EOS D60 better then Nikon D100?

After reading the reviews, I get the impression that from a photographic perspective, the D60 has the edge over the Nikon. The sample shots in the reviews look superior and the balance of the comments in the reviews seem to favour the Canon. The Canon has an ISO100 and the Nikon doesn't. I know the Nikon goes much higher and has slightly better noise figures with the faster exposures but this is not enough to outweigh the Canon's overall performance advantage.

Agree?

Disagree?

Points I've missed?

If you've used both, which would you recommend?

Dave

Dave,

Your question honestly is too open ended to result in a clearly defined answer. If it were that simple to answer it would have already been done. The real question to ask yourself is what do you intedn to use the camera for.. how do you intend to use it, and so on. The D60, S2 and D100 are each very capable cameras as by now am sure you know. And all about the same price. My persopnal tatses lead me to the S2 and D60 and am trying to decide which of these two best matches my needs.uses. ON othe rhand the D100 does have features that for some make it the clear choce. If you have an investment in Canon glass the answer is simple.. buy the D60. if heavily invested in Nikon glass then either the S2 or D100. If no glass investment then study the lens ystems first. You are buying inot a system not just the body. The lenses will last far longer than will the body. If you prefer Nikon glass then back to the original and vice versa.

Each of these cmaeras is more than capable fo delivering great results. I'd suggest you read the posts and reviews and try to fit the camera that best meets your usage to your hands. It is not an easy task but in the end there are no losers. It is less about which is the best but more about which is the best for you. Good luck

Dave Hollick said:

After reading the reviews, I get the impression that from a
photographic perspective, the D60 has the edge over the Nikon. The
sample shots in the reviews look superior and the balance of the
comments in the reviews seem to favour the Canon. The Canon has an
ISO100 and the Nikon doesn't. I know the Nikon goes much higher and
has slightly better noise figures with the faster exposures but
this is not enough to outweigh the Canon's overall performance
advantage.

Agree?

Disagree?

Points I've missed?

If you've used both, which would you recommend?

Dave

Click to expand...

I don't own either camera, but do own several Nikon film cameras (Nikon F, Nikonos II, Nikonos V, and 4004s, along with a Mamaiya 645 and a excellent -- and waterproof -- Pentax 90WR P&S). I'd hoped the D100 would be Nikon DSLR I was waiting for, but I too have been disappointed by the flat, gray samples I've seen posted.

I've concluded that its the Canon lenses, in combination with the inherent smoothness of the CMOS sensor which gives Canon the edge. The D60, even in the hands of complete novices who post "my first D60 picture", are quite impressive, especially if taken with the 28-70 2.8L or 70-200 L lenses. It's similar to the unique look that Leica 35mm lenses produce. D60 photos with third party lenses are less compelling but still good. The only complaint I see voiced repeatedly is poor auto focus performance.

Somewhere in the middle is the Fuji S2. It's matrix sensor appears to create images as sharp as those of the D60, but they don't have quite the same balance of snappy contrast and smoothness of tone of the D60. The 123A lithium battery issue is a kludge that would keep me from buying a S2. I realize the limitations of the S2/'s N80 roots, but I can't understand why Fuji couldn't have found better solution such as substition of AAs in an adapter, or recharable Li-ion equivalent.

Of the three I'd pick the D60, but I just don't want to haul around 20 pounds of camera and lenses again, or spend $4,000 - $5,000. I'm hoping that sometime in the next couple years the following combination will hit the market: A 6-8 MP camera with a size and weight between the E-10 and the D7i, with the image quality of the D60, mirrorless split image viewfinder like the E-20, and an interchangable lens system in which you'd only need two have internal zoom focus lenses: a 24-200mm equiv. you could keep on the camera 80% of the time, augmented by a 200-500mm equiv. for sports and nature photos. And it MUST have a PC sync for studio work.

