allenh - You can also get Nikon d200 from best buy for less than $600 - it's a great camera, and when You shoot film You are used to low iso, so high iso issues wouldn't be a problem for You. As for the camera, I got mine almost 3 years ago, after using f100 - and my transition was very smooth - almost the same buttons layout, and same build quality. It will work with virtually all lenses on the market.

Yes, the AF-S lenses with internal motors will work on all modern bodies, both those with internal motors and without. I suppose at this point your best bet would be to go to a camera shop and try them out, if possible. I don't think the internal motor or the larger viewfinder are "bells and whistles". If you want to focus manually, the internal motor could be a bell, but in that case the larger viewfinder would be a must to get proper focus! I have good vision and can focus on a D60 manually, but it takes concentration, and i can't it it 100% on fast primes and telephotos. On a D90, i do much much better. Then again, If you're shooting still life, this probably isn't an issue.

mb - just to let you know - I've been shoting annual reports since 88, stock since 89 and have a fair bit of Photoshop retouching experience. I worked with Scitech operators back in 89 on merging images for a prepress company. So although, I haven't invested in digital camera, I'm not completely unaware. But I do relize that I will have to adjust my attitude with the new digital cameras.

I've never needed an expensive camera to make money. Lenses used to more important than the body - and I still sometimes use a handheld light meter. I just hate buying/paying for bells and whistles that I don't want/need.

Do lenses with the internal motor work on the cameras with the internal motor?

@mb - In his last post he mentions film, "I may have to bit the bullet and just keep on shooting film."

I must be missing something, but I can’t find allenh ever mentioned he has any lens or experience, film or otherwise.
Nikon D60 is better than D40 and can really make some very descent pictures, so allenh if you are limited by the budget you should consider this lovely little camera, especially if you add some better lens to it, AF-S 18-105 VR for example would make a perfect match. D60 has a bit lower IQ than D90, but is lighter, easy and fun to use, and it is never just a camera but the guy behind it that makes the difference.

Couple clarifications on your last post. The D90/D5000 sensor is the same exact size as the D60. However the D90/5000 sensor has an extra 2MP (not a huge difference), and better low light performance. Though since you're coming from film, even the D60 should be more than satisfactory for low light.

If your film lenses are AF, the D90 would probably be worth it for the motor. If you're coming from AIS lenses, none of these cameras will meter, and they'll work only in manual mode, you need a D300 or higher for AIS lenses to meter. Also coming from film you may be surprised about how tiny the finder is, especially on the D60/D5000. The D90 is much better, but won't be as good as whatever you had on film.

Even after all of these excellent comments - I still can decide which camera to buy. I'm have a hard time rationalizing the high cost (and large sensor, better focusing, more lenses) of the D90/5000 compared to the basic (almost manual) usage that I want. I was hoping that the new D5000 would be a lower price point and better fit - but it doesn't seem to be. I may have to bit the bullet and just keep on shooting film.

Having been out of photography for about 27 years (I owned a Nikon FE back then)until about 7 months ago,the camera bug bit me again,and without doing much research,I bought a D60.I am retired and photography has pretty much become a creative and fun part of my daily life.I like the D60, but am tired of the limitations that some of the above posters have mentioned.I actually think that a D90 will be all the camera that I need,but they have just gone up another 30 bucks at most dealers as of now a $100.00 increase since December when I was thinking that the prices would drop even more.

I love Nikon products and they have to do what is necessary in their best interest, but by me living on a fixed income they are effectively pricing me out of their user base.

Well I'm sure you can pick up a D40 for cheap now anyway. And like I said, I'm more than happy with the results i get even in jpg since I don't know how to use Photoshop anyway. My technique now is to learn photography to minimize Photosphop useage. Eventually though, I do plan to learn Photoshop.

Compared to the results I used to get with a Nikon Coolpix 3700 (made 5 years ago), it's loads better.

I'm in the opposite camp...

I have a D300 and really want a D40 (while keeping the D300).

The 40 would be a nice, small walk-around camera that I could slap the 35/1.8 on and be happy in most cases.

