UKBouldering.com
technical => photography => Topic started by: tomtom on August 18, 2009, 01:24:09 pm
-
Hello,
Thinking of getting my first DSLR, and for better or worse I think it should be a Nikon (father - and work has one so can borrow some interesting lenses). I have not got a clue which model to get - but theres no point in me getting a top end one - so something a bit up from bottom of the range. D60 seems to OK, but is the D3000 a new/better model? I get quite confused by the models/labelling for the Nikon range.. :-\
Any advice or pointers to good deals welcome,
Tom
-
they're all good
basic points:
D40/40x/60/3000/5000 line are all small light "basic" models (but still very good) and can only autofocus with recent lenses, mainly zooms. So any older lenses you might inherit probably won't AF, and manually focusing reliably with these is a ball cos the finders aren't set up for it. You can't control off-camera flash remotely from them. not that it matters to 99% of users. Otherwise no problem, good cameras.
D70/70s/80/90 line are a bit higher spec, all a bit bigger, heavier, work with all the AF lenses, and can control off-camera flash. More expensive as a result.
D200/300 line are same as the above, but faster but heavier built and can meter with old manual lenses. Much more expensive.
(the odd model D50 sits between the first 2 groups, i.e. its like a D70, can AF everything but can't control remote flash)
Basically as you go through the ranges the sensors tend to be the same, i.e. image quality (i.e. all the 12mp camera have got pretty much the same guts), but features/handling/speed improve as you go up. best deal is either drop on the last of the new stock of a recently discontinued model, or get a laast-generation model second hand from somewhere that gives you a warranty (i.e. a reputable second hand dealers). If you're going to inherit some lenses a second hand D80 might be the way to go. Digital SLRs are quite prone to having to be fixed under warranty, so don't buy anthing without one.
-
If you're looking to use old lenses and want to be able to autofocus then the D60 and D90 won't play ball, and I doubt the D3000 will either. Cheapest new model that will is I think the D300, although second hand D50/D70(?)/D80/D200 will work.
What dave said :) (but include the D50 in the group that will AF all lenses, although its quite old and you'd have to get one second hand most probably).
Handy model details to help with confusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon#Digital_single_lens_reflex_cameras).
If you buy second hand make sure to find out how many shutter actuations the camera has the lower the better, too high and you'll likely end up paying for a service so worth budgeting for that. Although I'm on something like ~34000 shutter actuations on my D50 and it seems to be doing fine.
-
Thanks Guys - thats exactly what I was looking for...
Excellent,
Tom
-
If you buy second hand make sure to find out how many shutter actuations the camera has the lower the better, too high and you'll likely end up paying for a service so worth budgeting for that. Although I'm on something like ~34000 shutter actuations on my D50 and it seems to be doing fine.
I recon you're more likely to break something else on the camera before the shutter. I'd take the shutter count just as a general indication of useage more than anything else. Chances are if someone has used a camera to high shutter count without breaking it, scratching the LCD, snapping a battery door or having buttons pack up then chances are they've looked after it pretty well, hence a good buy.
Bear in mind that whatever you buy will be worth next to nothing in a couple of years regardless. don't buy as an investment.
-
i haven't checked, but can't you get a D200 for essentially fuck all at the moment (£400ish)? seems like a fucking good deal to me.
-
yeah you can get a D200 for 400-450 bananas with a guarantee. idiots probably pay for than that on ebay mind. Have seen D300s for under 800 too.
-
I might be selling my D50 very soon
-
I might be selling my D50 very soon
If tomtom isn't interested I may well be 'cause whilst I'd love to splash out on a D300 it ain't going to happen anytime soon (and I'd be more proactive about hooking up than the six-month protracted debacle over the MD player and external media-storage :P).
-
Could be very interested... what condition, lens, price?? PM me if you prefer..
or Slackers..? D50 sits in the right area having looked around...
-
GCW's thread made me kick start this thread...
I'm very close to choosing a DSLR - and am pondering between the D3000, D5000 and D90 - which are c. £350 - 450 and 750 each or thereabouts...
The D5000 looks like the more likely one and from what I understand its quite similar in spec to the D90, but doesnt have the AF in the lenses - so takes older lens and has a couple of things too (actual pentaprism instead of mirrors..??). Then again - will the 5000 give me much more than the 3000 as they share the same lenses? It has a fancier autofocus & metering and a better iso sensor - but is this something I am likely to use/need? That aside is there really any great difference that makes it worth the extra £100 - £150?
Any thoughts?
T
-
D90 looks cheaper than that: http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat4.html (http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat4.html)
D200 is still less than 500 notes too secondhand. Not that I know owt about the difference between nikon cameras.
-
D90 looks the best buy in the nikon lineup right now and a step above the D300000/500000. They're just coming onto the second hand market now in numbers, so keep you're eyes open.
The lower models are all pretty much of a muchness, the specs tell you it all. Great compact bodies with image quality to equal the top line models, you've just got to put up with the limitations.
I've seen D200s as low as 400 sheets.
-
D90 looks the best buy in the nikon lineup right now and a step above the D300000/500000. They're just coming onto the second hand market now in numbers, so keep you're eyes open.
Do they all have video on them nowadays?
Also can you still get the D40? That's a crackin little camera.
I was waiting for ages for the D90 to turn last year, but gave up and settled on the D300 instead. So glad I spent a little more on the body.
What's your budget Tomtom?
-
D90 looks the best buy in the nikon lineup right now and a step above the D300000/500000. They're just coming onto the second hand market now in numbers, so keep you're eyes open.
Do they all have video on them nowadays?
Also can you still get the D40? That's a crackin little camera.
I was waiting for ages for the D90 to turn last year, but gave up and settled on the D300 instead. So glad I spent a little more on the body.
What's your budget Tomtom?
Well - I could probably stretch to £600 but wouldnt want to go any more than that... need a case etc.. too..
-
new D90s will probably dip under 600 shortly, or find a good second hand example for less.
if you're happy to stick to mainly recent zooms and have no burning desire to use off camera flash then the D5000 could be a good choice, save some wedge and spend it on a better lens etc. Generally long term putting the money on the lens rather than the body is best, decent lenses will still be worth the same in 4 years, the body will be worth next to nowt.
-
I've just sold my Nikon D40 on eBay for £230 after 2 years pretty consistent use. Think it was £340 new not bad return for nowadays.
I've gone for the a New Nikon D5000, big sensor same as model up and with HD video with the ability to use old lenses for shallow depth of field manual focus effects.
-
I've just sold my Nikon D40 on eBay for £230 after 2 years pretty consistent use. Think it was £340 new not bad return for nowadays.
I've gone for the a New Nikon D5000, big sensor same as model up and with HD video with the ability to use old lenses for shallow depth of field manual focus effects.
Let me know how it performs - still umming and aahing about what to get...
Good advice too Dave about the Lens.. used Nai's cannon with a lovely 10-20mm sigma zoom a couple of weeks ago and was very impressed with the lens...
-
used Nai's cannon with a lovely 10-20mm sigma zoom a couple of weeks ago and was very impressed with the lens...
If you are planning on getting that lens, I'd be a little wary about buying Sigma's - it can be a bit of a lottery as to whether you will get a good lens. If you do go for one, make sure you buy it from a respectable UK shop with a decent returns policy, not a cheap deal from Hong Kong etc ;D.
I used to have the 10-20 Sigma and it did give nice sharp images, however a lot of people have found the opposite...
-
used Nai's cannon with a lovely 10-20mm sigma zoom a couple of weeks ago and was very impressed with the lens...
If you are planning on getting that lens, I'd be a little wary about buying Sigma's - it can be a bit of a lottery as to whether you will get a good lens. If you do go for one, make sure you buy it from a respectable UK shop with a decent returns policy, not a cheap deal from Hong Kong etc ;D.
I used to have the 10-20 Sigma and it did give nice sharp images, however a lot of people have found the opposite...
Good advice- they're about £500 sheets.... so not something to take a punt on!
-
Good advice- they're about £500 sheets.... so not something to take a punt on!
Wow - they've gone up in price, I paid under £300 2 years ago!!
-
you can get those sigmas for 250-300 bananas from decent second hand dealers, i.e. with return privelidges. Buying sigmas on ebay is a mugs game.
-
Good advice- they're about £500 sheets.... so not something to take a punt on!
Wow - they've gone up in price, I paid under £300 2 years ago!!
I've one of these for Nikon and get great pictures out of it, really nice lens.
The reason there is the price disparity is that recently Sigma bought out a f/3.5 version (http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/10-20mmF35.htm), the older ones (that are cheaper) are f/4-5.6 (http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/10-20mmEX.htm).
-
The reason there is the price disparity is that recently Sigma bought out a f/3.5 version (http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/10-20mmF35.htm), the older ones (that are cheaper) are f/4-5.6 (http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/10-20mmEX.htm).
Ahh - that makes sense, I had the f4-5.6 version. I upgraded it to a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 earlier this year.
Santa has just brought me one of these (http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_35mmf_18g/index.htm), so I'm off out to play with it ;D
-
Nikon have just announced two wide interesting (yet bloody expensive) lenses:
AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4 G ED (http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2184/AF-S-NIKKOR-24mm-f%252F1.4G-ED.html)
AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR (http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2182/AF-S-NIKKOR-16-35mm-f%252F4G-ED-VR.html)
-
the 16-35mm looks ok except the zoom range is a bit long. They should bring out a 16-16mm.
-
Oooh, I think I stained my pants white when I read about the release of that 24mm yesterday.
new 24mm + Nikon D3s = The best quality low light images on the planet from an SLR, with low light capabilities verging on night vision...
EAT THAT CANON!
:dance1:
-
You could pretty much shoot through the lens cap.
-
when are nikon going to get hd video on their dslr s?
-
They've already got it (1280×720).
-
thanks. sorry should have googled.
i saw this and thought nikon didn't have any flavour of hd at all:
http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=2155 (http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=2155)
but i was wrong. still seem a bit behind canon in the video stakes - 5d s being used on high end shows like 24 etc.
-
http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=2215 (http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=2215)
-
Is there any real advantage to HD video in a DSLR though?
Handy for a quick shoot, but wouldn't dedicated equipment be superior? :shrug:
-
Handy for a quick shoot, but wouldn't dedicated equipment be superior? :shrug:
Especially if you want to focus etc.
-
i can get shots out of my 5d (£1800 + lens) that are superior to my sony ex 1 (£6000) by about a million miles.
there are complications with focusing and audio but none are insurmountable.
-
If you want to a camera to autofocus on your cat running around yea garden then get a camcorder, but if you want to get creative using depth of field and or massive zooms get a DSLR . All the big shot movie cameras that cost over £5k use Nikon lenses . Nikon DSLR's guess what use...
Not for the point and shoot chimp though need a bit of tweaking and bit of nerding up to get the best out of them ...they have a real nice feel though similar to 16mm film
-
Is there any real advantage to HD video in a DSLR though?
I believe it's a function added for photo-journalists?
Especially if you want to focus etc.
I thought the D3s auto-focussed? Have no idea if it's any good though...
-
HD in DSLRs isn't just for photojournalists. listen to Pritch. With 720p at 24fps, Nikon aren't even competing (yet). 7D and 1Dmk4 are 'game changing' apparently. Nikon will follow suit.
-
there are few if any situations where auto focus is used when shooting video. focusing is done manually and seeing the auto focus 'hunting' in someone's rushes is a sure sign that the operator doesn't know what they are doing.
-
full frame video recording on a camera that costs less than £2000. you'd have to spend over £100,000 before you got a camera with an equivalent sized chip. even red is diddely compared.
-
HD in DSLRs isn't just for photojournalists. listen to Pritch. With 720p at 24fps, Nikon aren't even competing (yet). 7D and 1Dmk4 are 'game changing' apparently. Nikon will follow suit.
When did I say that video was limited to photo-journalists?
I just said that was one of the main reasons for them adding video to their DSLR's. Google it if you don't believe me.
-
Is there any real advantage to HD video in a DSLR though?
I believe it's a function added for photo-journalists?
-
I think the main complaints on the nikons (mighy apply to canon too?) are shit like the D90 with no articulated screen (i.e. have to hold at arms length = shaky, or tripod=boring unless you also buy a video head), no stereo sound, goes to all-auto on video (essentially just dumps the live-view to the memory card) so you can't force it to actually shoot at f/2 or whatever for shallow DOF. And some battery issues cos you're using live-view all the time and constantly writing, and if you've got a VR lens that'll be hitting the battery too. I read somewhere if you're not careful you can run the battery flat in 20mins. Also seems to not sample the entire sensor at the same time, so you can get queer slanting/distortion of moving subjects. Obviously all this aside, this is better than no video at all still if you want video.
-
it was added as a function for photo journalists but they (Canon not Nikon) have been adopted by film makers of all budgets because of the amazing image quality.
-
exactly.
