Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The primary difference is center sharpness wide open. Corners don't matter so much, and vignetting is irritating, but not critical. But center sharpness is crucial. When you're using a wide aperture like this, the depth of focus is very narrow, which is great for portraits where the face in the middle of the frame is razor sharp while the head behind and background falls off into creamy bokeh. (I can find an example somewhere to link to if you want...) You only get this effect with a really wide aperture with a sharp center and excellent bokeh. The Nikon 1.4 is razor sharp when you get down to f4 and it's perfectly acceptable at 2.8, but that isn't the same as the Sigma. And the bokeh on the Nikon is just OK compared to absolutely perfect bokeh on the Sigma (like their 30mm 1.4).
The Nikon 50mm 1.4 is a fine walkaround normal lens for when you might occasionally run into low light situations, but it isn't specifically designed to be used primarily at the widest aperture. For me, the ideal walkaround lens would be an inexpensive lightweight short zoom with a normal aperture. I just got an old 28-70 f3.5/4.5 AF-D for that purpose.
The Sigma is a big, heavy lens with a very specific purpose. If you need what it does, it's more than worth the extra $200. It doesn't matter to me, because I'm using a D200, but on full frame, the difference between the Sigma and the Nikon is even more pronounced.
I can see what you mean, but I am not kidding you - my Nikon 50mm 1.4 is really sharp at f/1.4.
About the creamy bokeh slowly fades along the way, of course it is not as good as something like 85mm 1.4, but if you do it carefully, you can get a good result too. Although the bokeh as in point of lights could be a bit better.
Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a D200 that I bought a year or so ago. If I was buying a camera today instead of back then, I would seriously consider a D90 over the the D300. If money is an issue, my advice would be to go for lower in recent model rather than go higher in model with an older camera. But glass is always most important to me. I'd go for a lower model of body, but I wouldn't scrimp on the lenses.
I'm trying to decide between D90 and D300. I was originally planning to get D90 but looking at the price, D90 is going to run around $1300 (CAD) including tax which is around how much D300 go for used. I really like the video feature on the D90 tho. hmmm
Thanks for the suggestions, the D90 is not an option for me since the point of upgrading from my D70 is to get a body that meters and AE's with my older manual focus Nikkor lenses. It's basically a scam on Nikon's part, but no Nikon DSLR below the semipro (D200) level has that capability. I suppose if I wanted to minimize expenditure I could get an old D1 or one of its relatives, but the D200 is much more modern and much more usable size-wise. That is interesting about the D300 being a stop better in RAW mode. Is there a similar comparison between the D700 and the EOS-5D? I thought that all these sensors were now operating close to the quantum limits and there weren't any further big improvements to be made, except through sheer sensor size (i.e. going from DX to FX). So I thought the D3, D700, and EOS-5D raw sensor performance were all about the same.
The Sigma 50/1.4 sounds almost like an attempted successor of the legendary 58/1.2 Noct Nikkor, a completely aspheric design from before the computer era. They now go for $3K+ on Ebay from what I understand.
Just had a look over at bhphoto, and saw the Nikon D80 for 600$US.
Holy cow, that's a nice price! Seems they have discounted it due to the D90. Great time to get a nice deal on a good entry level DSLR. Paid 780$ for the D80 a few months ago, and that was a steal back then.
It's so funny. Back when I purchased my D50, that was THE cheap DSLR. Retailed for 850$ when I got it (one of the first to break the sub 1000$ bracket). It's amazing just how low they can sell them for now.
Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are so flat out wrong Ed. It is not a gimmick, even though you can't see the use with it, others can!
No. YOU are so flat out wrong!
C'mon we can argue like this all night.
D-Movie will be a fun feature for sure, but the 5 minute clip limit will never ever see any practical use for any real life replacement of an HD camcorder. Hence why it's a gimmick. When I say it's a gimmick, it's not good enough to stand up on it's own compared to other products due to it's limitations.
But I digress. I think I'm just too much in love with the big hunk of magnesium frames of the D200/300/700 series. It just feels so nice in my hands. My D80 just feels so wimpy now. The big hunka magnesium certainly is heavier, but it makes steadying shots easier with larger lenses. And oh, man, I am sooooooo tempted by the D700. I just can't justify it's cost since I don't have any jobs in the near future that would ever come close to having the D700 pay for itself. (I bought a $3000+ monitor tablet without flinching because it paid for itself in a week.)
Originally Posted by paulr /img/forum/go_quote.gif The D50 is a great and underrated camera. It's probably what I'd buy if I wanted an entry level Nikon DSLR. I don't see that much point to buying a D80.
Well, there are a few things the D50 does better than the D80, and vice versa. Great thing with the D80, is you can still buy it brand new fresh out of the box. You can only find the D50 used now a days.
Plus, the D80 has a huge viewfinder over the D50. And the D80 has a LCD light, which helps so much during the dark. And the nice DOF preview... :sigh:
Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif No. YOU are so flat out wrong!
C'mon we can argue like this all night.
No one, can win an argument if they are on the wrong side, and thus I have already won.
Allow me to prove why it is not a gimmick.
You can call an apple a 'blablah' all you want, but if others don't start using the word blablah to refer to the apple, you are just in your own little fantasy world.
The same with the D90. You can call it a gimmick all you want, but if others don't start calling it a gimmick you are just in your own little fantasy world.
I claim that I, among others, have a use for the video feature in the D90. Like I keep saying, you obviously can't see the point in it, but others can. Others would put it to good use!
So, keep calling it a gimmick, but you're in your own little fantasy world.
Had my D50 had a video feature, my work would have saved 400$.