The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[lan]

Originally Posted by Hayduke

He just conveniently failed to mention stitching images together. It is definitely more work that way, but I can achieve results that are just as good (or better) for far less money.

How do you deal with things moving in your photos?

Originally Posted by screwdriver

yes as much as i like the price on the D90 and the reports of better high ISO quality - i still need a weather sealed camera so im deciding on the D300 and the D200.

either D300 body or D200 + 1 lens

Your only choice is D300 and 24-70 2.8? I'd never buy 17-55 since it's a DX lens. Just don't feel like investing that much in a DX lens.

[Hayduke]

Originally Posted by lan

How do you deal with things moving in your photos?

Landscapes usually hold still for me

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by Hayduke

Landscapes usually hold still for me

I assume you piviot the camera, so that the lens is changing position?
I wonder... how much editing do you have to do to get each images perspective correct? I would imagine it must take at least 10 minutes for a good job?

And, just to make sure I'm clear on what you are doing, you are replacing say.... a landscape from a Large format camera with many small images from the D80 zoomed in a lot? (so, instead of one image from a 70mm large format, you are taking many 80mm images?)

Because of the zooming, coupled with it being a crop sensor, I assume DOF is going to be reduced quite a bit. I would expect it to be hard to get a picture of a mountain far off and a tree right near you both in full focus (shallow dof when zoomed in). That would either require a tilt/shift lens, or a larger format that didn't require you to zoom in so much (wider angle). I would also assume that haze may play a bigger part in the stitched images vs. one from wide angle.

Well, either way I'll be interested to see the results you post when you come back from your trip. I still have my hunch that medium or large format is going to be the ideal choice for landscape. Especially if the film/digital sensor you are working with can give you a dramatically increased dynamic range.

[lan]

Originally Posted by Hayduke

Landscapes usually hold still for me

Can't wait to see some of the stuff you stitch together. Make sure it's a bit larger than thumbnail size ok?

[paulr]

Hey, cool thread. I have a lot of old 35mm Nikon SLR gear that I don't use any more since film is just way too much hassle in this digital era. I added a D70 with the 18-70 kit lens and it's nice and I do use it some, but in reality I mostly use a Canon point and shoot for its convenience rather than lugging the D70 around. And the D70 is not very usable with my old manual focus Nikkors, some of which are otherwise rather nice. But because I'm not that serious an SLR shooter, I don't want to get something as expensive as a D300, especially since what I really want is an FX body that uses my old wideangles properly. I figure that eventually there will be FX's (maybe used D700's) in the current D90 price range and I'll buy one when that happens. I like to hope that within a year or so Nikon will have an FX model that's comparably priced to brand C's version (the 5D) and after that it's just a matter of waiting.

What I'm leading up to is, I see I can buy a brand new D200 for $1000 from B&H or a used one for maybe $700 on craigslist, and that's more of a reasonable expenditure for me, especially if I sell my D70. Does that sound like a reasonable approach to this situation, or is the D300 really THAT much better?

[Towert7]

The D300 (along with the D3) kind of revolutionized the camera world in terms of High ISO performance. If you do a lot of low lighting shooting without a flash, the D300 will show it's superiority in no time. If you take pictures in moderate light or above, they will both take great pictures.

There are other smaller changes as well, but the big one is ISO performance. Other things are added or improved on the D300 like dust removal, more vivid color option, better back LCD, live view, slightly better viewfinder, and up to 51 focus points vs. 11.

So whether an extra stop or three is worth 800$, that will be up to you.

[magotts]

hey guys just want to ask if minolta lenses are compatible with nikon??? coz sony is compatible with it hehehe thanks!

and can DSLRs record videos?

[dj_mocok]

I never heard of Minolta to Nikon adapter, not sure it's worth the hassle converting too to be honest.

DSLR that can record videos? D90 can.

[kugino]

Originally Posted by dj_mocok

I never heard of Minolta to Nikon adapter, not sure it's worth the hassle converting too to be honest.

DSLR that can record videos? D90 can.

yep. and from some of the videos i've seen, it can do it quite well...

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by paulr

What I'm leading up to is, I see I can buy a brand new D200 for $1000 from B&H or a used one for maybe $700 on craigslist, and that's more of a reasonable expenditure for me, especially if I sell my D70

If I was you, I'd just stay with the D70. The difference between a D70 and another DX camera isn't going to be worth the money to you.The D200 is a great camera. But if what you want is full frame, you should just wait for that. (It's going to be a while though.)

Now, speaking for myself... I have a bag full of old Nikkor lenses for my F3. I don't use them, and I probably wouldn't use them even if I had a full frame DSLR. I REALLY like things like VR, autofocus and the new low distortion/fast/widerange zooms. At this point, I'm more interested in buying lenses for the camera I have than worrying about lenses for the camera I don't even own yet. It's easy to get your money's worth out of a lens you use all the time.

Everyone always says that glass holds its value, but that isn't always the case. For specific pro lenses that's true, but for the average consumer lens it isn't. Have you checked ebay for how much your old 35mm lenses are selling for? You'd be surprised.

Buy stuff you can use TODAY.

See ya
Steve