If what you want to spend is an issue but you want to obtain good digital photo results you would be much better off purchasing a high-end current point and shoot like Canon's G7.

I have a point and shoot Coolpix. I'm looking to get into a DSLR.

Hi David.

I was reading about the 10 megapixel G7 in the new issue of Shutterbug that came today. It's really a pity that Canon can't offer a wider lens in their higher end point and shoot cameras. Nikon went to 28mm with the CoolPix 5000 and 24mm with the CoolPix 8400. Canon is still stuck on a modest 35mm at the wide end. As you can tell from the other thread I started about high end point and shoots, I feel a 28mm or better yet, a 24mm would be a much more useful focal length.

Larry,

There are I think two factors involved in this issue. The first is what the public, the market for point and shoots demands, and I think it fair to say the more casual picture taker is more concerned with the longer end of the a focal length range. The other is when a zoom has a long range getting good distortion correction and very wide angles of view involves sometimes design compromises that result in poorer overall optical performance over the entire zoom range. At least my practical experience has been that long zoom ranges that start at wide angles of view underperform shorter focal length range lenses. Third party lens makers are more aggressive and adventurous in offering extended zoom ranges, but I have yet to see one of those lenses perform as well as a more conservative range and design made by a prime camera manufacturer.

I just want to thank you guys for all the helpful information on the Canon D60.

That was meant sarcastically, in case you missed it.

If you go back and read David's post again, he thinks you'll be better off with a high end point and shoot.

Here's the hard to find D60 review which can easily be found just doing a Google search for "d60 review".

But you're asking about five year old technology and that's light years in digital photography.

If I was interested in a high-end point & shoot I would have asked about them. Why is it the people here seem to assume that anyone asking questions about digital cameras are completely ignorant about photography? I've been shooting 35mm SLRs for over 30 years, now I have a need for digital and I'm trying to get some information on an affordable camera that will fit my needs. I'm not a "tech junkie", so it matters little to me if the latest models have a higher "gee whiz" factor, I just need to get the job done. I'm currently using a Nikon Coolpix 4300 for digital work, so a D60 would be "light years" more advanced than my current technology. I appreciate the link, but I have already googled this camera. I posted here to get some actual user feedback from those who have been shooting this camera over the past few years. I'm considering the D60 and also the Pentax *ist cameras. I'm sure that either of these brands will "get the job done", I'd just like as much info as i can get before I pull the trigger.

People on any forum can only use the information given in the questions to make educated decisions based on their own experiences. They can't read your mind about your history or skills. When someone asks about five year old technology, they are usually beginners asking about a camera that a friend had.

Sine this camera is 5 years old, I'd think that there should be a lot of feedback from owners and previous owners of the D60. I see comments about the D30 quite a lot, but the D60 (which from reading the test reports from when it was released lead me to believe it was a very good camera), seems to generate little enthusiasm. Was there some inherant problems with this model that kept it from becoming popular? If there are any major drawbacks to owning one I'd like to know about it.

The lack of feedback may be because those who owned it, barely remember it now. The D60 was a very good camera for having being designed with 2001 technology. It was replaced by the 10D within a year, a considerably more advanced camera selling for $500 less. The 10D was replaced by the 20D 18 months later, again at roughly $500 less. The current version is the 30D, announced last February and probably due for replacement either in February or August 2007. In other words, it is now four generations back and that is significant in digital terms.

If someone is willing to give you the camera, consider accepting it, but realize that the pictures that you shoot on it will be of no better quality than the technology of the time could produce. I really wish I could rephotograph the stuff I shot with my first camera, using the one I have at present.

So maybe the fact that the D60 was superceded so quickly is the reason there's so little first-hand reports on it? You make some interesting points about the technology improving so quickly, but that brings up another question in my mind: What are the practical differences between the D60 and other 6MP cameras of later design? Assume for a moment that 6MP is all I need. What would make a newer 6MP camera (Canon or any other brand) better than the D60. Remember, I'm new to digital, but not new to photography itself. Again, keep in mind that I want get started in DSLRdom good but cheap. I can worry about trading up after I learn the digital ropes. And I still have my film cameras if I need to make any picturs "for the ages".

I received a D60 from my son a year and a half ago when he got his 20d. I spent time learning the Canon system (I had pentax SLR equipment for years) with this camera and built up my glass collection and studying different lenses. I now have a 30d because of the rebate program. Getting to the point, I found the d60 to be slow when turned on, but quality of image was very good. I still use it. Long exposure noise is very good. I had to put a new shutter (about $300) in it and it now works great. For normal use I can do about anything with it I can do with my 30d. It is now dated, however. Bigger, faster, smarter is nice, but I still have a soft spot for it. You would have to compare reviews to find out what is important to you (flash, speed of use, are biggest differences, 6 to 8 mp is less important than you would think unless you are very serious. Of course I was then locked into EF lenses, but with my 100 2.8 usm macro, I have no problem with that.