-
it goes to show how bad the video capability of nikons is when a nikon disciple like dave is critical. i work with video all day every day and i think my canon 5d is the future of video production.
-
To be fair I've never actually used video on a nikon, I'm just going on what i've read. I'm sure its perfectly fine for people like me who would have no interest in buying a camera specifically to shoot video, but would probably shoot a bit of video now and again if they bought a camera that happened to be able to shoot video, in the same way I take videos with my phone or shortie's digital compact. It'd be a case of buying a camera and getting a passable HD camera essentially for free - you can't complain. Personally I wouldn't downgrade to a canon for all the tea in china just to shoot better video. I'm more a stills man, wouldn't want to spread myself too thinly creatively speaking.
-
I'm having trouble grasping the fact that a dslr (supposedly) shoots better video than a dedicated camcorder. How?
-
canon 5d has a full frame 35mm sensor. even hd broadcast cameras like sony hdw f 900 l only have a two-thirds inch chip.
-
This is quite impressive (Canon 5d video):
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2326 (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2326)
Check the lenses used ;D
-
why do nikon users have irrational hatred of canon? not being from a stills background i am intrigued.
-
not enough buttons on the cameras for their liking.
-
why do nikon users have irrational hatred of canon? not being from a stills background i am intrigued.
We don't. Its just a great laugh winding up Canonists. Personally I do find nikons are more user friendly and laid out in a better way though - what the fuck is the deal with canons having the power switch down at the bottom at the back for instance? Were they on crack when they designed that?
Seriously though I use Canon products every day and I would have no problem buying an using a Canon if I was in the market for a fax machine.
-
why do nikon users have irrational hatred of canon? not being from a stills background i am intrigued.
I am interested to know if its the same the other way round, do Canon users hate Nikon too?
-
deleted
-
I don't really give a shit who my camera's made by. Just happened to buy Canon 10+ years ago. If I was buying from scratch I'd also be looking at D700 or one of the Sonys.
-
(http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/50d/images/fmj-nikon_resized.jpg)
Does this Nikon user look like he cares about Canon?
-
When I picked up Cofe's 20d I spent the first 12 minutes wondering why the power switch was in a position that could be operated by neither hand when picking up or holding the camera in any of the normal ways. Its like the designed it for Zaphod Beeblebrox.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/Mark_Wing-Davey_as_Zaphod_Beeblebrox.jpg)
(You're gonna have to stop deleting posts that I'm replying to Ben....)
-
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2297/2187126603_2c471689b1.jpg)
And of course, Jefferson Hack modelling the Vietnam look on his recent trip to the Eden Project...
-
Does this Nikon user look like he cares about Canon?
What make is the video camera? ;)
-
as far as i can see nikon users have been seduced by some macho bullshit image of themselves in the nam and are easily confused. when did you ever have to switch your camera on after you held it up to your eye?
sorry about deleting post dave, can't remember what was in it - oh that can on are more user friendly or something.
-
Dave, this is why you're wrong about Canons
(http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/articles/canon_600_f4_is_review/juza_handholding_canon600f4is-720px.jpg)
-
Jordan taking a break from a cutting edge redpoint to shoot some tits in a tree?
-
i can't believe i've never managed to turn my cameras on. what a fucking mug.
-
Dave, this is why you're wrong about Canons
(http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/articles/canon_600_f4_is_review/juza_handholding_canon600f4is-720px.jpg)
If there's a LV monographed one of those then I'm sold...
-
or a flesh coloured one with a bell end.
-
If there's a LV monographed one of those then I'm sold... Vinnie Jones will have six at $40,000 a pop despite not knowing what it's for.
-
I meant MONOGRAMMED, but if I see Vinnie Jones with one then I might just give up on the idea...
Gold and snakeskin is where it's at anyhow.
-
canon 5d has a full frame 35mm sensor. even hd broadcast cameras like sony hdw f 900 l only have a two-thirds inch chip.
so there are no camcorders with a full frame sensor and a dslr is shooting better video?
are all the people that design and make camcorders on crack then?
why don't they get a 5d and put a camcorder body on it at the very least?
-
canon 5d has a full frame 35mm sensor. even hd broadcast cameras like sony hdw f 900 l only have a two-thirds inch chip.
so there are no camcorders with a full frame sensor and a dslr is shooting better video?
are all the people that design and make camcorders on crack then?
why don't they get a 5d and put a camcorder body on it at the very least?
Theres a good business opportunity there for you Jim, all you need is some black plastic, some parcel tape - some subtle re-branding and a hefty mark up! :)
-
canon 5d has a full frame 35mm sensor. even hd broadcast cameras like sony hdw f 900 l only have a two-thirds inch chip.
so there are no camcorders with a full frame sensor and a dslr is shooting better video?
are all the people that design and make camcorders on crack then?
why don't they get a 5d and put a camcorder body on it at the very least?
Ahem..... http://www.visionresearch.com/index.cfm?sector=htm/files&page=camera_HD_new (http://www.visionresearch.com/index.cfm?sector=htm/files&page=camera_HD_new)
Costs a little more, however it pretty much blows everything else out the water in the digital video world, in terms of low light performance, a pixel pitch/size around 30% bigger than the Nikon D3S which is pretty outrageous. Add in ridiculously high FPS and you have the grand master as things stand......that is until RED pull their finger out and get all of their new products released.
-
Dragging this thread back on topic - I've still not bought a DSLR, though have been tracking the fluctuating prices of D5000's.. (seem to vary on day to day from £460-£520.. ) though having semi decided on a Nikon, I had a play with my dads 500d over xmas and quite liked it... any thoughts (said he pouring oil on the Nikon vs Canon debate,.)
-
Nikon Nikon Nikon ;D
-
go with whatever suits you best and the best price at the time. Lenses are going to be equally OK between canon and nikon, except that some of the canon kit lenses are shit.
Look at stuff that matters, like usabilty (everything to hand, no queer button issues), flash control, viewfinder size and layout (less cluttered and big is best), general handling, and also build quality. Try not to be swayed by things that don't really matter, like resolution and "features".
-
Go with what you like and can afford. Handle the Nikon you're considering buying too.
What dave said!
Keeping things vaguely on topic (although just musing about future purchases)...I'd been toying with the idea of upgrading my body to the D300(s) this year (fed up with crap grainy images at high ISO and built-in sensor cleaning is very appealing), but reading around I think I'm going to stick with the entry level as the D90 seems just as good in terms of quality, and all you're paying for with the D300 is a magnesium body and marginally better sealing which just adds weight.
-
Go with what you like and can afford. Handle the Nikon you're considering buying too.
What dave said!
Keeping things vaguely on topic (although just musing about future purchases)...I'd been toying with the idea of upgrading my body to the D300(s) this year (fed up with crap grainy images at high ISO and built-in sensor cleaning is very appealing), but reading around I think I'm going to stick with the entry level as the D90 seems just as good in terms of quality, and all you're paying for with the D300 is a magnesium body and marginally better sealing which just adds weight.
D90 is tempting, but at £760+ for the 18-105 (which seems to be most places package) feels just a bit rich for me...
-
You can get D90s second hand for £500ish or less. Seems like a lot of camera for the money.
-
I'd been toying with the idea of upgrading my body to the D300(s) this year
I just had a quick gander at camerapricebuster (http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat4.html), can anyone explain why the D300 is £100 more than the D300s? Doesn't make sense to me...
-
D90 body on its own from £620 (http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod723.html)
The price of the kit lens is at best ~£200 (http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod1006.html)
So the bundle (http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod724.html) saves a few pennies.
The D90 has the same technology as the D300 but significantly less (apparently (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90.htm)).
That said you should spend most of your money on lenses as you'll upgrade your body when the technology advances in a few years anyway.
-
Unless you buy the 18-55 kit lens for £90...
-
Unless you buy the 18-55 kit lens for £90...
Not much point IMO, quite restrictive and you'd want a better lens anyway.
A good all-rounder (in my limited experience/knowledge) is the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VR before getting stuck into more specific/pricier kit, but that with the body will bump the cost up to > £1k.
-
I liked the 10-20mm... 8)
But figured I may as well get a cheaper body to start with...
-
Slackers is right though, you're better off with a good lens on a cheap body than the other way round. Those 18-55 lenses look cheap but they don't hold resale value well, so thats £90 you'll probably never see most of again. On the other hand a good prime or zoom will either keep its value or even earn you money. When i bought my D70 i paid the £80 extra or whatever it was to get the 18-70mm kit lens. Last year I part-exd it in for the value of £150.
-
I liked the 10-20mm... 8)
But figured I may as well get a cheaper body to start with...
I like the (Sigma) 10-20mm too :)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2658/3894094844_8fb3193516_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slackline/3894094844/)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2720/4152575008_c3a66351b6_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slackline/4152575008/)
(Still not really made the most of it yet though, need more practice, hopefully get some this weekend in Scotland :thumbsup:).
-
D90 body on its own from £620 (http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod723.html)
The price of the kit lens is at best ~£200 (http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod1006.html)
So the bundle (http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod724.html) saves a few pennies.
The D90 has the same technology as the D300 but significantly less (apparently (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90.htm)).
That said you should spend most of your money on lenses as you'll upgrade your body when the technology advances in a few years anyway.
The D90 uses the same sensor and internals as the D300S, it actually has better image quality than a D300, slightly sharper and better Signal to noise ratio.
If you're a pro its worth spending the extra for the D300/D300S as you get a super durable pro quality body plus features such as manually changable WB/ISO/Shooting modes/file recording etc on the camera as opposed to in menu's which makes the camera much faster to operate for wedding/event/press use when every second counts, if you're not, or you don't need silly strong durability, just get the D90, its a bargain for what it is, best crop size sensor SLR out there at the moment IMO, I say this owning a D300 and a D300S and having used a D90 on a few occasions.
I would however avoid using a D3, D3s or a D3X, until you have the funds to purchase one.
As the superiority of the image quality over crop size sensors (especially at high ISO's) will make you cry yourself to sleep at night until you have one of your own to hug and cherish.
-
Love that second shot Slack line, real beauty, nice sunset :)
-
Oh and if the price of decent zooms put you off, a couple of cheap primes will give you waaaaaaaaaaaay better image quality than some of those shoddy kit lenses you get, plus....as the guys before me said, if/when you come to sell them, they don't tend to lose much of their initial sale value unless you damage them significantly.
-
I would however avoid using a D3, D3s or a D3X, until you have the funds to purchase one.
As the superiority of the image quality over crop size sensors (especially at high ISO's) will make you cry yourself to sleep at night until you have one of your own to hug and cherish.
The D700 is full-frame and pretty good at low light. Some pics from the same friend who owns the tilt-shift lens taken at a burlesque night with really shit light conditions using the D700...
f/1.4 @ ISO 1800
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2797/4334093956_8174fb1ee4_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/starquake/4334093956/)
f/1.4 @ ISO 1100
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4065/4334654790_33ea694f0f_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/starquake/4334654790/)
f/1.4 @ ISO 2200
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4337001601_bed2464816_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/starquake/4337001601/)
Love that second shot Slack line, real beauty, nice sunset :)
Cheers, t'is sunrise though from Cala Gonone on the east coast of Sardinia, only day I dragged my sorry arse out of bed and down to the coast for sunrise so was quite pleased to have a nice light show.
-
Ah yeah I forgot the D700, its pretty much a D300 with a D3 sensor, great if you desperately want a FF Nikon body, as you get D3 image quality for less money, but i'd hang out for the D3 to drop in price a little longer, that is if they don't all get snapped up sharpish as appears to be happening right now!
The one thing that put me off ever getting a D700 was the weight of the things, I need the battery life of 2 little batterys, (or one pro size battery) and prefer the ergonomics with a grip for long days at events or weddings.
For commercial work and portraiture it doesn't really matter so much,
(I would usually hire in a D3X for most stuff, or something nicer if the job demands it).... but add a grip plus an extra battery to a D700 makes it heavier than a D3, and a struggle to fit into my thinktank holster, so that pretty much discounted me ever purchasing one for my usage.
-
I liked the 10-20mm... 8)
But figured I may as well get a cheaper body to start with...
I like the (Sigma) 10-20mm too :)
It's a nice lens, but the Tokina 11-16mm blows it out of the water :)
Tom - let me know if you want to play with some lenses, I have a fair collection now ;D I can borrow the D40 off the missus so you can see some nice glass on a cheap body...
-
I liked the 10-20mm... 8)
But figured I may as well get a cheaper body to start with...
I like the (Sigma) 10-20mm too :)
It's a nice lens, but the Tokina 11-16mm blows it out of the water :)
:-\ chances of me buying another lens to cover this range....zero (unless I fuck mine up!).
-
Cool - that'd be neat... Probably heading to the wall on Sunday afternoon again if you're about?
Working on the lenses last for ages bodys need replacing every few years logic.. as a beginner, is there any point in me getting something better than the entry d3000? May as well save my spondoolies for nicer lenses?? Will I actually get much more out of the expensive body? Bear in mind its mainly (nearly all) going to be climbing/landscape/family occasion type shots..?
