D60 vs D3100: Any difference in Image quality?

[Lofey]

Hello,

I've been using the Nikon D60 for a few years and is thinking of upgrading to a new body with better image quality. I'm happy with the compact size of the D60 so I want to get a new D3100.

Will there be a significant increase in image quality if I replace the D60 with the D3100?

Thank you for inputs.

 

[Fjrjacko]

nope

 

[Sunshine_boy]

Hello,

I've been using the Nikon D60 for a few years and is thinking of upgrading to a new body with better image quality. I'm happy with the compact size of the D60 so I want to get a new D3100.

If you are going to upgrade, you might as well go for the D5100. That will surely be a worthwhile replacement...

--
Best Regards
Sunshine

ps If you see someone without a smile on, give him one of yours...

 

[joebat]

Why ?

 

[Pap38]

Image quality won’t really improve except slightly at higher ISO’s. If you have the money jump to the D5100. You won’t notice a great difference at ISO on the lower end but you will after ISO 400. Image quality is the same as the D7000 with the D5100.
BJ
--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34495676@N08

 

[Catallaxy]

I shoot with the D60 (and D700 and D7000), and have taken the D3100 for a short test drive (shooting about 200 shots over two days).

At ISO 100 or 200, the D60 has better color and a more pleasing look to the images. There is no difference in noise quality, but the D3100 seems to have more DR.

At ISO 200-400 the cameras are similar, but with the D60 having more vibrant colors overall.

At ISO 400 and above the D3100 starts to do better and by ISO 800 the differences are pretty clear. At ISO 1600 where the D60 is not very good, the D3100 still looks pretty good.

The D3100 has more pixels for cropping and for very large printing. This is apparent for wildlife where the D3100 cropped to the D60 size makes the animal about 15% bigger. It is noticeable by not a huge difference.

The D3100 is not quite as good as the D60 for the red channel. This means skin tones seem more magenta overall. The D7000 and D5100 share this flaw, but the D700 does not. Purples seem to look better on the D60 too and that is a hard color for digital to get right.

The AF module on the D3100 is worlds better than on the D60. This is very, very useful for shooting sports or little kids or anything that moves. The D3100 also has more focus points so there is much less need to focus and recompose like I have to do on the D60 pretty often.

Metering is about the same, I got better results from my D60, but I have been shooting it for a while, so I know it much better than the D3100.

I decided not to upgrade my D60, mainly because I love the look this camera gives me at base ISO for landscapes and macro. I have other cameras for wildlife (D7000) and for low life shooting and portraits (D700).

Good luck!
--
Catallaxy

 

[foodsci]

Are the comparisons related to ISO you described lens specific or did you see this performance pattern across the board. I see reviews of Nikon lenses that show favorable ratings for 4"x6" prints and quality will start to suffer as the prints get larger. However, some lenses, especially the 18-55mm perform well regardless of the print size and across the focal length as well.

 

[Lofey]

Hello Catallaxy, thank you for your detailed advice, it's very helpful for me to decide my next move of upgrading my camera.

I shoot snapshot and macro, never shoot sports, so fast auto-focus is not crucial to me. I like the color rendition of the D60 but want a better dynamic range, high ISO shooting is only occasional. From your sharing, I think the only benefit I could get from moving to the D3100 is the better DR. I can live with my D60 before I do a real upgrade to something like the D7000.

Thank you again for your generous sharing.

 

[Lofey]

Hello Pap38, thank you for your advice. I don't shoot video and from the review, the image quality of the D5100 and D3100 are similar. If I want a great leap in quality, I would spend for a D7000 instead.

Thank you.

 

[angelhappy]

I have the D3000 which has the D60 ccd sensor and from all the research I have done the concensus is that the D3100 will be superior in ISO than the D60 past ISO800 and thats why I leave it at auto ISO800. I share the 11 points of focus and cam1000. The DR is new to me now I don't know if the D3000 has the same DR of the D3100- if someone want to share. But I saw this one photographer at flickr that has outstanding pictures shot with a D60. I told him how good they were for such an older camera and he told me when shooting with light there is no real difference. To this day I would be fooled in seeing those picture. I can tell you that they could has said they shot it with a D700 and I wouldnt tell the difference.