Quote:
What are the practical differences between the D60 and other 6MP cameras of later design? Assume for a moment that 6MP is all I need. What would make a newer 6MP camera (Canon or any other brand) better than the D60. Remember, I'm new to digital, but not new to photography itself.

I can not specifically address the Canon line. Since being primarily a "street" shooter - decisive moment stuff of people in ambient light - I have found the high end mirrorless cameras ideal. However, the three cameras I have owned span a similar amount of time to those under discussion, so there was likely to be parallel evolution.

Number of pixels are really of the least concern. It is a figure marketing and consumers can easily comprehend, while quantifying colour quality, noise and other more important factors is difficult. Not many consumers would instantly relate to modulation transfer functions which would be a lot more meaningful. The resolution of the three went from 3.34MP to 5MP to 8MP with the current camera. A stunning 24 x 36 inch print is on the wall of a large living room in another city, made from the 3.34MP camera. No one who has seen it complains that it has too few pixels.

An example of the evolution - I meet with a group each month in a high-school classroom. It is lit by incredibly cheap fluorescent lights - without doubt from a company that put in the low bid. I have no idea what their CRI is, but it must be incredibly low. My first camera could not cope. I even brought along a calibrated 18% grey card and used it to do a manual white balance. All neutrals were then pretty neutral, but skin tones were hideous. The second camera improved on it considerably, and the third camera provides both perfect neutrals and gorgeous skin tones.

With the first camera, an eight second shot at night without noise reduction looked like a shot through a swarm of psychedelic fireflies. The second camera still had a few bright pixels, and the third can do a full minute without them.

The camera company has learned at lot about making the camera more efficient from a user interface standpoint. The first camera had pages and pages of menus with few hardware controls. The second added a few ways of quickly making adjustments directly. The current camera has a command dial with most of the settings directly accessible, and buttons strategically placed for toggling between states. Extremely efficient. The items on first page of the menu is the user's choice. I almost never need to go beyond this page, having chosen the items that I would most frequently use.

I now have a live histogram, for which Ansel Adams would have killed. By far the greatest light meter ever. Since my usual working focal length is equivalent to an 18mm lens, I can project a grid on the monitor for perspective control. The first camera had a bulb time of one minute maximum, which the second increased to five minutes - holding the shutter down for the duration of the exposure. The current camera has TIMED exposures of 30 seconds, one, three, five and ten minutes. I do a lot of night photography, and this feature alone would have sold the camera. It also has an interval timer built in which I use for many bleeding edge projects. The form factor has greatly improved between generations, the current camera feels like it was moulded to my hands whether I am shooting horizontals or verticals. The current camera has a wide range of situational settings to assist neophyte shooters to get decent results without having years of experience. I understand they work quite well.

RAW format was added as a firmware upgrade shortly after buying the second camera and of course, is standard on the current camera. For someone who loves to shoot under ambient light conditions often involving odd mixes of light, I can absolutely nail skin tones now even if the light varies greatly across the space captured in the exposure.

Each camera has greatly improved the potential quality of the image, though it is still up to the shooter to achieve this. Each camera has presented a more efficient user interface. Each camera has become more responsive in every way over its predecessor. Each camera has improved upon the human engineering aspect making the camera much more elegant to use in the field.

I have not specified the make or models of these cameras since this is happening across the whole spectrum of higher end digital cameras. The difference between the cameras is not subtle, but in fact quite dramatic.

Test reports of the D60 speak glowingly of excellent color and resolution and very low noise. However, these reports were written when the camera was new, so they could be highly subjective, comparing the camera's qualities not to an ideal standard, but to other cameras of its' day. Perhaps it would be better to set a standard of comparison, such as film: How does camera X compare to film? Then we would have a better idea of just how much technological progress is actually being made with each new generation of camera.

So the question now becomes: How close is the D60 picture quality to film, and how close is the D60's function to a film camera (shutter lag, ergonomics, features and capabilities, etc)? Would I be getting more bang for my buck (albeit at a higher initial cost) with a new low-end DSLR such as the Olympus E-500, Pentax K110D, or Canon Rebel XT? (Keep in mind that I'm looking for real-world results and not interested in the "gee whiz" factor)

Comparing digital to film is apples and oranges. Both have entirely different characteristics and you'll have to scan the film to make comparisons.

