[Help Needed] Settled on a Nikon D60.. [Archive]

polkatese

02-15-2009, 01:31 PM

after doing an extensive roundabout research on anything DSLR, it boils down to asking the wife:" Canon or Nikon?" and she settled it.

Just like spending money on audio gears, it boils down to budget, brand, and usage. Personally, I like to own a Canon Rebel XSi, but it's an extra $100+ and slightly larger body. The contenders were:

- Olympus E520
- Canon Rebel XSi
- Nikon D60

Now I am thinking to get a VR zoom lens. I had ordered SB-400. Any thoughts and feedback on this DSLR journey that I am about to embark? tips, tricks, things to watch for?etc.

TIA

Shizelbs

02-15-2009, 02:47 PM

I just got the 18-200 VR lens and I love it. Super versatile, certainly helps with zoomed out hand held shots.

What kinds of shooting do you think you'll be doing?

polkatese

02-15-2009, 02:54 PM

the key driver for getting this camera is to take pics of my daughter's dance competition (which has always been the biggest dissapointment with P&S camera, no matter how advanced they are). So, panorama, nature, family occasions stuff will its primary use. Who knows, I might get sucked in into this hobby too :)

Shizelbs

02-15-2009, 02:59 PM

I think you'd like a nice versatile lens like the 18-200. I also got a fixed 50mm lens for portraits and pics of my new baby and I love it. Its super fast and crystal clear. You might want to think about a cheap fixed lens for faster shots.

polkatese

02-15-2009, 03:01 PM

that's what I thought too, Shelby. where did you get yours?

Shizelbs

02-15-2009, 03:05 PM

I got all of my gear at a local camera shop. Their prices were awfully close to Amazon's, which would have been my other choice.

Shizelbs

02-15-2009, 03:09 PM

Here is a pic I took last night from across the rink with the 18-200 fully extended.
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t132/shizelbs/DSC_0224.jpg

polkatese

02-15-2009, 03:26 PM

nice and clean job!

polkatese

02-15-2009, 03:32 PM

been reading this just so that I am up to speed on what D60 can do:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ND60/ND60A.HTM#

shack

02-15-2009, 03:33 PM

The Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 is an ok lens but there are better options IMO...especially for the street price of $750±. If you like the "all in one" focal range you you might want to consider going with the Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 at around $500 or the Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 for around $460. The Tamron may actually have the best optics but it lacks image stablization of the other 2. I have seen the Nikon and Sigma compared head to head and the Sigma came out the winner interms of overall IQ. The Nikon may be slightly better in terms of build quality but I think the other two have better optics. They all are pretty equal in terms of focus speed.

polkatese

02-15-2009, 03:38 PM

thanks for the info, Shack. Damn, be spending the price of Krell integrated just to cover the basic arsenal. :)

shack

02-15-2009, 04:02 PM

I always check with B&H Photo and Adorama for lenses. The are not the absolute cheapest price...but they have the best customer service in the photo business. B&H is where I order most of my gear, but I get some from Adorama as well. Both have resolved issues very quickly and fairly when they arose. Fast shipping and you get exactly what they advertise.

Hobbyguy

02-15-2009, 05:01 PM

I have a Tamron XR 28-300 which I use to take pictures of my kids in sports and it is fast enough. I also use a Tamron AF 19-35. Both are very good low cost alternatives (compared to Nikon).

Hobbyguy

02-15-2009, 05:26 PM

oh and the Tamron does not have image stabilization...you will need a tripod if you want crystal clear pictures at 200-300mm

Early B.

02-15-2009, 05:35 PM

Polkatese -- you'll love the D-60.

I bought a Nikon D-80 a few months ago. This hobby is sick! It's just like audio -- it'll drain your bank account quickly. You'll need another grand for lenses and assorted accessories.

I have 3 Nikon lenses - 18-55 VR, 50mm, and a 70-300mm. These three provide a great combination and they were "relatively" inexpensive. In fact, I used my camera today and took some great practice shots of a former model who posed for a friend and me.

I also highly recommend Lightroom 2.

polkatese

02-15-2009, 07:14 PM

Early B.

