Why Nikon need to update the D60

[lightsaber]

With the reduction in price for 450D and the arrival of the extremely capable 1000D, I think Nikon need to upgrade the D60 in the near future. And here are the reasons why and my wish list in the D60 successor:

- The D90 is a welcome upgrade to the D80, however it is a bit big compared to E420 and 450D. D90 is seen more as a competitor to 50D than 450D. Thus, the D60 needs an upgrade too.

- 3 AF in a DSLR which is supposed to be competing with 450d or even 1000D is a bit lacking. I still don't understand why Nikon puts 51 AF point in it's high end dSLR and put a mere 3 AF pt in it's entry level SLR. Even the 1000D positioned below D60 has 7 AF point. I agree we don't need a million AF points, but I think 3 is a little too few, isn't it? Maybe 7 or 9 is enough...

- CMOS sensor. Nikon did a brilliant job in its move to CMOS for the higher end dSLR. This has cut Canon's advantage by a lot in terms of high ISO performance. Why is the lower end dSLR still stuck with a CCD against a 12 mpx CMOS Canon sensor? We all know that at high ISO this sensor cannot really match the Canon.

Beginner photographers would find high (auto) ISO really useful because they would be the ones who would try to take pictures in the worse possible lighting without knowing what to adjust.

- Lens compatibility. This is debatable but I think maintaining 100% lens compatibility will allow professionals to consider the D60's successor as a backup body. If Canon can make the 1DsMkIII/5dMkII body lenses 100% compatible with 450D, why can't Nikon do the same? And Canon can make the 450D pricing very competitive even while maintaining the compatibility. The site www.photozone.de uses a 350D to rate all the Canon lens but has to resort to using D200 to rate all the Nikon lens. D60 buyers always feel that they are handicapped but 450D feel they have almost all the power of an pro-dSLR in a very compact package. Currently Nikon users has no option of a very lightweight body which is compatible with all their pro-lenses. Not everyone wants to carry a brick to their holidays you know? But they still want to take good photos with a good lens.

It is a shame that some F mount lenses (3rd Party or Nikon) may work better on a Canon adapter with AF Confirm chip than on the D60.

- Crippled Features. Canon learned it the hard way when they tried to cripple features in the 300D. By 350D, the camera has most of the features of its older brothers. Bracketing, DOF preview and other features should be included in the successor of D60. See my previous points....

If the marketing guys want to cater for the idiot-proof market, they should do that to the D40 not the D60. Maybe some marketing guy will whip out some statistics to proof me wrong but here is my logic, there are camera idiots and there are non-camera idiots. If one is a camera idiot, why the shoot will one be buying a dSLR? If they do, they should buy the D40 If one is not a camera idiot and buys the D60, why the shoot would you give one a crippled camera?

- Face detection and Contrast detect AF on live view. This is a 450D handicap. Nikon should exploit

- Video... Some purists would see this as a distraction to dSLR. Let's just say a company wants to put video in dSLRs, which market is the most suitable for such a feature given that every P&S has this feature? It is rather surprising that no entry level dSLR has this feature yet while higher end dSLRs are the first to have them.

- In camera editing. We don't need all the advanced stuff in D90 or D300. Features like a one touch picture enhancements on exposure, colour and WB correction would be really useful for beginners. I think they even have it in Ms Office Picture Manager.

After doing so well on the D300 and D90, I think Nikon should focus on it's compact dSLR market and improve its offerings. Otherwise, new users would continue to buy Canon and Nikon would miss out on the upgraders market which is the target of D90,D300 and even D700.

 

[forward]

Nikon strategy

Most beginners hunting for a DSLR would invest in a package that is value for money.
Currently a package with two lenses and lots of freebies for around S$1200 will be the target for this section of the market.

No competitor can offer two VR lenses for this price (the 18-55 and the 50-200mm VR).
The DSLR they are looking for should be at least 10megapixels, which produces better picture quality than any pro-consumer compact. The DSLR can shoot fast moving events, like company functions, weddings and sports.

Potential buyers need not have to invest further in a tripod, storage media cards etc (available as freebies). They won't know what AF points are for that matter or the advantages of having more AF points in the camera body. Neither are they aware of the differences in the output of the CMOS or CCD sensors in high ISO settings. Most likely they won't even know they have to use higher ISO other the ISO 100 or 200 as long as flash is available.

