[Szadzik]

Quote:

I like DX lenses better. They're lighter and less expensive. I don't like primes except for very low light and the zooms available for DX are great. Lots of great third party options too.

I agree.
 
As a hobby-photographer, I do not need FX.
 

 

[jchandler3]

**GASP**
 
Someone on Head-fi settling for less than the best/ most expensive thing? FX is better and you intentionally don't buy it?? How will you be able to live with yourself?!
 
No, just kidding I need FX for studio work and weddings. 99% of people do not need the extra cost and bulk of FX and it's nice to know that some people understand that. Good logic, bigshot!

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Yeah well put I agree and I feel the same way about photography.  That's why I wasn't really saying that to you, I just think for some reason photography has a "hobby" mentality in the general public that's a bit weird.  You don't see people buying a a pair of K240 Studios and a Mackie Big Knob and trying to master albums for free or next to free during the weekends on craigslist.  Or do they?  In many other fields there seems to be more respect for the technical and conceptual understanding required (to make/produce good work)

I agree to some extent. A lot of people don't value the arts as much as we think they should. I can't tell you how many times people give me "the opportunity" to master an album for free.

 
Photography, like a well mastered album, should appear effortless to an outsider and that's the sign of a job well done. I have messed around with photography quite a bit and have even been paid for some of it. I know that re-touching a photo might require 2-5 hours of work alone. It's certainly not fast nor easy and requires a keen eye as well as skill at taking pictures and skill manipulating your digital darkroom as well as knowing how to best present your work and talent. LOTS OF WORK! It's no wonder artists tend to congregate in groups....

 

[purrin]

I long for the time long ago when we could get the 2nd best Nikon camera (F100) for a little over a $1000.

 

[liamstrain]

Those days died with the D1. 

 

[purrin]

Quote:

Those days died with the D1. 

I know. What pisses my off is the AF on most Nikons sucked (that is worse than the F100) - until very recently. I always felt Nikon purposely gimped the AF for anything less than their flagship on the digital models.
 
Love the Nikon color rendition, especially of flesh tones, better than anything else out there.
 

 

[LFF]

Quote:

I know. What pisses my off is the AF on most Nikons sucked (that is worse than the F100) - until very recently. I always felt Nikon purposely gimped the AF for anything less than their flagship on the digital models.
 
Love the Nikon color rendition, especially of flesh tones, better than anything else out there.
 

I always felt the same too because you could get amazing stuff with MF but yet the AF lacked that last bit of polish.
 

 

[liamstrain]

Meh - the AF has never been a factor for me. Just doesn't really apply to my usage for these cameras. 

 

[bigshot]

I have absolutely no complaint about the AF in my D200. I don't know how recent you mean by recent. I have screwdriver drive and focus motor lenses... Lenses by Nikon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. They all focus beautifully.
 
I only use one manual focus lens, the Vivitar 7mm fisheye. Thankfully, The depth of field is huge so focusing isn't an issue.  I have a bag full of great MF glass for my F3, but they're just gathering dust. I would never go back to the manual everything any more. It was fine to learn on, but I understand all the concepts now. I want the camera to get me where I want to go faster.

 

[purrin]

Quote:

I have absolutely no complaint about the AF in my D200. I don't know how recent you mean by recent. I have screwdriver drive and focus motor lenses... Lenses by Nikon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. They all focus beautifully.
 
I only use one manual focus lens, the Vivitar 7mm fisheye. Thankfully, The depth of field is huge so focusing isn't an issue.  I have a bag full of great MF glass for my F3, but they're just gathering dust. I would never go back to the manual everything any more. It was fine to learn on, but I understand all the concepts now. I want the camera to get me where I want to go faster.

Fast action, sports, wildlife in motion. No problem with the F100 and D2X (TOTL DSLR back then) with the big expensive fast zoom lenses wide open. Big problem with the D300 (back when it was the 2nd best DSLR camera from Nikon.) They totally gimped the D300 AF compared to the D3. It was even worse than the N80 if I recall correctly. I've since decided to sit on the sidelines until Nikon implements 90% of the TOTL (the big bodies) AF (not 50%) on their 2nd tier models like how it was when they used to make film cameras. I've heard the AF is finally good now on their 2nd tier models. Still I'm leery about giving them more money considering that DSLRs lose value so quickly. Hopefully things will slow down.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

TBH, I looked at the camera it is great - but - does everyone need one?

Yup.
Just the same as everyone needs a Ferrari! Then there would be no traffic jams.

 

[rhythmdevils]

I think Nikon's current TOTL's are leaps and bounds above Canons as far as AF (at least when the 5dmkii was released, I haven't tried their newest camera).  Going back to the 5dmkii's 6 points or whatever is really frustrating. 
 
And the D7000 has that same AF system AFAIK, so I think the time you've been waiting for has arrived Purrin! 

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

I like DX lenses better. They're lighter and less expensive.

 
Hate to say it, but this is much lighter and less expensive than any dx lenses:
 

 
I on the other hand would LOVE a nikon FX body.

 

[bigshot]

A pickle is lighter and less expensive, but it can't take a deccent picture.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Are we talking about a pickle made with vinegar, or a pickle made the old fashioned way with just salt brine, which is cultured and creates vinegar inside the bottle?  Organic, or el barfo?