Good advice btw - thanks everyone...
-
Depends really. if you're a genuine beginner then by the time you outgrow a basic body it might coincide with when you fancy upgrading anyway. The main things the basic nikon bodies (D60/60/3000000 etc) lack is the ability to control a nikon flash off-camera, the ability to focus non-AFS lenses mainly, plus generally less buttons etc. The flash issue isn't a worry if you haven't got or don't plan to buy an SB600/800/900, and there are other ways to use off-camera flash anyway. The AFS lens thing means you're limited to very new or zoom lenses - they make those bodies aiming at the marketplace of the guy who will probably buy a cheap wide zoom and a long zoom and thats it, maybe with a 35mm f/1.8 if he's feeling fruity.
When used in the right hands in decent light though they will churn out identical shots as the same lens on a D90/D300 or whatever. The other plus side is you get a very small handy light camera. Although you'll find less dedicated buttons the usability might actually be better in some respects in menus etc than the more expensive models, since they bring out a DX class pro body, then base the Dx00 class body on that, then tweak any glitches in the Dx0 prosumer body with the same sensor, then do the same again with the Dx000 consumer body with the same guts. So the Dx000s are actually pretty well evolved down the development chain compared to the ££££££ bleeding-edge Dx models.
-
Well, I was about to click on a D5000, then I had another snoop at the 'spare' lens at work (that I could snaffle), and its a sigma 14mm F3.5 - which is not an AFS... AND nikon have just announced £60 sheets cashback on D90's.. so I'm watching for a low price on the D90 18-105 combo... (D90 will AF the earlier lenses yes?)
T
-
Well, I was about to click on a D5000, then I had another snoop at the 'spare' lens at work (that I could snaffle), and its a sigma 14mm F3.5 - which is not an AFS... AND nikon have just announced £60 sheets cashback on D90's.. so I'm watching for a low price on the D90 18-105 combo... (D90 will AF the earlier lenses yes?)
T
Sounds like a good plan to me. Yes the D90 will autofocus with most lenses just not the older AI/AI-S ones (not too much of a show stopper - the good AI-S lenses go for mental prices on Ebay :))
Ken Rockwell's table (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm) is useful - I have used it a few times to check compatibility...
-
Well, I was about to click on a D5000, then I had another snoop at the 'spare' lens at work (that I could snaffle), and its a sigma 14mm F3.5 - which is not an AFS... AND nikon have just announced £60 sheets cashback on D90's.. so I'm watching for a low price on the D90 18-105 combo... (D90 will AF the earlier lenses yes?)
T
The D5000000 won't focus the sigma if it hasn't got sigma's af-S equivalent motor in the lens. However 14mm is so wide that manually focussing won't be a problem, you'll have so much depth of field at middle apertures that you would be able to guess focus most of the time anyway.
-
Just spotted this deal, D90 with a Sigma 18-50mm F2.5>4.5 (£700 pre £60 rebate) that looked a bit different from the 'stock' deals with the Nikon 18-55 - and cheaper too... Not really sure I'd want the length (focal and size) of the 18-105 that seems to come bundled with the D90 mostly...
http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewProdDetails.asp?prod_code=PON09L000042&Cat_Code=28&Subcat_Code=175&MANU_CODE=1&Minisitetype= (http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewProdDetails.asp?prod_code=PON09L000042&Cat_Code=28&Subcat_Code=175&MANU_CODE=1&Minisitetype=)
Any thoughts/oppinions on this? (I am going to stop asking questions and buy something soon honest!)
-
Sounds ok. Other price options here (http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat4.html).
The VR of the Nikon lens would be useful, but don't feel a Nikon lens is a necessity. Be worth seeing what's the best price for a kit with the Nikon 16-85 first though.
-
I would get the body only and buy a couple of decent cheaper Nikon primes, they will offer better optical performance than any zooms in a similar price range, pretty much all the cheaper zooms are wank IMO.
I wouldn't touch Sigma personally, having owned and sold several of them, I am pretty obsessive when it comes to lens image quality though.....I would recommend you stick with Nikon or Tokina and you can't go wrong, Nikon having first preference for most stuff though, generally speaking.
I think you would have a lot more fun with a D90 and one of these:
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-50mm-f1-4-d-af-lens/p12868 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-50mm-f1-4-d-af-lens/p12868)
Plus one of these:
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-28mm-f2-8-d-af-lens/p12875 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-28mm-f2-8-d-af-lens/p12875)
Than you would with one of those awful sigma zooms or the cheaper Nikon zooms (which suck too!).
IMO you would need to spend 400-500+ to get yourself a Nikon zoom that would outperform or even come close to equalling either of these two in terms of optics, really good value for money, plus awesome low light performane :)
-
I would get the body only and buy a couple of decent cheaper Nikon primes, they will offer better optical performance than any zooms in a similar price range, pretty much all the cheaper zooms are wank IMO.
I wouldn't touch Sigma personally, having owned and sold several of them, I am pretty obsessive when it comes to lens image quality though.....I would recommend you stick with Nikon or Tokina and you can't go wrong, Nikon having first preference for most stuff though, generally speaking.
I think you would have a lot more fun with a D90 and one of these:
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-50mm-f1-4-d-af-lens/p12868 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-50mm-f1-4-d-af-lens/p12868)
Agree with most of what you said... buying Sigma is a lottery (as someone said on another thread).
But the 50mm f1.8 is less than half the price (http://www.rgb-photo.co.uk/cameras-lenses-c1/slr-lenses-c4/nikon-50mm-f18d-af-nikkor-slr-lens-p153). I'm pretty sure Tom is trying to be conservative on the price?
If I were you Tom, I would just get the Nikon 18-105 to start with. It suits your needs and if you want to replace/upgrade it later and buy primes instead/as well you will get a good resale price.
-
Yup - you're right - just fancied something a bit different.. :)
Thanks Gents,
-
Let us know what you do in the end - I've been monitoring this thread with interest and may decide on a nikon DSLR as well...!
-
Finally ended my dithering (I'm normally much more decisive - honest - well usually.... the again... )
Went for a D5000 with the 18-55vr etc.. £505 from Currys Online (bluergh) and an extra £50 of cashback to come off that as well... as many people here reccomended these gusy are good for tracking the price http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/ (http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/)
WHy D5000? Well, for £90 more than the D3000 you seem to get quite alot more for your money (live view, better sensor, AF, video) but I couldnt justify the £700 a D90 would have cost (that includes the cashback)...
So looking forward to having a play with the new camera :thumbsup:
-
Nice one Tom, I'm sure you will have hours of fun (after reading the manual ;D).
-
Some pictures from the new toy...
Only downside (so far) is I've not managed to find a shutter speed greater than 30 seconds.. though I suspect theres an option buried in the depths somewhere.
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_B3qgMe1HpPI/S5VmzuEn3cI/AAAAAAAAAhc/VRPVUmqxG1E/s720/DSC_0059.JPG)
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_B3qgMe1HpPI/S5VmkL0vP6I/AAAAAAAAAhE/s6vGUME6XIs/s720/DSC_0004.JPG)
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_B3qgMe1HpPI/S5Vmv6t3FxI/AAAAAAAAAhU/ReU4hXZbc_s/s512/DSC_0048.JPG)
-
Its called a 'B' setting. One tap of the shutter to open, one to close. Exposures long as you like.
-
On my D70 the next shutter speed in manual along from 30sec is "bulb", where the shutter stays open as long as you hold the release. To get "time" which is what JB describes, you use the remote, where its one tap for open, one for close.
-
Ta. I can't say I ever use it on a electronic release.
-
Yup - my old film SLR's had a B setting - but cant seem to find it here... gets to 30 secs then no further.. which surprises me. Its probably hidden somewhere - though the menu's are pretty good.
-
You are in manual mode not shutter priority right?
-
Nikon announce new super telephoto lens (http://blog.nikonians.org/archives/2010/04/nikon_announces_3.html)
-
I think that's just a minor upgrade to the existing 200-400 rather than a new lens, updated vr etc.
-
New in the sense of not being old or having been seen before ;D
a new addition from Nikon
The new AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II lens weighs in at 7.4 lbs
this new lens affords a constant maximum aperture of f/4
this new NIKKOR lens features Nikon VR II image stabilization
The new 200-400mm f/4 lens
I think it's a new lens?
-
I've ordered two, just in case.......
-
What Dave said.
-
I've ordered two, just in case.......
I'm gutted I recently wasted £50 on a 400mm Tamron lens from Ebay, I knew I should have held out a bit longer...
-
No worries Tris, bung me - erm lets say £2500 (half the upgrade cost) and I'll send you a insta-VR (tm) vibration reduction kit. Its universal as well, so you can use it on all your lens'
(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z167/Great_WhiteSnark/Vulcan_Foam_Hand.jpg)
-
Due to totally fucking my shoulder I think it's a good time to other things so am looking to replace my old Pentax 35mm with a DSLR and have seen this:
Nikon D90 Digital SLR Camera 18-105 VR Kit, for this:
£599 brand new.
done some research and seems pretty good for me, what do the knowledgeable folk on here think? I have no specific preference for Nikon, I just want a rite good DSLR that'll do me for a good few years without spending more than about £600. It would be nice to have good quality 'video' but not essential.
Any other suggestions at this price range. (Not bothered about compatibility with my old Pentax lens)
Cheers
Jon
-
not getting into the Cannon V's Nikon shit too much what would the Cannon equivalent be and what are the pro's and cons?
-
D90 is good, but I can't stand plastic camera's.
I would say a secondhand D300 is better because it will last you longer, yes you get the ever so slightly older sensor, and no video, but you get:
Far better speed of use
More manual controls available which helps facilitate the above ^
Super durable pro quality body
Better weather sealing etc
Canon equivalent I guess would be something like a 7D in terms of image quality, however I think the Nikon still trumps it at higher ISO's, but the 7D does have the higher resolution.
-
cheers for that James, the only thing I thought about the D300 was that maybe it may be less user friendly to a punter like me as opposed to a proper keen photographer with less scene modes, etc. I maybe selling myself a bit short there admittedly.
-
cheers for that James, the only thing I thought about the D300 was that maybe it may be less user friendly to a punter like me as opposed to a proper keen photographer with less scene modes, etc. I maybe selling myself a bit short there admittedly.
Scene modes?
I can't even remember what they are lol, but the sooner you learn to start "seeing" shots in terms of exposure colour temperature, and balancing/altering the above the better your photography will get, if you mean shooting modes then they are all manually accessable from the controls on the D300.
At first the D300 may seem a bit more daunting with all it's extra buttons and so on, but after a month or so you will love just how much faster everything is to access, you just can't underestimate how much nicer it is having the majority of your camera's controls sitting intuitively at your finger tips as opposed to being stuck in shitty long winded menus for half the time, it helps you focus on "just shooting" rather than spending ages faffing around with menu's to try and change the most basic of settings.
I picked up a D90 a little while ago, and I think I lost my patience with it within about 20 seconds, all I could think was menus, menus, more bloody menus, I just have to push one button on my D300 and I could have done this 30 seconds ago!
If you're not fussed about video, bin the D90 idea off and get a D300, it will seem scary at first, but a few weeks in I guarantee you will come back and thank me, if someone gave me a D90 now and expected me to shoot all day with it, whether for fun or professionally, I think I would throw it away and pick up my D300 after 5 minutes, it's just so much slower to operate in every way, and the lack of a durable body and decent weather sealing just make it such a crappy alternative IMO it's not worth purchasing.
So in summary: D90 great at first until you grow out of shooting in automatic modes,
D300 will feel slightly daunting and sketchy at first if you are used to shooting in various non-manual modes, or in an automated fashion, however once you better understand shooting manually (which you will need to if you want maximum control over your images), and get to know the controls, it is awesomely fast and quick to use, has a durable pro quality body, and will give you years of great service and not split into pieces if you knock it around a bit.
-
Ok I just saw what scene modes are, I always shoot RAW so just do all that stuff in Lightroom/photoshop, if you want the best image quality that is the ideal route to go with your images.
-
Bugger! You totally have me sold on the d300 but in the end it's all come down to cost. I can't find one for anywhere what i can afford, the d90 deal i got was almost half price at £600, still more than I can really afford but it's such a good deal, new and unused its cheaper than the second hand deals I've seen. It seems I may wait for the prices of the 300d to come down even more or just buy a body at a later date and sell my d90 on when i out grow it. The menu thing is definitely a put off but on the plus side I can start to play around with video for the first time.
Thanks for your input James, I'll let you know how I get on with it.
all the best
Jon
-
Errr Canon 550d a contender here?
I'm in love with mine. Shoots great footage which in most tests comes out comparable with the 7d in full blown HD.
Colours seem much more true than they did straight out of my 1000d, it can even handle my bright pink rope without going all mental red on me.