I doubt "beginner photographers would find high (auto) ISO really useful because they would be the ones who would try to take pictures in the worse possible lighting without knowing what to adjust." In most cases they won't know how to use the various modes available for shooting circumstances but rely heavily on the Auto mode.

For sure beginners will not be aware of lens compatibility issues. To them two lenses using the same filter size will save them from further spending on camera accessories. What more would you expect from a beginner to know about the issue of lens adaptor for different camera bodies, depth of field preview or bracketing techniques.

The above reasons will explain your perception on this, "If one is a camera idiot, why the shoot will one be buying a dSLR? If they do, they should buy the D40 If one is not a camera idiot and buys the D60, why the shoot would you give one a crippled camera?"

To them the D40 has only 6 mega pixels compared to 10 mega pixel in the D60. By the time the beginners have enough knowledge and skills on digital photography and wants to go further they can always opt for the the D90, D300 and D3 with all the features which are a tag behind from some of the other camera manufacturers. For the present moment the best value for money is the D60 package with two VR lenses and that is all that they want when investing in their first DSLR. Am I off the point?

:heart:

 

[ortega]

it is a matter of target market segment
if you find that you have moved to a different market segment, then you should be looking at a different product that is designed for that market segment

 

[nightwolf75]

regardless of how i thot nikon was nuts to remove the AF motor within the entry-level DSLRs starting with D40, the fact that these cameras are selling well is a testament to the fact that people are buying them in droves.

if u think abt it, as ortega mentioned, these cameras are meant for a different segment - people who want a easy-to-use camera, probably will only use the kit lens and in Auto mode kind of people... these just want to take pics, and not like us (sad to say) who bitch abt everything and anything, so long as the camera doesn't come with an expresso machine built-in. come to think of it, how many of us (average users) do really use all the features built-in anyway? i doubt i myself use more than 50% of the features in d300... but dats me. if you can use all, good.

so wats there to update? :think:

 

[jtchoy]

I agree with some of the points, but it has to do with the price range of a D60...

D60 is still a great dSLR though. I just bought 1 about 2 weeks ago and enjoying it.

 

[Six-GHz]

Well, what makes you think that Nikon is sitting on its laurels? For all you know, the developers have probably completed their prototype replacements for D60s?

With Canon on full salvos, Nikon will be on their toes!

 

[ortega]

don't you just love competition?

 

[eosdigital]

You are right, although im a Canon user - over at N side i noticed that it was indeed a mistake for Nikon to carry over the aging 3 Pt. AF system from the entry lvl D40 series to the D60. What happened to Marketing Dept? Why they didnt discourage this move?
And to boot, the D50 had 5 pt AF which was severed to 3 in D40..

Perhaps this was a reason why Canon introduced the 1000D to eat at the aging D40(which i wonder how come havent been discontinued) and D60 share, with a limited 7 pt system.
Although the 3 series Canons already have 7 - 9 pts from the beginning, the Nikon D40 and 60 were intended to be placed at below that section, so let's say it started at 1000D's intro.

Im waiting to see how Nikon will "counterattack" the 1kD, will they launch a D60X to have a 9 or 11 pt AF carried over from the D80 or D200? And please, the D40 really need a discontinuance, else it will cannibalise the D60's sale.

PS: Just my 2 cents, and unless im blind it's not written in a flame style.

 

[eosdigital]

Oops, forgot to add this para.

But it's not the end here. It's ditto and other way round over at Canon camp, we're still seeing a 9 pt+ AF system in the 5D Mark II, and same for the 50D where an upgrade to at least 24 and 11 pt+ for both is perhaps due. As you can see, i daresay Nikon took a gamble to place the 51AF pt inside the D300 to see what would Canon's move be, but the 9pt AF in the 50D was still unchanged.

 

[gymak90]

Has anyone thought of pre-AI lenses that can only be mounted on D40/D40x/D60 and no other nikon dslr?

Why bother so much about marketing strategies when you are not working for either company? Just let competition sort things out.
From what I can tell now, both D60 and 450D/1000D are selling very well.

