Canon EOS D60 questions

I made my monthly stop into the local pawn store, and saw a Canon EOS D60 and stock lens for $149, but I can probably bring them down a bit. The thing that stops me is it is only 6 megapixel. Is this enough to make the jump into digital? Does the money sound right, or a bit high? It appears to be in great shape.

6 MP is plenty of sensor to get great images. Don't let that hold you up. I'm a Nikon shooter, but with a lens, if all is clean and working, the price is not out of line for the D60. Shoot a few images in the store to make sure everything works. I'm betting you'll love it.

I guess the fact that phone cameras are 8 MP plus worried me a bit, but you have much more control over the image with a DSLR. I might just slap it in layaway tomorrow.

I can show you some pics taken with a 3mp point & shoot that will knock your eyes out. It ain't about the megapixels..

oc_in_fw said:

I made my monthly stop into the local pawn store, and saw a Canon EOS D60 and stock lens for $149, but I can probably bring them down a bit. The thing that stops me is it is only 6 megapixel. Is thiks enough to make the jump into digital? Does the money sound right, or a bit high? It appears to be in great shape.

Click to expand...

while that took good pictures, the battery life of that generation was pretty bad. If you allow for cost of a new spare battery, for about same money, you'd be better off with a more current model DSLR or even a fixed lens compact such as Nikon J or Canon G series.

Hmmm..brand new battery for this camera is <$15. Nikon J1 is about $250 new and canon G >400. Unless I'm missing something.

alpster said:

Hmmm..brand new battery for this camera is <$15. Nikon J1 is about $250 new and canon G >400. Unless I'm missing something.

Click to expand...

Two batteries for $25 on Amazon.

I would pass. Quite frankly, 6mp is enough for decent 8x10 prints or smaller but you can get SO much better by paying just a little bit more.

For used cameras, I recommend KEH. I've bought and sold stuff from them for many years and they are stand up and they know what they are doing.

If you want a Canon D60, you can get one in excellent condition from them for about $89

https://www.keh.com/207775/canon-d60-digital-camera-body-6-m-p

Personally, if you are new to digital and just getting started, and you want a Canon camera, I'd recommend at the very least a 5D. You can pick one up in excellent condition for less than $500

https://www.keh.com/207770/canon-5d-digital-camera-body-12-8-m-p

There is a very significant difference in image quality between the 60D and the 5D and it doesn't just have to do with the number of pixels.

Right now, $500 isn't an option

The thing that may make or break the thing is frame count. I think this model was rated for 100,000 frames? I think there was a way to show how many photos taken with that model. I might check that and see if this thing was ridden hard and put away wet or gently used.

I would gladly accept the model but it was an early one.

Don't let the megapixel hype get to you. If you are wanting an entry level camera for family and fun photos, you should be fine with that camera if that is your budget. I have been published, shot model portfolios, and produced 17x19 prints with the same quality as a 4x5, all using a canon 40d that is only 10.1 megapixels.

The processor, lens, and lighting attribute a lot more to a quality photo than megapixels. If you are into high end photoshopping, or billboard size prints, then you absolutely want more. But for playing around and getting your feet wet, I don't think it's a bad starter provided everything works as it is supposed to.

Thanks sfeile

My main digital body is only 10.2mp. Glass and sensor quality will make great images. That being said, I wouldn't go below 10mp these days. I'm shooting an old Nikon D200. Can be had for a few hundred bucks, is a "prosumer" level body that is more compact and lighter than the pro body of the day (D2 series) but just as tough and weather sealed the same. I thoroughly enjoy this camera, it really is a solid workhorse that nailed everything in ergo and image making at the time. Battery life is ok, I get about 500 frames, less if I'm shooting with lots of focus tracking but rarely do I get under 350 and that's only if I'm using the on board flash in commander mode.

Might be worth a look.

The D60 was quite noisy, iirc. If you could find a 20D or 30D for the same money, I think that would be a much better choice.

Besides, the D60 does not take EF-S lenses, I think?

Honestly that's not a great deal. You can find those D60s for less than $100 dollars(in excellent condition). I would check out KEH.com I found D60s in excellent condition for $89.00. I personally would spend a little more(around $300 dollars) and get a Canon 40D. You could also pick up one of the Rebels for around $150.00. Much newer camera than the D60s.

Thanks everyone. After Xander mentioned the Nikon D200 I started looking around. It really is not much more, and seems a lot better. I was planning on getting a D3200 later on, anyway, so I may as well stay with the same lens mount.

Good luck, Owen!

oc_in_fw said:

Thanks everyone. After Xander mentioned the Nikon D200 I started looking around. It really is not much more, and seems a lot better. I was planning on getting a D3200 later on, anyway, so I may as well stay with the same lens mount.

Click to expand...

Only reason I haven't upgraded the D200 yet is 1) I haven't out grown it's capabilities yet and 2) I would upgrade to a newer Fx sensor camera and those are expensive.

The D200 is very capable. I am still amazed at how well it does. Honestly, if you do get a D200, I don't think you would be interested in a D3200, unless you want video. Also, the D3xxx and D5xxx series bodies will not auto focus with the AF-D type lenses. They do not have a focus motor in the body, they rely on AF-S lenses to auto focus. AF-D lenses are cheaper and just as good quality.

It is a smart move to stick to one brand as glass is the major investment. Bodies change all the time, good glass is always good glass.

Only thing I wish the D200 did better was high iso. I pretty much limit myself to iso1000 unless I have a still subject and tripod so I can use longer shutter speeds (in its day it was actually pretty good). Also, being a 10 year old body, be sure to find out the shutter count. I still see them in some b/s/t groups I'm in with under 25K clicks or less going for ~250. They also take compact flash cards. Nice thing is, file size is manageable and even a 4gb card will hold quite a few. Best to get a stack of smaller cards than one big one. Buy an extra battery, I have a 3rd party one that's going just as strong as a genuine one.

If you decide to go for a D200, feel free to ask me any questions you have about them. I will say this, when they were new, they were the first camera that nobody had anything really bad to say about it. I love mine!

You can check out my flickr if you want to see some images taken with the D200. PM me and I can give you my name on there.

Thanks Xander. I am not interested in shooting video- if I ever do, I will get a video camera. Since coming here I have come to appreciate things that do one thing, but do it very well. And if you haven't outgrown its capabilities, then I don't think I will ever challenge it

Owen, this thread has some good images shot with the D200 and a $89 50/1.8 AF-D lens.

http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php/431433-Simple-table-top-product-photography

It is quite sharp with lots of detail. Pixel quality trumps pixel quantity. The Nikon D4s is still only 16mp, and is nearly a $6000 body! Other factors come into play as well, but an older higher level camera will almost always out perform a newer entry level camera.

Just highlighting the relevance a 10 year old camera can still have today. Btw, those were all jpeg files, not even raw which contains even more data and detail!