[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nineohtoo /img/forum/go_quote.gif D2H has a crappy LCD, and is one stop worse than the D2Hs. There was someone who asked why Canon over Nikon, and I gave pros and cons to both, with one of them being Nikon's latest gen has better high ISO, with D50, D2Hs and D2Xs having exceptionally good high ISO(like Canon's CMOS models). D2Hs and D2X prices hover around $1000 now, which puts it barely above what a D90 body would cost(what I wanted to buy). D2Hs have good high ISO, excellent AF speed and tracking, smaller file sizes(faster PP), and pro build. Remembering that, I decided I should get one one. Upon further reading on 40D, D2Hs, D2X, and show photography, I think my real issue is that the clubs I shoot in have nearly no light. Now I'm beginning to think that I should use my money towards a 17-55mm 2.8, and work towards getting photo passes in better venues. I am one indecisive mofo lol. I think I see a 40D in my near future though. I'm gonna want the bigger LCD also.

Depending on what you call "nearly no light", 2.8 is going to be slow, especially! if you don't use a flash. Even at ISO 1600.
One night I stumbled upon a nice event, and it had decent lighting. I was stuck with my 60mm F/2.8 lens, and even at ISO1600 most results were not pretty.


Best advice I can give:
Don't rush into something. You even see that you're all up in the air and don't really know what you want. Take the time to find out what you want! 1000$ is a lot of money to spend only to realize that you didn't make a smart choice.

 

[Poohblah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nineohtoo /img/forum/go_quote.gif D2H has a crappy LCD, and is one stop worse than the D2Hs. There was someone who asked why Canon over Nikon, and I gave pros and cons to both, with one of them being Nikon's latest gen has better high ISO, with D50, D2Hs and D2Xs having exceptionally good high ISO(like Canon's CMOS models). D2Hs and D2X prices hover around $1000 now, which puts it barely above what a D90 body would cost(what I wanted to buy). D2Hs have good high ISO, excellent AF speed and tracking, smaller file sizes(faster PP), and pro build. Remembering that, I decided I should get one one. Upon further reading on 40D, D2Hs, D2X, and show photography, I think my real issue is that the clubs I shoot in have nearly no light. Now I'm beginning to think that I should use my money towards a 17-55mm 2.8, and work towards getting photo passes in better venues. I am one indecisive mofo lol. I think I see a 40D in my near future though. I'm gonna want the bigger LCD also.

if you already have a bunch of canon stuff, stick with canon. i assume you have a 50mm f/1.8 already? fast glass will help your lighting situation much better than a new body, or system for that matter.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poohblah /img/forum/go_quote.gif if you already have a bunch of canon stuff, stick with canon. i assume you have a 50mm f/1.8 already? fast glass will help your lighting situation much better than a new body, or system for that matter.

Yea, but if you can crank the D90 up to ISO3200 with perfectly usable results like the D300, that's nice! That's a stop or two faster than I could get with my current nikon, and couple that with a fast lens......... oh yea baby! That's hot!

 

[nineohtoo]

I'll be more specific with my case. I have exactly the same stuff in Canon and Nikon. My D50 broke, and I couldn't get a cheap replacement($400+ for a D50?) so I bought a 350D. Both my cameras have a sigma 30mm 1.4, and a basic speed light(SB-600/420EX). I've yet to sell my Nikon stuff since switching over to Canon, in hopes of a good D90. I need clean high ISOs and better auto focus.

I shoot everyday stuff with friends, and walking around. When I'm walking around I don't really care if what lens I'm using, or if I'm using digital or film(I've got a 35mm rangefinder, med format camera, and holga that I enjoy using).

I take my photography seriously when I enter local San Francisco night clubs and lounges. I refuse to use flash in these instances because I don't want to annoy fellow fans, or the artists. This forces me to shoot with ISO 1600 at f1.4-2 on my Sigma 30mm. This lens is really the only lens I need. The normal view is perfect at the foot of the stages I'm at, and since it's normal view, its perfect for when I'm around and about with friends.