I think its all pretty intuitive to use, Johnny B didn't throw it back in my face when he was fiddling on with it and he's a Nikon user.
It seems to get glowing reviews just about everywhere I've seen. Its within budget given the EOS spring cashback offer.
I know over on HV20 a lot of the users that have shot with any kind of 'scene' mode have since stopped as now and again they've found they can't colour correct properly for skin tones in post processing (this is in video), most seem to shoot on the default or at the very most the 'neutral' setting.
-
good point Paul, just checked this out, seems like great value for the spec, especially with the HD video...
-
good point Paul, just checked this out, seems like great value for the spec, especially with the HD video...
Got mine with a 3 year warranty as well (Photobox). If you're Sheffield based you're welcome to have a look at mine (ooh er) before you buy?
-
Thanks for the offer, I would love to have a look at yours Paul but I'm over in N wales, also I snapped up the offer on the d90, I got a great price but having not considered the 550 i may have been a little premature (ooh missus)..
-
followed with interest the advice on here and just got me a d90 with the 18-105 lens kit. ummed and arhhd about whether to get a prime but went for the zoom. feels lovely. sooo many buttons and variables. first impressions great.
-
what price did you pay if you don't mind me asking Bowie? Was it new? Still waiting for mine from Amazon :bounce:
What would folk recommend as a good quality second lens to the 18-105mm for climbing, nature and landscape? Something wider or longer? :-\
-
One here for £699 http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/SHdetails.asp?Item=20916 (http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/SHdetails.asp?Item=20916)
-
what price did you pay if you don't mind me asking Bowie? Was it new? Still waiting for mine from Amazon :bounce:
What would folk recommend as a good quality second lens to the 18-105mm for climbing, nature and landscape? Something wider or longer? :-\
i used the camera price checker on here, amazon the cheapest. but i was dragged to meadowhall, went to jessops, had a good feel and a play, couldn't wait for the internet shopping experience so bought in the shop. i think i paid about £20 more than amazon?
another day of shooting and i'm loving it.
-
Fucking bastards! I knew it was too good to be true, amazon seller cancelled my order even after initially confirming shipment, mother fucking twat face bastard wanking cock merchants. I now have a d90 field guide and cable remote on it's way to me a no fookin camera!
Anyways, still looking and I have been distracted by the d90 with 18-200 vr kit as a 'do all' lens but I am concerned that it may compromise quality too much and that because it has such a range it may not be quite as honest at the extreme ends of it's range, any view on this?
There is a D90+AF-S VR DX 18-55MM LENS+ AF-S VR DX 55-200 which seems like a good lens combo without compromising quality too much. Basically I don't want to get the d90 only to sacrifice picture quality by not having a good enough lens, so advice welcomed. I have trawled through photography forums and reviews and it's hard to find a consensus of opinion.
Would it be better to get the d90 with the 18-105 vr kit as a good general set up and think of investing in another lens to compliment this later? Is the 18-105vr lens worth having at all?
HELP :please:
-
Also (God! I'm demanding) I am coming across d90's with lens kits that are stated as being Mk II, does this mean that there are Mk I's out there that are in some way inferior in some way hence being sold cheaper even thought they're still new and boxed??
-
<waiting open mouthed ready for spoon feeding>
-
still chance for the 550 then :whistle:
-
Fucking bastards! I knew it was too good to be true, amazon seller cancelled my order even after initially confirming shipment, mother fucking twat face bastard wanking cock merchants. I now have a d90 field guide and cable remote on it's way to me a no fookin camera!
Anyways, still looking and I have been distracted by the d90 with 18-200 vr kit as a 'do all' lens but I am concerned that it may compromise quality too much and that because it has such a range it may not be quite as honest at the extreme ends of it's range, any view on this?
There is a D90+AF-S VR DX 18-55MM LENS+ AF-S VR DX 55-200 which seems like a good lens combo without compromising quality too much. Basically I don't want to get the d90 only to sacrifice picture quality by not having a good enough lens, so advice welcomed. I have trawled through photography forums and reviews and it's hard to find a consensus of opinion.
Would it be better to get the d90 with the 18-105 vr kit as a good general set up and think of investing in another lens to compliment this later? Is the 18-105vr lens worth having at all?
HELP :please:
18-200 VR is a brilliant all round lens, I've been using one (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slackline/tags/18200mmf3556gvr/) for a few years on a D50 and more recently a D90.
It ain't a prime, but is very good even at the extremes. Lots of discussion on it in the Nikon 18-200 VR (http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon_18-200_vr/) FLickr group and some in the Nikon D90 & 18-200 VR (http://www.flickr.com/groups/897750@N22/) (although both are obviously slightly biased towards the 'pro' as oppossed to 'cons' of this combination).
Consider carrying stuff around too, not sure on the weight of the individual lenses you're suggesting, but having one lens that covers a wide range is a blessing when you're lugging it long distances (for me at least).
-
Would someone PLEASE spoonfeed Chummer's big open gob quick.
(as basically I'm wondering the same thing myself)
-
Also (God! I'm demanding) I am coming across d90's with lens kits that are stated as being Mk II, does this mean that there are Mk I's out there that are in some way inferior in some way hence being sold cheaper even thought they're still new and boxed??
Without links to illustrate what you are referring too (I'm too lazy today to go off an look this up in order to answer your question definitively) I suspect the Mk I/Mk II is referring to the generation of VR lense that the body comes with. Mk II is the newer version.
Oh yes, on the weight front the 18-200 VR isn't exactly light, but likely lighter than carrying round two lenses.
-
My two-penneth - don't get an 18-200. Too big a range to do justice to it all, and if nothing else, its Chris Craggs' choice. If you want something a bit better than the standard zoom, get the 16-85mm. The extra 2mm at the wide end will be more useful for climbing and landscape shots, than the 200mm. Overall quality is better too.
Somebody's Fool took my advice on just this question a few months back and is already a published pap with a cafe gallery. Had he bought the 18-200, he'd still just be a man with a camera.
The Mk II might refer to the lens rather than the combo. The 18-200 was updated recently.
-
I too was looking at the 18-200 recently - and the VRI is available for c.400 sheets still, wheras the newer VRII is c.550/600... not really sure what the difference is. I have the stock 18-55 and its been OK (not mind blowing) to date - though have wished for something a bit longer at times - and faster too so you can blur out background/foreground things better...
If I'd known about C.C. and his lens of choice I'd have bought a Canon ;)
Actually, being half serious - I'm well pleased with my Nikon (D5000) but find mysef using the video about 1/2 the time much more than I thought... and part of me wonders whether the Canon with the full 1080p vid would have been better than the 720 on the Nikon.. Still, as I said before - very pleased with my Nikon...
-
http://nikonrumors.com/2010/05/31/more-rumors-for-upcoming-summer-announcements-from-nikon.aspx (http://nikonrumors.com/2010/05/31/more-rumors-for-upcoming-summer-announcements-from-nikon.aspx)
-
Anyways, still looking and I have been distracted by the d90 with 18-200 vr kit as a 'do all' lens but I am concerned that it may compromise quality too much and that because it has such a range it may not be quite as honest at the extreme ends of it's range, any view on this?
I think this is the crux, you can't have a 'do all' lens without compromising. Yes there are shaper lenses out there, but they won't do everything. If you can't be arsed lugging lots of different lenses around then the 18-200 is[/is] a good choice.
You'll probably still find that you want something a bit more wider and something a bit longer, and invariably you will want something with a few more f/stops. And you could certainly bulk out the lens collection in due course.
But then I'm just a man with a camera who's not had anything published, nor do I frequent cafes.
-
I'm just a man with a camera who's not had anything published, nor do I frequent cafes.
Sounds like a new sig to me :)
-
In terms of lenses, I rarely find myself using much else other than a 14-24mm or a 24-70mm for everything I shoot.
When shooting events/action stuff, i'll occasionally pick up a 70-200mm for extra reach, it might be worth approaching your local hire center, it doesn't cost much to hire lenses and you can find out what you like/want/need, and experiment for very little initial outlay, this may also put you in a better position in the future when choosing new lenses to buy, as you will have had the opportunity to experience more lenses without purchasing them.
-
Oh by the way chummer, if you can hold out for 2-3 months, there may well be a well maintained D300 coming up for sale at a very reasonable price ;)
Potentially with the grip kit.
-
Thanks for the advice and knowledge all, will sack off the 18-200 idea, can't stand the thought of having any common ground with Chis
Cock Crabs Crags.
So, Grimer.......I'm gonna look at d90 body only and a 16-85 lens as Johnny suggested, I like the idea of having the wider angle after being a Ricoh compact user...
I am however still attracted to the 18-105 deal as I can get a good price as a combo, anyone used this lens?
Is it worth the extra length compared to the 16-85?
What should Grimer I do??
James, can't wait that long I'm afraid, it's summer, I am disabled and have resorted to putting a shed up and knocking walls down, I need something to get me out and about before I start washing my van on a Sunday :'(
-
can't stand the thought of having any common ground with Chis Cock Crabs Crags.
I'm sorry but that really is exceptionally childish, and if you're going to be consistent then you'd best find out what other equipment he has so you don't get anything the same, perhaps Chris also has the 16-85 and the 18-105, you're up shit creek if he does. Hell, why not make sure of it and go with Cannon just in case, oh and best check out what camera bag he uses to pack it all in too.
If you meant it tongue in cheek, I didn't find it funny, particularly given the concurrent discussion here (http://www.ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,15186.0/topicseen.html) (and it was a pointless jibe JB made in the first place).
I think Chris' comment about UKB has been nicely ridiculed by the t-shirts/hoodies and see no point in perpetuating or antagonising anyone further. :wall:
Hope you recuperate soon. :hug:
-
Johnny, what do you think of this deal?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280512873844&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_2102wt_913 (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280512873844&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_2102wt_913)
seems like a good lens combo, preferable to the 18-105. Will the quality be better?
Unless I can find a good price second hand the 16-85mm is out of my price bracket unfortunately, although I am scanning ebay and camera exchanges, etc just in case.
I promise this is my last question/s unless Grimer has anything left to ask, and I we thank you for your help and input. :great:
-
Bloody'ell slack line! yes, twas tongue in cheek, and yes it was childish at that (i am childish), no I hadn't seen the UKB thread you linked, and I think that is my first ever dig at C.C (surely everyone is allowed at least one :P) except for the direct one I gave him on UKC for telling everyone how to squeeze around the fence in Dali's hole when I was trying to stop all the punters from fucking up access to the quarries...maybe I am not active enough on here to see just how far things went with all that<exhales> :shrug:
Anyways, thank you for the cuddle, fortunately I can get up easy routes so will have be able to feed the rat a little this summer :kiss1:
back on topic..
-
I'm a bit cranky due to lack of sleep over the past few days, no offence intended, just wanted to highlight the pointless and futile UKB v's UKC digs that get no-one anywhere (other than providing material for t-shirts/hoodies :P).
-
Sorry, I've no idea if that's a good deal, I haven't really got a handle on prices unless its stuff I'm currently coveting...
My feelings on the lenses run like this: if you want a one-lens kit that will do almost everything, look at bridge cameras. Same or bigger zoom ranges, similar image quality, and a much smaller package. For me the whole point of an SLR is that you can change lenses, and therefore have different lenses suited to different tasks. It doesn't really make sense to me to marry a big camera with a lens mount to a do-it-all compromise lens. In essence you end up with a very large, heavy bridge camera with only a slight increase in quality. If that's what you are after, then great. But I think you are missing out on half the point of an SLR.
According to Price Buster (http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat11.html) the 16-85 is a good bit cheaper than either of the 18-200mms.
If you can't stretch to a £££lens now, then I'd look for a bargain body and one of these better-than-the-rest 18-70s (http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod122.html), then save up for a tele/ wide/ fast prime depending on what stuff you get into.
On the wider Canon/ Nikon debate, they both have standard product cycles which are 18 months or so out of sync. So for the last year or so Canon have been releasing new stuff better than Nikon's now-dating line-up. But in a year or so it'll be the other way round. I chose Nikon based mainly on better build quality of the compact pro bodies. And the superior flash system. And the better handling. I mean I could go on, but I'll stop. Neither are perfect.
If you can hang on til the D90 replacement is announced (likely this summer) D90 prices will drop.
-
My feelings on the lenses run like this: if you want a one-lens kit that will do almost everything, look at bridge cameras. Same or bigger zoom ranges, similar image quality, and a much smaller package. For me the whole point of an SLR is that you can change lenses, and therefore have different lenses suited to different tasks. It doesn't really make sense to me to marry a big camera with a lens mount to a do-it-all compromise lens. In essence you end up with a very large, heavy bridge camera with only a slight increase in quality. If that's what you are after, then great. But I think you are missing out on half the point of an SLR.
That makes a lot of sense and I completely understand that line of reasoning.
