alvinyap Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>I really wish there was a D3.1k sized dslr with the AF motor, I am looking for a smaller sized dslr for just walking around, travels. The d300 I've got is very good when I need performance, but its really big, heavy, stands out, and I don't feel safe lugging it around when exploring unknown territory. The main reason for wanting the AF motor is of course, lenses - my main walkaround lens, the 24/2.8D nikkor is perfect, if slow in terms of aperture.</p><p>Am considering a D90 atm, for the top lcd + af motor, but the weight gain of the entry level cameras would be really good. Ah well. Maybe I'll just bite the bullet and get one of the small cameras with the 35/1.8DX :-/</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_momary Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>How about the D7000?<br> Jim</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alvinyap Posted December 15, 2010 Author Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>Hi Jim,<br> The D7000 is really expensive at the moment, in jessops UK, the D7000 actually costs more than the D300s (!!!). I also don't really need the performance of the d7k for my purposes.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>Buy a nice cheap, used D60 or D3100 or something, and get a Sigma 30/1.4 HSM. You'll get AF, a small body, and a lens you'll really like to also use on your D300. A lot.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wpahnelas Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>do it. i got a D3100 for just the reasons you describe, and didn't let lack of focus motor -- or all the other amenities -- scare me off. as long as your 24/2.8 lens will meter, you shouldn't have an issue with focusing manually -- the rangefinder is your friend. for knocking around, you could do worse than the 18-55 VR kit lens, but i sprung for the 35/1.8 and it's definitely a keeper. heck, for $650, you really can't go wrong. and if you're not stridently anti-video, it even does that stuff well enough for personal use. while not my primary reason for purchasing, i was curious to see how DSLR video worked -- but didn't feel like springing for a D7000 to find out. as i said, it's good for what it is, and worth considering.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>D50?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>A D50 is really pretty much exactly the same size and shape as a D90.</p> <p>I think the D90 is going to be your best inexpensive choice at this point. The others are, imho, too old to sink money into. And it balances well with either a 35 or 50, so I bet it'd be GREAT fun with that 24.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl_becker2 Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>I had thoughts about a smaller DSLR to carry when hiking. I have a D700 and even with one prime it is large and heavy. IMHO a D90 with a prime would be about 29-30 ounces depending and cost over $1k if I also purchased a Voigtlander 20mm for metering. I also am looking at the Fujifilm X100 but I will just carry what I have and be happy with the results if not the knees. Fortunately my backpack has a large pocket in front for balance so it is not that critical. The D90 has a decent viewfinder so I was not to concerned about focus ability or add a screen if needed.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alvinyap Posted December 15, 2010 Author Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>Hi everyone!<br> Thanks for reading me rant. I'm still undecided, though the d90 seems to be my best choice, however, Matt Laur's, idea bears merit and I will consider it. I have sigma jitters from bad past experiences though :-/<br> Re: 35/1.8DX - not a fan of the focal range on dx; much prefer a wide normal between 35-40mm equiv fov. That said, for some reason I can work with a 50/1.4 on a Minolta x700 :-/</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>For a cheap and light camera for occasional use, assuming you don't have lots of DX lenses, why not get a film body like an F75? If I'm going somewhere where I'm doing a lot of shooting I'll cart my D700 with me, but if I'm doing more walking than shooting I'm happy to pay to get some film processed, and it's less catastrophic if I fall in a river or leave it in a cold car.<br /> <br /> I actually have an F5 as back-up, which is by no means light, but that's because Nikon never made a cheap, light SLR that works with their entire lens range - the F100, F5 and F6 (all fairly heavy and expensive) were the only options, and the F5 was the best of those for me. Since I'm a convert from Canon, I still have an Eos 500 to use - it's lighter than my rangefinder, even with a 50mm f/1.8 on it - but at some point I'll probably get an F75 to consolidate (most of) my lens ranges. I also got a £40 compact camera that's small enough to live in my bag for the times when I should have remembered to bring a DSLR with me and didn't - for the odd snap of scenery, it's not <i>that</i> bad.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>D90 should work fine, and it's a compact DSLR. The motor actually takes significant room in the body so this is why it was left out of the D40 et al.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alvinyap Posted December 15, 2010 Author Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>Hey all!<br> Andrew, my fx lenses are mostly longer telephotos, my film slrs are actually mostly Minoltas :D I'm really not planning on shooting much film nowadays, it's just way too expensive. E.g. I bought a roll of 160NC this weekend, was £6.80. Processing direct to a photo cd is about £9. Gets expensive real fast :)</p> <p>I just popped by to say I dropped into a shop to check out the D5000 and D3100 again, sadly the D3100 was not on display. Tested the D5000 and apart from the inability to disable AF on the shutter release (or I could not find that custom function) I think the kit would be fine. Else I'd just bite the bullet and get the D90 :D</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>Alvin: 7dayshop.com: 135 160NC currently £3.99, or £3.59 in bulk. Photos2you.co.uk do a dev & scan for £7.99, although it's much cheaper to get the film back and scan it later if not every shot is a keeper, or if you can live with home scanning. Just suggestions, but high streets tend to be pricey. It's not "free" like digital, but for when I don't expect to take many shots, it's not extortionate to come back from an outing with a few scans or slides - although I'd not recommend it as a cheap long-term solution unless you're including the price of regularly dropping the camera in a river in your budget. I believe the D5000 is on the way out, for what it's worth (so there might be some deals to be had). Good luck!