My concern as of recently is, that the bodies I've used thus far are holding me back with light sensitivity, and autofocus speed/tracking. Hence why I wanted a D90. But after factoring the price and possible limitations. I figured I could get a better camera out of Nikon's last generation of Pro bodies(D2Hs/D2X), OR Canon's last generation prosumer crop body(40D). The D90 would still be a crippled D300 at best, and right now we really don't know what features are gonna be missing. We know its gonna be around 12mp, and there's the possibility of it still being CCD based. That won't be much of an upgrade from a D90. Yeah, I can wait it out, but it's still gonna be just a consumer body, and that's why I optioned the other previously mentioned bodies.

However after a lot of thought, I'm beginning to think the venues I'm at just aren't lit enough period. Upon inspecting pics of others from similar shows, I've seen people needing to use flash because their 2.8 zooms aren't cutting it. So like in my previous post, I suggested what I should do is work to get photo passes in better venues where light isn't much of a problem, and get a wide to short tele 2.8 zoom for the new found range I'd have. Then I'll get a 40D

If it helps you guys any, my pics are on flickr.com/nineohtoo or on the slideshow on myspace.com/shotsfromthepit. Flickr search the local camera friendly locale: Pop Scene, Bottom of The Hill and Cafe Du Nord. Camera friendly, but probably poorly lit to prevent good pictures LOL.

 

[Poohblah]

Quote:

The D90 would still be a crippled D300 at best, and right now we really don't know what features are gonna be missing.

true. we could extrapolate based on previous iterations that the D90 won't couple with AI lenses etc., but that is just guesswork.

IMO i think that you should either go for the D300 or the 40D. the 40D is a little bit cheaper but the D300 is a little bit faster.

if you're willing to stick with nikon i have a sigma 24-70 f/2.8 that i think i might sell soon, although it's not quite as wide as a 17-55 f/2.8.

 

[Towert7]

Well, I just looked at your flickr account Nineohtoo, and those pictures are quite nice.

You're lucky that you know what lenses you need, and that you pretty much already have them (30mm F/1.4, 50mm F/1.4). And as you say, all you need now is better high ISO performance.
Was the Auto Focus on your 350D or (now broken) D70 too slow?
I wonder if the AF on the D300 or 40D is fast enough for you.

Well, looks like you have a tough choice. D2Hs, D300, 40D....
If it's good high ISO performance you want though, I haven't seen anything better then nikon's current pro lineup such as the D300. I don't know if the D2Hs has the same high ISO performance as the D300, but if it does that's great!

 

[Poohblah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, looks like you have a tough choice. D2Hs, D300, 40D.... If it's good high ISO performance you want though, I haven't seen anything better then nikon's current pro lineup such as the D300. I don't know if the D2Hs has the same high ISO performance as the D300, but if it does that's great!

since the D2Hs is the same generation as the D200, i think it's safe to assume that the D300's ISO performance surpasses that of the D2Hs' quite easily.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poohblah /img/forum/go_quote.gif since the D2Hs is the same generation as the D200, i think it's safe to assume that the D300's ISO performance surpasses that of the D2Hs' quite easily.

I see. Thank you for the info.

 

[lan]

I'd wait to see how the D90 is. If it doesn't work out a D300 would work. I'd skip the D2Hs. Although it is an older gen, it was only 4MP so had an advantage noise wise vs. D2X/s and D200.

I do prefer Canon 5D over the D300 in low light situations but it's AF is not good enough IMO.

 

[dj_mocok]

Anyone interested in reading Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 review?

 

[darkninja67]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone interested in reading Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 review?

Your review? sure

This is a very hot lens at the moment. I shoot Canon but would like to read your impressions on it.

 

[actorlife]

Anybody know the lowest price for New/Used on a Nikon D300? Links would be great. Thanks!

 

[laxx]

I think it goes for about $1300-1400 used.

 

[Towert7]

Yea, about 1400$us unless you find someone who really wants to get rid of it.
For an extra 200$, I would buy it new, but I can see how some would want to save the 200$.

 

[fureshi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone interested in reading Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 review?

I'd love to see a review of this lens. Been thinking about getting this lens instead of the Nikon 12-24mm.