Nikon D60 Digital SLR Camera With 18-55 Lens (New) £273.98 Argos eBay Outlet + £19 worth of eBay Plus points + Quidco - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
313Expired

Nikon D60 Digital SLR Camera With 18-55 Lens (New) £273.98 Argos eBay Outlet + £19 worth of eBay Plus points + Quidco

£273.98 @ eBay
10.2 mega pixels. 2.5in LCD screen. Lens mount - Nikon F-mount. Lens included with camera - 18-55 AF-S DX lens. Number of other lens available from Nikon - 50. SD memory card compatible. P… Read More
Xpert Avatar
banned6y, 10m agoFound 6 years, 10 months ago
10.2 mega pixels.
2.5in LCD screen.
Lens mount - Nikon F-mount.
Lens included with camera - 18-55 AF-S DX lens.
Number of other lens available from Nikon - 50.
SD memory card compatible.
Pictbridge compatible.
Continuous shooting - 3fps.
In-camera red eye fix.
CCD size - 23.6 x 15.8mm.
Maximum ISO range: 100-1600.
Maximum shutter speed - 1/4,000 to 30s in steps of 1/3.
Full auto setting.
Semi auto and semi manual setting.
Full manual setting.
8 scene modes.
Built in flash.
Hot shoe.
Accessories included in box - battery charger, USB cable, rubber eyecup, camera strap, body cap, eyepiece cap, accessory shoe cover and Software Suite CD-ROM.
Li-Ion rechargeable battery supplied.
Weight 495g.
Size (H)9.4, (W)12.6, (D)6.4cm.
More From eBay:

All Comments

(47) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
£19 of eBay plus points...I see £2.70 worth
2 Likes #2
very good camera.... but with this lens...i'd say NO
the lens doesn't have VR....which is something you'd be looking for if you're buying an entry level DSLR!

plus....this camera would be quite costly on the long run if you're trying to buy another lens..because it doesn't have a built-in focus motor, which means that each lens you buy must have an SWM (silent wave motor) and they're pricey....or you'll just have to do with Manual Focus!

don't get me wrong..I own it and I love it..but if I could turn back time, I'd invest in a better cam with a built-in focus motor so I can have a wider range of lenses!

even with that price....
cold for me :(:(
banned 1 Like #3
wileycat
£19 of eBay plus points...I see £2.70 worth
I am seeing 1890 eBay Plus points. 7x Seller bonus points until August 2010. If few people see only 270 eBay plus points than please edit the title. I don't know how to edit it now.
#4
Xpert
wileycat
£19 of eBay plus points...I see £2.70 worth

I am seeing 1890 eBay Plus points. 7x Seller bonus points until August 2010. If few people see only 270 eBay plus points than please edit the title. I don't know how to edit it now.


+1
#5
wnofal
very good camera.... but with this lens...i'd say NO
the lens doesn't have VR....which is something you'd be looking for if you're buying an entry level DSLR!

plus....this camera would be quite costly on the long run if you're trying to buy another lens..because it doesn't have a built-in focus motor, which means that each lens you buy must have an SWM (silent wave motor) and they're pricey....or you'll just have to do with Manual Focus!

don't get me wrong..I own it and I love it..but if I could turn back time, I'd invest in a better cam with a built-in focus motor so I can have a wider range of lenses!

even with that price....
cold for me :(:(


VR is of fairly marginal value on a standard zoom. You have to go to a D90 before you can use the older Nikon lenses. The D5000 is no better than this for lens compatibility. Most people will only buy one other lens - the VR 55-200 is the obvious one and this will work with this camera.
#6
what are ebay plus points
#7
Not a bad camera, but I'd prefer the D3000 (which is basically an improved D60) for £334.70 from Amazon with a VR lens. VR's worth having even on the kit lens if you plan doing much shooting in low light without a tripod (e.g. in buildings where flash is not allowed).
#8
Bertt
VR is of fairly marginal value on a standard zoom. You have to go to a D90 before you can use the older Nikon lenses. The D5000 is no better than this for lens compatibility. Most people will only buy one other lens - the VR 55-200 is the obvious one and this will work with this camera.