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>alvin, i have a d300s and a d90.</p> <p>my .02: the d90/35/18 is a sweet combo for street. in fact, the 35/1.8 with just about any nikon DSLR is a sweet street combo.</p> <p>i also have the 30/1.4, which balances better with a d300 than the 35 IMO. in fact, it makes the d300 more suitable for stealthy shooting missions, especially if you use black electrical tape to remove the nikon advertising. still, i can understand wanting to leave it at home.</p> <p>ps here's another tip: check out the Vanguard "Sydney" bags (just got the 27 model from Adorama). they're smallish messenger-style bags with camera inserts. pretty good build quality, fairly inexpensive, and they're bigger on the inside than they look on the outside. i can fit a d300s w/ 70-200 in vertical draw position+ another lens+flash in mine, and they have a top zip flap which makes quickly removing and putting the camera back into the bag a breeze. i can't imagine doing that with another bag that small. plus, they dont look like camera bags at all.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>Would you consider selling the D300 and get a D7000? If it were me, I think it would be pretty difficult to go to a D90 after using a D300 for a while. But that is me; as they say, your mileage may vary.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_zepeda Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>If you want small and want to manually focus, what about a micro 4/3 camera? The Sigma 30 isn't particularly small. You can adapt all sorts of lenses to a 4/3 camera, and the micro stuff is quite small (about the size of a P&S). Something like the PEN EP-1 seems like it ought to do the trick. You can use the live view to focus on a nice big LCD. Or take a look at the Canon stuff. If nothing else, the tiny (chitnzy) SLR has been their domain for a while now. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about AF compatibility. Or blow your wad on some Leica gear and paint over the logos. Most people will assume you've got a teensy point and shoot. It'll be small and inconspicuous, but not particularly light. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_drutz Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>I have a D90 and I recently got a D3100. The D3100 is noticeably smaller and lighter than the D90 which is why I bought it. The IQ is at least as good as the D90 and D300. If the 35mm f/1.8 is too long the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a good choice if you want a prime.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_donahue Posted December 15, 2010 Share Posted December 15, 2010 <p>An inexpensive choice although not a DSLR is the Nikon P 7000. it does a lot real good, I've got one and am truly amazed at what you can do with it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 <p>I too would consider the P7000. It is much smaller than even the D3100, and has full manual control as well as Program, Aperture Priority, etc. Image quality is outstanding from my P6000, P7000 should be even better.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty_mickan Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 <p>why not go for an Olympus EP2? You can use all of your big slr lenses on it, it's small, discreet, and cheap, and has focus assist for manual focusing your lenses accurately.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 <blockquote> <p>a small nikon slr with the AF motor</p> </blockquote> <p>I think the OP has clearly specified his requirements:</p> <ul> <li>Must be an SLR, by Nikon.</li> <li>Must have an AF motor; he did check out a D5000, w/out AF motor, and rejected that. AF is definitely a requirement.</li> <li>He also rejected the film option</li> </ul> <p>In other words, if your answer is not a Nikon DSLR with AF motor and smaller than the D300, I am afraid that your answer is off topic.</p> <p>Within those constraints, there are only so many possibilities and they have all been discussed already.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alvinyap Posted December 16, 2010 Author Share Posted December 16, 2010 <p>Hey everyone!<br> @Andrew Ooo, thanks for the tip on 7dayshop, never seen that!<br> @Eric: One more vote for the D90 then :)<br> @Shun: I'm really happy with my D300 for its purposes right now, D7k just too much camera for me :) But I agree, D200-> D300 was an easy step up, going down I miss so many of the features. But the size :-/<br> @Alex & Ty: I've actually considered the GF1 and Olympus M4/3s, but end of it is, either I just settle for a PNS or go all the way with a aps-c dslr.<br> @Dave and James: TO be honest, I never considered a P&S this time round, but you guys have given me ideas... looking at some lumixes right now.</p> <p>Cheers all! Bottom line for me right now is<br> a) D90<br> b) D5k/d3100 with the 35/1.8DX and give up use of my AF primes :-/<br> c) P&S?<br> Xmas coming soon, gotta hurry :) Thanks all.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 <blockquote> <p>my film slrs are actually mostly Minoltas :D</p> </blockquote> <p>In that case, I would recommend the recent Sony A55/A33 and your Minolta lenses should work as a plus. I say this as a 10+ years nikon user. They are smaller than a d40 and much more fun!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_zepeda Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 <p>Alvin, I'm curious what you didn't like about the GF1.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_morris4 Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 <p>"D3.1k"!? Really? How is that easier to understand or write than "D3100"? It's not even fewer characters. And it's only very slightly smaller on the page, with a proportional typeface.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now