, which will have better specs than the D60, hence placing the D60 on the lowest segment of Nikon DSLRs.
- Status
Similar threads