For me though I got the 18-200mm to get me started. Plus the fact that photography is but a hobby for me and I can't justify buying an expensive piece of glass each month (or even each year) so my collection of lenses has grown (and continues to do so) very slowly. And a decent bridge would have cost at least 2/3rds of the price of the 18-200. But its not the only lens I have and regularly use my 50mm and 10-20mm lenses (now that I have them) and will at some point buy faster glass over all of the ranges (at the rate I save it'll likely be in 20years time though!).
-
Sure, it was and is the same for me. But I'd still say the likelihood of buying more lenses is another reason to start with one with a smaller range - and it will likely be cheaper and better quality too.
Another thing worth bearing in mind though - decent lenses hold their value well. Buy second-hand, treat it well, and you'll likely sell for the same price. With that in mind you can justify buying anything!
-
Let us know when you're next having a lens clear out. :P
-
With that in mind you can justify buying anything!
Not really as you are still out of pocket until you come to sell the lense.
-
Pocket still half empty Paul? You have a lens to use instead remember? There aren't many things you can own and use in this life that hold their value so well.
-
I can think of at least one thing, although I'm not sure there's much value in mine :P
-
What you say makes a lot of sense Mr Brown, with regard to the ebay link I asked your advice about, that was more about whether the lenses were good enough quality as opposed to whether they're good value really. What do you think?
I'm an impatient fool so can I wait for the next Nikon development and for prices for the older models to come down? Probably not.
-
What you say makes a lot of sense Mr Brown, with regard to the ebay link I asked your advice about, that was more about whether the lenses were good enough quality as opposed to whether they're good value really. What do you think?
I'm an impatient fool so can I wait for the next Nikon development and for prices for the older models to come down? Probably not.
The thing to watch with the ebay deals is whether they come from the EU (ie an EU sold Nikon) or from elsewhere. Same camera, but I think there may be differences or issues with the Warranty. I know when I got my d5000 there was a £50 cashback that was only available on the ones sold int he UK - so HK imports etc...
-
The thing to watch with the ebay deals is whether they come from the EU (ie an EU sold Nikon) or from elsewhere. Same camera, but I think there may be differences or issues with the Warranty. I know when I got my d5000 there was a £50 cashback that was only available on the ones sold int he UK - so HK imports etc...
:agree: I bought my first dSLR body when leaving Australia 'cause I could get the tax back when leaving the country (meant I only had the thing for < 1 month whilst I was over there, but I'm a cheap-skate and preferred saving the money).
Some of the Hong Kong based companies on eBay offer warranties through 3rd parties, so worth keeping an eye out on that. You will get hit for tax when it comes into the country though so bear that in mind when considering whether its a good deal.
-
Can't say I've used them, but there are good reviews (http://www.bythom.com/55200lens.htm) on Thom Hogan's site. In short - you get what you pay for. Optics are better than you might expect (and compared to some of Canon's budget offerings), but ultimately these are cheap lenses that you'll grow out of, but won't be worth much to sell.
Personally I'd invest in a lesser range of better glass. As I mentioned above, anything wider than 18mm will likely be more useful than something longer than 100mm.
-
only because I've been buying vans and spending on the conversion, I've managed to sell three of my vehicles with zero loss but thats what happens when you buy weird shit.
Yup I've got lenses to fiddle with. Strobist seminar on Wed was the best money I've so far spent (or had spent on me) regarding photography.
(ps - anyone know a good lightroom filters tutorial?)
-
:agree: wide is usefull for bloddering.. The sigma 10-20mm seems popular... (Slackers/Nai?)
-
:agree: wide is usefull for bloddering.. The sigma 10-20mm seems popular... (Slackers/Nai?)
tokina 12-24 was the wide choice wasn't it?
-
:agree: wide is usefull for bloddering.. The sigma 10-20mm seems popular... (Slackers/Nai?)
tokina 12-24 was the wide choice wasn't it?
:-[ I could well be wrong...
-
I think (speaking to grimer) that the Sigma 10-15mm isn't as well rated as some of the others (but the extra few mm at wide end is supposedly great for taking wide pics of crags for guidebooks).
Kenrockwell seems like a good site for reading reviews, seems quite picky sometimes mind you.
-
I went with the Sigma 10-20mm and really rate it, although I've heard that build quality can vary (cofe?) I've no complaints about mine.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4625747579_702929526d_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slackline/4625747579/)
I find dpreview has good in-depth reviews, and is a bit less biased/opinionated than Ken Rockwell. Their Sigma 10-20 review (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_10-20_4-5p6_n15/) although there is also now a newer version of the lens that is f/3.5 throughout the 10-20mm range (http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/467-sigma_1020_35_nikon) (not sure the extra pennies are worthwhile in this instance myself, note comment at end about Tokina being faster in this range).
-
Ken Rockwell often reviews stuff he's never seen, purely on spec. He spouts a lot of shit.
If you're a Nikon user, Thom Hogan actually reviews stuff carefully. Dpreview is okay but can be a pain wading through all the specs.
Sigma have a bad rep on consistency, but I think the noise made over it on the web is excessive.
anyone know a good lightroom filters tutorial
Filters as in the search function? Or the grad filter?
-
only because I've been buying vans and spending on the conversion, I've managed to sell three of my vehicles with zero loss but thats what happens when you buy weird shit.
Yup I've got lenses to fiddle with. Strobist seminar on Wed was the best money I've so far spent (or had spent on me) regarding photography.
(ps - anyone know a good lightroom filters tutorial?)
What do you want to know?
Do you mean you want to create presets that you can apply like filters, or you want to create effects similar to filters in photoshop, but in Lightroom, either way pretty sure I can help you out.
-
By the way, speaking of lenses, has anyone see the images you can kick out with the Nikon F2 200mm VR Prime..... :jaw: Possibly one of the sharpest lenses I have ever seen at any focal length.
I don't need one, it's completely impractical, and indeed useless most of the time for me, but I WANT IT!
-
grad filter.
-
I mainly use them to darken skies/ lighten foregrounds in landscape shots.
You need a fairly level horizon for it not to be obvious. Drag the cursor, you get the filter. Adjust the breadth of the graduation on the image, and the change in exposure on the right menu. Not much to it - play around.
Video tutorial. (http://lightroom-news.com/2009/05/16/toolstrip-the-graduated-filter/)
-
What you say makes a lot of sense Mr Brown, with regard to the ebay link I asked your advice about, that was more about whether the lenses were good enough quality as opposed to whether they're good value really. What do you think?
I'm an impatient fool so can I wait for the next Nikon development and for prices for the older models to come down? Probably not.
The thing to watch with the ebay deals is whether they come from the EU (ie an EU sold Nikon) or from elsewhere. Same camera, but I think there may be differences or issues with the Warranty. I know when I got my d5000 there was a £50 cashback that was only available on the ones sold int he UK - so HK imports etc...
I've made that mistake before (Hong Kong) getting stung for a hefty tax bill and carrier handing charges, changing a good deal into one not worth having.
I've managed to get a d90 body only on ebay for £500 from a local seller with receipts and about a 1500 shutter count. Now just waiting on a good deal on a 16-85mm to get me started with a view to then going with prime lenses only, as and when I can afford them/ know what I most want. I think the 16-85mm will always be useful for when I want to only take one lens out with me without sacrificing quality too much. Thanks again for all the advice, all I've got to do know is get me girlfriend to pose get me mates on some photogenic routes..
-
lured by the video capabilities of the D90 and the good reports about the D300 from johnnybrown and jamesD i swallowed hard and got a D300s. I have a whole bunch of lenses that are alright / good, so might try to flog some and rationalise.
-
lured by the video capabilities of the D90 and the good reports about the D300 from johnnybrown and jamesD i swallowed hard and got a D300s. I have a whole bunch of lenses that are alright / good, so might try to flog some and rationalise.
Good call, you will absolutely not regret it one bit....until you have a play with a D3/D3s/D3x, just don't touch them unless you are ready to buy one, it's the best way ;)
-
Oof! Good call Grimer, balls deep!
until you have a play with a D3/D3s/D3x
...and think 'shit this is massive, and for what?'. Handled a few and not remotely tempted.
-
Ooh! get you with the d300 Grimer, and all you had to do was swallow hard you say, you dirty boy. :P
If you're flogging any of your decent lenses give me a shout..
-
Oof! Good call Grimer, balls deep!
until you have a play with a D3/D3s/D3x
...and think 'shit this is massive, and for what?'. Handled a few and not remotely tempted.
[/quote
I've had them on hire a few times for jobs here and there, image quality blows the D300 outta the water as far as I am concerned, at high ISO especially, plus D3X is necessary for some jobs that I do where large scale printing is required, also I always shoot my D300 with the grip on as I prefer the ergonomics like that, since I have masssssive hands!
-
D3x aside, my assessment was that image quality at base ISO is identical. The big bodies aren't really practical for anyone who goes out to climb and photograph.
-
D3x aside, my assessment was that image quality at base ISO is identical. The big bodies aren't really practical for anyone who goes out to climb and photograph.
In terms of sharpness yes, but I would say you get slightly better dynamic range, and a cleaner file out of the D3, much less noise in the shadows/dark areas which can be an issue with the D300.... probably due to the bigger pixel pitch.
D3x I would say is much the same as the D3 just with a higher resolution, and apparently slightly less capable at higher ISO, although i've never shot it above ISO100 so can't comment on on it's usefulness in that respect.
-
Confident you could tell the files apart without looking at the exif?
-
Between which two cameras and at which ISO?
-
assuming all things are equal i'll give it a crack :)
-
D3, D300, ISO 200. I'm pretty sure you could tell/ guess something like 3/5ths of the time, but the general conclusion would be 'damn near identical'.
Anyway, we don't need this thread any more. Thinking of upgrading your camera? Read this. (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html)
-
Anyway, we don't need this thread any more. Thinking of upgrading your camera? Read this. (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html)
:lol: Thats hilarious, good find.
It does however make the assumptions that everyone always wants bigger and better/have addictive personality traits.
-
Ha! That's brilliant mate, and so true, I drool over the latest camera bodies.....true, but my money goes on lighting equipment and nice lenses, anytime I need something better than my good ol D300, I just hire it, it usually works out cheaper in the long run :)
Digital bodies go down in value so quickly it's a false economy unless you are getting a high enough volume of jobs to justify it within a very short time period, or you have money to burn etc etc.
-
Confident you could tell the files apart without looking at the exif?
Maybe JamesD is from the Matrix and can see the 'real' images? :P
(http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/MatrixCode.gif)
-
You mean........you can see it too........ ???
There are agents everywhere, stay sharp 8)
-
Now just waiting on a good deal on a 16-85mm to get me started
Just stumbled on a good deal at Ffordes (https://secure.ffordes.com/index.htm). Can't link direct - go Used equip> Nikon> AF lenses.
-
Cheers for the JB, 'tis indeed a good price for a dealer. I have just 'won' one off ebay in mint condition with UV filter for £275 which i pretty good although it's taken about 3 hours of my life watching various auctions waiting for the right one. The last one went for aroud £340 so it just goes to prove things ain't always cheaper on there, you gotta put the time in.
Anyway, we don't need this thread any more. Thinking of upgrading your camera? Read this. (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html)
I should've gone for the d300..
-
£275 is a bargain. Good effort, you won't be disappointed.
-
Just a follow up to the above...
Only had my d90 and lens for a couple of weeks and I am really enjoying getting to know it. I 100% recommend the 16-85mm (unless you can afford a d300 of course), it's the ideal one lens set up for me and the image quality is simply superb and surpasses what I expected, so cheers for that knowledge JB. I used a friends 18-200 and there's definately a noticable difference at the extreme ends, even to my untrained eyes.
Also, got meself a 1.8 50mm prime second hand in mint condition for just over £50 which I also fully endorse as an affordable first prime, really, really nice to work with and it has stopped me getting too lazy with the zoom and it seems a bit faster. Just waiting to afford a 12-24 for the wider end which I'm already wishing I had and I'll be a very happy chappy.
Thanks again for all the advice and recommendations.
-
Just a follow up to the above...
I 100% recommend the 16-85mm (unless you can afford a d300 of course),
Doh! I meant 'the 16-85mm with the d90..
-
:great:
10-20 or 10-24 might be worth considering as otherwise there is a lot of overlap with the 16-85. I take my 12-24 out a lot less now due to this, the quality is good though. I'm really hoping Nikon bring out some more decent DX primes, a 14mm/2.8 prime would be the answer for me. Something like a DX 120/2.8 would be nice too, I'd be much happier with one zoom and 3 or 4 primes.
-
Good point JB, I was going to buy Grimer's Tokina 12-24 at a good price but maybe I should wait until I can afford something like the Tokina 11-16/2.8...this seems to have good reviews...hmmmm. :-\
-
I'm really hoping Nikon bring out some more decent DX primes, a 14mm/2.8 prime would be the answer for me.
:agree:
Fuck yeah or even a 16mm prime (non-fishy wishy) - I would love that shit!!!