Meanwhile I'll continue to use my $500 DC290. Only 2.1 MP, but one of the smoothest, noise free, sharpest cameras in its class. It has a PC sync and near perfect ISO 100 equiv. too. I've been able to make some very nice dye sub prints as large as 9 x 13 with it, and its perfect for web work.

Chuck Gardner
http://super.nova.org/PhotoClass

Dave Hollick said:

After reading the reviews, I get the impression that from a
photographic perspective, the D60 has the edge over the Nikon. The
sample shots in the reviews look superior and the balance of the
comments in the reviews seem to favour the Canon. The Canon has an
ISO100 and the Nikon doesn't. I know the Nikon goes much higher and
has slightly better noise figures with the faster exposures but
this is not enough to outweigh the Canon's overall performance
advantage.

Agree?

Disagree?

Points I've missed?

If you've used both, which would you recommend?

Dave

Click to expand...

I am wondering what samples you saw? There are some at the link below that look flat but the majority look pretty darn good in the D60 section of the same site I see some that appear pretty much the same. Some flat but quite a few very punchy shots. A lot of it is in the technique and mastering the functions of each camera. I have seen some very imressive samples from both.

In the end I chose the D100 because I already had Nikon glass. I was seriously considering the D60 for a while though.

http://www.photosig.com/photos.php?cameraId=2358

I am not trying to start a flame session here I am sincerely curious.

Happy Shooting...
Tommy

Chuck Gardner said:

I don't own either camera, but do own several Nikon film cameras
(Nikon F, Nikonos II, Nikonos V, and 4004s, along with a Mamaiya
645 and a excellent -- and waterproof -- Pentax 90WR P&S). I'd
hoped the D100 would be Nikon DSLR I was waiting for, but I too
have been disappointed by the flat, gray samples I've seen posted.

Click to expand...

Tommy Martin said:

I am wondering what samples you saw? There are some at the link
below that look flat but the majority look pretty darn good in the
D60 section of the same site I see some that appear pretty much the
same. Some flat but quite a few very punchy shots. A lot of it is
in the technique and mastering the functions of each camera. I have
seen some very imressive samples from both.

Click to expand...

I viewed comparative samples on all the major review sites, plus links posted on the forums.

Agree that lighting and photographic skill are factors. Case in point is a link to a Panasonic LC5 user posted in the "Other Camera" forum by the Panasonic US Marketing Rep. Yes, a factory rep actually posts there. The LC5 got terrible reviews, yet the the photos on the linked site are absolutely stunning. But as it so happens, that LC5 owner who took those photos has been a National Geographic Photographer for 30 years.

Chuck Gardner

The two cameras react differently. What are my metering options? What are my focusing choices? How does it feel in my hands? Is my nose touching something it's not suppose to? Can I see through the camera easily?

I think, when all is said and done, the D100, D60 and S2 will produce similar enough images not to matter. But the getting to the image will.

So go to your local camera store and hold each of them and try and get them to let you demo them. I think that will matter more than the specs in the end.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

Dave Hollick said:

Points I've missed?

Click to expand...

Dave

At the risk of oversimplifying things, yes, I'd have to pick the image quality of the d60 over the d100. If you're starting from scratch I think the Canon is really the way to go; they seem to be ahead of Nikon in a number of regards: they use their own sensors, they seem to have a wider array of lenses (including, unfortunately, budget lenses, though also including stabilized lenses and this new DO (?) lens), etc.

Anyways, why not download some comparison shots between the two and judge for yourself? To me the thing that jumps out at me is Phil's standard comparison picture, the one with the liquor bottles etc. His 200% crops don't seem to indicate all that much diffference in the cameras, but download the entire files from each camera and then look at them at around 100% if you monitor allows it. The d60 shot just has a richness to it that is lacking in the d100 shot, which looks more - how should I say - sterile and flat. Same thing on some of imaging-resources pics, the d60 just takes pleasing rich pictures. My d30 has that same d60 look but can't capture as much detail and has a problem with bright reds. Evidently the d60 has improved on both of these. Guess you could wait around for the Sigma or Olydak darkhorses if you're not in a big rush.

