The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by Arainach

Bodies go obsolete within a year or two max. Lenses rarely if ever go obsolete; a 300 f/2.8 AI ED-IF from 1977 is still optically stunning.

You know what, that no longer applies. Technology is at a point now where it's good enough (plenty good enough).
I could buy a D300 or D3 and photoshop CS3 and keep that setup for 10 years and it will not be obsolete, because it takes beautiful pictures.

A 2mp camera is obsolete because it sucked to begin with.

[lan]

Originally Posted by RYCeT

How's nikon 18-200 compare to tamron 17-50 on the same setting (same appeture and range)?

Nikon has more distortion and the Tamron is a bit sharper. Of course this depends on condition. If it's really low shutter speed, the VR should help make a clearer pic.

[RYCeT]

Thank's Ian,

Any of you guys using an aftermarket/offbrand battery for your nikon? Any problems?

[Gil Schwartzman]

Originally Posted by RYCeT

Thank's Ian,

Any of you guys using an aftermarket/offbrand battery for your nikon? Any problems?

I have four EN-EL3 batteries. One is Nikon, the others are off brand. The off brand ones last longer :P

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Towert7

A 2mp camera is obsolete because it sucked to begin with.

Actually, I have a 3mp Olympus 3030 from many moons ago that still takes beautiful pictures. It's fast and unobtrusive for quick grab photos. I shot a picture with it that ended up being printed as an 14x18 poster and it looked razor sharp. Good optics.

See ya
Steve

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Actually, I have a 3mp Olympus 3030 from many moons ago that still takes beautiful pictures. It's fast and unobtrusive for quick grab photos. I shot a picture with it that ended up being printed as an 14x18 poster and it looked razor sharp. Good optics.

See ya
Steve

Haha, then you should have seen the 2mp fugi I had. Wow boy, it was pretty bad! Much less my 0.3mp polariod. My dad had a 3mp olympus C740, and even that was pretty bad!

All of them were cheap to begin with, so they were destined to be outdated. The D3 isn't cheap, and I would expect it to be an investment for many years to come (especially for someone who couldn't afford to replace it with the next pro camera).

[kugino]

i hear what people are saying about obsolescence. while some good glass would be more than welcome, i feel somewhat limited by the relatively poor high ISO capabilities of the D70 as well as its minimal AF points. i know i'll probably rarely take the 70-200 around with me b/c it's so heavy and bulky, so i think a new body is probably in the near future for me. a new body and maybe a wide-angle...the 12-24 tokina, perhaps?

[nineohtoo]

^Faster glass will kind of help your ISO issues. Albeit the D70 isn't that great above 800(see picture of my dog), it can be usable. In situations where I need more than that, I should be using 1.8 or faster glass. D70's AF points do suck though. Before putting up my D2H for sale, I loved the amount of AF points it had(as well as the 8fps and better tracking). However these were features that didn't really make my pictures any better. It just made shooting a little easier.

Although I agree with newer bodies being nearly as important as having quality lenses, I'd still rather have a D50(or similar) and 17-55mm 2.8(or something similar), than a D300 and 18-135mm. I had the opportunity to get a D300 at an employee price of $1300, but went with a cheaper body because I felt I got more value out of it. Now if Nikon releases a newer entry level body with high ISO capabilities like their pro and prosumer bodies AND have a built in motor, I'll be first in line.

Something I've though about recently after spending(thankfully not wasting) money on this stuff is that you shouldn't be concerned about having a full range of focal lengths, but more having the best lenses you can afford for what focal lengths you shoot. I've spent money on more expensive zooms, that I ultimately didn't use as much, and I know people who have consumer zooms that cover quite a bit of range, but they're generally not that happy or impressed with their results.

[bigshot]

Well, here's a photo I took with the 3mp Olympus. (not full resolution here on the web though). Megapixels don't mean that much.

band portrait

There's a famous article in Life magazine where they sent Steichen out with a Brownie. The pictures he took with it were great.

See ya
Steve

[Towert7]

But hopefully you agree with my main point? Something will only be outdated in an absolute sense if it wasn't good to begin with.

Your picture is an example of this. The camera was always good enough to make a ~1000x1000 picture, so if you never had a need for more than that it will not be outdated, so to speak.