-
We keep banging this drum, but its now over 10 years since DX cameras appeared and we've not seen a single small light DX prime of any flavour yet with the exception of the fisheye (and I don't count the 35mm as small). Part of me thinks its never going to happen now. I have a suspicion that Nikon sees it market of DX users as basically zoom users, and that they hope the more discerning (i.e. prime) user will step up to FX.
-
albeit not a nikon user, i'm not that fussed about decent primes, i want decent, Canon/Nikon crop format zooms, specifically a 50-150mm 2.8 from either manufacturer. I'm not interested in carrying round a bag full of primes, I want a quality zoom, and I'm reasonably 'discerning'.
market segregation is the reason it won't happen.
-
We keep banging this drum, but its now over 10 years since DX cameras appeared and we've not seen a single small light DX prime of any flavour yet
Maybe there's more chance of getting a small light FX body ;)
-
market segregation is the reason it won't happen.
bloody apartheid.
(BTW I was meaning prime users are a subset of discerning users, not that all discerning users are prime users).
-
the theme here and elsewhere tends to be zoom user = punter. the notion that people might instead select the right tools for the job is alien. a bit sad, really.
-
I'm just really bored of the serious user=big camera, punter=small camera. Same with lenses, the size advantage of primes seems to have been lost entirely. Even Olympus' latest is the size of a D700, despite the tiny sensor. The only pro body that isn't massive is a Leica, and that's only cos they don't dare change it. #bullshit
-
albeit not a nikon user, i'm not that fussed about decent primes, i want decent, Canon/Nikon crop format zooms, specifically a 50-150mm 2.8 from either manufacturer. I'm not interested in carrying round a bag full of primes, I want a quality zoom, and I'm reasonably 'discerning'.
market segregation is the reason it won't happen.
There are plenty of "quality" zooms, you just have to pay the necessary dosh to get them ;)
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-14-24mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023050 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-14-24mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023050)
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023051 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023051)
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-70-200mm-af-s-nikkor-f2-8g-ed-vr-ii-lens/p1032957 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-70-200mm-af-s-nikkor-f2-8g-ed-vr-ii-lens/p1032957)
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-200-400mm-f4-g-vr-ii-af-s-ed-lens/p1520588 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-200-400mm-f4-g-vr-ii-af-s-ed-lens/p1520588)
-
Those are huge lenses designed for FX format use. Being predominantly outdoor shooters, Cofe and I are looking for zooms which are both high quality and portable - and DX will always be more portable.
Its not much too ask, but lenses keep getting bigger; even iterations of standard primes just keep growing. Are they not aware some of us don't work out of a car boot? I can't see anyone taking a D3 and 14-24 to shoot this:
(http://www.adamlong.co.uk/gallery/GrandCap/petit-18.jpg)
-
What johnny brown said. Maybe we should put it in capital letters next time so people can read and understand? Fucking hell.
-
albeit not a nikon user, i'm not that fussed about decent primes, i want decent, Canon/Nikon crop format zooms, specifically a 50-150mm 2.8 from either manufacturer. I'm not interested in carrying round a bag full of primes, I want a quality zoom, and I'm reasonably 'discerning'.
market segregation is the reason it won't happen.
There are plenty of "quality" zooms, you just have to pay the necessary dosh to get them ;)
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-14-24mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023050 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-14-24mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023050)
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023051 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023051)
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-70-200mm-af-s-nikkor-f2-8g-ed-vr-ii-lens/p1032957 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-70-200mm-af-s-nikkor-f2-8g-ed-vr-ii-lens/p1032957)
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-200-400mm-f4-g-vr-ii-af-s-ed-lens/p1520588 (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-200-400mm-f4-g-vr-ii-af-s-ed-lens/p1520588)
You got anything for the gent that doesn't have a wad of 10 kubricks sat lying around gathering dust?
-
Price is definitely not the main factor for me. Even if I was given that lot they'd mostly get left in the cupboard.
-
What johnny brown said. Maybe we should put it in capital letters next time so people can read and understand? Fucking hell.
My point was, that Nikon (and Canon), see their main target market for high quality zooms as paps/photojournalists/sports photographers/nature and outdoor photographers, yes johnny I said outdoor photographers, heard of Michael Clark?
What johnny brown said. Maybe we should put it in capital letters next time so people can read and understand? Fucking hell.
My point was, that Nikon as with Canon, see their main target market for high quality zooms as paps/photojournalists/sports photographers/nature and outdoor photographers, yes johnny I said outdoor photographers, heard of Michael Clark?
http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/#/BEHIND%20THE%20SCENES/CAMERA%20BAG/ (http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/#/BEHIND%20THE%20SCENES/CAMERA%20BAG/)
Shooting with pro quality FF/35mm primes/zooms, and a D700+D300
Just because you and cofe shoot on crop sensors, with DX lenses doesn't mean the whole world does. The problem is that most of the DX lenses are a pile of shit compared to the FF equivalent, or you pay nearly as much for a good quality DX lens as you would for a good quality FF one!
At that point does it not make more sense to go for the full frame lens so you don't own something that will be obsolete within the next decade?
Neither company are going to be investing serious money in dx size zooms, since firstly it doesn't make good business sense as it's not their main target market for high quality zooms, and secondly as you both should know, it costs a lot more to manufacture a decent quality zoom especially when you want a wide focal range, add that to the fact that full frame camera's are gradually coming down in price year by year, DX will probably be phased out by the major SLR manufacturers in 4-5 years, or downgraded to the amateur bodies only.
So what's the point in them going out of their way to manufacture pro-quality lenses for cameras, which generally speaking are no longer being used by professionals?
-
Check JB's picture above. If you're going to carry all that pro-camera shit up to a mountain and then climb a long route, in addition to all the gear you need, your knees will be as fucked as your elbows pretty quickly, hence the desire to use something that is smaller and lighter than full frame with a telescope-size lens on the front.
-
yes johnny I said outdoor photographers, heard of Michael Clark
Of course. Note, despite being at the top of his profession, he did own a D3, but got rid of it in favour of something smaller. Isn't that strange to you? And he owns and uses a D300? I think he's a more an exemplar of my point than yours. The fact that his lenses are mainly FX is for the same reason as everyone else - Nikon only make a couple of decent DX lenses.
Seb Rogers (http://sebrogers.typepad.com/seb_rogers_blog/) is another outdoor pro jonesing for some sensibly sized gear from Nikon.
DX will probably be phased out by the major SLR manufacturers in 4-5 years
No it won't. Outdoor pros will continue to need and use sensibly sized equipment. If Nikon don't make it, others will, and they will lose customers. If that involves using 'amateur' bodies, then that's what they will use. Having a camera at all will always trump having a D3.
Have you heard of Galen Rowell?
-
Just because you and cofe shoot on crop sensors, with DX lenses doesn't mean the whole world does.
There must be more DX shooters than FX by a factor of a thousand.
The problem is that most of the DX lenses are a pile of shit compared to the FF equivalent,
I'm almost looking forward to you trying to justify that with any actual facts.
-
I understand where you are coming from, but my point still stands, why would they develop a whole range of high quality DX sized lenses when it's either very expensive or difficult to produce something that matches up to the quality of the Full-Frame stuff.
Speaking in terms of the bodies this is especially true when you start to move the ISO beyond sensible levels, due to the photosite size on the sensors.
A few nature and outdoor photographers kicking up a fuss here and there, has about much resonance with Nikon/Canon as a few anarchists kicking up a fuss about the state of politics today does with the current government.
I would say the best you can hope for, is they start to reduce the size/weight of full frame zooms in the future, or come out with less bulky primes, that match up with the nice light older designs that are still being sold, but they have to balance that with maintaing the durability required by the sports/press/event guys, and yet still make it affordable eh.
Light, strong, and durable.....they should just start making everything out of titanium 8)
I haven't heard of the guy you mentioned, had a quick google, nice work, clearly a bit of a legend by all accounts.
Dave I was talking about working professionals, maybe I should have been more specific, how many news and press agencies do you know of that shoot on DX? as for justifying my viewpoint, i've probably got circa 30-40,000 images shots on various DX lenses shot on a DX body from a few years ago, and shots with FF lenses on a DX body, and FF lenses on an FF body.
When I get my laptop repaired or the time to access it and pick some images out, i'll try and put up some comparisons or something.
A few of the lenses i've shot/owned/hired:
Sigma 10-20mm DX
Nikon 14-24mm DX
Tokina 10-17mm DX
Nikon 18-200mm DX
Nikon 80-400mm (hired for a day, so bad I never bothered again)
Nikon 14-24mm
Nikon 24-70mm
Nikon 70-200mm (both the new and the old one)
Various primes, 20mm/35mm/50mm I think from memory...it's been a while.
-
but my point still stands, why would they develop a whole range of high quality DX sized lenses when it's either very expensive or difficult to produce something that matches up to the quality of the Full-Frame stuff
Its not difficult, and should in fact be cheaper. FX only has an advantage as you push the ISO or pixel count beyond what most folk need. As we've discussed above, a D3 and D300 shot at base ISO are more or less indistinguishable, certainly by the time they get to print.
I would say the best you can hope for, is they start to reduce the size/weight of full frame zooms in the future, or come out with less bulky primes,
That's clearly not going to happen. Every new iteration they bring out is bigger than the last. As they clearly aren't taking FX in a more compact direction, I don't think its too much to ask that they bring out some better DX lenses.
There is a potentially huge market, both from an army of keen amateurs, and the portion of pros who value portability. Nikon are ignoring them, and its a mistake.
Light, strong, and durable.....they should just start making everything out of titanium
Well the bodies of my last (film) system are titanium - pro build quality, smaller than a D40, but with a bigger, brighter viewfinder than a D3, with a range of tiny lenses as sharp as Leicas. Maybe I've been spoiled.
-
Sigma 10-20mm DX
Strictly this isn't a DX lens as its third party and therefore out of the debate of what nikon or canon are likely to deliver. But still, the only FX equivalent to this lens is the Sigma 15-30mm. Given reviews of both I'd say thats a win for DX.
Nikon 14-24mm DX
This lens doesn't exist. You either mean the 14-24mm 2.8 which isn't DX, or the 12-24mm DX. If the latter then the equivalent is the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D. Not exactly a resounding win for FX, maybe a draw.
Tokina 10-17mm DX
Same third party comment as before. There is no FX fisheye zoom.
Nikon 18-200mm DX
Again there is no FX equivalent. nearest thing is the 28-200mm, which lacks VR and 100mm of reach at the long end. Not exactly a win.
Sorry to be picky but I'm not seeing that "most of the DX lenses are a pile of shit compared to the FF equivalent".
-
Thom Hogan (http://www.bythom.com/nikon-dx-lens-summary.htm) seems to rate the sharpness of Nikon's offerings highly too.
I think James is trying to say that any lens which isn't a honking great thing costing over grand looks shit, and that's what matters to the working pro.
What Cofe and I are trying so say is that we'd like some faster DX lenses with smaller zoom ranges, better build quality, in a sensibly-sized package. A bit like Sigma's 50-150/2.8 say, but without the nagging doubts engendered by internet fanboi's who say Sigma's back-focus/ are a sharpness lottery/ go wrong.
-
Bingo. Canon's 70-200 f4L is a step in the right direction (light-ish and good quality), but it's too long at the short end, and is only f4.
-
And won't fit on a Nikon.
-
it'll probably fit on a D3, they're that amazing.
-
No doubt. You would lose the size advantage though. What the good lord giveth with one hand....
-
Sigma 10-20mm DX
Strictly this isn't a DX lens as its third party and therefore out of the debate of what nikon or canon are likely to deliver. But still, the only FX equivalent to this lens is the Sigma 15-30mm. Given reviews of both I'd say thats a win for DX.
Nikon 14-24mm DX
This lens doesn't exist. You either mean the 14-24mm 2.8 which isn't DX, or the 12-24mm DX. If the latter then the equivalent is the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D. Not exactly a resounding win for FX, maybe a draw.
Tokina 10-17mm DX
Same third party comment as before. There is no FX fisheye zoom.
Nikon 18-200mm DX
Again there is no FX equivalent. nearest thing is the 28-200mm, which lacks VR and 100mm of reach at the long end. Not exactly a win.
Sorry to be picky but I'm not seeing that "most of the DX lenses are a pile of shit compared to the FF equivalent".
I meant the 12-24 ::)
The more recent Tokina one, I think the 11-16mm, is better than both the Nikon and the Sigma offering anyway, sharper, and doesn't suffer as much on the CA front, although not as good at controlling flare as the nikon was IIRC, and the Sigma had really non-uniform distortion at some focal lengths which was annoying to correct, so yeah...my advice, buy the Tokina ;D
I'm basing my viewpoint on having looked at thousands of the raw files close up from the above lenses on various different bodies, it has nothing to do with how shit or good the lens looks from an external viewpoint....seriously.