I believe TS has many assumptions on what a beginner would look for, based on his own experience. But I'm sure these assumptions may not hold for every beginner, or else why the good sales performance?

 

[glygcs]

Yes, you've got it right, the D60 must be updated.
I'm looking to buy a DSLR.
D90 has all the things I want but it's too big and heavy for any good.
D60 is crippled especially when I need the auto bracketing.
Canon 450D is full featured and compact (though still not as compact as D60) but it has metering and focus problems.

If Nikon has an upgraded D60, same compact size, I'd buy it straight away. Yes, even if it is more expensive than the 450D .

 

[psychobiologist]

Oops, forgot to add this para.

But it's not the end here. It's ditto and other way round over at Canon camp, we're still seeing a 9 pt+ AF system in the 5D Mark II, and same for the 50D where an upgrade to at least 24 and 11 pt+ for both is perhaps due. As you can see, i daresay Nikon took a gamble to place the 51AF pt inside the D300 to see what would Canon's move be, but the 9pt AF in the 50D was still unchanged.

you're taking things from too competitive a point of view.

i think nikon put 51 AF points inside the d300 to give us users 51 af points to use. who cares abt what canon's next move would be?

 

[lightsaber]

I do agree that the D60 is meant for beginners who may not care about many advanced features. However, I think that this role should be given to the D40 or its upgrade.

There is however a market segment wedged in between beginner and the slightly heavier cameras like the D90 and the 50D.... This is the segment that E420, D60, A350(or 200) and 450D is in. The entry level dSLR.

Many of the cameras in this categories shares many advanced features of their older brothers. If the D60 successor behaves a lot more like its older brothers but housed in a compact body, people like glygcs and myself who are looking for a compact, perhaps second, body would be really happy buying it.

I am very sure Nikon is already working on something to replace the D60, but while there are lots of rumors around D500 and D3X, I don't here anything around a D60X or something like that.

BTW, I regret mentioning the Canon offerings too many times in this post. Please do not let this turn into another Canon vs Nikon argument My point of posting is just that I see Nikon users needing a compact entry level dSLR which shares more features with its older brothers (or sisters?).

The beginner's model should be D40... D60 should serve the needs of more advanced photographers looking for a lightweight body.

 

[glygcs]

You know, I find it kinda strange why the camera designers have this kind of weird mentality :

...that Higher end models must be big and heavy ... and lower end models small and compact. Why ? Why must it be so ?

If D90 is housed in a D60 body, I would pay a premium for it.

Haha, for laptops, the smaller it is, the more expensive it is. Camera, strangely is the other way round. Don't tell me those pros like to carry weights ? Well, maybe they do. The other day, I saw a photographer lug around a Nikon (dun know which model) , it was huge! And he was sweating and dragging along his photographic kit. Poor chap. :bsmilie:

Camera is just a tool to get good pictures. Like all tools, the simpler, versatile and lighter it is, the better.

 

[blue_quartz]

You know, I find it kinda strange why the camera designers have this kind of weird mentality :

...that Higher end models must be big and heavy ... and lower end models small and compact. Why ? Why must it be so ?

If D90 is housed in a D60 body, I would pay a premium for it.

Haha, for laptops, the smaller it is, the more expensive it is. Camera, strangely is the other way round. Don't tell me those pros like to carry weights ? Well, maybe they do. The other day, I saw a photographer lug around a Nikon (dun know which model) , it was huge! And he was sweating and dragging along his photographic kit. Poor chap. :bsmilie:

Camera is just a tool to get good pictures. Like all tools, the simpler, versatile and lighter it is, the better.

I'm guessing it's due to two things: the top display LCD and the battery size?

You want the specs of a D90 in D60, it will probably come within a year or two given technology advancements... But by then the mid-range "D90" will start to own the current D300, and the list goes on. It is quite quaint to compare how the D90 now is now more powerful than the D100 four years in almost every aspect. I'm sure back then people were hoping for a smaller D100 to lug around, much less one that can do movies.

 

[glygcs]

I'm guessing it's due to two things: the top display LCD and the battery size?

You want the specs of a D90 in D60, it will probably come within a year or two given technology advancements... But by then the mid-range "D90" will start to own the current D300, and the list goes on. It is quite quaint to compare how the D90 now is now more powerful than the D100 four years in almost every aspect. I'm sure back then people were hoping for a smaller D100 to lug around, much less one that can do movies.