Rich

It would be great if one could go to their locla shop and try them out first hand. That , in a nutshell, is why there are so many posts seeking information.... in most locations there are no demos to try. Once supply catches up to demand this will change. If pople could actually hold the cmaeras, take afew pictures, etc etc they may be left with more questions than when they started ( in some ways ) BUT they would at least have a better idea of how the camera feels in their hands, how good/bad the AF truly is with respect to thir needs/uses, and so on. Until then people will continue to ask these same/similar questions as they get closer to actually buying.

But I do agree.... is better to wait until you can try for yourself than it is to blindly go into it. If you have a lot of Canon investment ( glass, etc ) the answer is bvious in this price range. if you have Nikon glass then you have 2 choices. If you have no real glass investment the picture gets a little tougher but at that point one must decide on which "system" is what they want. The lenses we buy will no doubt last longer than the body. But then if you plan to buy mostly 3rd party glass, the body becomes a little more critical. Good news is there truly is not aloser in the group but from the many posts I've read there are differences and the trick is finding the camera which best matches your own personal needs/wants! Good luck

Anthony Medici said:

I think, when all is said and done, the D100, D60 and S2 will
produce similar enough images not to matter. But the getting to the
image will.

So go to your local camera store and hold each of them and try and
get them to let you demo them. I think that will matter more than
the specs in the end.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

Dave Hollick said:

Points I've missed?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the comments.

One of you commented on the fact that it is virtually impossible to go into a shop and play with the two cameras. I agree. I've found that the D60s almost always have to be specially ordered as they're expensive stock items and Canon has a lousy reputation as a supplier. I can usually find a D100 but the staff aren't keen on letting me do more than just look at it on the table.

The sort of shots I'm into are nature and action, often combined. I live in a fantastic area for wildlife. We get deer, badgers, foxes, squirels, moles, hawks, owls, bats, the whole shooting match (sorry, bad metaphor!)

While I'm leaning towards the D60 in most regards, the AF does give me pause as many of my shots can't be fully staged and do rely on quick reactions from me and the camera. Is the Canon AF really that slow?

Any final views, given what I've said here, would be welcome.

Dave

I have the D30 and do the same sort of subject matter as you. Seeing as how the D30 and D60 are similar as far as focus ability is concerned(D60 has a brighter FA light, so it does a little better in low light), here's my comments....

If you are used to a PS type camera, the D60 will seem lightning quick in all situations. If you are coming from a mid to pro level SLR, the focus will seem sluggish. The main problem people have has to do with low light shooting and the camera will not lock on to the subject. There are many things you can do to compensate for it most situations(manual focus, pre-focus, custom function combinations). Finding contrast on the subject is key. Fast lenses help a great deal as well. I have only had a few occasions where I couldn't get the camera to get focus lock. With some practice, it becomes second nature.

As others have mentioned, you are buying into a system in which you will eventually spend much more on accessories(lenses, flash, remote switches, ect) than on the camera body itself. Look at everything that each vendor has to offer that will be needed to do the kind of shooting you are interested in.

I must say that Canon's IS lenses can be shot savers when the shutter speeds start geting slow....
HTH,
Mike

Dave Hollick wrote:
SNIP..

Dave Hollick said:

The sort of shots I'm into are nature and action, often combined. I
live in a fantastic area for wildlife. We get deer, badgers, foxes,
squirels, moles, hawks, owls, bats, the whole shooting match
(sorry, bad metaphor!)

While I'm leaning towards the D60 in most regards, the AF does give
me pause as many of my shots can't be fully staged and do rely on
quick reactions from me and the camera. Is the Canon AF really that
slow?

Any final views, given what I've said here, would be welcome.

Dave

Click to expand...

That's quite encouraging. Thanks.

