Nikon D60, 24mm T/S,AF-S 60 Micro, 16-85VR lens

[Butthead]

More 'leaks', along with the new Sony dSLR's,

These from Nikon:

D60 (nice upgrade from a D40x, kind of like going from a Rebel 400D to a 450D...well sort of):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1034&thread=26540810

16-85mm AF-S VR lens:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=26540854

24mmF3.5 PC Nikkor

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=26540830


But isn't an estimated $2700 for that 24mm T/S, more than double the cost of Canon's aging 24mm TS-E? Seems a bit steep, shouldn't it be vignette free and F1.8 for that much money ?

 

[Abstract]

The D60, 16-85 mm, and the updated 60 mm macro are all a bit disappointing, really.

The D40 and D40x were great cameras compared to the competition, and now the D60 appears to be the worst of the bunch. I really can't see a salesperson recommending it over a Canon, or even a Pentax, Sony, or Olympus right now.

And at that price the 16-85 mm seems a bit expensive. If someone is going to spend 550 Euro on a lens, why not just spend the extra 150 Euro on the 18-200 mm? Sure, it doesn't go as wide as the 16-85 mm (16 mm is noticeably wider than 18 mm...), but it also gives a lot more range. Also, the 18-200 mm is probably wider (larger aperture) at all overlapping focal lengths.

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

I like the new Nikkor's...But... Humm? Was a D60 really needed right now? Couldn't they have dropped the D40 and just added some of these features to the D40x... Maybe called it the D40s or something.

I was hoping for a D80x or D80s whatever be the nomenclature. Right now, I still don't like the fact that the D80 feels like less a solid camera than my D70s...

 

[Grimace]

And they made the body smaller than the D40? Who thought that was a good idea?

 

[Maldini]

 

[walangij]

I was hoping the D60 would be a little more than what it is. My girlfriend's looking at getting a Nikon and switching from her pentax system, I guess we'll go with the D80 in this case or even a used D70 or maybe a D40, heck I don't know now.

 

[ChrisA]

More 'leaks', ....

Another Nikon DSLR with no focus motor. It's getting harder and harder to recommend Nikon to people just getting into SLRs. And then yet another f/5.6 zoom lens (yawn). The tilt shift lens is interesting but why not simply use a view camera for perspective controlled wide angle shots? You can buy an entire 4x5 setup for the cost of that one lens Well not if you wanted a digital back.

 

[miloblithe]

Wow. Talk about a minor upgrade.

Cleaning system.
stop motion movies in camera
sensor to turn off back display and rotations sensor.

That's it.

 

[yeroen]

Another Nikon DSLR with no focus motor. It's getting harder and harder to recommend Nikon to people just getting into SLRs. And then yet another f/5.6 zoom lens (yawn). The tilt shift lens is interesting but why not simply use a view camera for perspective controlled wide angle shots? You can buy an entire 4x5 setup for the cost of that one lens Well not if you wanted a digital back.

I agree. Another slow zoom?

And I don't like the looks of the new 60mm Micro. The old one looks more solid (and I like the recessed lens of the old version). I hope it focuses better than the 105 VR version. In the meantime, I'll keep my 55/2.8 Micro AIS.

 

[yeroen]

And they made the body smaller than the D40? Who thought that was a good idea?

Canon?

 

[ChrisA]

Wow. Talk about a minor upgrade.

Cleaning system.
stop motion movies in camera
sensor to turn off back display and rotations sensor.

That's it.

I suspect what has really changed is the internal design of the camera. It has changed so that it is cheaper to manufacture. Nikon seems to have made the best progress in getting DSLRs down to a price were they can compete with P&S cameras. They are not there yet but I'll bet some day you can walk into a Best Buy and see a Nikon DSLR for the mid $200 price range. Maybe it will be a plastic "d20" with no mirror box, no optical view finder, just a P&S with interchangeable lenses. Not many of us would want that but they'd sell well at that price. All most people want is the zero shutter lag, a "big" DX size sensor and a decent lens.

I read that Nikon has their consummer level DSLRs on an 18 month product cycle. Thi alows them to make rpid changes to their assembly line. You all have to remember that engineers at Nikon don't really design cameras. the cameras are dead simple devices compared to camera assembly lines. These lines are hugely complex and expensive. I'm sure nikon's goal is to reduce the cost to operate these huge complex machines

The high end camera are made in much lower numbers and are built by hand on a bench in Japan. But the D40/D60 are made in Tieland by an automated process
.

 

[Grimace]

Canon?

Right. Canon gets slammed (rightfully so) for the small-ness of the XT. Why follow that bad lead? Nikon's ergonomics are one of its strong suits.

 

[Westside guy]

Another Nikon DSLR with no focus motor. It's getting harder and harder to recommend Nikon to people just getting into SLRs.

