[DarkSpoon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jilgiljongiljing /img/forum/go_quote.gif D90 is great. D40 sucks. I'm sorry, its one of the most pointless DSLR's ever. You are better off getting a super zoom P&S camera....

how did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[DeusEx]

Same situation, approx 1K, although I'm using to shoot for press conferences/media events/occasional consumer electronics shots. Heard good things about the D90, although with the body at ~$750, how much would a comparable lens cost? Or is the stock lens decent enough?

 

[RYCeT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeusEx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Same situation, approx 1K, although I'm using to shoot for press conferences/media events/occasional consumer electronics shots. Heard good things about the D90, although with the body at ~$750, how much would a comparable lens cost? Or is the stock lens decent enough?

Buy the body only and get the tamron 17-50 2.8. If you still have some leftover, get a Nikon 35mm 1.8 or 50 1.8 for potrait & low light.

 

[brotherlen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcpk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Canon T2i looks very promising.

2nd that.
I think this is something to keep an eye on. I would say stick with one of the big two (Canon or Nikon) once you start investing in accessories and glass, it's tough to switch. Plus you have a full compliment of 3rd party items. The newer entry level cameras keep on getting better and better and by far surpass many of the older high end cameras. You could also look at getting something current/used to stretch 1k a little bit further. Also check out dpreview. Decent amount of information on that site. Good luck and let us know what you get.

 

[brotherlen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeusEx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Same situation, approx 1K, although I'm using to shoot for press conferences/media events/occasional consumer electronics shots. Heard good things about the D90, although with the body at ~$750, how much would a comparable lens cost? Or is the stock lens decent enough?

Large aperture and flash and diffuser with either bracket or cord. Look at what some of the other shooters are carrying.

 

[bigshot]

brotherlen is absolutely right. For your purposes, DeusEx, the body is less important than the lens and flash. You'll want a kit lens with decent reach at the long end, and a powerful flash- perhaps with extra battery pack. The D40 is actually better than the D90 for this because it has a much higher sync speed, meaning you can shoot at a faster shutter speed while using the flash. For you, that is very important.

 

[DeusEx]

Any particular lens suggestions? Thoughts on the Canon T2i vs the D90?

Media events like CES, SXSW, Apple/Google press events, various other high-profile gatherings or service/product launches, where I'll probably have to do a mixture of closeups, mid, and wide shots. I actually just came back from BIL 2010 (an offshoot of the TED conference in Long Beach), and was dying inside when I took pictures with the co-founders of PayPal and Skype using only a P&S >_<....meg ryan left too early for me to get a shot =(.. Also for random stuff like vacations, landscapes, shots of random gear/new athletic equipment/electronics (like my JH13s when they come =0), and maybe some school-related events.

 

[xkRoWx]

The Nikon 18-200VR should cover all your range.

Looks like you do a lot of indoor shoots, are you able to get "front row" for most of the events? If you do, then see if you want to invest in the 17-55/2.8, it's very pricey but it's worth it. Otherwise, get a fast prime, like the 50/1.8 (or f/1.4, depending on your budget) which is pretty much a 75/1.8 on the DX body.

 

[DeusEx]

Is that a $700 lens? Should I wait and see what Canon's new models can do?

 

[Lex2]

Just to echo the comments here invest in good fast lenses, they are easier to resell. The technology in bodies change so much that you'd be better off getting a basic body such as the D40 or D5000 that you can upgrade later. 6 MP should be more than sufficient if you don't make huge poster sized prints. If you can find an older mint or very good condition D70 with 1/500 sec flash sync (one of the few Nikon bodies to be able to do so) I would highly recommend it.

 

[Zodduska]

I don't really get the comments regarding high shutter speed with flash. As far as I understand it when using flash it is the flash which freezes the subject, makes a clear shot and it is indifferent to shutter speed.. as opposed to shooting constant ambient light where shutter speed matters. AFAIK the only effect shutter speed has when using flash as primary light is the amount of ambient light allowed to be captured. In most cases a higher shutter speed with flash will only render a darker background not a sharper image. (edit: this is based on my basic total newbie understanding of indoor flash photography)

 

[Lex2]

For action stopping shots, it is dependent on the shutter speed. 1/500 sync gives you that flexibility. You also can save battery life because you tend to use less flash power by being able to open up the aperture to match ambient. (Thus also givng you more range indirectly.)

 

[skyline889]

A higher sync speed allows you to use fill flash. Say you're shooting in broad daylight where anything slower than 1/400 would result in overexposure, a high flash sync allows you to still use flash while shooting at the fast shutter speed, which allows you to fill in shadows, etc, that occur in bright environments. Also, some motion won't be fully stopped at shutter speeds under 1/500. So if your max sync speed is 1/400 or 1/250, the resulting image might have motion blur since you can't use the flash with a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the subject.

 

[bigshot]

The D40 has a flash sync speed of 1/500th of a second. The D300 only syncs up to 1/250th.

 

[Zodduska]

I see the usefulness of maximum flash sync when using balanced fill flash outdoors but shutter speed might not have the effect with flash photography one would expect.

a couple quick examples, please excuse the dirty fan..

This first one is a 1/10th of a second exposure f/8 ISO 100

The fan is set to low and blades are all but invisible to the human eye.

This is a tiny mid-air drip from my bathroom faucet, 1/30th of a second, f/8 ISO 100. The only reason the shutter speed is higher here is I took it first before deciding to go even lower to take the fan shot.

Unexpected results?


edit: I decided to do a few more tests, this time with Auto FP High-speed sync flash mode which enables the flash to function at lower output for an extended time so it is on continuously (through the entire exposure) during each shot at high shutter speeds.. I would say the regular flash results are roughly equivalent to 1/5000th of a second action stopping power although I didn't test that high. (these results would be effectively the same given a bright enough natural light source without the flash)

Auto FP 1/500th of a second, f/8 ISO 100

Auto FP 1/4000th of a second, f/8 ISO 1600