Battery and LCD ? I doubt it. And most other features (most of them unnecessary, are software based. I still think it is a mentality issue, that higher end models MUST be big and heavy, which is stupid.

 

[ziggy]

You know, I find it kinda strange why the camera designers have this kind of weird mentality :

...that Higher end models must be big and heavy ... and lower end models small and compact. Why ? Why must it be so ?

If D90 is housed in a D60 body, I would pay a premium for it.

QUOTE]

The higher end models are heavier because there is more metal being used, a solid glass pentaprism instead of mirrors, generally more solid construction, etc. It also provides better balance when using larger, heavier and more expensive lenses, more likely to be used by owners of such models.

Micro 4/3 format could be the answer to small, lightweight dSLR and lenses. My kind of camera system if it eventually lives up to its potential.

 

[lsisaxon]

With the reduction in price for 450D and the arrival of the extremely capable 1000D, I think Nikon need to upgrade the D60 in the near future. And here are the reasons why and my wish list in the D60 successor:

- The D90 is a welcome upgrade to the D80, however it is a bit big compared to E420 and 450D. D90 is seen more as a competitor to 50D than 450D. Thus, the D60 needs an upgrade too.

- 3 AF in a DSLR which is supposed to be competing with 450d or even 1000D is a bit lacking. I still don't understand why Nikon puts 51 AF point in it's high end dSLR and put a mere 3 AF pt in it's entry level SLR. Even the 1000D positioned below D60 has 7 AF point. I agree we don't need a million AF points, but I think 3 is a little too few, isn't it? Maybe 7 or 9 is enough...

- CMOS sensor. Nikon did a brilliant job in its move to CMOS for the higher end dSLR. This has cut Canon's advantage by a lot in terms of high ISO performance. Why is the lower end dSLR still stuck with a CCD against a 12 mpx CMOS Canon sensor? We all know that at high ISO this sensor cannot really match the Canon.

Beginner photographers would find high (auto) ISO really useful because they would be the ones who would try to take pictures in the worse possible lighting without knowing what to adjust.

- Lens compatibility. This is debatable but I think maintaining 100% lens compatibility will allow professionals to consider the D60's successor as a backup body. If Canon can make the 1DsMkIII/5dMkII body lenses 100% compatible with 450D, why can't Nikon do the same? And Canon can make the 450D pricing very competitive even while maintaining the compatibility. The site www.photozone.de uses a 350D to rate all the Canon lens but has to resort to using D200 to rate all the Nikon lens. D60 buyers always feel that they are handicapped but 450D feel they have almost all the power of an pro-dSLR in a very compact package. Currently Nikon users has no option of a very lightweight body which is compatible with all their pro-lenses. Not everyone wants to carry a brick to their holidays you know? But they still want to take good photos with a good lens.

It is a shame that some F mount lenses (3rd Party or Nikon) may work better on a Canon adapter with AF Confirm chip than on the D60.

- Crippled Features. Canon learned it the hard way when they tried to cripple features in the 300D. By 350D, the camera has most of the features of its older brothers. Bracketing, DOF preview and other features should be included in the successor of D60. See my previous points....

If the marketing guys want to cater for the idiot-proof market, they should do that to the D40 not the D60. Maybe some marketing guy will whip out some statistics to proof me wrong but here is my logic, there are camera idiots and there are non-camera idiots. If one is a camera idiot, why the shoot will one be buying a dSLR? If they do, they should buy the D40 If one is not a camera idiot and buys the D60, why the shoot would you give one a crippled camera?

- Face detection and Contrast detect AF on live view. This is a 450D handicap. Nikon should exploit

- Video... Some purists would see this as a distraction to dSLR. Let's just say a company wants to put video in dSLRs, which market is the most suitable for such a feature given that every P&S has this feature? It is rather surprising that no entry level dSLR has this feature yet while higher end dSLRs are the first to have them.

- In camera editing. We don't need all the advanced stuff in D90 or D300. Features like a one touch picture enhancements on exposure, colour and WB correction would be really useful for beginners. I think they even have it in Ms Office Picture Manager.