02-15-2009, 09:58 PM

Hey Brad, that's what it seems I am signing up to, love to see what you got with 70-300mm.

I have Aperture (Mac) that I am going to use to tweak the pics. We'll see. D80 is a serious investment (or the beginning of). Congrats!

I've heard good things about Aperture.

I'm a pure beginner. I got some decent gear, but I don't know how to use it yet, so I'm in learning mode. I got some books and DVDs, and I plan to participate in a local photo club. I have a friend who has a D300 and that badass $1,500 Nikon 200mm lens. He takes some great shots, so I'm learning from him, too. He suckered me into photography. Up until a few months ago, I had zero interest in it. Now I'm eager to explore the hobby. But no more photography gear for me this tear or until I get more comfortable with what I have, whichever comes first.;)

shack

02-15-2009, 10:31 PM

I have Aperture (Mac) that I am going to use to tweak the pics. We'll see.

If you think you will ever really get into photography as a hobby in a serious way...might as well get into Adobe Photoshop. It is THE standard and everything else is just a wannabe.

polkatese

02-15-2009, 11:14 PM

shack

02-15-2009, 11:33 PM

I am taking it slowly and see where it goes, I am not sure if it will be as serious as my passion with audio :). However, having said that, I've been reading the reviews on 18-200mm lens, and (almost) convinced that it a must have, from one lens convenience and practical value. B&H has the sigma for $325 shipped, the Nikon best price is Amazon $687. Perhaps a used Nikon would be a nice compromise, I don't know yet, will need to get used with the 18-55mm for awhile.

I use my Canon 18-55mm 70% of the time as an everyday walk-around lens. I have a 55-250mm, a 10-17mm fisheye ultra wide zoom, a 10-20 ultra wide zoom, a 50mm prime and an 85mm prime. They all have their purpose, but I think you can get a really good feel for photography with your 18-55...for now. ;)

polkatese

02-16-2009, 12:34 AM

gee, Shack. How big is your camera bag? :)

you're right, I would love to have 18-200mm as my default and never have to change it ever, but I am not sure if that is practical either, nor want to carry extra weight than necessary.

Early B.

02-16-2009, 12:56 AM

you're right, I would love to have 18-200mm as my default and never have to change it ever, but I am not sure if that is practical either, nor want to carry extra weight than necessary.

If you're gonna take pics of your daughter's dance competitions and nature stuff, you'll probably want a bigger zoom lens, sooner rather than later. The first time I seriously took a few shots, it was at a wedding using the 18-55 lens, and I got frustrated because there were times when I couldn't get close enough to the subject.

polkatese

02-16-2009, 01:09 AM

so what is the effective distance for the 18-55mm to get a close-up shot, Brad?

Hobbyguy

02-16-2009, 08:13 AM

Which camera do you have Shack? I was considering the Canon EOS 5D Mark II (upgrade from my old Nikon D100) but there seems to be issues with HD video and Black spots on dark scenes.

timlitton

02-16-2009, 08:39 AM

I can attest to B & H customer service. I've spent almost $40,000 with them in the last couple of years and have had no problems.

AsSiMiLaTeD

02-16-2009, 10:22 AM

Shack, couple questions for you on the Sigma 18-200:

1 - Does the Sigma lens have the motor on the lens, so that my wife could use it on her D40?
2 - I already have the Nikon 18-55 and 55-200 VR lenses for her D40. I'd mainly be looking at this lens for a factor of convenience, her not having to switch out the lens all the time. Would I be sacrificing any performance or quality going from that two lens setup to this single lens?

Thanks

AsSiMiLaTeD

02-16-2009, 11:54 AM

I am taking it slowly and see where it goes, I am not sure if it will be as serious as my passion with audio :). However, having said that, I've been reading the reviews on 18-200mm lens, and (almost) convinced that it a must have, from one lens convenience and practical value. B&H has the sigma for $325 shipped, the Nikon best price is Amazon $687. Perhaps a used Nikon would be a nice compromise, I don't know yet, will need to get used with the 18-55mm for awhile.The lens that B&H has for $325 is NOT the OS version, which means it has no image stabilization - you're going to want that at focal lengths of 200mm unless you're using a tripod or shooting in broad daylight all the time.