Yes, because so many of those "people just getting into SLRs" have old SLR lenses sitting around that need that in-body motor.

It's pretty simple - the target market for these low-end cameras is very unlikely to be buying very many extra lenses at all - let alone old lenses. Not to mention that all new Nikon lenses of any type (consumer or pro) will be AF-S simply because it's an inherently superior system to relying on an in-body motor. The last new non AF-S Nikon lens was released in 2003 - and even that was somewhat of a specialty lens (10.5mm fisheye).

I do agree the slow zooms aren't particularly interesting - I'd rather they'd put VR into the 18-70 f/3.5-4.5.

 

[miloblithe]

I think the D60 is the exact same size as the D40.

ChrisA, good point. I hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms, but I think you're right. The goal for Nikon is to win over the entry crowd, and in that market $50 cheaper or whatever is more important than various extra features.

Grimace, I disagree that the smallness of the Rebels is a problem. Lots of people want a small DSLR and prefer the size of the Rebels or D40 to anything bigger. The 1D or D3 or even 40D or D200 are a weight and size commitment some people would prefer not to make.

The grip on the Rebels on the other hand, slam away.

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

I agree, someone who buys a D40 generally wont be keeping it as a serious "pro" shooter style body, and generally won't be interested in using odd, older lenses. Nonetheless, I got a D50 over a D40 for my "backup" body because I do have a number of older lenses that would not otherwise work with a D40, D40x, or even the D60.

Bodies aside, I'm eager to have a hands on look at this new tilt lens.

 

[gamerz]

So... sorry if this is kind of a dumb question... Is the D60 better than the D40x???

 

[freebooter]

D60, good

The D60 looks OK to me. Some (whiny) people seem to want pro-grade everything for entry-level prices.
After owning 3 (yes 3 ) D40's--1 original[since sold], 1 D40x [main body], one D40 converted to IR [just got it]--I trust Nikon has put out another winner.
I think it will provide a more refined output with the new Exspeed processor and active D-lighting. A de-duster can't hurt, although i've had very little prob.s with my D40s. They seem to shed dust by themselves. The body size, controls and menus are great. Performance and IQ of the D40s are great and the D60 will be better. The kit comes with the new VR lens, too; good. I say the D60 is good. If you want to shoot high speed action, better get a D300, though.

The 16-85 will have better IQ than the 18-200 and a better build quality. It'll sell well.

The Micro 60mm looks interesting as both a close-up and possibly street and portrait lens. It'll be sharp and contrasty. I don't need it, though, wanting a longer macro, not a shorter. Might bite anyway as I want a prime VR and already have a 105mm (non-VR) micro.

The PC 24mm is for pros--they seem happy over on the pro side.

I would have liked to see a D80 replacement, but that would have cut into D300 sales, and possibly the engineers were all busy doing up the D300 and D3. Come summer we'll see the D90.

 

[Digital Skunk]

The D60 was bound to come and it was going to be about as boring as the D40x and D40 announcements. I wouldn't expect too much out of that announcement or any consumer body. Nikon is just filtering the Expeed processor, (an improvement that you all forgot) into the consumer bodies. I am slightly excited because that means the D80 replacement is coming soon.

I think the lens offerings are great... and well needed. If you think that AF-S, VR, a new body, and same specs on the 60mm is a disappointment you must have never used the original, slow, and loud model before it. Not that I am trying to flame, but that is what many macro shooters wanted from nikon.... give us the same 35mm focal lengths but with updated guts so that we can get faster autofocus and VR. Nikon will hopefully put their VR engine in all subsequent lenses. The 16-85 is a bit expensive for what you get, especially since it's maximum aperture is 5.6. I don't think I would take the 18-200 over if for the money because that lens has some major reach issues when set at 200mm. It feels like I am going to poke my subject in the eye when full extended. I will gladly take the 16-85 VR, and the Sigma 50-150 2.8 as my light load.

All-in-all it's the usual set of updates but Nikon is finally making moves to keep the consumers, hobbyists, and pros using the D3 and such happy with their offerings. I can't wait for the rumored 45 mm 2.8 FX.

D60: Good and expected update. Buy it if you want a light body and don't have a D40x

16-85: Good and needed replacement for the 17-80. Freebooter is right, it will sell very well and will be much sharper and more compact than the already excellent 18-200.

60 mm Macro: Great and much needed update. Previous model was far too loud and slow at AF. Hopefully new model is lighter, less weight and added VR will help in taking hand-held Macro shots in tight places.

PC (perspective control) lens: Great... and about time. I don't use it but those that do have all their reasons to grab a D3 and this lens. NO it shouldn't have been 1.8 and the price is justifiable for the focal length and PC mechanics.