[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif No one, can win an argument if they are on the wrong side, and thus I have already one. 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.

OK, I'll call it a "Toy" feature instead, since it can't really be seriously used as an HD camcorder replacement. "Toy" feature can be used a lot, but not for anything really serious, other than artsy fun shots, or candid YouTube clips here and there (although YouTube isn't High Def yet.)

And what does Nikon have to do with Apple? Or do you really want to get me started on Apple.

-Ed

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif OK, I'll call it a "Toy" feature instead, since it can't really be seriously used as an HD camcorder replacement. "Toy" feature can be used a lot, but not for anything really serious, other than artsy fun shots, or candid YouTube clips here and there (although YouTube isn't High Def yet.) And what does Nikon have to do with Apple? Or do you really want to get me started on Apple. -Ed

Oh nono, not the company apple, the fruit apple.................
We can use an orange instead.............

Ok, I'm happy with that description. It is a toy feature. For those who can get by with it, it will save them from buying a budget HardDrive video camera. My work required only the most basic short video clips (and lots of them), so it would have been great especially since I would take a picture of it, and would also take a short clip of it in action. Instead of setting the camera up, and then setting up the camcorder, I could do it all from the camera.

 

[jayehs]

I don't D-movie is meant to replace HD camcorder. And just because it can not, it doesn't mean it's a gimmick. I would define gimmick as something that doesn't add much value to the product. I think d-movie too useful and versatile to be dismissed as a gimmick.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh nono, not the company apple, the fruit apple................. We can use an orange instead............. Ok, I'm happy with that description. It is a toy feature. For those who can get by with it, it will save them from buying a budget HardDrive video camera. My work required only the most basic short video clips (and lots of them), so it would have been great.

Yes, I prefer oranges as well. Mmmmmm.

Toys aren't a bad thing, quite the contrary. Toys are FUN.

D-Movie on the D90 is a boon for Macro movies. Fixed focus on a tripod is prefect for not having autofocus. And you can use killer lenses for awesome Macro movies. And more than 5 minutes per clip of tiny things can get pretty boring.

Speaking of Macro, I'm still debating between the 105mm Macro or the 60mm Macro Nikkor lenses. I think I'll play around with my new Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for a bit until I get used to it, and then get a Macro lens when the "new toy feeling" is gone.

-Ed

 

[dj_mocok]

I know this is a Nikon thread, but I think I just realised that all I really want is just a Leica Noctilux 50mm f/1.

 

[lan]

Its f/0.95 not 1.0 big difference. lol

 

[dj_mocok]

Although of course f/0.95 is even better, but the f/1 version is more 'reasonably' priced.

 

[Towert7]

I wonder how it actually performs wide open..............
With a price like that though, I won't be trying it any time soon. ^_^

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wonder how it actually performs wide open.............. With a price like that though, I won't be trying it any time soon. ^_^

If you look at this dude's flickr page, that's pretty much how it performs wide open. But I suggest you not to visit the page though, or else you'd be tempted to get one but realise it's wayyy to expensive to get one and you'll be disappointed instead. Like me.

PS: Not sure if you guys are interested or not, but just letting you guys know that I might get banned or my account deleted from photo.net because I just snapped at the moderator, haha...
[size=xx-small]Luckily I made backups for all my pics there already.[/size]

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

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

I would be hesitant to buy a used camera that's a new model like that. I'd be afraid someone was just trying to dump a lemon on ebay. I think I'd prefer a D90 under factory warranty myself.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bigshot, did you buy your nikon 50mm F/1.4 new?

Yes. Way back in the late 70s. I had a 1.2 as well, but I sold that because it seemed to have low contrast wide open. They were all fine for printing 8x10 wide open, and they got sharp by the time you got to around 2.8 or 3.5 or so. But the larger apertures were more for convenience than for actual critical use.

I'm willing to compromise sharpness a bit for convenience in a zoom. But in a prime, I want all of the stops to perform perfectly. When I pull out a lens like this, it's for a specific purpose- and in this case that's wide open with the subject in the center and lots of soft focus all around.

My Tokina 11-16 is from another world IQ-wise. The stuff I'm getting from it are better than anything I ever got with 35mm. I'm hoping this 50mm will be in the same league. The shots I've seen on the web taken with it look great. Until recently, I didn't realize how significant the advances in lens design have been over the past couple of decades.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

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

I am in a similar situation to you. I have a huge kit of old 70s and 80s nikkor glass. I suppose I could use them on my D200, but I just haven't found myself doing that. The lenses I've gravitated to do things those old lenses never could.

I have five lenses now, and they cover what I do perfectly... Nikon 18-200VR, Nikon 28-70 AF-D, Tokina 100mm Macro, Sigma 50mm 1.4 and Tokina 11-16. The first two there are extremely versatile (one for good, one for lightweight bum-around), the second two cover portraits and macro, and the last one nails architecture and landscapes. The only other lens I might want is a fast long sports lens, but the amount I would use it doesn't justify the cost. Basically, in five lenses, I've covered everything in my old bag full of primes- with the added benefit of faster apertures and sharper optics.

Rather than upgrading your body, I would suggest getting a really useful lens. For sheer versatility, the 18-200VR can't be beat. And it won't duplicate anything you already have in your bag.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

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

I think the point is that it's unfair to compare a DSLR to an HD Camcorder, especially when it's the only DSLR to be able to shoot HD video at all. Of course it isn't a replacement for a camcorder. But in a lot of situations, it may be enough to save having to take a camcorder along on a vacation with you. And in the future, the two classes of cameras will certainly end up merging into a hybrid that does rival both types. That's the next camera I'll be buying. Until then, my D200 and Canon HV30 will do the trick for me.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Here is an example shot of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 against the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 wide open at night...

http://210.238.185.197/~maro/lens_te..._z_yoru_14.jpg

The difference is less pronounced in daylight, and there is no difference at all stopped down a bit.

See ya
Steve

 

[paulr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have five lenses now, and they cover what I do perfectly... Nikon 18-200VR, Nikon 28-70 AF-D, Tokina 100mm Macro, Sigma 50mm 1.4 and Tokina 11-16. The first two there are extremely versatile (one for good, one for lightweight bum-around), the second two cover portraits and macro, and the last one nails architecture and landscapes. The only other lens I might want is a fast long sports lens, but the amount I would use it doesn't justify the cost. Basically, in five lenses, I've covered everything in my old bag full of primes- with the added benefit of faster apertures and sharper optics.

Right, this is what I mean, I got an old 180/2.8 in manual focus for $125 and barely missed getting a 300/2.8 for $450. The AF versions of those lenses would be at least 5x as expensive. The Sigma 50/1.4 is around 5x a 50/1.4 MF Nikkor though maybe it's a better lens (in my case I have a 50/1.8AF and manage to live without the extra stop). I have the 18-70 kit lens from the D70 and rather than an 18-200 I sometimes think of getting the 17-55/2.8 for more speed, but in the long run I want an FX camera, so I'm resistant to sinking a lot of $$ into DX lenses. The 28-70/2.8 is of course a fabulous lens but costs more than a D3. In practice I'd mostly care about the wideangle end, and I have the 35/1.4 and 28/2.0 in manual focus and I think they were about $150 each. Zooms that fast simply do not exist. My one concession to semi-expensive DX lenses is the Sigma 10-20mm which I've been having a good time with, for sure. I wouldn't mind buying expensive stuff if I used it more or felt I was going to keep it a long time, but given how little DSLR shooting I actually do, I really have to resist acquiring a pile of high-end AF lenses (especially DX models).