If you think my opinion of photographic equipment is based upon how it looks, rather than the quality of the output, then that's pretty amusing :lol:
The reason why the "more expensive" fx lenses don't have comparable lenses with a long focal range, is that it's very difficult/expensive to make something with such a long focal range, with great image quality throughout said focal range, the longer the gap, the wider the aperture, the pricier it gets, just look at the 200-400mm lens for an example, similarly you are paying in many instances for the ability to shoot at a very wide aperture throughout the focal range.
None of the DX lenses can touch most of the primes for image quality, however most of the FX/FF whatever you want to call them lenses either equal or surpass a lot of the primes for sharpness/image quality/flare control/lack of CA and so on throughout their focal range, (excluding the telephoto primes of course, they are another level above).
So johnny, i'm guessing your tiny super sharp lenses that fitted onto a titanium body were all primes yeah?
-
it'll probably fit on a D3s, they're that amazing.
Fixed ;)
-
So johnny, i'm guessing your tiny super sharp lenses that fitted onto a titanium body were all primes yeah?
Mostly, yeah. Plus: a 50-250mm/f5 zoom which is a wierd spec but unbelievably sharp (and need I say it, compact), and a 35-70 which is smaller than most primes. One of the big advantages of Primes used to be the size - not for Nikon in 2010 though.
The reason why the "more expensive" fx lenses don't have comparable lenses with a long focal range, is that it's very difficult/expensive to make something with such a long focal range, with great image quality throughout said focal range, the longer the gap, the wider the aperture, the pricier it gets, just look at the 200-400mm lens for an example, similarly you are paying in many instances for the ability to shoot at a very wide aperture throughout the focal range.
I doubt anyone would disagree with that. I think you're missing our point, which is that your statement:
most of the DX lenses are a pile of shit compared to the FF equivalent
is bollocks. FX lenses are only 'better' if you cherry pick the latest and best. There are no DX lenses as bad as the not-so-old FX 24-120, for example, which by all reports actually is 'a pile of shit'. The 200-400 isn't a great example either - not as good as it should be.
None of the DX lenses can touch most of the primes for image quality, however most of the FX/FF whatever you want to call them lenses either equal or surpass a lot of the primes for sharpness/image quality/flare control/lack of CA and so on throughout their focal range, (excluding the telephoto primes of course, they are another level above)
As I said, that's only true if you're compare the recent pro FX zooms with the cheap DX zooms. The better DX zooms are comparable to the average FX primes. My DX 16-85 zoom is equal or better to my FX 35/2 prime, though obviously only one goes to f2. Why the fuck though, have Nikon made a DX 35/1.8 which is BIGGER than it? Are HSM motors enormous?
The bottom line is that Nikon are ignoring anyone who wants a pro-spec outfit that isn't massive. Pro quality does not require a D3, nor an FX sensor. Three years back we didn't have FX Nikon bodies, and yet pros still got work published 12MP is more than enough for a DPS in any magazine I sell to, and those 12MP keep getting better without needing to get bigger. Sure, a D£ will help you compete in a market shooting sports in poor light, but pick up some National Geographics from the eighties and see what folk like Galen managed with 35mm IS0 64 Kodachrome.
-
To illustrate the point about bigger cameras not necessarily equaling (or indeed required for) bigger image quality, here's a couple of crops from a review of the panasonic m4/3 20mm lens on an EP2. Compared to D3s with a 50mm 1.8 (a very sharp lens), same raw processor for both, both 12mp, both same base ISO, (almost same aperture for both shots, 1/3 of a stop difference cos the guy fucked up).
center crop:
(http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/100crop1d3s.jpg)
(http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/100crop1ep2.jpg)
The questions is, which ones of those images is "pro quality"?
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/18/the-pansonic-lumix-g-20-1-7-lens-review/ (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/18/the-pansonic-lumix-g-20-1-7-lens-review/)
-
Both. But you'd only take one of them up a mountain.
-
damn straight.
(http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ep2d3s.jpg)
-
.
-
I think that guy must have a bad sample. The ones I've used, including Dave's, have been pretty good.
-
You've got a D300 anyway haven't you James? What lenses have you gone for?
-
Yeah I just use it for casual stuff and events where I know there will be half decent light, for most jobs I hire in a D3/D3x, especially if I know something is going to be shot in low light, going to print, or if it needs to be printed in a larger format.
Me and my business partner pool equipment, between us we have:
2 x 24-70mm F2.8 zooms
1 x 14-24mm F2.8 zoom
1 x 50mm F1.4 prime
Nikon D300
Nikon D300s
A load of lighting equipment, modifiers, elinchrom stuff, PW's etc
We used to have a lot more primes and a mixture of cheaper lenses between us, we ended up flogging the majority of it in favour of having a few really good lenses, and investing in more lighting equipment, since we decided that was more important for the type of work we predominantly receive.
We have some thinktank harness kits of events as well, and miscellaneous bags, kata and lowepro stuff.
-
i think the thing is, it's horses for courses (sorry for the cliche). that's exactly the gear you guys need for the work you do, whereas the likes of me and johnny need lighter stuff, more portable stuff. my back and shoulders are pretty sore with the stuff i carry now, i couldn't bare to think about carrying heavier stuff, and I'd probably end up leaving something i probably needed behind, just to save weight.
one problem i'm noticing is that cos the good crop format glass doesn't really exist (properly), as the pixel counts on the cameras increases, the cameras are rapidly out resolving the glass. now that's a problem. that's more a canon problem though, nikon have (for the timebeing) sensibly realised that 12mp is plenty.
-
Both. But you'd only take one of them up a mountain.
'cos if you took the other you'd clearly need to leave your tri-cams at home.
-
he'd never leave his tri-cams at home. ever.
-
In terms of megapixels, I prefer only having to deal with the D3's 12mp files, 24mp files are a ball ache, you have to shoot tethered if you don't want to slow the shoot down, then you have to have a secondary dual raid hard drive with you so you have a proper back up, with a back up of the backup :lol:
Conisdering the fact that I ain't no Annie Leibowitz, and I don't have a million flipping assistants working for me, more like one usually and he's my business partner lol (I assist him too when he's shooting), it just means more time doing back ups, longer render times during retouching, and generally more time spent doing stuff you can't bill for.
Unless I know that there's a chance it might be needed for something in print above A3, then I am 100% with you on that one, 12mp is plenty.
One thing I would say from my experience, is that as damn good as the 24-70mm is, (and on the rare occasions when I have used it, the 70-200mm) when used with the D3x there are a few occasions where I might have been better off with a couple of primes, not the 50mm, but a couple of Nikons high end primes like the 85mm and one or two others, really sing on a D3x, they have that ultra impressive level of sharpness/contrast that no zoom can quite touch, although to be fair, I only really noticed this on a particularly large print that was done recently, no one else noticed apparently but then I am quite obsessive about these kind of things.
-
(did you see the DIY photography article on making a wireless-tether, pretty funky)
-
2 x 24-70mm F2.8 zooms
1 x 14-24mm F2.8 zoom
1 x 50mm F1.4 prime
That's interesting, considering you've had chance to try a lot of them out. What are you shooting mostly, events? No portrait lenses, or do you just hire a 70-200/2.8?
they have that ultra impressive level of sharpness/contrast that no zoom can quite touch
Yeah, a few of my old OM manual lenses have that. Its frustrating to have to take a step down in quality and up in bulk.
Had a play with shooting tethered via Lightroom 3 today, works great. Will be using again, for sure.
you'd clearly need to leave your tri-cams at home
If I'm going light, I just take tricams.
-
2 x 24-70mm F2.8 zooms
1 x 14-24mm F2.8 zoom
1 x 50mm F1.4 prime
That's interesting, considering you've had chance to try a lot of them out. What are you shooting mostly, events? No portrait lenses, or do you just hire a 70-200/2.8?
they have that ultra impressive level of sharpness/contrast that no zoom can quite touch
Yeah, a few of my old OM manual lenses have that. Its frustrating to have to take a step down in quality and up in bulk.
Had a play with shooting tethered via Lightroom 3 today, works great. Will be using again, for sure.
you'd clearly need to leave your tri-cams at home
If I'm going light, I just take tricams.
Well, we started off doing weddings, events, and gigs...with the odd bit of portraiture thrown in, occasional bit of fashion/commercial work.
Now it's drifting to more and more fashion/commercial stuff, with the occasional wedding/event/gig.
I do hire the 70-200mm 2.8 in to use, it's my preferred telezoom of choice, seeing as I mainly use it for events, quick autofocus, super smooth zoom, F2.8 throughout the zoom range (massively important as the light starts to fade), and pin sharp throughout the focal range, we were going to buy one, but it's so ridiculously cheap for us to hire through our normal guys...around £25 a day I think? that it just doesn't make sense for how often I use it, 90% of the time I only really use it for weddings or really big events, where I need to be far away from the subjects to get the type of candid shots that I want, so now we are doing less of that it seems a waste of money to purchase one.
My usual event set up is a think tank modular harness system with the following strapped to me:
Holstered D3 with 24-70mm
Holstered D300 with 70-200mm
Speed changer pouch with spare pocket wizards, cables, memory cards etc.
SB800 + HV pack
Rayflash adaptor
Hotshoe flash folding softbox
Other assorted odds and ends, sometimes 2 way radios with ear pieces and high sensitivity mics, depending on the event.
In summary we ended up going with these lenses, because we needed a mixture of things, we needed fast low light capability, great image quality thats at least equal to most good primes, and we needed it in a zoom, because often at events you just don't have time to change a lens.
Like you said it's annoying seeing results that you know would be significantly better out of certain primes, but primes just aren't practical for events a lot of the time, unless you are prepared to run around with 3-4 bodies hanging off of you.
So this way we have a nice flexible set up, that's great for events, and still good for commercial stuff, although as I said since we are drifting more and more towards commercial/fashion/studio work, we might pick up a few high quality primes in the future, but probably not until next year.
-
(did you see the DIY photography article on making a wireless-tether, pretty funky)
Interesting, £10-15 for a cable using software you already have is pretty cheap already though lol ;)
Link?
-
Bit of googling suggests this (http://www.jamiecarl.com.au/wireless-tethering-the-coolest-oxymoron-ever)?
Keen to see some of your stuff, got a site? You done any climbing photography yet?
-
but primes just aren't practical for events a lot of the time
I'd agree with that.
You thought about buying gear like the 70-200 and then hiring it back out? A good friend of mine invested in a lot of Canon gear for video and they make good money hiring it back out to other smaller production companies.
-
Bit of googling suggests this (http://www.jamiecarl.com.au/wireless-tethering-the-coolest-oxymoron-ever)?
Keen to see some of your stuff, got a site? You done any climbing photography yet?
www.321collective.com (http://www.321collective.com)
www.davishicksphotography.co.uk (http://www.davishicksphotography.co.uk)
http://www.digihalide.com/ (http://www.digihalide.com/) (mostly Matts gig stuff, but I think a few of my bits made it up there too)
Yeah we have considered it Cofe, it's tricky though, because as I said there are other bits that we need to spend on which can earn there money back after 2-3 jobs, and a £2k lens that hires out on average at £30-40 a time isn't one of them currently, especially with the move further into video this year, which makes photography look cheap lol.
Not done any climbing stuff yet, got a seriously busy month or two coming up, I think after I come back from holiday it's probably 2-3 weeks without a weekend off, I think nearer to autumn I will have more spare time, maybe then, would definitely be up for doing some stuff in the peak district.
-
JB was on the money although there were other alternatives linked in this:
http://www.diyphotography.net/wireless-tethering-shoot-tethered-wireless (http://www.diyphotography.net/wireless-tethering-shoot-tethered-wireless)
-
Cool stuff, if I ever needed to shoot wireless tethered that'd be worth a pop, my business partner tends to be the more tech savvy out of the two of us though, so would probably check with him before I start pulling apart stuff like that lol.
God my guts are a state today, I told myself I was going to get some work done, but with a stomach ache like this about the most energetic thing i've managed is to walk to the toilet a load of times ::) Off to the pub in an hour with Business partner/best mate to talk about "work" i'm sure I heard something somewhere about whisky being good for a dodgy stomach..... :alky: ?
-
Looks like Nikon are finally going full HD (http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/34921/nikon-d3100-dslr-camera-leaked)
And ISO 12800 :o
Still no sign of a D700 replacement with 1080p video :(
-
pretty crazy what £500 gets you these days.
-
thats only 200 fuck-all's
-
And ISO 12800 :o
must be easier just to take the lenscap off though.
-
And ISO 12800 :o
must be easier just to take the lenscap off though.
I think Nikon are trying to break into the welsh market or other people still using candles for indoor lighting :P
-
To illustrate the point about bigger cameras not necessarily equaling (or indeed required for) bigger image quality, here's a couple of crops from a review of the panasonic m4/3 20mm lens on an EP2. Compared to D3s with a 50mm 1.8 (a very sharp lens), same raw processor for both, both 12mp, both same base ISO, (almost same aperture for both shots, 1/3 of a stop difference cos the guy fucked up).
center crop:
(http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/100crop1d3s.jpg)
(http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/100crop1ep2.jpg)
The questions is, which ones of those images is "pro quality"?