Then I could break out the 300 when I need to do something serious.

I really shouldn't have sold my 80...

-- Dave

Well, a d60 owner here. I have no problem focusing on my d60's viewfinder, but lenses can be a tad limiting. I'd assume, that after the d400, or whatever to replace the d300 comes out, I'll get the d300. I'll probably carry both for events, the d60 w/ kit lens, and the d300 (or d90) with a telephoto zoom.

Another D40 owner here too. Which is why I recommend getting the D90 for those serious about getting into photography.

Spot on with the limitations of the D40 as well.

Not to say the D40 is a bad camera- it's an excellent one, and one I'll hold onto for a while I hope because I can't afford a new body or a lens really.

One more minus of the D40x is its small viewfinder. If you need to use manual focus, you will have difficulties. I can't say anything about the D5000 though. I know that the D90 and D300 have bigger viewfinders that are much better to use when focusing manually.

I didn't even start this topic, but I really appreciate everyone's input. Thank you for your time!

D40 owner here. Its such a good camera for being so crippled. The lens issue is important. The biggest limitation to the D40\D60 is the3 point auto focus. All you get are the three points arranged horizontally in your viewfinder. This means if you subject doesn't fall along that line you have to focus & recompose (or on some lenses just grab to focus ring which is a little better). It's particularly bad in low light.

The other major limitation of the D40 is the lack of a secondary knob on the front. This makes shooting in the P,S,A, or M modes a bit of a chore as you have to hold down buttons to make adjustments to your settings.

Some other things the entry level cameras lack: Exposure Bracketing, Auto-Focus Fine Tuning, Dedicated ISO & WB buttons (you can set one of these to a custom button on the front left of your camera), commander mode for off camera flash, CMOS sensor (better high ISO performance & picture controls).

Here's the thing, you don't need any of this stuff to make great pictures. Most of these features never existed until 20 years ago, and we have a rich history of photography going back decades before that. But for bad photographers like me, all of these things help me make better shots.

If I were recomending a camera to somebody today, it would be the D40 for casual users or the D90 for people looking to get serious about their photography. I'd never recommend the D300\D700\or D3 because anybody who can make use of those cameras wouldn't be asking me in the first place.

Hey monty, I had a D40 first as well.

Now I just wish that I had had someone who would have tried pounding this information into my head then but now I will just start thinking about upgrading to a D300 or a D400 if/when it comes out.

I'd have to echo everyone else.

Well said Monty. I couldnt agree more. Same thing happened to me after purchasing the D60. 2 months later I was ready to move on.

Copied from my other post:
If you feel that you have a strong possibility of being infected by the photography virus, then I would strongly advise you to avoid all entry-level cameras. As I am not technically challenged (I do "love" those challenged phrases :D) and I have a strong case of the photography virus, I regretted purchasing the D40x in about 1-2 months from purchasing it. It lacks several things that even the D80 had. For me the most important ones missing are: mirror lockup, DoF preview, AF motor, bracketing, some more focusing points.

Based on this I would recommend the D90.

Jessi, AF-S (and the rare AF-I) lenses have motors in the lenses, AF and AF-D require a motor in the camera body. The D stands for distance, has nothing to do with the AF type. All modern AF lenses are D, so they tend not to write it anymore.

How can tell if a lens has a focus motor?

What he means is that the D60/D5000/D40 do not have internal focusing motors. They rely on the lens to have the focus motor and thereby autofocus. For example, that nice 50mm 1.4 AF lens will not autofocus on the D60/D40/D5000. So if you get one of these, you need to just be a little extra careful what you get for lenses. Some wont autofocus. D90 has the built in motor. I would def go with the D90 when choosing between that group of cameras. So much better. I bought the D60 and wish I had gone with the D90 instead.

NSXType-R - Please expand on your 'lens limitations' comment. I don't want/need dozens of lenses. Just two, one wide and one portrait. What lens inferiority do I need to be are of. - BTW, thanks for your comments.

What are the lens limitations?