Reading mode: Light Dark

Is the D60 a good camera for travel pics?

Go to last post
I agree (and nice shots). You don't "need" a tripod and you don't "need" a bagful of lenses to take great shots with a small dSLR.
 
Great pictures. I've already seen them here, but it's a pleasure to look at them again.
Thanks for sharing.
André
 
It's a very bad choice for a travel camera. Here how bad it is:
http://picasaweb.google.com/vpreallize

Now serious. Any of them will do a very good job. The kit lens 18-55 mm is quite limited and changing all the time the lens in a vacation.

The cheapest way is to get the Nikon D60 (or D40) body with the Nikkor 18-105 mm VR. One step above is the body with 18-200 mm VR. For quality you can have the Nikkor 16-85 mm VR.
--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania
http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/
http://picasaweb.google.com/teodor.nitica/
http://picasaweb.google.com/vpreallize/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/v_petcu/
 
--

Wow, those are awesome pictures! Thanks for sharing! Can you tell me which lens(es) you used for those?
 
hapa_dude said:
So a D60 body + $500 50mm AF-S would cost more than a D80 or D90 body
+ $100 50mm lens. I just got a D60 in December but am thinking of
returning it and getting a D90 because of this lens limitation. After
just 1-2 lenses, the total system cost of the D90 would be cheaper
than the D60. With the D60, you have to pay more for lenses w/
built-in AF motors.
--
Click to expand...
--

That's definitely a good point. However, I think the D90 is much more camera than I need right now, plus the D60 is about as heavy as I want to go. I don't think I will enjoy carrying around a camera that weighs more/is bigger than that or the XSi.
 
I used my daughter's D60 in Finland/Estonia in October, and got some great shots. However, I found using two lenses (18-55VR and 55-200VR) was a bit of a problem. I found the 18-55VR simply didn't have enough on the telephoto end. You may want to get the 18-105VR instead. I wouldn't recommend the 16-88VR as a single lens for travel - it's a lot heavier, and, again, is limited in the tele end (I have one).

The D40 or D40x is going pretty cheap these days - you can probably find a D40+18-105VR for a good price. And the D40 has some IQ advantages over the D60. But don't wait too long - prices are not going to get lower, and as inventory gets sold off there WILL be a supply problem for a few years. Seriously.

--
Brault
 
--
Thanks for everyone's input so far! This has definitely been very helpful.

A couple people mentioned even considering the D40. Could someone briefly explain the differences b/t the two?

I know there is the obvious megapixel difference, but someone also mentioned D-lighting (not sure what this is?)

Another possible scenario that just occurred to me is getting a D40 body w/ the Nikkor 16-85 mm lens. However, that would mean spending $900+ upfront, and I initially was only budgeting for up to $700 (OK, actually, originally it was around $500 or so, but that's slowly creeped up a bit...$900 would definitely be a stretch, though.)
 
The D40 has 6mp and I don't think it has D-lighting and maybe a few very (I mean minor) differences. Honestly, I would go for the D60 ...yet I do own a D40 and use it as a backup and it is fantastic.

...for the pictures up there (two or three posts up) I used the 18-200VR.
 
You really should try this lens in a store - it's range is fantastic. I ended up with the 16-85VR plus 70-300VR based on discussions in DPReview regarding image quality, and now wish I had it (the 18-200VR) as well for those many times when I just want to pack the camera along "in case".

Like when travelling.

--
Brault
 
Nico, your gallery is proof the photographer is more important than the camera! Nice shots.

Why did you go from the 18-135 to 16-85 for travel shots? The VR?
Do you carry a tripod with you? How big?

Thanks!

--
Brault
 
Thanks for the nice comments.
I went to 16-85, mainly for it's VR, wider angle, and better optics.

When I was using the 18-135, I always need the the Sigma 10-20 to go along with it. The option was the 16-85 and add the Sigma 150 macro with TC, witch IMO give a wider range of shooting without adding too much weight. Of course it's all depent of the place I'm going.
This is my travel tripod (or similar) with a manfroto ballhead:

Regards
Brault said:
Nico, your gallery is proof the photographer is more important than
the camera! Nice shots.

Why did you go from the 18-135 to 16-85 for travel shots? The VR?
Do you carry a tripod with you? How big?

Thanks!

--
Brault
Click to expand...
--
nico
http://www.pbase.com/agostinho
 
I have seen and admired your pictures with the D60 on pbase usually with 16-85 VR - do you have any examples of D60 with 18-55 VR or 55-200VR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top