Jump to content

john_hawley4

Members
  • Posts

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. <p>Kent: I suppose I meant the D750 announcement is the prosumer DX-killer rather than the D750 itself. (Also lack of DX lens announcements, but maybe more to come.) But how much would a D300 replacement cost? - not that we'll ever know. Seems clear to me that Nikon is going for the consumer DX line and the prosumer to pro FX line. If you go for DX consumer, that's where you stay or start again from scratch. The cost? - That's how it used to be in the old days (actually much higher allowing for inflation) so we'll just have to get used to the bigger jump from dead-end consumer (and I don't think the dead-end factor is something these purchasers are aware of or interested in) to prosumer and on.<br> I suspect those calling for a D300 replacement are very much a minority. Most people want a smaller, lighter system, so not many want more size and weight. With greater pixel counts, the reach argument for DX loses force. Weather-proofing comparisons seem a bit tenuous - do people really leave their D300 out in the rain, and does it fare any worse than a D7100? Does it really all boil down to control placement and basically the presence on an AF-on button?<br> As I said before, and I'm surprised to see it so rarely mentioned, what I'm really looking forward to when I finally save my pennies and switch to FX is the viewfinder. I've been playing with an old film camera recently (Olympus OM-2N) and the viewfinder is a revelation after a DX DSLR. After all, a main point of a reflex camera is being able to see what you're taking a picture of!</p> <p> </p>
  2. <p>Unless there are more announcements in the pipeline, and despite the price, I see the D750 as Nikon's official prosumer DX-killer. Forget about a D300 replacement (most people already had) or further support for DX lenses, though I'm sure we'll see regular 18-XX updates! The 20mm lens announcement only supports that. The improved AF is the decider for me, though I'll be waiting to see how it works in practice (the D7000 was a similar improvement in AF but tricky for the user - largely overcome on the D7100).<br> I regret this, really wanted to stay with DX, but the big plus of DX for me is compactness and lighter weight, and if the dedicated DX lenses are not available then it is not viable for me. I've never been happy with my forays into third party lenses, the Nikon offerings for FX lenses are getting lighter in some cases anyway, so I reluctantly forsee FX in my future, despite the very considerable cash outlay. The flippy screen will be useful, though I'd rather not have it in the interests of compactness, but I've always lusted for the FX viewfinder - seems rarely mentioned but it really is the biggest advantage of FX over DX.</p>
  3. <p>I see that KEH has the NIKON 60MM F/2.8 D MICRO AUTOFOCUS LENS in "excellent" condition for $248 so I'm guessing it can be found for considerably less, albeit without the peace of mind that comes from KEH. But then the Hoya set is in the range $30 to $40. The "Micro" lens also gives you a general purpose 60mm f/2.8 lens, so depending on your other work it can be rather useful. Though it seems ideal for the purpose, be cautious about using it for portraits of ladies - being able to clearly see every pore, hair, etc. has not proved very popular and some female friends now go into hiding if they see me with a camera!<br> Anyway, just a thought to add to the mix.</p>
  4. <p>I use and prefer DX, but if starting/re-starting with Nikon gear I would feel forced to go FX - I don't feel comfortable with Nikon's commitment to DX any more. Yes, there's a significant price hit (except FX wide angle lenses can be better/cheaper than their DX equivalents due to physical constraints), but looking even moderately long term FX seems the way to go for what you describe. The less expensive DX cameras will produce more than adequate quality at some slight loss of versatility, but the snob factor mentioned by others is a factor! You can do a lot with a fancy flash grip and a few other impressive-looking (even if ultimately useless) accessories! Sorry that this is not what you want to hear - I very much share your frustration.</p>
  5. <p>I have the SB-800, but the user interface is a nightmare - complicated menus on a dim screen. I'm sure if you use it all the time, or have a particular setup that meets most of your needs it's OK, but for an occasional user like me I end up just leaving it on automatic and hoping for the best, which is often nowhere near good enough (though I've got some really good shots with it too). But I recall that when a subsequent flash was released (the SB-900?) a near universal comment was that the user interface was incomparably improved. So if I was buying another flash, user interface would be a major consideration - I've just lost too may shots messing with the SB-800.</p>
  6. <p>Shun must have had some bad traumatic experience with the 18-55 lens, though all he says is quite true! As a family we have at least three of them, and no problems with performance. Last one I bought was a brand new but pre-VR version and from memory cost about $125. So my wife won't be parted from it! The light weight is a big plus, but another thing I really like about it is that it focusses a lot closer than other similar lenses. So we were taking some pictures of specimen blooms, and my wife was shooting away while I was getting out my macro lens and enduring comments about my slowness given the variable wind and light conditions!<br> The killer for me using the 24-85 would be limited wide angle. 24mm on FX (DX equivalent 16mm) is about as good as you can get on a general purpose lens, but 24mm on DX is just dipping a toe into even moderate wide angle territory. Stepping back is often not an option, e.g. for interiors and some architectural work (though the constraint might lead to more interesting compositions).<br> Pros use more expensive lenses because they want bigger aperture - even if not needed for the exposure it seems to me that autofocus is a bit more positive with more light - and because they do beat up on their equipment - they can't afford to be gentle and miss a shot. I've not known it happen, but it wouldn't surprise me if a pro ripped the mount off a plastic mount lens. You can also use them, e.g. the 17-55 f/2.8, for personal defense, but best to check your back and shoulder muscles before adopting that approach! For weddings and events you really need an assistant just to carry stuff for you.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...