 

[eddyshoots]

Hello Pap38, thank you for your advice. I don't shoot video and from the review, the image quality of the D5100 and D3100 are similar. If I want a great leap in quality, I would spend for a D7000 instead.

You wouldn't get a great leap in quality with a D7000 either.

You are asking the wrong questions. If you were to drop the cash on the D7000 you would get lots of great things...many of which you might enjoy. You'd get a camera that can auto-focus with AF and AFD lenses. You'd get a camera that can meter with older AIS lenses. You would get a camera that could command external flashes using the on board flash. You would get a camera that can shoot many more frames per second. You'd get a camera that has bracketing built in. You'd get a faster flash sync speed and auto FP sync. A brighter pentaprism rather than a pentamirror. An extra 3 stops of ISO. Better autofocus system. And a whole host of other things. But you wouldn't get a great leap in image quality....a picture of a mountain or of your girlfriend is going to look pretty much the same.

--
eddyshoots

 

[eddyshoots]

I can tell you that they could has said they shot it with a D700 and I wouldnt tell the difference.

Bingo! most of the crap you read here and elsewhere is from marketing departments or from gearheads that want to justify their recent purchase. Yes, there are improvements with each new generation of DSLR...I wouldn't want it any other way. But the prevailing suggestion that these so called "upgrades" is justified on a regular basis is ludicrous at best. Most of the people here who "upgrade" their late model cameras (like D90s or D60s) would be far better served by taking the same money and buying some better lenses or lighting equipment, perhaps a photography class or spending the money on a dedicated photo adventure. The cost of a D7000 would pay for a long weekend in Paris for god's sake! Imagine the photos that would come out of three days in the city of lights.

When I start questioning my older camera I like to search out photos that were taken with the camera in question. I often just check out the flickriver for that particular camera....it confirms that my equipment (and my talent) have plenty of room to grow. Here is the D60 pool: http://www.flickriver.com/groups/nikond60/pool/interesting/

--
eddyshoots

 

[Kim Letkeman]

At ISO 100 or 200, the D60 has better color and a more pleasing look to the images. There is no difference in noise quality, but the D3100 seems to have more DR.

At ISO 200-400 the cameras are similar, but with the D60 having more vibrant colors overall.

Did you use the many jpeg adjustments to try to equalize the colors? I would presume that you can get closer than the default settings allow ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

 

[Mako2011]

I can tell you that they could has said they shot it with a D700 and I wouldnt tell the difference.

Bingo! most of the crap you read here and elsewhere is from marketing departments or from gearheads that want to justify their recent purchase. Yes, there are improvements with each new generation of DSLR...I wouldn't want it any other way. But the prevailing suggestion that these so called "upgrades" is justified on a regular basis is ludicrous at best. Most of the people here who "upgrade" their late model cameras (like D90s or D60s) would be far better served by taking the same money and buying some better lenses or lighting equipment, perhaps a photography class or spending the money on a dedicated photo adventure. The cost of a D7000 would pay for a long weekend in Paris for god's sake! Imagine the photos that would come out of three days in the city of lights.

When I start questioning my older camera I like to search out photos that were taken with the camera in question. I often just check out the flickriver for that particular camera....it confirms that my equipment (and my talent) have plenty of room to grow. Here is the D60 pool: http://www.flickriver.com/groups/nikond60/pool/interesting/

I tend to agree (D70 to D7000....on waiting list for D9500) but if I don't get the next best thing right away, the wife will just take the money and buy another hand bag I can't use.

 

[eddyshoots]

I can tell you that they could has said they shot it with a D700 and I wouldnt tell the difference.

Bingo! most of the crap you read here and elsewhere is from marketing departments or from gearheads that want to justify their recent purchase. Yes, there are improvements with each new generation of DSLR...I wouldn't want it any other way. But the prevailing suggestion that these so called "upgrades" is justified on a regular basis is ludicrous at best. Most of the people here who "upgrade" their late model cameras (like D90s or D60s) would be far better served by taking the same money and buying some better lenses or lighting equipment, perhaps a photography class or spending the money on a dedicated photo adventure. The cost of a D7000 would pay for a long weekend in Paris for god's sake! Imagine the photos that would come out of three days in the city of lights.