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/18/the-pansonic-lumix-g-20-1-7-lens-review/ (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/01/18/the-pansonic-lumix-g-20-1-7-lens-review/)
Just to follow up on this, since I have both lenses and a m4/3 body. Did a quick test of both lenses center performance. Now I had always thought the nikon 50mm (AFD 1.8 ) was a pretty fucking sharp lens, but as far as at least center performance is concerned, the panasonic 20mm is better by a shit load. I was actually quite surprised, even having seen the test I linked to in the above post. Basically with the Nikon stopped down to its best, somewhere in the f/4 - f/8 range, its only just about as sharp as the panasonic is at f/1.8 or wide open. Comparing both wide open is like night and day. Its pretty fucking impressive. Also the 20mm seems to have better contrast although the nikon might be losing a bit to internal flare what with it being shot on a smaller format than intended.
Addendum: Even when downsampling my shots to give an equivalent pixel pitch of the D3X (instead of the theoretical 50mp FX equivalent of my test), which would mask the differences to the favour of the nikon, the 20mm lens still wins. God I hope the upcoming panasonic 14mm is this good.
-
Sounds impressive. Getting on with the handling alright then?
Even when downsampling my shots to give an equivalent pixel pitch of the D3X
Not sure I follow that. Did you do the test on your D70?
-
Just realised that a 12mp m4/3 sensor is asking for greater resolution than a 24mp FX, by a factor of about root 2 (linear res), so bearing in mind i tested both on the gf1 it might be unfair on the nikon since there isn't a nikon body that requires this level of resolution. But as it happens, pretending the gf1 is only 6mp (i.e. the downsampling my test files) doesn't mask the differences enough anyway.
-
p.s. Handling is ok so far.
-
Right, that makes more sense. A test vs a D3 would be fairer, but its hardly surprising if the Nikon is inferior - its covering an area 3.5X the size for less than a third of the cost after all.
-
A test vs a D3 would be fairer
Done - I'll get cofe to lend me one of his.
-
Had this pointed out to me: New (not refurbished etc.) D60 + 18-55 kit lens* for £270+£4pp (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330470531457) at the argos ebay outlet store w/ 12 month warrenty. Don't know a thing about photography but that looks a decent price for a entry-level body (google tells me that among other things, "it's designed for normal hands" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). They've got 240 of them left but the number is steadily going down...
*for what it's worth, I'm informed it says it's a 18-55 AF-S DX but someone who has already bought one was sent the 18-55 VR lens instead
-
Had this pointed out to me: New (not refurbished etc.) D60 + 18-55 kit lens* for £270+£4pp (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330470531457) at the argos ebay outlet store w/ 12 month warrenty. Don't know a thing about photography but that looks a decent price for a entry-level body (google tells me that among other things, "it's designed for normal hands" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). They've got 240 of them left but the number is steadily going down...
*for what it's worth, I'm informed it says it's a 18-55 AF-S DX but someone who has already bought one was sent the 18-55 VR lens instead
Read here for details of the changes:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-55_3p5-5p6_vr_n15/ (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-55_3p5-5p6_vr_n15/)
Sounds like the VR had a good reputation.
I can't really comment on Nikons as I don't own one but it may be worth fondling both that and a Canon and see where that leaves you. Value wise, you can get the D3000 (Nikons current entry level for a very similar price with the VR). Again I can't comment what tech is inside that.
The hands thing; I've read somewhere that Canon is designed for smaller hands from the East. This could be nonesense like many of the things I read.
-
Resurrecting an old topic:
I'm thinking about upgrading my SLR, currently got a D60 with the 18-55mm kit lens. Although I've not got any other lenses I'm planning to stick to Nikon unless someone can give me a very good reason not to (Cofe / Paul B??).
It's mainly going to get used for bouldering pics but I'm also after video mode for when I wind up at the crag by myself.
Looking at the current Nikon line up apart from the video function the D5100 doesn't seem like a big step up from what I've currently got as it lacks an auto focus motor in the body and no wireless flash control.
The D90 is still listed in the current line up on the Nikon website but it looks to have been superseded to all intents and purposes by the D7000.
I can find the D90 body for sale at £519, whereas the cheapest I can find the D7000 is £877. Even the D300s is only £890.
Is it going to be worth spending the extra ~£350 on the D7000 / 300s or am I better buying a D90 and putting the difference towards a lens?
Any knowledge much appreciated.
-
To me it seems like a very big step up considering you've only been using a kit lens.
I think all the new nikons don't have auto-focus motors in the body anymore as all the new lens do (AF-S)?
I've got a D3100 and it a good size, a lot smaller and lighter than the D90 etc.. and with the 35mm DX lens on it pretty portable.
I would certainly leave room in the budget for a good lens or 2
I take it you know about this web site:
http://camerapricebuster.com/cat_Nikon_Digital_SLRs.html (http://camerapricebuster.com/cat_Nikon_Digital_SLRs.html)
-
I'd ask yourself if you NEED the mirror?
-
Short answer is I would look for a second-hand D7000. There are definitely no good reasons to switch to Canon currently - video has a better rep on some of the more expensive bodies but I think Nikon's wireless flash control is a bigger reason to stay. Second option would be a second-hand D90, which would be a lot cheaper if you want to get some glass too. No point buying new cameras or lenses as a rule.
Review with D90 comparisons: http://bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm (http://bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm)
-
Short answer is I would look for a second-hand D7000. There are definitely no good reasons to switch to Canon currently - video has a better rep on some of the more expensive bodies almost all of the bodies, even ones which canon didn't actually fit with a video mode (without touching Qscale) but I think Nikon's wireless flash control is a bigger reason to stay Canon's wireless flash system is utter shit unless you have the $$$ for the new radio system.
I still think that for tripod use, something with a long record function like an NEX would be better than a mirror flapping around (not a problem on the D7000).
-
Yeah I'd seen that site already thanks Jim, that's where I got my prices from.
If I wasn't after video capability I probably wouldn't be upgrading. I did contemplate a second hand HV20 or similar for video but I'd rather have one camera that does both rather than lug around a camera and video recorder.
Cheers for that link JB. Any suggestions on where I should be looking for second hand kit - Ffordes / ebay??
-
What's your budget Chris?
-
Main advantages of 5100 over 3100 are mainly faster fps, and the flippy screen. Flippy screen is surpisingly handy for video and for taking shots low down and over the head (I have a d5000 and use its flippyoutedness much more than I thought..).. Mind you, 3100 body is quite a bit cheaper than 5100...
Not sure if 5100 has more control over the vid.. One of the probs I've had with Nikon video on 3100 and 5000 is its hard/a little hidden to change exposure settings etc... Might be worth checking out..
-
I usually use ebay to get an idea of prices, then buy from dealer who offer a bit of service.
-
What's your budget Chris?
Hoping to get a body & lens for under a grand.
-
I think if you've only got that body and one lens, then you're not committed to any one system, as you'll just bin the lot off when you get a new camera. I think you can get a lot of camera and lens for a grand. I'm no Canon evangelist but it's worth looking at what you could get other than Nikon, and I wouldn't consider a camera's ability to remotely trigger a flashgun a priority at all, esp when you can pick up decent triggers for next to nothing (this is a tangent).
You could probably pick up a secondhand 550D, 15-85 IS lens, and 50mm 1.4 lens for a grand. That would give you hi-res pics with good ISO control, 1080p video, a good zoom range in a well regarded image stabilised lens, and an additional super sharp fast lens.
Paul's point about the mirror and NEX cameras is worth considering too. Do you need an SLR? Will photos be a priority over video, or are they equally weighted? What about Sony NEX cameras, Panasonic GX1, or some others that I don't know much about?
Problem is, there's too much choice...
-
Nikon lens equivalents would be 16-85 (I do 80% with this lens now) and 50/ 1.8 or 1.4, similar price if not cheaper to Canon as they've been around longer.
I'm no expert on the low end bodies but the general rule seems to be Nikon's handle better and have superior sensors and AF, whilst Canon have implemented video better. Newer generations tend to leapfrog the old though, so for the same price its a choice between a more pro-spec body with an older sensor, or a flimsier body with no extras but a newer sensor. Switching systems is no big deal but you will have a headstart on the handling if you stick. Most climbing photographers shoot Nikon, except for Simmonite and Pickford.
I imagine Nikon's wireless flash is something you don't miss if you've never had. Its brilliant, and it just works, which is a big contrast to the 3rd party triggers I've used.
There is a lot of choice, but you can't beat an SLR for learning about photography, not much beats a proper TTL viewfinder, and the access to a big system.
-
I don't think there's that much in any of the cameras out in the last few years. They are all - bottom line - not shit. You could get a new 60D with 17-85 plus a 50mm 1.8 for a shade over a grand. That's some Canon options anyway.
JB's last point about viewfinder is a good one. Not having a viewfinder on a camera does my nut. I guess a downside of the Nex and micro 4/3 cameras, though you can buy electronic ones.
-
I've used systems both with and without built-in wireless flash control, and I am pretty sure that having it is a massive bonus. You can forgive the tiny m4/3ds not having it as you're likely to not be carrying a flash anyway, but on an SLR its worth going with nikon for. So much easier,faster and less faff than triggers.
Having said all that, these days off camera flash is hardly novel any more, and in some cases is grossly overused, so maybe not having it as an easy option is a good thing.
For shallow DOF stuff/long lens a viewfinder is great, for wide to normal/landscape use I prefer a screen. It abstracts things a bit.
-
Cheers all, some good food for thought there.
-
Resurrecting this thread again.
After several days trawling through reviews and specs I'm currently looking at some of the Nikon line-up (in particular the D7000 and D300s).
Anyone with either of these cameras care to share an opinion one way or the other - particularly between the D7000 and D300s practical pros and cons. The D7000 is surprisingly cheap (£640 body only new) considering it supposedly gives the D300s a run for its money. Is it worth the extra ~£250 for the 300s do you think? Or would a 2nd hand 300s be a better investment?
Also, given that I'm not in a rush to buy is the 300s likely to drop in price in the next few months with any new releases in the pipeline?
-
Or would a 2nd hand 300s be a better investment?
D300s @ Harrisons for 200 fuck-alls* (shutter actuations = 3804) (http://www.harrisoncameras.net/productdetail.kmod?productid=12381)
* one fuck-all == £2.50
-
Yeh I've been keeping my eye on Harrisons - saw that one. Unfortunately I won't be actually buying till June so putting the time in with research until then.
Just can't work out the practical differences between that and the 7000.
-
Always good to resurrect a thread, again...
Some very good cameras now available pretty cheap second hand eg. running from a D90 at around 200 sheets, through D3300, D5300 to D7000 and D7100 at approx 400 scones.
Theres a few examples of some quality kit. Anyone got any suggestions as to what buys the most bang for its buck in that sort of range at the moment? My D80 (bought second hand years ago) is now looking pretty lacking, and I have been very happy with it. I think an upgrade could be very impressive.
-
While this thread is being revived, how does the Nikon numbering system work? Is D7xxx more featured than D5xxx? Is D5xx better than D5xxx? I can't get my head round it.
-
Various charts exist on the interweb for Camera gear which show ranges of lenses/bodies etc.:
http://petapixel.com/2012/10/30/nikon-to-announce-the-d5200-dslr-in-the-next-few-weeks/
-
Yep, its not straightforward. Wikipedia does a decent job:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nikon_DSLR_cameras
-
Anyone got any suggestions as to what buys the most bang for its buck in that sort of range at the moment?
How many bucks have you got? The sensors in the newer DX models are basically all the same. More money buys you a bigger camera with a better viewfinder, better autofocus, bigger buffer, wireless flash control.
-
Yep, have pretty much figured that out re. sensors, leaving then the questions of whether doubling the resolution from a D90 to D7100 is much use in the same sensor, and whether bigger camera with more useful layout is worth the hassle of carrying it round:-)
As to how many bucks then they are limited but would be happy to shell out on a second hand D7000, or maybe even D7100 if could see it was a worthwhile investment...
Nobody said it was going to be easy:-)
-
Are you a real person? Or just some kind of photo-equipment-bot? Or just a boulderer who only feels like contributing to photo related threads?
-
Digital cameras are consumables, not investments.....
Best thing if on a budget is wait till a new model is released, at which point the second hand market is flooded by the previous model being offloaded by bleeding edge fanbois, often in good nick as plenty of em buy every new model released.
The tier of middle Nikons below the topend DX bodies but above the bottom end consumer DXs has traditionally had a good balance of features and price. The ones with wireless flash control and a proper AF motor. Often they have the same features of the topend models just in a smaller less rugged body minus a couple of buttons. You can't go wrong with these really
-
A used 5300 is probably the best deal at the mo, e.g.: http://ffordes.com/product/15110216315231