[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by av98m2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you mean to tell me he was shooting flowers handheld?

Not only handheld, it took him like 2 seconds to point, focus and shoot.
Looks like he's a 'real pro'. Maybe that's why he's such a snob

 

[stevesurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif From a quick glance when I passed him, it looked like he got this "my lens is bigger than yours and what the hell are you doing with that old looking lens" on his face. Can't stand smug with big lens thinking that just because he got a big lens then he's suddenly a pro or something.

LOL there are many who just have to have the big lens. My GF's brother needed a tele lens, so I took him over to a local Camera Shop and he got a 70-300VR. Wouldn't you know, all the other parents he was with at a wrestling meet were all over him admiring the "long lens." It's funny, and you probably realize this, DJ, I just would rather have a shorter, wide angle lens. It forces me to get closer to my subjects and the action. The less attention for me the better, so these days I'm experimenting with the fisheye on all the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by av98m2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif

I really like this one; a fine shot - the delicate flower pops out!

Quote:

Originally Posted by av98m2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can never manage anything half decent unless I'm shooting with a tripod and cable release. And it can take me 10 minutes or more to take a shot.

...and that's why you are taking some fine shots!

 

[av98m2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevesurf /img/forum/go_quote.gif LOL there are many who just have to have the big lens. My GF's brother needed a tele lens, so I took him over to a local Camera Shop and he got a 70-300VR. Wouldn't you know, all the other parents he was with at a wrestling meet were all over him admiring the "long lens." It's funny, and you probably realize this, DJ, I just would rather have a shorter, wide angle lens. It forces me to get closer to my subjects and the action. The less attention for me the better, so these days I'm experimenting with the fisheye on all the time. I really like this one; a fine shot - the delicate flower pops out! ...and that's why you are taking some fine shots!

Thanks! I'm glad you like it. I(human, tripod and camera) nearly fell into a pond trying to get the angle for this shot.

Just for fun, a 100% crop from the same picture. No way I can get this handholding the camera, even with VR or IS.

 

[stevesurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by av98m2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks! I'm glad you like it.

Yes/forget the crop definitely enter the original in a photo contest like this!

 

[Mrvile]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif For macro I have Tamron.

The 90 or the 180?

 

[WhatMACHI]

Ok, ill be asking my Girlfriend to look specifically for a D50 in the next day or so and i want to make a list of stuff for her to check out (it seems the D40 really hasnt got ANYTHING practical over the D50, and the fact that i like its smaller size isnt worth much)

But when im buying the D50, should i consider getting the kit with the 18-55 AND the 55-200? or should i consider just the 18-55 for now and add a different lens later on that will cover the range? Or should i just stick with the kit lens for now (meaning i cant take advantage of the cheaper prices unless i ship it) and possibly upgrade to a 18-70 or higher when i have the cash. Lets just say that depending on what kit lens i get will depend on whether i have the cash to pick up a 50mm f/1.8 or not.

Apart from lenses ill be sure to grab an SD card or two.

So for sure:
D50 Body
SD Cards

Deciding:
18-55 vs 18-55 + 55-200 vs 18-70 or any other range of lenses
Small tripod
bag (i may want to see and have a feel of a bag in person before i get one)

 

[kin0kin]

The D40 do have a better jpeg processing engine than the D50...but if you plan to use RAW all the time in the future, then forget about the D40...funny thing is...the D40 is more expensinve than the D50 now.

the 18-70mm is a good all rounder.

 

[dj_mocok]

I'm not sure about this "better jpeg result" compared to D50, but say if it's so, I'm quite sure that it's because of more aggresive in-camera post processing (to suit someone coming from P&S) rather than the ability to capture more details.
It's good that D50 is even cheaper than D40, that's a freakin no brainer. Must be a sign of D50 being discontinued soon. Get it while you can IMO.

Machi, since you are buying the lens in HK and is considerably cheap compared to Sydney price, why not just get a better lens straight away? It will be cheaper than buying it here, especially since you're getting body, tripod, SD card, and whatnot, I think it will be easier to bargain with the shop.

But seriously, don't back track and think about D40 anymore. I have nothing against it, and I also know it can deliver great result in the right hand, but D50 is just a better camera overall than D40, period. There are too many things in D40 that it's lacking it doesn't feel like an SLR anymore.

Get yourself a D50 and get the best lens you can afford. This is the example what a cheap body combined with a good lens can give you. Of course the lens he used is ridiculously expensive, but I'm just emphasising my point of don't cheap out on lens if you are serious with image quality.

You can also consider 20mm 2.8 AFD if you want wide, but it's more expensive than 18-70mm.

 

[Veniogenesis]

As for non-SLR Nikons, Nikons just announced a slew of new models:

Coolpix P5000 (Has add-on lens capabilities and ISO 32000? Interesting...)
Coolpix S200
Coolpix S50
Coolpix S500
Coolpix L10
Coolpix L11
Coolpix L12

Cheers,
Venio

 

[WhatMACHI]

Well I've had a hold of both the cameras today and they both feel great (in terms of size and comfortability) so no issues with the D50 being bigger. I'll definately be sticking with the D50.

