Recommendations for my first DSLR

JohnR · « **Reply #100 on:** 28 May 2010, 12:55 am »

I just had a great idea. You know those mystery air tickets you can get (well, you used to be able to get them here) where you buy a ticket but don't know where you're going until the day of the flight? Someone should do that for DSLRs. The results would be fine and it would save all the agonizing

I'm here to reveal the real reason I have a Nikon: My mum had one. So 23 years ago I bought my first SLR - it was a Nikon, didn't really occur to me to get anything else. Many years later, I bought another SLR... well of course, a Nikon, because I still had (get this) a really good Nikon flash unit. Then I bought lenses for it. Then I bought a DSLR. Then more lenses.

How's that for brand lock-in

Not that I'm unhappy or anything. I'm surprised the manufacturers don't just give away their entry-level DSLRs, given how much business they get after that

ecramer · « **Reply #101 on:** 28 May 2010, 12:59 am »

I looked at a lot of differentd DSLR's and finally just bought a Nikon D90 last month http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=30905[/img]]

nathanm · « **Reply #102 on:** 2 Jun 2010, 05:42 pm »

Milo and Otis cosplay?

zybar · « **Reply #103 on:** 2 Jun 2010, 05:46 pm »

My local mentor put together a quick and dirty comparison of the D5000 and D90 below. Do you guys agree with his views?

Similarities:
Both have video, same resolution, similar burst speed, same TTL autofocus

Differences:
D90 viewfinder is at 94% magnification, D5000 is 78% (D70 is 72%, D300 is 94 – I’ll show you)
D90 has a better screen – 920K pixels vs. 230K, but D5000 screen moves !!! (nice to have the screen move)
D90 can use older autofocus lenses, D5000 only newer ones with SW motor (no concern to you)
D90 has info screen on top, D5000 needs to use the main screen. (convenience item – still see info inside viewfinder)

If you’re OK with the smaller magnification factor, like you see in the D70, then I don’t think the D90 is worth the price difference. The 18-200 is still a nice lens to have, but not necessary as kits often come with the standard and Tele.

What about the Canon 500D? More megapixels, more mpixels in screen, 87% magnification, full HD movie. Maybe not as good noise level as D5000.

George

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #104 on:** 2 Jun 2010, 11:41 pm »

The D90 is much better than the D-5000, however if you are willing to spend than kind of money, that is a game changer and now you really need to take a closer look at all your options.

JohnR · « **Reply #105 on:** 3 Jun 2010, 01:03 am »

Quote from: zybar on 2 Jun 2010, 05:46 pm

D90 can use older autofocus lenses, D5000 only newer ones with SW motor (no concern to you)

Not really wanting to be a pedant, but... the D5000 can use older auto-focus lenses, but auto-focus won't be operational. Everything else works just fine.

D5000
Lens type Mounts Meters Auto-focus Pre-AI Yes No No AI/AI-s Yes No No AF/AF-D Yes Yes No AF-S Yes Yes Yes

D90
Lens type Mounts Meters Auto-focus Pre-AI No No No AI/AI-s Yes No No AF/AF-D Yes Yes Yes AF-S Yes Yes Yes

D200+
Lens type Mounts Meters Auto-focus Pre-AI No No No AI/AI-s Yes Yes No AF/AF-D Yes Yes Yes AF-S Yes Yes Yes

(Pre-AI and AI/AI-s are manual focus lenses.)

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #106 on:** 3 Jun 2010, 07:52 am »

On second thought, it's not bad to have fewer lenses to choose from. Lenses are addictive and expensive; 2 more were delivered to my door today. With the amount I've spent on lenses in the past few months I could have bought two D700s.

JohnR · « **Reply #107 on:** 4 Jun 2010, 09:10 am »

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 3 Jun 2010, 07:52 am

On second thought, it's not bad to have fewer lenses to choose from. Lenses are addictive and expensive; 2 more were delivered to my door today. With the amount I've spent on lenses in the past few months I could have bought two D700s.

Yes, but it's the lens that makes the photograph (after the photographer)

So, what did you get?

Having said that... I'm so itching to get full frame in digital, where 24mm is, like, you know, 24mm.... so I'm planning to get a D700 sometime this year... used ones are coming up on eBay at pretty good prices now...