+1 You wouldn't need a VR lens under 100mm focal length (and none when using a tripod).

But the price is not low enough for me. There are better newer cameras on the market now. IMO, this should be about £200.
#9
wnofal
very good camera.... but with this lens...i'd say NO
the lens doesn't have VR....which is something you'd be looking for if you're buying an entry level DSLR!

plus....this camera would be quite costly on the long run if you're trying to buy another lens..because it doesn't have a built-in focus motor, which means that each lens you buy must have an SWM (silent wave motor) and they're pricey....or you'll just have to do with Manual Focus!

don't get me wrong..I own it and I love it..but if I could turn back time, I'd invest in a better cam with a built-in focus motor so I can have a wider range of lenses!

even with that price....
cold for me :(:(


i have this and very happy (preffer D700,but cost too much). who needs VR anyway,not much help. have 3 lenses and suits me well.
just get nikkor 35mm 1.8D AF-S lens (using 90 % of time) excellent for portraits,landscapes...
hope it helps !!!
#10
sorry , nikkor 35mm 1.8G AF-S (~£185)
#11
Bought one of these but with the vr lens kit about 20 months ago. Excellent camera if your just starting to get into dslr's. Very easy to get excellent results. I used to use a canon ixus 70 which is fab compact,but the photo's I get from this are in a different league. If you can afford it then go for it I'd say.

Voted hot!!
#12
I do own this and use with a couple of Tamron lenses from Jessops, very happy starter kit to get me used to it all.
#13
asaspasas6
sorry , nikkor 35mm 1.8G AF-S (~£185)

are you actually comparing an 18-55 3.5-5.6 to a prime 35mm 1.8?

of course with a prime you wouldn't need VR or a tripod!!! 1.8 or 1.4 even in fairly dimmed conditions can still perform adequately!

and by the way...you all deliberately ignored my main point, the focus motor, and just rammed me with the VR issue....


and for asaspasas6, had you had a body with a built-in focus motor, you could've got the AF 50mm f/1.8-D which is optically equivalent and costs less than £100...so that's a whole £85 saving in 1 lens only...need I say more?

Again...I do own a D60...I'm quite happy with it...I have the kit AF-S DX 18-55 VR, an AF-S DX 55-200 VR ED IF and a little gem that is the AF 28-80 f/3.3 that can only be used in manual focus mode with my D60...

Sorry if my attempt to explain something that most of those still looking for an entry DSLR might not find in other places, or at least won't find it in detail!

Edited By: wnofal on Jul 22, 2010 09:33: updating VR
#14
This is the best IQ for the money. OK so it hasn't got the latest features & that's why it's cheap !

fyi the D40 still sells 2nd hand on ebay for circa £240.

The D3000 produces rubbish jpegs - checkout dpreview. The D5000 is very good, but costs a lot more.
#15
IMHO, I still believe a body with a built-in focus motor is a better investment!
you'll pay around £200 more probably, but if you're planning on getting more lenses or you want to experiment with cheaper lenses, then it'll make up for the price difference!
#16
D700 and the 24-70 f2.8 is what's needed. (Though it will set you back £3k)

Anything less is a compromise.
#17
cant understand what d700 has to do with this... different league.
you dont need VR till u get to about 70mm, unless u have v v unsteady hands or v low light!
body is OK, but worse than my old D50!!
If I were you, look for a 2nd hand D80 from a reputable dealer with 6 month warranty.
#18
the-bunker

The D3000 produces rubbish jpegs - checkout dpreview. The D5000 is very good, but costs a lot more.


Use RAW then. There is soo much that can be done with RAW images over JPEGS.
I have a D3000 and dont think that it produces rubbish JPEGS at all. The only reason i shoot RAW is so that I can make the images even better. And like what has been said above get a Nikon 35mm f1.8 and your well away.
#19
It is fantastic camera i had one for two years it is a lot better than new d3000 and better quality i sold my 2 years old one for £330, it is bargain price
#20
Trickster
Not a bad camera, but I'd prefer the D3000 (which is basically an improved D60) for £334.70 from Amazon with a VR lens. VR's worth having even on the kit lens if you plan doing much shooting in low light without a tripod (e.g. in buildings where flash is not allowed).