Mike Orth said:

If you are used to a PS type camera, the D60 will seem lightning
quick in all situations. If you are coming from a mid to pro level
SLR, the focus will seem sluggish. The main problem people have
has to do with low light shooting and the camera will not lock on
to the subject. There are many things you can do to compensate for
it most situations(manual focus, pre-focus, custom function
combinations). Finding contrast on the subject is key. Fast
lenses help a great deal as well. I have only had a few occasions
where I couldn't get the camera to get focus lock. With some
practice, it becomes second nature.

As others have mentioned, you are buying into a system in which you
will eventually spend much more on accessories(lenses, flash,
remote switches, ect) than on the camera body itself. Look at
everything that each vendor has to offer that will be needed to do
the kind of shooting you are interested in.

I must say that Canon's IS lenses can be shot savers when the
shutter speeds start geting slow....
HTH,
Mike

Dave Hollick wrote:
SNIP..

Mike Orth said:

The sort of shots I'm into are nature and action, often combined. I
live in a fantastic area for wildlife. We get deer, badgers, foxes,
squirels, moles, hawks, owls, bats, the whole shooting match
(sorry, bad metaphor!)

While I'm leaning towards the D60 in most regards, the AF does give
me pause as many of my shots can't be fully staged and do rely on
quick reactions from me and the camera. Is the Canon AF really that
slow?

Any final views, given what I've said here, would be welcome.

Dave

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi Dave,

I recently bought the Nikon D100 for general purpose and wildlife photography (although since I have had the camera I haven't had much opportunity for the latter due to work and family commitments!!). I was undecided between the Canon D60 and the Nikon D100 but bought the latter for two main reasons -- ready availability (a shop that I had previously contacted to express an interest in both cameras rang me the day the D100 was launched in the UK to tell me that they had a spare one in stock) and good AF performance.

I had previously tried a D30 (which has essentially the same AF system as the D60) and was rather disappointed with its AF (and I used to own a Canon EOS IX7 APS SLR which, I understand, has the AF system on which the D30 and D60 are based and so knew from first hand experience that it is not particularly brilliant). In my view both the D60 and D100 are excellent cameras with their own particular strengths and weaknesses. I am extremely pleased with every aspect of the D100, and the quality of prints that it produces is superb -- it just takes a little time to become acquainted with all the settings and options and arriving at an appropriate workflow. (The battery life of the D100 is amazing -- I have never had to change batteries in the field, even when out walking all day whilst on holiday, unlike my old Olympus E-10 for which I forever needed new batteries and had to carry spare sets with me.)

I see that you are in Hampshire (UK), therefore I guess much of the wildlife to which you refer is in the New Forest and its surroundings -- a very photogenic area. I live in Somerset (committee member of my local branch of the Somerset Wildlife Trust, and active with other conservation bodies, hence my interest) and often visit or pass through the New Forest -- I will keep an eye out for someone with a D60 or D100 and a long telephoto next time I'm there!

Terry.

Dave Hollick said:

Thanks for the comments.

One of you commented on the fact that it is virtually impossible to
go into a shop and play with the two cameras. I agree. I've found
that the D60s almost always have to be specially ordered as they're
expensive stock items and Canon has a lousy reputation as a
supplier. I can usually find a D100 but the staff aren't keen on
letting me do more than just look at it on the table.

The sort of shots I'm into are nature and action, often combined. I
live in a fantastic area for wildlife. We get deer, badgers, foxes,
squirels, moles, hawks, owls, bats, the whole shooting match
(sorry, bad metaphor!)

While I'm leaning towards the D60 in most regards, the AF does give
me pause as many of my shots can't be fully staged and do rely on
quick reactions from me and the camera. Is the Canon AF really that
slow?

Any final views, given what I've said here, would be welcome.

Dave

Click to expand...

Thanks Terry. It all comes down to that auto-focus again doesn't it!

It's nice to hear a positive vote for the D100 as well. Not that it helps me choose, mind you. I wonder how many sales Canon miss out on simply because they can't get their supply chain sorted out?!

What I get from the various comments is that I am going to have to get a good hands-on look at both before choosing. This will probably mean driving hundreds of miles to find somewhere that has them both in stock AND is willing to let me play.