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #108 on:** 4 Jun 2010, 11:31 am »

Two lenses were delivered to my door yesterday. I'll snap a few shots and post some details later. I also have a new semi professional body on the way that should hopefully arrive next week.

As for the D700, over at the Pentax forums on dpreview there are a few dual system shooters with the D700 who have posted some samples and done some comparisons to the APCs. There are also few former owners who didn't like the size and weight, among other things about the D700 who claim they 'upgraded' from the D700 to the K7. And last week there were a number threads saying farewell so long, got to have a full frame. Pentax doesn’t currently offer a FF and isn’t expected to that market enter either, but only time will tell. Photokina is only 3 months away!

JohnR · « **Reply #109 on:** 4 Jun 2010, 11:37 am »

Time will tell

For me, I have plenty of lenses that will work just fine with an FX (Nikon full-frame digital) body (all but one, in fact) so FX is a significant attraction for me.

SET Man · « **Reply #110 on:** 4 Jun 2010, 04:10 pm »

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 3 Jun 2010, 07:52 am

On second thought, it's not bad to have fewer lenses to choose from. Lenses are addictive and expensive; 2 more were delivered to my door today. With the amount I've spent on lenses in the past few months I could have bought two D700s.

Hey!

Sound like now you have more lenses than some of the pro/semi pros I know.

I do have a few primes from the film era of couple years ago, pretty much the same as the current models. But I do find myself using zoom more and more. Most of the time there is no time to change the lens while you are in the middle of shooting.

Luckily, all of the current top level zooms are excellent in quality. Most of the time the differences will be small compare to the prims that it doesn't really matter much. Of course the best thing about prime is when you need larger aperture for lower light or smoother bokeh

Quote from: JohnR on 4 Jun 2010, 09:10 am

Yes, but it's the lens that makes the photograph (after the photographer) So, what did you get?

Having said that... I'm so itching to get full frame in digital, where 24mm is, like, you know, 24mm.... so I'm planning to get a D700 sometime this year... used ones are coming up on eBay at pretty good prices now...

Yeah, sometime I do have an itch about going FF too.

Back in film days I bought a Russian MF 16mm fisheye lens for my SLR. It got that fisheye looks but it is not the same on my APS-C DSLR, is become 24mm and lost of the unique looks

BTW... the D700 is a nice cam even with just 12MP but that is enough for most people. If Nikon release a new replacement for it and I doubt that it will be significantly better. Than those people especially those gear-head will start dump them than I think you can get it used for a very price.

Take care,
Buddy

JohnR · « **Reply #111 on:** 5 Jun 2010, 11:04 am »

Quote from: SET Man on 4 Jun 2010, 04:10 pm

BTW... the D700 is a nice cam even with just 12MP but that is enough for most people. If Nikon release a new replacement for it and I doubt that it will be significantly better. Than those people especially those gear-head will start dump them than I think you can get it used for a very price.

The most recent thing I read is that people are itching for the D700s i.e. same as D700 but one stop better ISO performance. Perhaps I will end up "investing" in that one. I keep telling myself that this is silly - where are the photos to prove that I need it anyway?? My rationale is that I'm always running into movement problems for my macro shots, which is actually true, but do I shoot enough to justify an upgrade??? Well anyway, here's a recent example picture - with this one I was as usual running against that boundary of ISO / shutter speed / subject movement (the web moving back and forwards in the breeze) -

Spider in the window

That's with my S5 Pro, which I usually shoot in RAW at 6 MPx. Probably at ISO800 which is far as I want to go with this camera.

SET Man · « **Reply #112 on:** 5 Jun 2010, 02:41 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 5 Jun 2010, 11:04 am

The most recent thing I read is that people are itching for the D700s i.e. same as D700 but one stop better ISO performance. ....

Hey!

Well, if the improvement is in the better high ISO performance, even with just one stop than I think it is worth to get the new one... if the price is not must more of course.

To me if the improvement were in video than I wouldn't care much about it and wouldn't be worth the premium price... unless you are really into video.

Man! Remember the old days when ISO 800 film used to look better than DSLRs' ISO 800 on 8x10 print? Now a day every current DSLRs could do better at ISO800 than the film of the same speed!

Oh! BTW... that is a nice spider shot. That spider seems bigger that what we have here in NYC's during Summer. I wouldn't want to see that on my window... it would freak me out.

