Nikon D40 with 18-55 mm lens - Rs.31,550
Nikon D60 with 18-55 mm lens - Rs.36,680; with 18-55 mm VR lens - Rs.39,200
Nikon D80 with 18-135 mm lens - Rs.70,780
Nikon D300 - Rs. 99,950
Nikon D3 - Rs.2,89,950
Just occasionally, the old cliches are still the best, and with the 18-200mm VR the phrase ‘jack of all trades, master of none’ springs immediately to mind. It’s a lens which delivers somewhat flawed results over its entire zoom range; where it’s sharp, it has heavy distortion, and when that distortion comes under control at the long end, it loses sharpness. Its close-up performance is reasonable, but not spectacular, and overall it will likely be outperformed optically by a cheaper combination of standard and telephoto zooms. So for a certain type of photographer interested mainly in absolute image quality, this may well cause it to be regarded as nothing more than an expensive snapshot lens.
But to dismiss the 18-200mm VR based purely on its optical quality is to miss the point quite fundamentally. The whole idea of such a lens is to allow the photographer to travel light and never miss a shot while changing lenses, or indeed not to have to risk water or dust entering the camera in adverse conditions. So what you do get for your money is a hugely flexible zoom range which can handle the vast majority of photographic opportunities, coupled with excellent autofocus and vibration reduction systems. And all of this is wrapped up in a relatively compact package, with build quality which feels solid without being excessively heavy. It really is a lens you can leave on your camera all day long and scarcely miss a shot, and it has to be said, this makes it a lot of fun to use.
So when all is said and done, we have to understand that superzooms are essentially about making some optical compromises to provide the broadest possible range in a single lens, and it’s up to each individual to decide whether those compromises are acceptable. I wouldn’t recommend the 18-200mm to someone whose primary interests were either architecture or wildlife, for example, but for the photographer who wants to shoot a little bit of everything and not have to change lenses, it’s more than fit for purpose. Ultimately this is probably as good a superzoom as money can buy, so as long as its limitations are recognised and understood, it has to be recommended.
When we first saw the D3 before it was officially launched I’ll admit there were some raised eyebrows, and the first question was ‘is this a replacement for the D2Hs, the D2X, both or neither?’. The truth of course is that it’s not that simple, and Nikon’s long-awaited first foray into the world of the full frame sensor is essentially in a class of its own.
For one thing it is, without a doubt, built for speed - in every sense of the word. From the almost twitchy responsiveness (brush the shutter and before you know it you’ve taken half a dozen shots) to the astounding image pipeline that can pull huge amounts of data off the sensor and process, buffer and write it to the card at up to 9 frames per second, to the fast, accurate focus, the D3 always seems to be one step ahead of you. Add to this the class-leading high ISO performance (thanks to a bravely low-density sensor) and you’ve got a camera that is uniquely capable of keeping up with the action even when light levels start to drop perilously.
And so, whether used in DX crop mode or full frame (for cropping later) the D3 makes a fantastic upgrade to the D2H (or D2Hs if you prefer). You get slightly higher resolution (5.1MP vs 4.0MP), far, far better high ISO performance, faster continuous drive and better buffering plus all the other improvements you’d expect after a two year wait. But of course you get a lot more than that too; this is a full frame camera that offers D2X resolution with a larger, far better sensor. So a single camera really does do the job of two; replacing the D2H for high speed telephoto work and the D2X for high resolution work at closer quarters, with the added benefit that all your wide lenses start acting like wideangles again.
It’s therefore no surprise to discover that the D3 has, in the six months or so since it was launched, been embraced by the Nikon pro photography community and has caused many a Canon shooter to do some serious soul-searching and consider the unthinkable; a move (back in many cases) to Nikon.
