Nikon D40 vs D60 vs D90

[ChrisA]

Are you attempting to intimate that the D50 isn't a consumer camera? That's specious. The D40 and D60 cameras are a complete replacement for a D50 in their target markets. Nikon understands the market they're in and they understand how to make successful products for that market. In fact, since the introduction of the D40, Nikon has picked up significant market share

You are correct. The "target market" typically buys acamera based on price then shoots about 200 pictures a year. All of them in "full auto" mode.

Even people here who ask all kinds of questions will in the end buy based on price. Giventhe the D40 is the lowest priced SLR or cource it sells well.

That said the D40 does what most people need and has a fair price and works well in fully auto mode.

How many images can you soot before the shutter fails? At 200 images per year or even at 1,000 per year most people will replace the camera LONG before it fails. Even the D50 with a 20K shutter life is "good enough" for

Think of a DSLR as a pack of film. It is a "consumable". Use it then buy more. No one would keep and use a DSLR for 20 years. What do you think a D300 will be worth in Feb of 2028? Would you even care if the shutter worked?

 

[Max Archer]

I'm not sure where they're getting a number in the 20k range for the D50, anyway. I put well over 30k on mine, between the week it was released and sometime early last year. I did more than a few shoots with it where I was running the "motor drive" as fast as it'd go and filling up several 2gb SDs with over 1000 photos A DAY, and the thing still works like new, last I checked. (Although it DOES need a good cleaning, it's pretty dusty.)

The D2X I'm currently using has about that many shots as well, but it's supposed to last well over 100k, which I won't come anywhere near touching, considering I'm being forced to upgrade to the D3 now that everybody's got one, as the D2 just can't keep up with it in the dark.

 

[jaseone]

DSLR bodies are like computers. They have a short life because technology moves fast. Don't plan on keeping it 10 years. Yes. it may still work but you will want an upgrade for the same reason you would not want a 10 year old computer

Technology may move fast but that isn't really the reason you wouldn't want a 10 year old computer, the reason for that is to keep up with the Jones', in today's society we feel like we always have to have the latest & greatest and corporations try to shove that down our throats through advertising.

I have a laptop that is close to 10 years old now, a Toshiba, the battery is shot and it was made before WiFi was around so doesn't have a built in WiFi card but it has PCMCIA slots for that. The laptop runs Windows XP, MS Office and other programs just fine, now it won't run Crysis nor would it probably handle Photoshop well with large images but it was never intended to do those things.

My point being that if someone buys a camera body, it physically lasts them 10 years and they are still happy with the photos it produces then there really is no reason for upgrading it except to keep up with the Jones'. The internet has made that even more prevalent as it is no longer just your neighbors, co-workers, friends & family etc that you try to keep up with but everyone online.

Like for example say you purchase a D90, you love the camera and it takes great photos for you and then you go online to read about other users that had the D90 but upgraded to the D300 for reasons X, Y & Z so suddenly you want to upgrade to the D300 as well. What if you had never gone online and read about people upgrading their D90? Wouldn't you just continue being happy taking great photos with your D90?