450D Vs D60

[illmonkey]

So i'm after DSLR camera, and I've narrowed it down to these 2.

Spec wise, it looks like the 450D is ahead, more pixels, live view, time laps. But I have no experience with photos and day to day use. The 450D is more money, as is at the top of my budget, but these are competing cameras, so its not a case of buy what you can afford.

What are either like for additional lenses, build, usability?

To begin with it'll just be the lens it came with and a tripod, but willing to expand in the future if I'm happy.

Of course, sample pictures are very much appreciated!

[RobDickinson]

They'll both take a good picture but realy the 450D is a good couple of rungs up the ladder from the D60.

Canon have the 1000D below the 450D and even that is ahead of the D60.

Nikon have just anounced a new low(ish) end camera the 5000D which (whilst no reviews are out) looks like it competes quite well with the 450/500D.

450D lacks for nothing realy from a feature point of view apart from video if your intrested and its an excelent all round camera.

[illmonkey]

RobDickinson said:

They'll both take a good picture but realy the 450D is a good couple of rungs up the ladder from the D60.

Canon have the 1000D below the 450D and even that is ahead of the D60.

Nikon have just anounced a new low(ish) end camera the 5000D which (whilst no reviews are out) looks like it competes quite well with the 450/500D.

450D lacks for nothing realy from a feature point of view apart from video if your intrested and its an excelent all round camera.

Thanks for the comments. the 5000D and D500 are alot more money (£300 more), so out of my league really. Sounds like I need the 450D, hopefully a few more people will comment

[RobDickinson]

If you can deal with the drawbacks of the D60 its an option , certainly many people taking good pics with them.

For me I wouldnt want the 3 point AF, no DoF Preview, no bracketing, no mirrior lockup etc not to mention the body motor (though thats much less of an issue thesedays).

[illmonkey]

Would it be worth more for the 450D that the 1000D? I'm thinking I could get the 1000D and spend the savings on a different/new lens

[Mr Moley]

I've just bought a canon 1000d with lens pack this morning having decided that as a relative novice I probably wouldn't really notice the difference between it and the 450d. I ruled the Nikon D60 out due to it only having 3 point auto focus and being a bit bulkier/ heavier.

Canon have apparently just repackaged it with a non IS lens to save costs so if you go this way try to track down one of the earlier ones - I got mine from Jacobs who are selling them for £349 including a free 4bg sdhc card and canon carry case until they sell all the 'old' ones

hth

[Bigdrift]

RobDickinson said:

They'll both take a good picture but realy the 450D is a good couple of rungs up the ladder from the D60.

Canon have the 1000D below the 450D and even that is ahead of the D60.

Nikon have just anounced a new low(ish) end camera the 5000D which (whilst no reviews are out) looks like it competes quite well with the 450/500D.

450D lacks for nothing realy from a feature point of view apart from video if your intrested and its an excelent all round camera.

in terms of model line up D40 = 1000D and D60 = 450D and when the 500D and D5000 (will the 500D be a 'lowish' model too then ? ) ) arrive they will push the 450D/D60 down to entry level (d40 and 1000d will cease to be)

personally i would say the D60 is on a par with the 450D (and way above the 1000D ! ), it is miles ahead in build quality and handling imo , both the 1000D and 450D feel cheap light and plasticky while the D60 feels solid

and whilst the 450D might not be lacking anything , live view is a waste and not a tool for serious photographers just a dumbing down tactic by the marketing people (again mho)

canon are not the only company that makes DSLR's although you would not think so judging by this forum

hth



oh and the D60 is a lot cheaper to boot !

[RobDickinson]

Bigdrift said:

oh and the D60 is a lot cheaper to boot !

And theres a reason fot that, its a pauper on features compared to the 450D, which is NOT its comparable product (not that nikon & canon ever realy go head to head).

Theres a ton of reasons why my 350D is a heap better than the D60 let alone the 450D.