Of course it’s not all a bed of roses; the D3 is a lot pricier than the D2H ever was, and for many sports shooters it’s a lot to ask for what is essentially a 5.1MP alternative to the EOS-1D Mk3 (if you shoot using the DX crop). And it can’t match the resolution of the EOS-1Ds Mark III at lower ISO settings, ruling it out for the most demanding studio photographers. But this slight inability to ‘pin down’ the D3 is also what makes it so welcome; it slots in nicely between Canon’s models and brings real choice to a sector of the market that desperately needs it. And don’t forget that if you want the pixel density that allows you to shoot at high resolution and get the 1.5x DX crop advantage for your telephotos the D300 (with battery grip) is going to make an affordable and highly capable alternative that almost renders the D2Hs obsolete on its own.
We’re not sports photographers and anyone even close to considering a D3 will be more than capable of making an informed decision without a technical review such as this (in fact they’ve probably already bought one), but we can confirm that from an image quality and performance point of view the D3 raises the bar by a fair degree (not a quantum leap; they’re increasingly rare). For a sports camera it’s also a surprisingly good studio and landscape camera, and if there’s a better DSLR out there for photojournalists and red carpet paps we’ve yet to meet it. Image quality (especially at higher ISOs) is stunning, the camera a joy to use and the speed and responsiveness breathtaking. If there is an EOS-1Ds Mark III - bating ‘D3X’ coming this year it will have quite a job to do to better the D3; possibly the most compelling, capable and well-rounded professional digital SLR ever made.
No one was more surprised that me when Nikon passed through the press releases for the D40X. Just under four months since the arrival of the six megapixel D40 and Nikon were about to reveal a ten megapixel version of the same (save for a base ISO 100 sensitivity and 3.0 fps shooting speed) camera.
That it only took four months for the D40 to leap from six to ten megapixels begs the simple question: why Nikon didn’t just release the D40X in the first instance? Was the ten megapixel sensor not ready in time? Did they have stock of the ‘old’ six megapixel sensor laying around? We will probably never know.
One thing however, is certain: the new model is positioned to go head-to-head against the most dominant digital SLR on the market, Canon’s EOS 400D (Digital Rebel XTi). On paper it measures up well, missing out only with its lack of a physical dust reduction mechanism, no vertical hand grip option and limited image parameter adjustment. Additionally, as with the D40, die-hard Nikon owners may be disappointed with the lack of a focus motor in the body, meaning that many non-AF-S/AF-I lenses will not auto focus (including some Nikon’s best prime lenses).
Other shortcomings which I also counted against the D40 include the fact that when I shot RAW+JPEG I was only getting Basic quality JPEG’s. I also didn’t like that there wasn’t a dedicated ISO or WB button on the camera (yes, you can program the Fn button but I would have thought it more logical to use the four-way controller on the rear from day one), and as with most recent digital SLRs automatic white balance was something you should really only use in natural light. Other things which will be of less importance to D40 owners are the lack of bracketing, depth-of-field preview and fixed exposure steps.
Everything positive we said about the usage and performance of the D40 obviously remains true of the D40X; instant on times, instant response, good auto focus and a punchy feel to the shutter release which encourages you to take more pictures. With its compact body not compromising comfort or ergonomics in any way the D40X is perhaps one of the easiest ‘carry around’ digital SLRs; it that won’t break your back or leave you with an aching neck.
Handling aside, everything else that I said about the D40 remains true with the D40X. Good image processing ekes about as much detail out of the image as heavier RAW conversion can, although the limits of the smaller photosites become clear at higher sensitivities, and good dynamic range means softer roll-offs in highlights - and more likelihood of getting a nice blue sky in a landscape shot.
So in conclusion, the D40X really is just as good as the D40, with the added benefit of a little bit more resolution and slightly faster continuous shooting. But is it enough to take the pole position as the ultimate compact ten megapixel DSLR? That’s harder to say, image quality-wise it’s a dead heat with the EOS 400D (except at high sensitivities); it’s quicker and more comfortable to use, but very slightly less featured, especially if you consider lens compatibility. It would be hard to recommend one over the other and the answer would depend solely on your preferences (I’m calling it a draw).