The New Forest is one of the obvious haunts for photography but the whole region has loads to offer with the solent and coastal villages. Somerset is similar in that regard with a wide contrast of environments to experiment in. Aren't we lucky.

The only other question that comes to mind is (I'm going to regret this); Should I wait until after PhotoKina in case the playing field gets moved? Canon (again) keep their cards so close to their chest that they're in danger of shooting themselves in the foot.

Dave

Terry Sessford said:

Hi Dave,

I recently bought the Nikon D100 for general purpose and wildlife
photography (although since I have had the camera I haven't had
much opportunity for the latter due to work and family
commitments!!). I was undecided between the Canon D60 and the
Nikon D100 but bought the latter for two main reasons -- ready
availability (a shop that I had previously contacted to express an
interest in both cameras rang me the day the D100 was launched in
the UK to tell me that they had a spare one in stock) and good AF
performance.

I had previously tried a D30 (which has essentially the same AF
system as the D60) and was rather disappointed with its AF (and I
used to own a Canon EOS IX7 APS SLR which, I understand, has the AF
system on which the D30 and D60 are based and so knew from first
hand experience that it is not particularly brilliant). In my view
both the D60 and D100 are excellent cameras with their own
particular strengths and weaknesses. I am extremely pleased with
every aspect of the D100, and the quality of prints that it
produces is superb -- it just takes a little time to become
acquainted with all the settings and options and arriving at an
appropriate workflow. (The battery life of the D100 is amazing --
I have never had to change batteries in the field, even when out
walking all day whilst on holiday, unlike my old Olympus E-10 for
which I forever needed new batteries and had to carry spare sets
with me.)

I see that you are in Hampshire (UK), therefore I guess much of the
wildlife to which you refer is in the New Forest and its
surroundings -- a very photogenic area. I live in Somerset
(committee member of my local branch of the Somerset Wildlife
Trust, and active with other conservation bodies, hence my
interest) and often visit or pass through the New Forest -- I will
keep an eye out for someone with a D60 or D100 and a long telephoto
next time I'm there!

Terry.

Click to expand...

Dave Hollick said:

After reading the reviews, I get the impression that from a
photographic perspective, the D60 has the edge over the Nikon. The
sample shots in the reviews look superior and the balance of the
comments in the reviews seem to favour the Canon. The Canon has an
ISO100 and the Nikon doesn't. I know the Nikon goes much higher and
has slightly better noise figures with the faster exposures but
this is not enough to outweigh the Canon's overall performance
advantage.

Agree?

Disagree?

Points I've missed?

If you've used both, which would you recommend?

Dave

Click to expand...

For me Canon is the KING
And the glass is the better

Dave Hollick said:

After reading the reviews, I get the impression that from a
photographic perspective, the D60 has the edge over the Nikon. The
sample shots in the reviews look superior and the balance of the
comments in the reviews seem to favour the Canon. The Canon has an
ISO100 and the Nikon doesn't. I know the Nikon goes much higher and
has slightly better noise figures with the faster exposures but
this is not enough to outweigh the Canon's overall performance
advantage.

Agree?

Disagree?

Points I've missed?

If you've used both, which would you recommend?

Dave

Click to expand...

I was disapointed with the D100. Not up to par with the D1X or D1H.

Too soft, too noisy. The same complaints I had about the 1D too. Seems Canon and Nikon are very capable of putting out GREAT and not so great : )

I'm looking forward to what they have next on the pro end!
Canon still leads in the prosumer end.

--
Every Camera Has Short Comings,
some camera's fall short of coming!
http://digitalphotonews.ws

Dave:

Here's the thing: I've shot with the D60 and handled the D100 on several occasions and I have to say they are about equal in terms of build quality, handling, etc.

The D30/D60 have awful AF for anything that is somewhat fast moving like sports. Everything else is great, although I still don't get taking away the 1600 iso...