D60 is much better camera than d3000
#21
There are rumours of a D3100 being out soon, the canon 1000D must be about due an update too, both will probably get video.
#22
I'm tempted, but I don't need a camera ! Ive got a superb TWELVE mp camera on my phone FGS !
And the excellent advice of wnofal will be heeded (Id give him rep if I knew how to, now !)
#23
Not a good deal. With no motor, choice of lenses is limited and body will be difficult to sell on. The 18-55mm is also one of the worst kit-lens' Nikon supply - cheap plastic and prone to getting stuck after a couple of years. On this budget, you'd be better off getting a 2nd hand D70 and a better lens (and you'd still have plenty of change).
#24
wnofal
IMHO, I still believe a body with a built-in focus motor is a better investment!
you'll pay around £200 more probably, but if you're planning on getting more lenses or you want to experiment with cheaper lenses, then it'll make up for the price difference!


I agree to an extent. The irony is that by buying a cheaper body, you have to invest in typically more expensive lenses in order to have auto focus. Exactly what happened to me with my D40X.

I now have a D90. However, it's an expensive step up. For an entry level photographer, this is good value. You may not buy another lens for a while, and if you do you can get something like the Nikkor 18-200mm VR jack of all trades lens.

As per above too. Can't really see VR making much difference on an 18-55mm lens. 100mm focal length and above it'll be worth it.
#25
jamin100
the-bunker

The D3000 produces rubbish jpegs - checkout dpreview. The D5000 is very good, but costs a lot more.


Use RAW then. There is soo much that can be done with RAW images over JPEGS.
I have a D3000 and dont think that it produces rubbish JPEGS at all. The only reason i shoot RAW is so that I can make the images even better. And like what has been said above get a Nikon 35mm f1.8 and your well away.


He's right. Shoot RAW and edit in Lightroom. You won't look back.
#26
This is a refresh of the D40x which is in itself a gorgeous entry level DSLR. Not having VR on the 18-55mm kit lens (which is a great little lens) is no prob at all.

You can pretty much point at any camera and say there is a better one that costs a bit more but the D60 is a cracking camera, the kit lens is fab and for under £275 with other discounts on top, it's a steal.

Anyone who says otherwise is talking out of their aperture! :p
#27
Great price for a great camera.
#28
kyashars
Trickster
Not a bad camera, but I'd prefer the D3000 (which is basically an improved D60) for £334.70 from Amazon with a VR lens. VR's worth having even on the kit lens if you plan doing much shooting in low light without a tripod (e.g. in buildings where flash is not allowed).
D60 is much better camera than d3000

Nonsense - the D3000 is basically a D60 with the D5000's 11-point 3D autofocus added (the D60's 3-point autofocus is poor for shooting moving objects). I've yet to be convinced there's much difference in image quality (the D60 colours are more saturated though which gives an initial inpression of improved quality).
#29
Trickster

Nonsense - the D3000 is basically a D60 with the D5000's 11-point 3D autofocus added (the D60's 3-point autofocus is poor for shooting moving objects). I've yet to be convinced there's much difference in image quality (the D60 colours are more saturated though which gives an initial inpression of improved quality).


Agreed, to say that the D60 is better than the D3000 is just plain wrong. Ok, it may not be a massive improvement and may not be worth the price difference between the two models but the D3000 is technically superior to the D60.

personally I would rather have a D3000 which i think you can get from Jessops for around £370 with the VR lense or £330 with the non VR lense but non the less this is a good price for a entry level DSLR
1 Like #30
A good choice for a beginner, the price is about standard.

A lot of rot being spoken here today.
#31
Trickster
kyashars
Trickster
Not a bad camera, but I'd prefer the D3000 (which is basically an improved D60) for £334.70 from Amazon with a VR lens. VR's worth having even on the kit lens if you plan doing much shooting in low light without a tripod (e.g. in buildings where flash is not allowed).
D60 is much better camera than d3000


Nonsense - the D3000 is basically a D60 with the D5000's 11-point 3D autofocus added (the D60's 3-point autofocus is poor for shooting moving objects). I've yet to be convinced there's much difference in image quality (the D60 colours are more saturated though which gives an initial inpression of improved quality).