But what you can do is compare digital to digital. That review link I provided also has full size images you can download and evaluate. You can also evaluate images from all the other cameras reviewed on that same web site. That should give you a good start.

Now you've lost me. Digital and film are apples and oranges? Both are image making mediums based on light. Film has been a standard for well over 100 years, I don't see how comparing digitally captured images to images captured on silver halide is "apples and oranges"? It seems very reasonable to me to ask how close does digital come to film? In fact, I clearly recall that was the main topic of discussion when digital first arrived on the scene. Digital was pretty pathetic back then, so I would think that now that the technology has advanced as far as it has, the question is even more pertinent. I also do not understand why one would have to scan the film to make comparisons? Why can't a quality digital print be directly compared to a quality darkroom enlargement? This is one of the reasons it is so hard for someone familiar with film to make an intelligent choice when it comes to digital. Test reports of digital cameras speak of great resolution, fantastic color, minimal "noise", but compared to what? Previous generation digital, that's what. Well, if you are just now getting into digital photography, reports stating that the brand-spanking-new WhizBang D2000i produces breathtaking pictures compared to last year's WhizBang D2000 really doesn't mean much to you because the same people said the same thing when they reviewed the D2000 and probably reported just as glowingly when they tested the very first WhizBang. I mean, I get it; the technology is still improving and for quite some time to come each new camera is going to be at least somewhat better than the last. If I wait till next year, something even better will be available, but that doesn't satisfy my needs now. The bottom line for me is the highest quality images for the lowest dollar investment, I can move up to the latest and greatest somewhere down the road. So maybe I just need to rephrase my question: Should I shop for a used DSLR that will provide good quality images under various conditions (with the exception of sports/action), or am I wasting my time and I should just bite the bullet and buy a current model?

Larry is right. At the point of capture, in the camera, it's an apple/oranges comparision. Digital capture is electronic. Film capture is chemical. How about a camera obscura, lots of blank paper and number 2 pencils? Now, it's apples, oranges and pears.

The only way to fairly compare prints is by printing the images by the same process; i.e., scan the negative and print the image with (for instance) an inkjet printer, then compare it with a digital image printed the same way. Comparing an inkjet print to a silver halide print is still comparing apples and oranges. But, as injet printers continue to improve in quality, especially in the B&W arena, it's becoming closer to a "Fuji" vs. "Delicious" kind of comparison.....

Where would you get the quality "wet darkroom" enlargement and where would you get the quality digital enlargement? Now you're comparing the skills of the people printing and not the equipment.

Quote:
Now you've lost me. Digital and film are apples and oranges? I also do not understand why one would have to scan the film to make comparisons? Why can't a quality digital print be directly compared to a quality darkroom enlargement?

It seems to me you guys are talking technology and I'm talking results. I frankly don't give a portly rodent's posterior HOW the image is created, I care about what it LOOKS like. Whether the image comes from pixels or pixies, how good is the end result? I've browsed through your web gallery a bit, Larry, and you have some beautiful images displayed there. They look quite good on my computer screen and I'm sure they look just fine if printed out on a high quality printer. Images of such quality would certainly fill my immediate need. My bottom line question is: Can I get those results spending $400 for a used DSLR of 6MP or so (after much consideration and study I have given up on the D60 and would be considering instead the Pentax *ist D series cameras), or do I really need to spend $800+ for something new? My secondary question is: How safe is it to purchase used digital equipment? Is the likelihood of getting a defective camera too great a risk? (assuming the purchase is made from a reputable source)

Thanks for the compliments on my work. Can you get great results with a six megapixel camera? Probably if you follow the rules to getting good photographs, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Perfect exposure, low ISO, use a tripod and expose for the highlights as if you were shooting transparency film.

The best consumer digital camera I've ever used was the CoolPix 5000. I've printed my Southwest pictures 12x18 and the prints look like they're from medium format film. I've even had arguments with professional photographers about the source files when they held the prints in their hands at the art shows I sold them at. So if I can do it with a five megapixel consumer camera shooting exclusively JPEG, you can do it with a six megapixel DSLR given the quality options are controlled.

I use Costco for printing up to 12x18 and use the Lambda at my local custom lab for anything larger.

Quote:
Thanks for the compliments on my work. Can you get great results with a six megapixel camera? Probably if you follow the rules to getting good photographs, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Perfect exposure, low ISO, use a tripod and expose for the highlights as if you were shooting transparency film.

I'm sure this advice is valid even if the camera has 20MP. Frankly, I suspected all along that the practical answer would be that 6MP would "git 'er done", but I'm a cautious man and I prefer to hear all evidence before rendering a verdict, especially if it's going to cost me money!