When I start questioning my older camera I like to search out photos that were taken with the camera in question. I often just check out the flickriver for that particular camera....it confirms that my equipment (and my talent) have plenty of room to grow. Here is the D60 pool: http://www.flickriver.com/groups/nikond60/pool/interesting/

I tend to agree (D70 to D7000....on waiting list for D9500) but if I don't get the next best thing right away, the wife will just take the money and buy another hand bag I can't use.

I believe the dynamic range of the newest Coach purse has been improved by over 50%....well worth the "upgrade"

--
eddyshoots

 

[Lofey]

Hello eddy, thanks for your advice.

I have "studied" all those differences which the D7000 possess. I am not tempted by these convenience of handling like focus points, series shooting....... etc. What I most concern is the image quality that a potential new camera could bring.

I'm satisfied with the overall quality of the D60 but found its DR inadequate. Under average lighting, the D60 never disappoints, producing vibrant and sharp colors. But when shooting against complex lighting, the highlights are always clipping too easily. I also found the matrix metering of the D60 tends to over-expose. Night shots always look like under twilight.

Average contrast yields good picture





Macro is also decent as long as there's no sky behind





Another macro but with the ground clipped





The sky is washed with the default matrix metering even with -2/3EV, if the EV is reduced too much, the details of the dark areas diminished.

 

[eddyshoots]

Hello eddy, thanks for your advice.

I have "studied" all those differences which the D7000 possess. I am not tempted by these convenience of handling like focus points, series shooting....... etc. What I most concern is the image quality that a potential new camera could bring.

I'm satisfied with the overall quality of the D60 but found its DR inadequate. Under average lighting, the D60 never disappoints, producing vibrant and sharp colors. But when shooting against complex lighting, the highlights are always clipping too easily. I also found the matrix metering of the D60 tends to over-expose. Night shots always look like under twilight.

Average contrast yields good picture





Macro is also decent as long as there's no sky behind





Another macro but with the ground clipped





The sky is washed with the default matrix metering even with -2/3EV, if the EV is reduced too much, the details of the dark areas diminished.

I think your expectations are way out of whack. That last picture...there is not a camera on the planet that would be able to capture the very deep shadows and the very bright sky. Should you buy a new camera with the hopes that it will solve this type of photography problem you will be sorely disappointed....and buying new cameras each generation only to be further disappointed.

The latest generation of camera might manage a stop or two of extra dynamic range over your D60...and not all of that is going to be usable....what I mean is that the extremes of the range aren't going to yield deep colors. A blue sky in this image is just way out of reach while hanging on to any shadow detail.

All the traditional and newly traditional techniques for managing extreme light variations still hold true with the newer cameras...you simply can't buy your way out of this problem. Using a split neutral density filter can help reign in an out of control sky. Popular these days is my arch enemy old buddy; HDR photography. Of course, simply shooting reasonable scenes in good light is probably every photographers best course of action. I recommend you give Fred Parker's interesting article on the ultimate exposure calculator a read through: http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

To conclude. If you just want a new camera for some or all of the features I talked about in the post earlier then by all means get one. But, if your expectation is that a new camera such as the D3100 or even the D7000 is going to be able to just shoot away in any lighting condition then save your money for something else. It's simply not going to happen.

--
eddyshoots

 

[Catallaxy]

Kim,

I shoot RAW so there is plenty of leeway for adjustment. I have created custom Picture Controls in ViewNX and have used the LCH adjustments in Capture NX2 to try to equalize color. Using those tools, I can get close, but not exactly the same. The old D2X Picture Controls are the closest that I can come, but that only works if I shoot the D700 and change the settings to allow the D2X Picture Controls to be used in View NX2 - so it does not help with my D7000 at all and it is a pain overall.

With ACR, shooting RAW, I can get almost the same color, but that is Adobe's color, not the default color of the D60 that I like so much.

--
Catallaxy

 

[Catallaxy]

The ISO changes are the same whatever lens that I use.

To be sure there are sharpness and even some color rendition differences between lenses, but I have not seen anything that would change my ISO.

--
Catallaxy

 

[Catallaxy]

The last two photos have too great a DR difference. Even the D700 at base ISO would give a similar look out of camera.

Now if you shoot RAW and do some layers and curves with a mask on the blown out area, you might be able to coax back more detail and color from the D700 or D7000 than the D60, but right out of camera, you will not see much difference. Multiple exposure HDR would also be a way to regain that lost detail or color.

--
Catallaxy