Quality of Nikon 6000

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

I inherited a Nikon 6000 camera body without any lenses. I'm a beginner, and I now use a Pentax K1000. Is the Nikon a better camera? and is it worth investing in lenses for it?

-- Judy Lloyd (jlloyd@oldwestbury.edu), April 20, 2001

Answers

When it was last available new in the UK (in 1996), the list price of the K1000 was GBP 250. At the same time, the list price of the F601 (the non-US name for the the N6006) was GBP 500. So the N6000 is a significantly more expensive camera, aimed at enthusiasts rather than learners.

That's the end of the impartial data, Judy. Everything that follows is opinion. :-)

You've reached the point where you have to decide what camera SYSTEM you're going to use, if you intend photography to be a serious hobby. Faced with that decision, most of us have chosen either Nikon or Canon. Grossly oversimplifying, enthusiasts for build quality buy Nikon and enthusiasts for technology buy Canon.

The harsh reason for this is that, in many segments of many markets, it is difficult to make money unless you are first or second in market share. Minolta and Pentax do engineering quite as well as Nikon and Canon, but their unit costs for development are higher, so their ranges of lenses and accessories are smaller. So, as with cola drinks and disposable diapers, most of us choose one of the top two because most of us choose one of the top two.

I guess that counts as a recommendation to go Nikon. Regular readers of this forum will know that I'm a Nikon user myself so, in a desperate attempt at impartiality, here are some good reasons for staying with Pentax:

Later,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), April 22, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