After doing so well on the D300 and D90, I think Nikon should focus on it's compact dSLR market and improve its offerings. Otherwise, new users would continue to buy Canon and Nikon would miss out on the upgraders market which is the target of D90,D300 and even D700.

Why the shoot should a person like me using D300 still interested in a D60? And why the shoot am I now shooting with a D60 much more often than the D300? Simple... It's small, it's light and it works. The high ISO are very useable up to ISO800 and you can sometimes push it up to ISO1600.

I have been shooting since F3 times and even with 5 AF points in the F5, I'm still using the centre one. So whether 3 AF points or 51 AF points, the likelihood that the centre one is sufficient for me is very high. For someone learning, they probably shoot slower, taking their time to learn composition, taking their time to learn exposure, taking their time to learn DoF, why is there a need for anything more than 1 focus point? 3 is already an overkill. Having said that, 51 AF points is indeed very useful for sports and action. I also agree that LV can be quite useful in a D60 form factor.

With the D90, Nikon has probably gotten it covered for something in between. If you look at the range from the price point of view, D90 sits in between Canon's 3-digit and 2-digit models. That's how Japanese companies work. They won't kill each other. They leave enough room for everyone to get a compelling product out there and it's always a win-win situation for them at our expense. ;p

 

[lsisaxon]

You know, I find it kinda strange why the camera designers have this kind of weird mentality :

...that Higher end models must be big and heavy ... and lower end models small and compact. Why ? Why must it be so ?

If D90 is housed in a D60 body, I would pay a premium for it.

Haha, for laptops, the smaller it is, the more expensive it is. Camera, strangely is the other way round. Don't tell me those pros like to carry weights ? Well, maybe they do. The other day, I saw a photographer lug around a Nikon (dun know which model) , it was huge! And he was sweating and dragging along his photographic kit. Poor chap. :bsmilie:

Camera is just a tool to get good pictures. Like all tools, the simpler, versatile and lighter it is, the better.

It's about ergonomics and stability. Heavier bodies are undoubtedly more stable than lighter ones because of the inertia. I can definitely shoot at a lower shutter speed with D300 than with D60.

 

[nic67]

Battery and LCD ? I doubt it. And most other features (most of them unnecessary, are software based. I still think it is a mentality issue, that higher end models MUST be big and heavy, which is stupid.

Personally, I think the camera designers look at the issues in a few areas, usind the D3 as an example for design consideration:

1. Target User Group:
It is also a matter of perception, as the target crowd for the D3 would most certainly be photo-journalist, since these people already carry lenses like AF 28-70 f2.8 ED that weighs nearly a kg itself, a body that weighs more would not be a problem.

2. Construction:
Use of weather sealing material and tougher body frame adds to weight. Besides, a camera intended for use in the Antartics requires it big enough for someone wearing a mitt/glove to grip the camera properly. Try wearing a glove to handle a D3 compared to a D60, I'm sure you will know actually what I mean.

3. User perception/features:
A lighter body given the target crowd would deemed it to be a toy and possibly even lower adaptation compared to the 'C' competitor. If you know that Canon is actually the 'official' DSLR for NFL, any deviation from the norm would make it harder to be adopted by the photo-journalist group. In feature set, Nikon had already been outshined in the full-frame for a few years already til the D3 showed up.

If I pay $XXX, I expect it to have certain YYY features compared to the competitors, despite whether the feature is actually a good or bad feature, or even the kitchen-sink.

4. Electronics:
More features also requires more electronics to be mounted, despite of what we believe, electronics do have physical limits to the possible feature enabled today, I'm quite sure the Nikon engineers would have the components already maxed out til next generation. Software is good only to a certain extent, complications in software would impact directly execution speed, thus hardware implementation remains the best solution given that a D3 would have to shoot faster than any camera in Nikon's arsenal, thus 2x 'Expeed' chip were used. Therefore it takes 2x chip space til the next generation cip with 4x the processing power in the future. Lengthy software also impacts directly battery consumption.

Therefore, given the state of the D3, I am sure sure Nikon would have considered all those design factors I listed and a whole load of bucket of other considerations in the design. I would applaud Nikon for doing a remarkable job given the lag behind Canon when they first started the D3 project.