Nikon D60 vs Sony a350

[lewdvig]

I have both of these cameras in kit form and I am trying to decide what to keep.

What kind of subjective tests would you guys recommend?

[Mitsu3000gt]

How does each feel in your hand? Do you like one viewfinder better than the other?

The objective deal breakers for me would be flash system, noise, and lens selection, which are all in the Nikon's favor given the 2 choices here.

[lewdvig]

The Sony is burlier. Heavy.

The a350's Liveview works great shooting from the waist and above my head. Kind of like a rangefinder ??? The view finder is small but it does not bother me too much.

High ISO grain/noise is a not a big factor, the a350 is much better than the a100 I had (which was not too bad if I tried to stay under 800 - basically you needed to think a bit and play with the settings). Maybe when I shoot a few hundred low light pix with the d60 I will change my mind.

Lenses, the Minolta AF lenses work on the a350 and are cheap and plentiful. The d60 does not work with most Nikon AF lenses.

I like the Sony menu system better too.

I'm going to take a bunch of shots and give someone a great deal on the one I don't keep.

[update] I ended up getting rid of the Sony (to a Sony fan who said he wanted this more than a Nikon or Canon). Even though the a350 is much better than the a100 it still struggled in low light. The a350 has more 'advanced' features to play with IMO - like color space, white balance and setting AF zones (of which it has 9 vs 3 for the d60).

Playing around with color space is important as the Sony images seem a little washed out at the default setting.

But even with lots of fussing over settings I could not get it to match the IQ of the d60 on auto. The D60 manages lower ISO (often 100 vs 400) and when you crop a photo it has more detail despite 4 million fewer pixels on the CCD.

Sony must have some software issues because the imager is the same as some high end Nikons. Perhaps a firmware update will fix the issues. Once you know they are there it gets hard to look past them. It might also be the kit lens that is the issue.

The Sony LV system is awesome and I will miss it. Its nice to snap family events without a cam stuck to your face. I alos really wanted to get some of the awesome inexpensive Minolta lenses like the beer can and 50mm 1.8.

[C4S]

For value NOW ...


SONY A350... ( build in VR is a big credit )

but if you want to go further .. then go for Nikon system ( doesn't matter which body )

[lewdvig]

actually the body is a huge factor - the d40, d40x and d60 do not work with the majority of Nikon AF lenses on the market.

the d60 is nothing at all like a d80.

unless the Nikon's image quality is better I'll probably keep the Sony.

[C4S]

That is what I mean .. body ? tons of them .. D40 or D60 or D whatever ..

So .. pick the SYSTEM .. if u go with D60 + whatever 3 or 4 nikon lens now .. and 2 flashes .. and u can keep the lens + flash .. even you get the D90 or D700 or D whatever later ..

But Sony .. more limited selection .. may be good selection on used minolta lens .. I am not too sure about that part ..

[lewdvig]

OK, now I understand.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Lots of people seem to be looking at the D60 these days, this is a good deal:

D60 +18-55 VR + 55-200VR for $700

http://www.vistek.ca/store/DigitalSL...x-ifed-le.aspx

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by lewdvig
the d40, d40x and d60 do not work with the majority of Nikon AF lenses on the market.

33 of 51 current Nikkor lenses work 100% with the D40/D60, hardly a majority. ~75% of D40 buyers never use anything other than the kit lens anyway.

[lewdvig]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


33 of 51 current Nikkor lenses work 100% with the D40/D60, hardly a majority. ~75% of D40 buyers never use anything other than the kit lens anyway.

Yeah, you are right. I was thinking more of the older non AF-I and AF-S lenses that are plentiful and comparatively cheap.

The performance of the kit lenses is so good I don't need a prime for beginner shooting. MF is not really that big a deal anyways if you want to get some of the older non-motorized lenses (I was eyeing the 50mm 1.8).

When I get a better body I can take the 18-50 along with me and just sell the d60 body.

[benyl]

Haha, buy the Sony if cheap lenses are your criteria.

With lenses, you get what you pay for.

when you buy an SLR, you are buying a system of lenses. The body is the secondary decision. Bodies come and go. Lenses can be used for a long long time.

[lewdvig]

Well kept old stuff works just as good (if not better) than the new stuff. That is what I was getting at.

There are a ton of nice old Minolta lenses that should be on any Alpha owner's list.

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by lewdvig

The performance of the kit lenses is so good I don't need a prime for beginner shooting. MF is not really that big a deal anyways if you want to get some of the older non-motorized lenses (I was eyeing the 50mm 1.8).

if you're going to buy an AF lens you might as well look around until you can find a 50mm 1.4...but I will say that as much as you might not think you use auto focus, you'll be surprised. when I bought my 50mm AF I thought for sure I would be fine Manual focusing for a while, but I decided within less than a month that I would upgrade my D40X to a D80 just so I could have auto focus back.

I swear they used to make a 50mm 1.8 AF-S...hmm.

[lewdvig]

Yeah. The way I cycle gear I'll be upgrading soon enough to a d90.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Go4Long


I swear they used to make a 50mm 1.8 AF-S...hmm.

No, they didn't. They made a 50mm f/1.8 AiS, though.