Jump to content

ICF photography thread


zen

Recommended Posts

Thanks rett. I am just a starter and I read that D5000 is a great start camera. Will probably buy lens once I start playing around with it and learning more. I don't want to invest more on a start camera. I almost bought D3000, as it is below 500 now. But I thought I can afford D5000 which is about 200 more now. There is this another friend who has Nikon suggested to go for Nikon over Rebels for some reason. I guess Nikon is a better brand. Great thread, BTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Nikon is better than Cannon, CR. However, beware that Nikon is an expensive long term investment as well compared to Cannon, not just the camera and the first lens. Original Nikon lenses are significantly more expensive than original Cannon lenses and every time you are adding a lens to your equipment, you are going to feel the pinch. The alternative is to go for third party lenses, which are pretty much the same price for Nikon and Cannon, but there is an observable loss of clarity depending on the type of results you are aiming for. Personally, I have a film Nikon F5 and F4 and a significant array of Nikon lenses collected over the last 10-12 years gradually and have been very happy with the results. I haven't done much photography over the past 3-4 years though. Aiming to get into the digital world with a D2X/H (They have come out with the D3X/H series as well, but that is insanely priced).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks rett. I am just a starter and I read that D5000 is a great start camera. Will probably buy lens once I start playing around with it and learning more. I don't want to invest more on a start camera. I almost bought D3000, as it is below 500 now. But I thought I can afford D5000 which is about 200 more now. There is this another friend who has Nikon suggested to go for Nikon over Rebels for some reason. I guess Nikon is a better brand. Great thread, BTW.
I switched to Nikon too from Canon recently. Sold the Canon 40D and a bunch of lenses and went FF with the D700. But I only went for Nikon because it makes excellent pro-level stuff. The high ISO performance is perceived to be better on high end Nikon bodies, including AF performance. (Ironically, though my first lens for Nikon is a Carl Zeiss 50mm, which is MF) Like what some have said, Nikon is awesome for its pro-level gear but for entry-level gear, Canon offers a better choice. Though when you buy a SRL and a lens, you are not just buying them but investing in to the system, which involves adding more lenses in future and flashes. If you have decided to invest in Nikon and are set on the D5000 (though I heard that its replacement is coming out) then by all means go for it as it is a good camera. To start out, I would recommend getting the body only and then getting the Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX lens or Sigma 30mm 1.4 lens. Since D5000 is a crop body, you get a 1.5 crop factor for lenes. Which means that a 30mm lens on a FF has a field of view of 45mm on a Nikon crop body so a 30mm lens is like a 45mm lens on crop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Nikon is better than Cannon, CR. However, beware that Nikon is an expensive long term investment as well compared to Cannon, not just the camera and the first lens. Original Nikon lenses are significantly more expensive than original Cannon lenses and every time you are adding a lens to your equipment, you are going to feel the pinch. The alternative is to go for third party lenses, which are pretty much the same price for Nikon and Cannon, but there is an observable loss of clarity depending on the type of results you are aiming for. Personally, I have a film Nikon F5 and F4 and a significant array of Nikon lenses collected over the last 10-12 years gradually and have been very happy with the results. I haven't done much photography over the past 3-4 years though. Aiming to get into the digital world with a D2X/H (They have come out with the D3X/H series as well, but that is insanely priced).
You could try out the D700 though. I heard that its replacement is coming out in probably Q1 2011 so that should be a killer as well!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could try out the D700 though. I heard that its replacement is coming out in probably Q1 2011 so that should be a killer as well!
Yeah, but I am just so spoiled by the professional feel and handling of the F4 and F5 that going for one of the lighter SLRs will just not feel right. I would rather get a 4-5 year old D2X/H over a new semi professional new Nikon. I have literally dropped my F4 from a 40 foot cliff and it just came back with some dings on the body - the lens got shattered though. But really the pricing of the D3 series is atrocious. It basically precludes anyone from buying it, except people who actually make money from selling their photographs or someone in the filthy rich category - $7000 for a camera is just insane.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but I am just so spoiled by the professional feel and handling of the F4 and F5 that going for one of the lighter SLRs will just not feel right. I would rather get a 4-5 year old D2X/H over a new semi professional new Nikon. I have literally dropped my F4 from a 40 foot cliff and it just came back with some dings on the body - the lens got shattered though. But really the pricing of the D3 series is atrocious. It basically precludes anyone from buying it, except people who actually make money from selling their photographs or someone in the filthy rich category - $7000 for a camera is just insane.
Like you said, D3X is more for the professionals but the D700 replacement could have its sensor much like the D700 has the D3's sensor. And many pros use D700 too but if you like the feel of the D3 series than you could find an used D3 in $3k-$4k range On the other hand, if you like to shoot film then there is nothing like it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...