ProsThe D60 takes the successful formula established in the D40 / D40X and, well, if we’re being honest, doesn’t do a great deal with it at all - the leap from D40 to D40X was a lot greater than the step up from D40X to D60 (even if Nikon’s naming convention might seem to imply the opposite). There’s a few nice new features, and bundling the new ‘VR’ (stabilized) version of the kit lens is a smart move that makes the whole package a lot more appealing, but it’s fair to say that the D60 is a subtle upgrade rather than a wholescale reinvention of Nikon’s entry-level best-seller.
Not that this is a bad thing; the D40 sold so well (and continues to do so) because it hits all the right buttons for its target market; it’s small, well made, incredibly easy to use, produces great results and, crucially, the most affordable Nikon digital SLR ever made. The D60, like the D40X it replaces offers a real performance boost (both in resolution and shooting speed) and the refinements to the user interface, the addition of D-Lighting, the excellent dynamic range and the new kit lens and dust reduction system make an excellent camera just that little bit better. The new Expeed processing reduces the visibility of chroma noise at higher ISO settings (and allows the D60 to offer a few new tricks) but the difference in output is subtle to say the least; it’s still bright, vivid and ‘consumer friendly’ (though purists may find it a little over-saturated by default).
Everything we said about the D40X remains true for the D60; great output that’s easy to achieve even for a total novice, thanks to an excellent exposure and metering system; fast, responsive operation; excellent ergonomics and an easy to master feature set that is just sophisticated enough to allow users to explore the more advanced aspects of photographic technique without being so over complex they can’t be bothered. It’s easy for a camera reviewer with access to the latest, greatest high end gear to get snobbish about entry level cameras, but we all found the D60 to be a camera that’s incredibly easy to like and one that’s surprisingly enjoyable to use.
Inevitably it’s not all great news; as someone who always shoots RAW+JPEG I found Nikon’s decision to retain the crippled ‘Basic JPEG only’ option when shooting in this mode frustrating (the Basic JPEGs are way too compressed for serious use). High ISO performance isn’t quite up to Canon’s standards, and the lack of ‘mid range’ features (most crucially exposure bracketing and a vertical grip option) may not be of importance to the target market, but seem designed purely to push more serious users up the Nikon range to the ageing D80. The lack of AF support for lenses without a built-in motor is less of an issue; there’s plenty of AF-S lenses to choose from (as well as an increasing number of third-party options from the likes of Sigma), and frankly if you’re looking to use more exotic glass or have a collection of older zooms / primes you’re simply not going to be looking at the D60 as an option. If you do want to shoot with Nikon primes or older zooms you’ll be stuck with manual focus (though this is now a lot easier thanks to the new rangefinder).
In reality the biggest challenge the D60 faces is the competition; there’s been an explosion of small, affordable entry-level SLRs in the 18 month or so since the D40 first appeared, and though I’ve never actually used live view outside the studio there’s no denying it’s a strong selling point at this end of the market, as is in-body stabilization. Cameras such as the Olympus E-410 (and its promising successor the E-420) offer a fuller feature set in an equally small (and affordable) body, and you can’t ignore the imminent arrival on the shelves of Canon’s seriously beefed-up (though pricier) forthcoming new entry-level model, the EOS 450D, not to mention the new Sonys or the Pentax K200D.
But let’s not forget what the D60 has to offer; it’s still one of the most affordable cameras in its class and it represents the perfect ‘upgrade’ camera for anyone who has outgrown their digital compact camera and is looking to dip a first toe in the world of the digital SLR. Its output is consistently good (the JPEGs are excellent and its raw files have lots of dynamic range headroom), it’s a pleasure to use and, handles well and weighs very little. And as I’ve stressed throughout this review, it makes getting pleasing results incredibly easy.
About