The OS version is actually $439 on B&H photo, I'd get it on Amazon where it's $399

polkatese

02-16-2009, 12:00 PM

Thanks Assimilated. I'll check out my option once I get the D60. That's good to know, I assume the Sigma with OS is compatible with Nikon VR, right?

shack

02-16-2009, 12:32 PM

Does the Sigma lens have the motor on the lens, so that my wife could use it on her D40?

Yes it should work on any Nikon DSLR mount.

I already have the Nikon 18-55 and 55-200 VR lenses for her D40. I'd mainly be looking at this lens for a factor of convenience, her not having to switch out the lens all the time. Would I be sacrificing any performance or quality going from that two lens setup to this single lens?

I would typically say that a single lens of equal focal length to two lenses will have to make some compromises and may not be as good as the two. In this case those are "kit" lenses and while they perform reasonably well for the intended user they are not high end glass. I don't think you would be sacrificing any performance or IQ by going to the Sigma. You may actually be upgrading some.(especially over the 18-55).

The lens that B&H has for $325 is NOT the OS version, which means it has no image stabilization - you're going to want that at focal lengths of 200mm unless you're using a tripod or shooting in broad daylight all the time.

The OS version is actually $439 on B&H photo, I'd get it on Amazon where it's $399

With camera gear (like lenses) that is subject to shipping damage, mfg issues (like back focusing, soft focusing) and so forth, I spend my money where I know any issues will be taken care of. B&H and Adorama have earned my business in that regard and it is worth more to me to buy from them when purchasing big ticket items. YMMV.

Which camera do you have Shack? I was considering the Canon EOS 5D Mark II (upgrade from my old Nikon D100) but there seems to be issues with HD video and Black spots on dark scenes.

I use a Canon EOS Rebel XT and Canon EOS 40D. I would love to have the build and some ot the features that camera offers..but not at that price. I don't really want the video features and 21MP is simply more than I could ever utilize...however...the 3.9 fps, expandable ISO up to 25,600 are GREAT features. If I ever decided to go to a full frame camera, the 5D Mark II would be my choice. I have chosen to spend my limited resources on lenses rather than bodies. I still have lots of clicks left on both of my cameras so it will be awhile before I upgrade.

shack

02-16-2009, 12:35 PM

Thanks Assimilated. I'll check out my option once I get the D60. That's good to know, I assume the Sigma with OS is compatible with Nikon VR, right?

Yes. Nikon's image stabilization is in the lens...not the body.

AsSiMiLaTeD

02-16-2009, 12:57 PM

AsSiMiLaTeD

02-16-2009, 01:12 PM

AsSiMiLaTeD

02-16-2009, 01:22 PM

I agree with Shack on buying from someone you know will take care of you on this stuff. I only mentioned Amazon because I've also had great service with them on camera stuff, and they're about $40 cheaper at the moment on the Sigma lens.
EDIT: Correction, the Nikon version of the lens is $420 at Amazon, so only a savings of 20 over B&H Photo, although I still wouldn't hesitate to recommend Amazon. Given those prices though, if I do pick this up I'll probably look at B&H.

polkatese

02-16-2009, 01:28 PM

Too bad that none of the dealers sell the D60 body with 18-200mm kit as an option. Oh well, either way, the old audio adage can also be applied here: Pay Now or Pay Later, either way, We Will have to Pay. :)

shack

02-16-2009, 02:07 PM

Shack, the dpreview site seems to think that this may not be the sharpest lens - what's your impression on that aspect of this lens, and is that something that's easily corrected in photoshop?

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-200_3p5-6p3_os_n15/page4.asp

I use an unsharp mask in photoshop on almost every photo I plan to keep. (it is the opposite of what it sounds like. It is a sharpening tool)

I have seen images from a friend's Sigma 18-200 and they are very sharp. If you can keep around f8 - f11 overall sharpness should be excellent. There may be some softness around the edges at the long end but that is not unusual for a super zoom. Are you sure they are not looking at the non-OS version? It did have some issues from what I have read with some focal lengths.