Quote from KenRockwell.com ;


The D3000 Nikon's newest inexpensive DSLR. It's a good camera all by itself, but it's the worst DSLR Nikon has ever made. What makes it worse by comparison is significantly slower and balkier operation when compared to other Nikon DSLRs.

The Nikon D40 is a better camera for less money.

The Nikon D3000 is inferior both in operational speed and ease of use, as well as inferior in technical image quality. Specifically, the D3000 is about one stop noisier at any given ISO than the D40; the D3000 is as noisy at ISO 800 as the D40 is at ISO 1,600. While the D40 looks great at ISO 1,600, the D3000 is too grainy at ISO 1,600 for normal use. You have to keep the D3000 at ISO 800 or below for the best results.
#32
kyashars


Quote from KenRockwell.com ;


I stopped reading there....
You know that guy is crazy dont you.....
Read some more of his site. especially the bit where he says people should only ever shoot in JPEG....

lmao
#33
I should have guessed somwone would reply with a Ken Rockwell quote (I understand Ken also believes that VR lenses means that tripods are now redundant.... )

There is some truth in Ken's remarks though - the D3000 is noiser than the D40, though you'd expect it to an extent, since its 10mp rather than the D40's 6mp. But Ken makes comparisons using JPGs, and its also likely that the D3000 is applying less internal noise reduction (as I've read elsewhere that the difference is less apparent with RAW). It annoys me though that in his review he makes such a fuss about the Active D-Lighting being slow (which it is) - but its still a very useful feature that the D40 doesn't even have, and its easy to switch off when not required. He also spends very little time detailing areas where the D3000 is better, such as the much improved autofocus (which for me is more important than slightly worse low-light performance).
#34
jamin100
kyashars


Quote from KenRockwell.com ;


I stopped reading there....
You know that guy is crazy dont you.....
Read some more of his site. especially the bit where he says people should only ever shoot in JPEG....

lmao


+1, read his About section.

"but it's all pulled out of thin air from my own imagination. Please don't believe anything you read anywhere on this website. Although most of the technical information is probably true most of the time, the rest is all pretend. I love to fool around, pretend, and make things up."
#35
Rockwell is bonkers it's true, but he's also on the money many times.
#36
Any half decent photographer knows Ken Rockwell talks out his ****,he might pull the wool over the eyes of the novice but hes well hated for his narrow minded waffle by the pros,he even saks you to make a donation after reading his reviews so he can feed his family... cheeky charlaton .
The 3 point af is a let down on the d60 and one of the main reason i upgraded to a s5 pro .
#37
just arrived the box shows it as being a D60 18-55 VR Kit, I assumed that means it has the VR lenses? thanks op have some heat!
#38
Be a little careful on the autofocus ; its more primitive than the D50/D3000 etc (not sure about the D40 as never tried one) ; it only has 3 points from memory in a line. But if you can live with this then its a great price.
#39
Brilliant price. Great for a second body even if you don't need the lens.
#40
thanks ordered one this weekend and comming today by dhl.
Really dont know why everyone is going on about the fact it don't have a built in focus motor?
a 55-200mm lens for this are not that much more money!
iv checked on google shopping and you can get a 55-200mm AF-S lens for around £130 and AF-S VR 55-200mm lens on ebay new cost around £120 delivered so whats the problem your not going to buy that many other lenes anyway so the price is very good.
the cannon 1000d is a very simalar and great beginner DSLR camera argos do a very good deal on that camera with the twin lens pack for £479.89 so if you take £273.89 for this camera off that your left with £206 saving buy a lens off ebay the AF-S VR 55-200mm for £120 delivered leaves a saving of £86!!! so a great deal if you ask me.
Im new to the DSLR scene but what is all the hype about the VR anyway on the 18-55mm lens VR means vibration reduction is it really necessary?

Edited By: wozzer on Jul 27, 2010 10:29: wrong price given
Edited By: wozzer on Jul 27, 2010 10:33: a
Edited By: wozzer on Jul 27, 2010 10:34: A

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!