The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[milkpowder]

Originally Posted by Braver

I was in the same boat, and went with just the kit so that I could figure out if I needed the longer reach.

Same here. However since you (hembergler) don't know what you will be taking photos of, I would suggest getting the kit plus the 55-200. It's better being safe than sorry, ie missing shots because you don't have the appropriate lens for the moment.

[agile_one]

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

~~~ snip ~~~

As an aside: has anyone read reviews for the new AF-S 60mm Macro? I had a chance to try out the 105 VR, and its absolutely spectacular in every respect; but I'd love to save a few bucks and go with the 60mm if the performance is near equal.

I have the new 60mm AF S Micro, and think it is a fabulous lens. Perhaps the sharpest in my bag, quick to focus, and very flexible on a crop body (D300). Can double as a "long" normal lens and "short" portrait. Colors and contrast are superb - one of my favorite lenses.

Originally Posted by Towert7

Just as a heads up though, despite how wonderful the nikon 60mm macro lenses are, you have to get very close to small subjects. I can certainly see where a 105mm or a 180mm would come in handy. That being said, the older AF-D is a great lens, and I wouldn't expect the new AF-S to be anything less.

Very true - would be a problem if I shot nervous or excitable creatures, but for still life (flowers, coins, watches, plants, etc), I don't have any problem getting close.

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

Well, my 35 f/2 can focus down to .25m and the AF-S 60 can focus down to .22m; so not the biggest difference. Still, I see your point - for some subjects its just more convenient to hold your distance (although the opposite is true in some cases).

You may want to recheck your sources ... the 60mm AF S Micro close focus distance is 0.185M, 0.6Ft, 7.2", and that's from the focal plane. No rap on the 35 f/2, as that is a terrific, over the top value for money lens, but just keeping you honest. Plus, at those distances, I'll wager that the 60mm Micro is a tad sharper.

[hembergler]

Originally Posted by Towert7

If you MUST limit your budget to sub 600$, then the D40 is the only thing really. It'll work.
Something like this gives you the camera and 2 lenses:
Nikon | D40 SLR Digital Camera Kit with 18-55mm & | 9420

Personally, I think it would be a shame to not consider the D80....... but that's just me. There are some things that the D80 does much better than the D40/60. If I were to start photography and enter the DSLR world, the D80 would be where I would start if I was on a budget. Nice little camera.

Should be interesting to see what you end up getting. Keep me posted.

Earnest question, why the D80? I know the main technical differences, but I much prefer to hear your own opinions, I can only look at specs for so long!

Thanks for the comments thus far all of you.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by agile_one

I have the new 60mm AF S Micro, and think it is a fabulous lens. Perhaps the sharpest in my bag, quick to focus, and very flexible on a crop body (D300). Can double as a "long" normal lens and "short" portrait. Colors and contrast are superb - one of my favorite lenses.


Very true - would be a problem if I shot nervous or excitable creatures, but for still life (flowers, coins, watches, plants, etc), I don't have any problem getting close.


You may want to recheck your sources ... the 60mm AF S Micro close focus distance is 0.185M, 0.6Ft, 7.2", and that's from the focal plane. No rap on the 35 f/2, as that is a terrific, over the top value for money lens, but just keeping you honest. Plus, at those distances, I'll wager that the 60mm Micro is a tad sharper.

Oh yeah, you're right; I guess I was thinking about the 105mm. Still, it's good to hear how sharp the 60 is. I desperately need a macro and for $450 this seems like the obvious choice so far.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by hembergler

Earnest question, why the D80? I know the main technical differences, but I much prefer to hear your own opinions, I can only look at specs for so long!

Thanks for the comments thus far all of you.

The (very short answer): AF drive pin. The D40 and D60 are great cameras when lenses are taken out of the equation, but the issue remains that most AF-S lenses for the lower-end Nikon's are either too expensive for what they do, or too cheap for what they should do. If you step up to the D80, you can start to mess around with primes (fix focal length lenses) and older, cheaper, but better zoom lenses; without the learning curve of manual focusing. As the saying goes, after all, a camera is only as good as the lens attached to it; and in the case of the D80, you gain the ability to use exceptional glass with a low price tag and in a conventional manner.

Outside of that, the D80 also gives you a wider range of AF points (more useful than you might imagine for framing awkwardly located subjects) and Depth of Field Preview - a fancy term for a button which simply stops the lens down to the selected aperture, so you can get a rough idea of how much of your shot is in focus.

Obviously, in the end you definitely shouldn't stretch your budget to an uncomfortable level, but in my opinion the lens flexibility alone certainly makes the D80 a good upgrade over the lower-end models.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by hembergler

Earnest question, why the D80? I know the main technical differences, but I much prefer to hear your own opinions, I can only look at specs for so long!

Thanks for the comments thus far all of you.

You will be much less likely to upgrade over the D80 than you would with the D40/60.

The D40 will suite at first, but if we take a lesson from our audio hobby, we are usually quick to upgrade.

The biggest things you will wish you had with the D40:
1) A larger viewfinder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can not stress that one enough.
2) The ability to use many more lenses. Most of your primes will only work in manual mode with the D40. Manual metering, manual focus, etc. To the best of my knowledge, there are no Full Frame lenses that work fully on the D40/60 series.
3) More AF points

Numbers 1 and 2 would be enough for me not to even consider the Nikon D40/40x/60.

I guess you have to decide what you want a camera for. Do you want a larger P&S that will take better pictures in auto mode (no joke, some people do just that), or do you plan to use some really nice lenses in the future? That'll answer the question as to what camera is better suited for your long term needs.

[milkpowder]

50mm f/1.4 AI photos!!

I decided to play around with B&W.

[milkpowder]

[milkpowder]

[milkpowder]