Here is a review that states it is a fairly sharp lens....

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/sigma18200os

polkatese

02-21-2009, 12:04 PM

Got my D60 yesterday, and have been clicking away. This camera is fun! even my son made a comment about how easy it is to use it like a P&S camera. 18-55mm appears to be more than adequate for everyday's use, not too heavy. I am still learning and exploring its features. I've been reading the setup guide from this guy:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/users-guide/index.htm

any other recommended site for learning the ins and outs of D60? TIA

polkatese

02-21-2009, 03:37 PM

here is a couple sample pics of my SF that I snapped with D60:

(btw, I was trying out its settings, as you can see)

dkg999

02-24-2009, 12:21 AM

Is Photoshop Elements 7.0 a good editing package for a casual enthusiast who wants to start learning and doing more with digital photography? Or do you need to go all the way to the full Photoshop software?

BTW - picked up the Nikon D60 with 18-55 VR lens, plus the 55-200 VR lens and an extra battery at Onecall, with coupon from my LCD TV purchase in December, for under $600 delivered.

polkatese

02-24-2009, 12:35 AM

that's a sweet deal, Doug. congrats..your LCD coupon worth $150 or so?

don't have the answer to your first one, Shack perhaps.

shack

02-24-2009, 12:50 AM

Before I spent money on Elements, I would either go with the Adobe Photoshop Album Starter Edition 3.2...

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopalbum/starter.html

or even better....Gimp...

http://www.gimp.org

Either one will do most of what the casual photographer needs and most everything Elements will do...for free.

If I was going to do photoshop...I would go full blown CS4.

dkg999

02-24-2009, 12:59 AM

Shack - thanks! Gimp looks like something that would be fun to play with. Not sure how serious I want to get with photo editing and manipulation, but it's always something I wanted to learn more about. I wanted to get a better digital camera, and the D60 looked like a reasonably priced way to go.

polkatese

02-28-2009, 10:12 PM

Early B.

03-11-2009, 12:17 AM

I bought a Nikon D-80 a few months ago. This hobby is sick!

Just "upgraded" from the D80 to the D200. I like the D200 better. Yeah, it's the same sensor, so theoretically the picture quality is the same, but the D200 has better build quality and is much more "tweakable," and you guys know how much I like to tweak it.

At some point I'll start taking pictures...

...uh-huh -- probably around the same time I stop upgrading audio gear and start listening to music... :)

polkatese

03-11-2009, 12:23 AM

Brad, ping me whenever you're ready to let go your telelens, VR would even be better.

Congrats, you're moving up the food chain.

shack

03-11-2009, 12:37 AM

Shack, a noob question for you: if I need to take a close-up picture of an object, at a distance of about 35-40 ft., what lens(es) are my option? if you could point me to a Nikkor VR, I'd appreciated. TIA

I'm not that familiar with the Nikon lenses...but something similar to the 18-200 discussed earlier would be a good lens to get a closeup of 30-40 ft. The image stablization would help with this as well.

polkatese

03-11-2009, 12:44 AM

Thanks Shack. I am saving my coins for that one. Hoping for a cheaper alternative of a prime lens, for the time being (if such thing exist).

Early B.

03-11-2009, 12:47 AM

I'm not that familiar with the Nikon lenses...but something similar to the 18-200 discussed earlier would be a good lens to get a closeup of 30-40 ft. The image stablization would help with this as well.

Polkatese -- This may not directly answer your question, but it's a great link to get a sense of relative lens length:

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html

Early B.

03-11-2009, 12:50 AM

Thanks Shack. I am saving my coins for that one. Hoping for a cheaper alternative of a prime lens, for the time being (if such thing exist).

I like the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens. It's a longer lens, less expensive, and apparently better (or at least as good as) picture quality than the Nikon 18-200mm lens.

shack

03-11-2009, 01:00 AM

Thanks Shack. I am saving my coins for that one. Hoping for a cheaper alternative of a prime lens, for the time being (if such thing exist).