[Simpo Two]

RobDickinson said:

And theres a reason fot that, its a pauper on features compared to the 450D

Perhaps, but there's more to photography than features, 70% of which will probably never be used and 40% of which are marketing strap-ons to make their list of features look longer than the rival's list of features.

[Bigdrift]

RobDickinson said:

Theres a ton of reasons why my 350D is a heap better than the D60 let alone the 450D.

and those reasons are ?

[dapprman]

Bigdrift said:

RobDickinson said:

Theres a ton of reasons why my 350D is a heap better than the D60 let alone the 450D.

and those reasons are ?

Rob Dickinson is a really big Canon fan ?

If the 3 point AF is an issue, then either wait to see what price the D5000 will be or go the Canon 450D. Note Nikon have already said the D5000 will sit between the D60 and D90, so I suspect it'll possibly outside of your budget.

You'll not go wrong with either a Nikon or Canon, though it is also worth looking ahead at future purchases, such as lenses. The D60 (like the D40 and D50) has a more restrictive lens choice due to no internal lens motor/screw.

[Kermit power]

Bigdrift said:

When the 500D and D5000 arrive they will push the 450D/D60 down to entry level (d40 and 1000d will cease to be)

Are you sure about that? Considering that the 1000D was introduced after the 450D, why would they want to discontinue it so soon?

Bigdrift said:

both the 1000D and 450D feel cheap light and plasticky while the D60 feels solid

I've not used a D60, but after 8,000 or so shots with my 450D, if it feels cheap, light and plasticky in comparison, then the D60 must be built like an armoured house brick.

Bigdrift said:

live view is a waste and not a tool for serious photographers just a dumbing down tactic by the marketing people (again mho)

Not strictly true. You certainly wouldn't want to use it all the time, but it can be exceptionally useful for shots from unusual angles - holding the camera up above a crowd or the other side of some railings for example - where you just can't get your eye to the viewfinder.

Bigdrift said:

oh and the D60 is a lot cheaper to boot !

It doesn't have an AF motor, forcing you to pay more for the lenses, and it only has 3 AF points, so it's hardly surprising it's a lot cheaper really, is it?

[Simpo Two]

Kermit power said:

It doesn't have an AF motor, forcing you to pay more for the lenses, and it only has 3 AF points, so it's hardly surprising it's a lot cheaper really, is it?

Surely the days of clunky screw-drive lenses are over for most people? AF-S lenses don't have to be expensive - there are penty of affordable 'kit' AF-S lenses about.

3 AF points - unless you're a fan of fast lenses and wide apertures, semi-depress and reframe works very well with just one AF point

You see it's all very well to list 'features' but you have to think them through

[Tuna]

For what it's worth...

I have a 350D which has taken just shy of 15,000 photos without any problems. It remains an excellent camera, and whilst the newer models have higher resolutions and more features, the difference to a novice user is virtually imperceptible. You can do photo quality A4 prints and poster quality A2 prints from anything with more than 8 megapixels, and whilst the improved focus and light metering helps on the newer models, it won't transform your photography.

If you get a DSLR, you should probably expect to get at least a couple of lenses, or else why not just get a good bridge camera (e.g. Fuji)? So look at your lens choice as part of the 'purchase price'. I got mine with a 17-85mm kit lens which does good work, but I've since got Canon's fantastic 50mm prime (which costs 80 quid or so and produces stunning images), and a 70-300mm zoom. I'd like to get a macro and a wide angle lens sometime, but might end up getting a 500D first.

Though Canon haven't explicitly said it, it seems likely that the 500D will replace the 450D (just as it replaced the 400D, previously the 350D then the 300D). I'm not sure when it'll hit the streets, but you might be able to get a 450D for a better price around then.

Edited to add: As Davi says, it's worth going to a shop and just having a go with each camera to see how they feel. The Nikon is a little 'chunkier', the Canon a little more refined, so the size of your hands can make one more comfortable to hold than the other. Whilst a quick play doesn't tell you that much, it can give you an idea of how the cameras feel to use which is a start.