But dj_mocok when you say get the best lens i can would that mean i should get the body alone, and try get a 18-70 (or higher), or try get the dual lense kit? I just dont want to be overlapping later on if i do decide to change lenses to one lense that does the job of two lenses i already have.

But im geussing taking a 18-55 + 55-200 would be a better option than taking the 18-70?? and trying to fit another lens into my budget ontop of that range? Lets say my budget for a lens would be about $500 for the moment, i could definately do more, but that would only be if the lens i get would be much more worth while that a cheaper lens which i am bound to replace relatively sooner.

At the moment considering i think i should stop fussing over all these differnt types of lenses, and just a solid price from my girlfriend first and see how much more i can go for lenses Then make a better decision with the budget i got lol

IM SO EXCITED

 

[dj_mocok]

Yes, that's what I meant. Get the D50 body, and then get the best lens you can afford.

Just wondering, why do you need to have this focal length coverage? (you mentioned 18-55 & 55-200). Are you really sure you need to have that wide coverage?

Maybe it's better to find out yourself how you would like to shoot the camera and how's your shooting habit. If you don't really need 200mm, you can just get one better lens than buying two so-so range just to "cover" the range.

This is me personally, but I never need (or very rarely) the length of 100mm+.
If you give me something like 17-55mm or 17-35mm, I think I can really live with just either one of those attached permanently on the body. (with maybe some cheap 1.8 for night purpose).

Again, I'd rather have one excellent lens than two "good" lenses. But then of course if your shooting style requires you to have that much coverage, you probably need two.

If money is no object (so this is just tongue in cheek), I think you'll be very happy with:

1. 20mm 2.8 AFD
2. 70-200 2.8 VR

There. the gap in between can be compensated by your feet IMO. But then they both cost a lot, especially latter one.

 

[WhatMACHI]

hmmm i never really thought about why i would need up to 200, but it seemed practical at the time of suddent thought lol

Ill taking into acct i'd have no where near the amount of money for the 70-200 VR, i might ask her to check out in particular mayb a 18-70, or an 18-135. Im unfamiliar with the 17-55 or 17-35 lenses (i havnt looked down a viewfinder of one) but ill try pick up one zoom lense and a prime. Now that i really think about it i dont think i'd ever ever really use some deep zooming, mostly closer up photography, and some mid ranged shots (maybe in a sporting situation, but i wouldnt be tooo concerned with speed for the moment, i gota start somewhere lol)

 

[stevesurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, that's what I meant. Get the D50 body, and then get the best lens you can afford.

Ditto DJ!

FYI, the Aussie lens 35 f/1.4 got to my friend's yesterday - that was fast!
I'm keeping my fingers crossed....

 

[dj_mocok]

Machi: Then looks like you'll be happy with 18-70mm and 50mm 1.8 then. Either that or one wide angle prime and one 50 to 85-ish range prime.

Steve: Wow that's fast. So you still need to pick it up from your friend?

By the way I got a new problem. Some of you probably know that I live in a small studio apartment, and since it's summer, I've been turning the air conditioner on and off several times every day.

All this time I've been "storing" my lenses out in the open, basically just put them sitting outside. I'm not storing them in a box, bag, or cupboard since I'm afraid it might develop moisture and fungus.

And today I just noticed that there was a tiny bit of condensation on the body (underneath focusing ring to be exact) of my 85mm. I already wiped it out, but this really scares me.
I'm no good at physics, but can condensation happen within the inside of the lens body as well? or it will always outside?
I tried to look for condensation on the glass inside but there was none. Only a little bit outside of body.
I'm afraid that this condensation will introduce moisture inside the lens and lead to fungus. You think it's possible?

By the way, any recommendation of how to store lens in a small room? I know lens should be stored in a constant temp. and all that, but it's difficult to find a good place to store lens when you live in a small apartment.

It's a studio, so no bedroom, I got kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom without any walls. So everywhere is a potential danger zone for lenses. Should I just put them in shoebox or something and just store them in my wardrobe? Plus if they are in shoe box, will it actually prevent condensation?

But wardrobe is very prone to fungus. I really have no idea where should I put my camera gears since my room is so small. I know the surefire way to prevent condensation is not using air conditioner altogether, but it's not possible. Any ideas?

 

[Dimitris]

If you use the hood then the cap screws on the hood and not on the filter or lense (if you are not using a filter). Its a bit difficult to remove and put on but it can be done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dimitris: Hey, you also got a 85mm 1.4 AIS right? Just wondering, if we attach the metal screw in lens hood to it, can we still use the original Nikon lens cap without removing the hood first? I am thinking to remove the filter and leave the hood permanently attached, but my lens cap is not the newer, pinch-in-the-middle style one. The original Nikon one is expensive, I just don't wanna order one only to find out that I can't use it. I tried some other third party ones, they are either not pinch style one or they have this extra loop to attach a line so that you won't lose the cap, and they both won't fit the lens with the hood on.