A good prime will cost you more...typically. Because of its nature and intended use, a prime is usually built to more exacting specs, thus costing much more. For instance a good 200mm Nikon Prime will cost you about $4,500. An average 180mm prime about $1,000. Because many zooms are compromises to begin with, they are made to meet less demanding specs thus the more reasonable price. This isn't to say a zoom will always be less...you can certainly spend several thousand on a high end zoom.

polkatese

03-11-2009, 01:01 AM

Thanks for the link Brad. I'll check out 70-300mm.

polkatese

03-11-2009, 01:03 AM

A good prime will cost you more...typically. Because of its nature and intended use, a prime is usually built to more exacting specs, thus costing much more. For instance a good 200mm Nikon Prime will cost you about $4,500. An average 180mm prime about $1,000. Because many zooms are compromises to begin with, they are made to meet less demanding specs thus the more reasonable price. This isn't to say a zoom will always be less...you can certainly spend several thousand on a high end zoom.

So much for my saving idea. Thanks Shack.

shack

03-11-2009, 01:07 AM

I like the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens. It's a longer lens, less expensive, and apparently better (or at least as good as) picture quality than the Nikon 18-200mm lens.

From everything I read the Nikon 18-200 is average at best. The alternatives by Sigma and Tamron are considered to be better. It is also easier to make a good 70-300 than the wider zooms because of the similarity of the focal lengths.

polkatese

04-16-2009, 01:12 PM

Update: I've been having lots of fun taking all kind of pics, experimenting with the various settings (noob's joy :) ). The downside is, instead of taking 30-50 pics per event, now we do 200-300 pics per event! downside is, my iPhoto database growing is growing like crazy. The good news is the wife is getting very interested with these new found pics possibilities. One of the feature on iPhoto and/or Aperture is the ability to create professional looking album. Well, I have to actually slow her down before she click the send button to have those Books (album) orders. Not a bad price, considering $30 get you 20 pages of album with hardcover, nicely done, considering a decent looking large album cost upward $20+, plus photo prints and time to organize them.

Another nice surprise (since she has also been using it too, more than I do), she came home one day (two weeks ago) with a 18-200mm Nikon lens! I tested out and I am pretty impressed with the amount of zoom that I can do (from my untrained eyes), and the pics' quality. All in all, good experience all around.

ckphoto

04-16-2009, 01:52 PM

If you want good photo's of your daughters dance competition get the Nikon 80-200 2.8 ED D you should be able to get a good used one for around $400 to $500. Your camera is not a full frame sensor so the 80-200 will be more like a 120-300 which will give you lots of reach. Avoid the consumer all in one zoom lenses like the 18-200 it is garbage as is most consumer lenses. It is just like your speakers there are the Bose and then there are the Polks big difference.

izafar

04-16-2009, 02:14 PM

70-300 MM is very tough to use by hand after 200 MM. The following photo is one of the better ones I could take hand held fully extended:

polkatese

04-16-2009, 02:32 PM

Izafar brought up a great point. The users of mine is the whole family (i.e. my 14 yo son, 10 yo daughter, and the wife), hence I know it would be a compromise and wasn't meant to be one operator camera. Even with the 18-200mm lens, the camera gets heavier, can't imagine those prime lenses that need a tripod to operate properly. I supposed for daily use, this is the lens that I would go, and in the future, I could add more of those lenses to get into the hobby more (...yeah, and that's right after I get my hand on those Anthem pre/pro...;) )

AsSiMiLaTeD

04-16-2009, 03:08 PM

Avoid the consumer all in one zoom lenses like the 18-200 it is garbage as is most consumer lenses. It is just like your speakers there are the Bose and then there are the Polks big difference.I couldn't disagree with this more.

1 - Consumer lenses aren't garbage, polkatese don't let the photography snobs tell you that. Are they as good as the pro lenses? Of course not, but for 99% of people taking photographs, even those doing it as a hobby, a good consumer lens works just fine.