Edited by Tuna on Tuesday 21st April 13:48

[andy-xr]

I have a D40, D80 and a D300 and still the main limiting factor with them is me

[Davi]

Simpo Two said:

Kermit power said:

It doesn't have an AF motor, forcing you to pay more for the lenses, and it only has 3 AF points, so it's hardly surprising it's a lot cheaper really, is it?

3 AF points - unless you're a fan of fast lenses and wide apertures, semi-depress and reframe works very well with just one AF point

After all the advice I got on here I plumped for the D60. Was talking to a semi-pro about it recently, he rated it very highly. I mentioned that it only has 3 AF points to which he replied something along the lines of "good, maybe you'll learn how to use a camera and take photo's properly, rather than rely on the camera"

To the OP, if like me you're just starting out, I've found the D60 to be excellent. I preferred the feel of it in my hand to the canon and the shop I bought it from (small independent) rated it over the canon in terms of build quality - also rated the nikor lenses above the standard canon ones too. Showed me some test samples they'd done with the two by a pro, definitely better quality out the box from the D60.

Edited by Davi on Tuesday 21st April 13:41

[Kermit power]

Simpo Two said:

Kermit power said:

It doesn't have an AF motor, forcing you to pay more for the lenses, and it only has 3 AF points, so it's hardly surprising it's a lot cheaper really, is it?

Surely the days of clunky screw-drive lenses are over for most people? AF-S lenses don't have to be expensive - there are penty of affordable 'kit' AF-S lenses about.

3 AF points - unless you're a fan of fast lenses and wide apertures, semi-depress and reframe works very well with just one AF point

You see it's all very well to list 'features' but you have to think them through

Whether or not you want the technology, it doesn't change the fact that a camera without it should be cheaper.

As for semi-depress and reframe, that's great if you're not taking pictures of things which move.

[Simpo Two]

Kermit power said:

Whether or not you want the technology, it doesn't change the fact that a camera without it should be cheaper.

If all else is equal, then yes.

Kermit power said:

As for semi-depress and reframe, that's great if you're not taking pictures of things which move.

If you mean forwards and backwards (ie focal plane needs to change) there's AF-C (Nikon speak for continuous AF).

Anyway, in conclusion I'd suggest the OP goes to see both, and tried to anticipate what features are going to be most important to him. For example, I never use matrix metering or Auto-ISO but I always use Auto-WB and single point focus. However, I mostly shoot people and things, not sports. There are infinite ways to use and configure a DSLR, and what works best for me may not work for him, and vice versa.

[Kermit power]

Bigdrift said:

live view is a waste and not a tool for serious photographers just a dumbing down tactic by the marketing people (again mho)

Going off on a tangent from another post, I would now suggest that this is even more incorrect.

Have you tried comparing manual focusing a Macro lens with x10 magnification in Live View with manual focusing just looking through the viewfinder? I would suggest it might well cause you to reappraise your opinion.

[Simpo Two]

Kermit power said:

Bigdrift said:

live view is a waste and not a tool for serious photographers just a dumbing down tactic by the marketing people (again mho)

Going off on a tangent from another post, I would now suggest that this is even more incorrect.

Have you tried comparing manual focusing a Macro lens with x10 magnification in Live View with manual focusing just looking through the viewfinder? I would suggest it might well cause you to reappraise your opinion.

You're both right - it depends what you want to do. I've used live view for studio work and it's certainly a way to focus manually with accuracy, but then, using AF worked just as well and was much quicker. However, if you have a client breathing down your neck then they can see what they're getting, which is handy if you're not shooting to laptop.

If you don't have a client breathing down your neck and don't use a 'x10' macro lens (wot? mine is 1:1), then again, the need for LV lessens.

So to misquote Bill Gates, 'What do you want to do today?'