Quote:
The best consumer digital camera I've ever used was the CoolPix 5000. I've printed my Southwest pictures 12x18 and the prints look like they're from medium format film. I've even had arguments with professional photographers about the source files when they held the prints in their hands at the art shows I sold them at. So if I can do it with a five megapixel consumer camera shooting exclusively JPEG, you can do it with a six megapixel DSLR given the quality options are controlled.

With that being the case, I have to wonder if I should even bother holding on to my film cameras, but then, I love wide angle lenses and that is where most of the current digitals stumble. If money were no object, I'd simply buy a Canon 5d and the accompanying lenses and be done with it, but alas, money is definitely an object. The digital will be a perfect 'on the go" camera for me, but I'll just have to hang on to my 35mm SLR for those 24mm and 17mm lenses I enjoy so much.

Still, I am debating the merits of saving money by going used, or paying the extra cost for the peace of mind that comes with new, warranted equipment.

Which is why I've sold every film camera I owned on eBay in the past two years. That's where the money came from for me to purchase the Nikon D70 and then the Nikon D200 when I sold the D70. For a wide angle I purchased Nikon's 12-24mm and use my 20mm for a normal lens. But my style has changed over the years and I use the D200 to photograph art for clients and various CoolPix cameras for creative work.

Quote:
With that being the case, I have to wonder if I should even bother holding on to my film cameras, but then, I love wide angle lenses and that is where most of the current digitals stumble. If money were no object, I'd simply buy a Canon 5d and the accompanying lenses and be done with it, but alas, money is definitely an object. The digital will be a perfect 'on the go" camera for me, but I'll just have to hang on to my 35mm SLR for those 24mm and 17mm lenses I enjoy so much.

Quote:
But my style has changed over the years and I use the D200 to photograph art for clients and various CoolPix cameras for creative work.

Good point, Larry. A SLR makes me feel like I am going to work.

In decades of photography, nothing has been the epiphany that the Coolpix cameras have. I have always loved to push the edge, but the edge was held back by analogue photo materials. My photography took a giant leap the day I brought my first Coolpix home.

It liberated my face from having a camera jammed against it. It liberated those I was photographing from the cyclops stare of a big lens pointing at them - and so they relaxed. The camera is in view, but not dominating the line of sight. I can swivel the monitor so I can see from most any practical angle. I maintain eye contact with the subject, only glancing at the monitor from time to time to make sure the subject is still framed. It has proved to be the perfect successor to my Leica as the ideal street camera.

The most difficult person in the world to photograph is the photographer. One of our local people launched a web photo magazine called "The Circle of Confusion". Since I was a contributor and a friend, I was invited to their place at the launch. Naturally I brought along the CP8400. I shot with the equivalent of an 18mm lens, so I worked very close - within their "private spaces". Light was dim, about the best I could do was around 1/5th of a second, and yes some were discarded due to motion blur. There was a laptop that was so relatively bright compared to ambient light, that it actually caused flare in some shots!

Photographers, since they are so camera shy, probably have fewer photographs of themselves than any other definable group. I did a page with no attempt at tarting it up since it was primarily private, for them to harvest pictures of themselves. I don't have a public link to it, but it can be reached by
http://www.larry-bolch.com/confusion/

The camera was for all intents invisible, even when working so close. Note also the quality of the natural light and how fine the colour is, in spite of the darkness.

I have yet to do a shot with flash - other than testing. I love these cameras for ambient light. When RAW came long with a firmware upgrade, I suddenly found that I could get good skin tones by layering together separately white balanced layers. RAW also allowed me to shoot to preserve highlights, and dredge a huge amount of detail out of shadows. Instant feedback allows me to find the perfect exposure for things like lightning or the aurora and know I have it without having to wait for the film to be processed. In fact, I can see the results of the shot BEFORE I shoot it, since the preview has already been processed by the camera! With a SLR, you are stuck with an early 20th century projection on a focusing screen and can only review what the camera has done to the shot after it is taken.

Some more direct URLs that illustrate the capability of these remarkable cameras.
http://www.larry-bolch.com/sequences.htm
http://www.larry-bolch.com/las-vegas/
http://www.larry-bolch.com/CP8400/
http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/

In fact, most of these shots would be problematic for the SLRs I used in the past, and dSLRs now. At this point, there is no camera on the market at any price, for which I would trade my CP8400.

PM sent.

Hi Bob,

I have bought a few used and new canon dlsrs. If you can get a good used one, just like an automobile, the original owner has absorbed the depreciation. If you plan on keeping it for a while you may want to buy used.

Here is a link for D60 user reviews and some are pretty recent:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=91&sort=7&cat=15&page=2

Good luck.