2 - The Sigma 18-200 lens that Shack originally suggested I picked up, and it's a fantastic lens!

3 - if you're going to use the speaker analogy, at least get it right, or reasonably close to reality.

- Your mid-grade point and shoot cameras would be equivalent to Bose.
- Your entry level DSLR and lens kit would be more in line with the Polk RTi series or so.
- Your mid level DSLR and a good zoom lens or maybe an inexpensive prime lens would be in line with something like the Polk LSi series.
- Your high end DSLR would probably be closer to something like Dynaudio or something along those lines, with the pro bodies and lenses going even higher up the food chain.

Maybe those aren't spot on, but my point is that a good consumer lens vertainly isn't to photography as Bose is to speakers...

shack

04-16-2009, 03:29 PM

In photography I find the better lenses often has a lot to do with build quality vs optics. I know there are some Canon "consumer" grade lenses that actually perform on par with the Canon L lenses. Also, in certain situations the consumer lens will be equal in the "average" areas and the better lenses perform better across the full spectrum. And yes...there are better lenses out there than the Tamron, Sigma, and even the Canon and Nikon "all in one" zooms...but they are generally decent lenses that will deliver excellent results when used properly.

Plus, for the average hobby or travel photographer they sure do make life easy. Just always have a backup when it is important.

IE: I heard of a lady that went on a safari with her Canon 28-300mm L lens (a $2,000+ lens) and on the first day she dropped it and it was damaged beyond use. Her only other lens was a 24mm prime. Needless to say her photos were limited as it is tough to get those nice closeups with a very wide lens. She was able to borrow some lenses from other Canon shooters, but of course only when they were using them. Moral of the story...ALWAYS have a backup if it is important.

jcaut

04-16-2009, 03:54 PM

ckphoto

04-16-2009, 05:11 PM

I couldn't disagree with this more.

1 - Consumer lenses aren't garbage, polkatese don't let the photography snobs tell you that. Are they as good as the pro lenses? Of course not, but for 99% of people taking photographs, even those doing it as a hobby, a good consumer lens works just fine.

2 - The Sigma 18-200 lens that Shack originally suggested I picked up, and it's a fantastic lens!

3 - if you're going to use the speaker analogy, at least get it right, or reasonably close to reality.

- Your mid-grade point and shoot cameras would be equivalent to Bose.
- Your entry level DSLR and lens kit would be more in line with the Polk RTi series or so.
- Your mid level DSLR and a good zoom lens or maybe an inexpensive prime lens would be in line with something like the Polk LSi series.
- Your high end DSLR would probably be closer to something like Dynaudio or something along those lines, with the pro bodies and lenses going even higher up the food chain.

Maybe those aren't spot on, but my point is that a good consumer lens vertainly isn't to photography as Bose is to speakers...

I definitely am not here to argue with anyone and garbage is a little harsh but if you compare the Sigma 18-200 F/3.5-6.3 to the Nikon 80-200 F/2.8 there is a HUGE difference in the image you will capture and there will be images that you will be able to capture that the 18-200 never can. I am by no means a "photography snob" but I do have 20 years in the photo business owning a photo lab and being a professional photographer full time. The Bose to Polk analogy was I guess wrong, I went from Bose to Polk and I hear a HUGE difference but then again I only have the RTi series what do I know.

shack

04-16-2009, 05:26 PM

Not trying to hijack, but Shack: The 10-17 you have, is that a Tokina? And not to ask a dumb question, but you'll know what I mean- Is it a "true" fisheye on APS-C? Assuming that it is, say, at 10mm, what happens when you zoom to 17? Still fishy? I'd like to see an example sometime if possible.

I have the Sigma 15mm fisheye and it's a real fun lens to use but it's actually not very "fishy" (for lack of better words) on the crop cameras. (I use a 30D and a 5D, so I try to avoid lenses that don't work on 35mm) It's a rather limited-use lens though, obviously. The fisheye zoom sounds interesting though. My "ultra wide" rectilinear lens is a Sigma 12-24.

