[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif Zeiss? Some day, some day...

Not Zeiss. Kinoptik.

 

[nineohtoo]

Anyone have a D50 they want to dump for cheap? I dropped mine during a trip last week, and my command dial doesn't work now. No more short cuts for me, and now I'm stuck shooting at f1.4. It's cool for the most part since I shoot wide open usually, but I would like to stop down a little on occasions where I don't need to capture that much light. I don't want to be w/o a dslr while its out in service

OR I can wait till Tues and find out who's announcing their next camera, and make a decision off that.

My options are either to wait for a D50 to come up on craigslist for cheap, or go pick up a d40/d60 and sell my screw drive lenses(50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8), or wait for D80 successor(d300 sensor?

). I'm not against getting a d40/d60 because I mostly use my Sigma 30mm 1.4(has HSM), and I'm planning on getting the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 HSM so I can have a zoom again. I use my Nikkor 50mm for shows a lot, but I can always get the Sig 50mm(if its anything like their 30mm, I dont care if it costs more than the Nikkor). Or I can keep my lenses and then just get the next mid level consumer model that should give us some better AF, and cleaner high ISOs. In the end though, I'm gonna end up with 30mm 1.4, and an 18-50mm 2.8(or wide to mid equiv zoom) for lenses, because those are the lengths and apertures I use.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If the D40 is the best you can afford, there is nothing wrong with that. If that is the case, get it and start having fun! The 18-55 and 55-200 will give you a decent range, and it will be a good way for you to fool around with the range and see what you prefer or what you end up using more. From there, you can look into better, more specific, lenses. I looked on bhphoto, and couldn't find the D40 (or D40x) body alone, and they only come with the kit 18-55mm. The D60 comes with a kit 18-55mm VR. Nikon | D60 SLR Digital Camera Kit with 18-55mm VR Lens | 25438 That would be a nice budget DSLR kit, especially if what M0T0XGUY says about the new 18-55VR vs. the older 18-55mm is true.

That's very true: you're buying a camera to use as much as you're buying a camera to admire its pictures. As a young kid, I actually didn't mind the Rebel's button placement and ergonomics, although I agree that the 40D underwhelmed me in comparison to the D200 / D300.

In terms of lenses, it's impossible to say for sure which brand has the superior selection. There are a few Canon lenses I'd love to have in a Nikon equivalent (70-200 f/4 / f/4 IS, 17-40 f/4) but by the same token, I'd hate to have a Canon camera without Nikon's superior 35 f/2.

Sometimes, I wonder why I didn't buy a Canon 40D instead of a D200 (they'd be the same price), but looking at the lenses I have, the pictures I've taken, and the relative ergonomics of the two, I'm glad I stuck with Nikon.

 

[stuartr]

Sad to say it, but Canon's 35/1.4L runs rings around the Nikon 35/2. The 28/1.4...well, that's another story. I am hoping that Nikon starts updating their primes now that they finally have a full-frame body. I would love a good, modern 35/1.4 for the D3. Hopefully their will be some updated AFS primes at Photokina.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartr /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sad to say it, but Canon's 35/1.4L runs rings around the Nikon 35/2. The 28/1.4...well, that's another story. I am hoping that Nikon starts updating their primes now that they finally have a full-frame body. I would love a good, modern 35/1.4 for the D3. Hopefully their will be some updated AFS primes at Photokina.

That would be wonderful if they did. Can always use some good wide angle lenses.

For me, I'm still waiting for a full frame D300/D80 type camera. I imagine that will take truly fantastic pictures compared to the typical APS sensors.
Let the DX dark ages end already I say!

 

[dye1337]

wow, this is my first time coming into this part of the forum and im so happy to see a nikon thread!

And, in terms of macro anything less than 1:1 is technically not macro, although manufacturers seem to be getting away with what is technically macro more often. If you wanna get really close and i mean REALLY close.... what I sometimes do is take my 150 2.8, couple that with a 50 1.8, add 25mm of extension tubes (the more the better) and a 2x and a 1.4 teleconverter... you can get down to something like 40:1 that way

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dye1337 /img/forum/go_quote.gif you can get down to something like 40:1 that way

LOL. Can you take a photo of this contraption of yours?

You must lose like 5 to 7 stops of light.

 

[dye1337]

I need to find a photo that I had taken with that setup, I lost my coupling and step down rings (WOOPS, gonna order new ones in a few days if i cant find my old ones) so I cant take a new one, but I know someone took a photo of it before. It's almost as long as my 300 2.8 lol (including the hood)

This photo was taken with that setup, but without the teleconverters, and ya you lose about 5-7 stops of light, a flash is a must, no question about it

 

[Towert7]

Anyone 'take pictures from the hip'?
If so, any preference for focal length?

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That would be wonderful if they did. Can always use some good wide angle lenses. For me, I'm still waiting for a full frame D300/D80 type camera. I imagine that will take truly fantastic pictures compared to the typical APS sensors. Let the DX dark ages end already I say!

It depends. I'd love, for example, to lose the crop factor on my lenses, and take advantage of the lower pixel density of a 35mm sensor; but the larger area of the sensor requires even better lenses than I already own, and frankly I don't think most are disappointed by the image quality they get from an APS DSLR.

 

[stuartr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone 'shoot from the hip'? If so, any preference for focal length?

Generally, something between 24mm and 35mm is a good choice. (on full frame). These lenses give you a broad enough field of view to make up for some inaccuracies in framing, and they have a decent amount of depth of field. It generally depends on how close you intend to be. Unless you plan on being extremely close, any wider than this and the subject can get lost in the frame.

 

[dj_mocok]

I nominate StuartR to be the first victim... er.... volunteer to buy the D700 and let us know how it's like.

 

[stuartr]

I'd be happy to if you will buy my D3! In fact, I am a bit annoyed, as I only got the D3 at the end of April, and had the D700 been available, I would have gone for that. I don't need 9fps, audio notes and things like that....I would have much preferred a smaller, lighter body frame. If I can sell the D3 and get a D700 without losing a lot of money, I will do so.

 

[lan]

My problem is I don't have any FX lenses.

I won't buy sight unseen. I'll need to see many photos from this new camera. Also I need to know the difference if this cam is more D300 or D3 ish. I'd prefer a mini D3.

 

[kevin gilmore]

full review here
Nikon D700 plus hands-on preview: Digital Photography Review