As to image quality, I don't think there's anything one camera can or can't do. Both carry the best 35mm lens lines, flashes, etc. While Canon's AF is a lot better, you won't know it with the D60.

I think you need to ask yourself what you're shooting and what system you want... either camera will satisfy your image quality needs.

If you're a photojournalist or a wildlife photog, I would go for the D100 which has A LOT better AF and writes to the card while you shoot, meaning your buffer is always refilling even as your shooting more, the D60's buffer is a guessing contest IMHO.

If your shooting portraits, commercial, or other similar things, the D60 may be the way to go for the 100 iso.

Just my 2 cents.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=331608

Dave Hollick said:

After reading the reviews, I get the impression that from a
photographic perspective, the D60 has the edge over the Nikon. The
sample shots in the reviews look superior and the balance of the
comments in the reviews seem to favour the Canon. The Canon has an
ISO100 and the Nikon doesn't. I know the Nikon goes much higher and
has slightly better noise figures with the faster exposures but
this is not enough to outweigh the Canon's overall performance
advantage.

Agree?

Disagree?

Points I've missed?

If you've used both, which would you recommend?

Dave

Click to expand...

--
Andy C

Josh Wolfe said:

Dave:

Here's the thing: I've shot with the D60 and handled the D100 on
several occasions and I have to say they are about equal in terms
of build quality, handling, etc.

The D30/D60 have awful AF for anything that is somewhat fast moving
like sports. Everything else is great, although I still don't get
taking away the 1600 iso...

As to image quality, I don't think there's anything one camera can
or can't do. Both carry the best 35mm lens lines, flashes, etc.
While Canon's AF is a lot better, you won't know it with the D60.

I think you need to ask yourself what you're shooting and what
system you want... either camera will satisfy your image quality
needs.

If you're a photojournalist or a wildlife photog, I would go for
the D100 which has A LOT better AF and writes to the card while you
shoot, meaning your buffer is always refilling even as your
shooting more, the D60's buffer is a guessing contest IMHO.

If your shooting portraits, commercial, or other similar things,
the D60 may be the way to go for the 100 iso.

Just my 2 cents.

Click to expand...

I have to say that if you at all rely on an acceptable auto focus that you'd be happier with the D100.

I use one as a back up to a D1H, and it's absolutely great. Focus isn't as snappy for sport, but will get you through without any frustration.
I shoot mostly nightsports and the focus so far and hi ISO have been great.

Apart from that, I agree with everything the other guys have mentioned. There isn't much between image quality at normal settings, though, I haven't seen a D60 shot at 1600 ISO.
--
Paul C

Dave Hollick said:

After reading the reviews, I get the impression that from a
photographic perspective, the D60 has the edge over the Nikon. The
sample shots in the reviews look superior and the balance of the
comments in the reviews seem to favour the Canon. The Canon has an
ISO100 and the Nikon doesn't. I know the Nikon goes much higher and
has slightly better noise figures with the faster exposures but
this is not enough to outweigh the Canon's overall performance
advantage.

Agree?

Disagree?

Points I've missed?

If you've used both, which would you recommend?

Dave

Click to expand...

--
Veniamin Kostitsin II
http://www.digitalimage.at/

Why did you bother? You contribute no 'light' (= knowledge, facts) to this issue while adding only 'heat' (strictly emotion).

Veniamin Kostitsin II said:

Dave Hollick said:

After reading the reviews, I get the impression that from a
photographic perspective, the D60 has the edge over the Nikon. The
sample shots in the reviews look superior and the balance of the
comments in the reviews seem to favour the Canon. The Canon has an
ISO100 and the Nikon doesn't. I know the Nikon goes much higher and
has slightly better noise figures with the faster exposures but
this is not enough to outweigh the Canon's overall performance
advantage.

Agree?

Disagree?

Points I've missed?

If you've used both, which would you recommend?

Dave

Click to expand...

--
Veniamin Kostitsin II
http://www.digitalimage.at/

Click to expand...

--
I love my D60s.
http://community.webshots.com/user/jeffreybehr