Jason

Yes, It is a true fisheye from 10-17mm and is made specifically for a crop body. It can be used on the FF camera but there is obviously some vignetting at the widest angles (10-13mm). At 10mm the fisheye is very "fishy"....at 17mm not so much. I have several examples on my computer at home but none here at work. Also the ones at home aren't necessarily direct comparisons. I'll take a few of the same subject at different FLs and post them here.

It is a very fun lens...if you know what to do with it. There are also some programs out there which will take the "fishy" out of the photo and make is super super wide. I only got this lens in Dec. and haven't had the chance to do that much with it yet but I really like it.

shack

04-16-2009, 06:27 PM

but if you compare the Sigma 18-200 F/3.5-6.3 to the Nikon 80-200 F/2.8 there is a HUGE difference in the image you will capture and there will be images that you will be able to capture that the 18-200 never can.

In some cases yes...some cases no. Granted the Nikon is a better lens and will do many things better...it should. It's faster and I'm sure has better glass. But a HUGE difference is not a given.

I am by no means a "photography snob" but I do have 20 years in the photo business owning a photo lab and being a professional photographer full time.

The difference between pro quality glass and consumer quality glass is getting norrower every year. While not a pro, I've been shooting for at least 35 years (not as long as audio) and the quality that can be had for not much money today is really huge compared to when I started. The photo pros I know say the same thing. One of their complaints is that it is too easy for amateurs to take good photos on the cheap because the gear is so good and so affordable. (of course there is still that skill and experience thing to consider ;) )

I'm not arguing the point either. If I could fill my bag with L lenses, I would. It's just that even the affordable stuff is pretty good these days.

Early B.

04-17-2009, 07:35 AM

The difference between pro quality glass and consumer quality glass is getting norrower every year. While not a pro, I've been shooting for at least 35 years (not as long as audio) and the quality that can be had for not much money today is really huge compared to when I started. The photo pros I know say the same thing. One of their complaints is that it is too easy for amateurs to take good photos on the cheap because the gear is so good and so affordable. (of course there is still that skill and experience thing to consider ;) )

Agreed.

I recently "upgraded" from a Nikon 70-300mm "consumer" lens to a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 "pro" lens. The differences in image quality are not discernible until you get into low light situations. However, the build quality of the Sigma is quite impressive.

Intel92

04-17-2009, 03:22 PM

I wasn't born here when this thread started but must say you made a wise choice imo. I own a D70 and use a Canon 10D at work so I have experience with both and absolutely prefer the Nikon. Not because it is necessarily a better camera. I just like the feel much more and believe it is easier to use. Unfortunately I don't have the equipment at home that I do at work. I have a 200-400mm lense (plus a doubler) for the Canon that is ridiculous.

shack

04-25-2009, 06:17 PM

polkatese

05-11-2009, 03:09 PM

Took it yesterday at the Aquarium of the Pacific..

Early B.

05-20-2009, 05:06 PM

Just "upgraded" from the D80 to the D200. ...

At some point I'll start taking pictures...

Upgraded again to the D300. Dammit!!! Does this madness ever stop?

polkatese

05-20-2009, 05:18 PM

Brad, when you said upgraded, you meant to say you add a new D300 body? how many do you have now? :)

Early B.

05-20-2009, 09:05 PM

Brad, when you said upgraded, you meant to say you add a new D300 body? how many do you have now? :)

Only one.

ward91

05-27-2009, 07:44 PM

Haven’t read much of this but;
Im thinking of either a d60 or a pentax k20 , my mate has a d40 and i like using that.

Hillbilly61

05-28-2009, 12:07 AM

Haven’t read much of this but;
Im thinking of either a d60 or a pentax k20 , my mate has a d40 and i like using that.

IMO, its mostly a question of electronic capabilities. The lens rule. With a good lens, decent CCD and full manual control over shutter speed & apature, I am good to go! If I need to trade off priorities, I prefer shutter control over apature, but that is where my preference lay. Mistakes in settings are, more or less, free with filmless cameras.

Its like dogfighting. The more skillful pilot in a less performing plane will almost always win over a less skillful one in a better performing airplane.