Take care,
Buddy

zybar · « **Reply #113 on:** 7 Jun 2010, 02:55 am »

Took a bunch of photos at my son's Little League game today using my friend's Nikon D70 with a AF Nikkor 70-210mm lens on a tripod. I liked the feel of the Nikon, but its controls didn't seem as intuitive as Rim's Canon.

Not sure that today helped me pick a camera, but I am definitely going to get a DSLR!

Here is a link to a few of the pics:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=42049.msg789953;topicseen#new

John,

That is a sweet picture of the spider. I showed it to my boys (who love bugs, spiders, etc...) and they were really impressed and asked why our spiders aren't that big.

George

JohnR · « **Reply #114 on:** 7 Jun 2010, 12:37 pm »

Thanks George. I'll let you know if I capture any more interesting creatures:)

zybar · « **Reply #115 on:** 14 Jun 2010, 09:08 pm »

I am leaning towards getting the D90 with this lens (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000HJPK2C/ref=ord_cart_shr?ie=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER) for $1090 shipped

I could add this lens as well for another $180:

http://www.adorama.com/Als/ProductPage/NK1855VRU.html

This seems like a pretty good deal...thoughts?

George

low.pfile · « **Reply #116 on:** 14 Jun 2010, 10:22 pm »

Sounds like a plan is coming together. Cool.

I would definitely get a wide-standard zoom (the 18mm - 55mm is a good option) for your D90. This will be essential for interior and everyday shots, as well as for travel photos. The 70-300mm will be great for your kids sports photos and candid closeups--but will be too much magnification for indoor family.

if you havent already check out this video: http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/index.page Click 'View the video'

good luck.

thunderbrick · « **Reply #117 on:** 14 Jun 2010, 10:41 pm »

If you can find (or afford) one, get an 18-70 or 16-85. You'll be glad you did. Better than buying the 18-55 and having to move up. Those two are remarkably versatile.

low.pfile · « **Reply #118 on:** 14 Jun 2010, 10:54 pm »

Quote from: thunderbrick on 14 Jun 2010, 10:41 pm

If you can find (or afford) one, get an 18-70 or 16-85. You'll be glad you did. Better than buying the 18-55 and having to move up. Those two are remarkably versatile.

I agree, I've never shot with the new 18-55mm myself but I had a 18-70mm zoom (out of production) with my D70/D80. it was small and light and good quality. Used at KEH.com if you are fine with used. I picked up a mint 28-105mm there, practically new. But for the DX sensor (D90) I would strongly suggest the a zoom starting at in the 16-18mm range.

EDIT: I just remembered that I briefly shot with the nikon 18-55mm when I needed a wider angle than the fixed I had with me, just a few shots though-it was fine for snapshots. never critically reviewed the images.

jqp · « **Reply #119 on:** 15 Jun 2010, 12:50 am »

I have had the D90 for a year now, and have 9000 shots with it. Most are with the 18-200 VR lens.

I really like that lens - it is not too bulky and covers almost every need except for low, low light (the D90 with high ISO can handle amazingly low light though - see my upcoming shots from the Naples museum with no lights!)

I personally would rather have the 18-200 VR than the 70-300 VR. I don't ever have to switch lenses for most situations, and it is an excellent lens. That can really mean not missing shots which you could miss having to switch lenses! Also, there is less need for 200-300 range than you would think. 200mm gets you pretty close!

But the 70-300 is a very good lens, not too heavy if you are going to take more than one lens. And the price of the body plus 70-300 lens is a good one. The thing is, that is not the price you will pay, as you need another lens!

The Nikon 18mm - 55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX (VR) is an excellent lens for the Nikon DX cameras. The D40 came with the non-VR version of this lens as its kit lens, and the VR just makes it better.

I have the earlier 18-55 lens, but I never use it. What came with my D90 as a kit lens was the 18-105 VR, but I never use it either! I basically gave it to my friend for her D40, and bought again (after my backpack with cameras was stolen) the more versatile 18-200 VR. Then I also use the 35mm 1.8 (less than $200 http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f18.htm).

So my recommendation, in spite of the deal with that 70-300mm, would be to go for the 18-200mm VRII (the new one) or save a little and get the original 18-200mm VR, then also get a low-light prime lens like the 35mm or 50mm (for low light portraits, candids, etc.). This is for my style of photography - wide angle, close-up, and zoom at every outing with the one lens, less often a low light session.

Either way I highly recommend the D90.