is there something between a D90 and a D300s?

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Stephen,<br>

While I totally agree with you that the statement on the D300 is rather untrue,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So please don't listen to the self appointed experts here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>aren't we all self appointed experts with varying degrees of proven expertise, including you and me? For myself, I will immediately add, though: I have absolutely no proven expertise... Anyway. For what it's worth.</p>

<p>Ed, I wonder whether for this scenario lighting/flash is the way to go. Primarily, there are people swimming, and I cannot imagine flashlight or its reflection is very nice when you're in the water. And while getting photos of the event is nice, the swimming has to come first.<br>

Depending on the budget: D80 or D90, primarily to be able to use AF-D lenses. The D80 is not at all bad at ISO800, so it is a viable option, I think. Budget allowing, a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 is a great lens, but if that is a bit too expensive, primes like the 85 f/1.8 or 180 f/2.8 may be very interesting. But for primes, first be sure which focal lenght is best applicable for your uses (EXIF data is so ideal for these things!).<br>

I would not go for a D300 in your case, as far as I can judge it. Sure the D300 is a better body than the D90, but budget-wise, the D300 might stretch a bit too far in one direction, and leave too little for the lenses which you're better off replacing with faster glass.</p>

<p>Another option, if you are relatively static and can pre-focus on where you want to take the picture, you could consider manual focus lenses, and get some old, utterly good primes such as the 105 f/2.5, 180 f/2.8, or the likes. With a bit of searching, these lenses do not need to cost much. Add a light meter, which 2nd hand should also not cost an arm and a leg - but this sure is a bit a different way of working alltogether.</p>

[ddrake]

<p>Ed,<br>

I have both the D90 and the D300s. I use them both very frequently. I cant say I prefer one over the other, they are both great cameras. The D300s has better build quality and sealing, better AF system, and I think it meters better. I also like the quick ability to change settings using the dials/buttons on the camera instead of some of the in-camera menus. The faster frame rate on the D300s is nice for sports shots. <br>

I agree with others who have posted that a fast lens would help you. I have a Tamron 2.8 28-75mm but it does not have VR so I have noticed that I get significant blur when I am walking around with it (not on a tripod or monopod). When I can keep the camera still, it is a great lens. So you may want to consider getting a fast lens with VR. If I had to choose between the D90 and a fast lens and the D300s with a standard lens, I would go with the D90 and the better glass. If it were me, I would invest (or rent) a high quality fast zoom lens and try it on your D40...you may be surprized.<br>

Dan</p>

[hbs]

<p>Ed:</p>

<p>A recent purchase I made (that I am very happy with) was a used 300mm AF f/4 lens (not the current AF-S). Since I have a D300, the lack of an internal motor was not an issue. The important point though is that the AF lens is as fast and sharp (and many consider better built) than the AF-S lens, but at half (or less) the cost. Unfortunately your D40 wouldn't be able to autofocus, so you would need a body upgrade. Used D300 at $1300 (or the D90, new) plus a used (non-zoom) 300 f/4 (that maintains its sharpness and can really be used at f/4) should be in your budget.</p>

<p>....just one more opinion.....(from another self-appointed expert??? -- hardly)...</p>

[hbs]

<p>...(continued from above).... The point I was trying to make was by employing a camera body having its own focus motor, you open up the possibility of using AF (and not just AF-S) lenses which could save quite a bit of money without compromising glass quality. As far as any focus speed difference, if you're following your daughter along the lane, the distance changes very little, hence the several suggestions above for MF lenses.</p>

<p>Good luck in whatever you decide, Ed.</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>Thanks, Daniel, Harvey.<br>

My choices are the same as when I began in this thread, but the reasons and tradeoffs are now much clearer from the various viewpoints here filling in blanks I didn't know I had. What I learned was that I shouldn't maintain a single-minded focus on body, that lens perhaps is 60% or more of my issue, that my current d40x body has more limiting me than just ISO performace (i.i. the lack of focus motor, which I new, but now I realize is a bigger impediment than I imagined initially). Cheaper zooms perform worse than a prime, and "settling" for a more expensive but well-performing prime is not a bad thing. Looks like D90 is the way to go, but only after a lens upgrade.<br>

I called my local shop and the trade in for my d40x body is only $125 dollars, as they sell for $250 and they need to make their profit. Now to figure out where to sell it, plus where to sell my lenses. I guess it's craig's list, and dealing with the good and the occasional kook... I have a feeling I'll shop around for a 500 dollar prime, or a 700 dollar mid range zoom, but AF-S if I don't buy a body immediately. I"m starting to sense a new chicken-egg problem. Lens is the problem, but cheap and good primes are AF not AF-S, and so the body is in the way of "cheap"-but--good AF glass... </p>

[alex_iwonttell]

<p>I believe this has been said before, but IMO your choices are not D90 vs D300, but:<br /> 1) D90 + good lenses or flash<br /> 2) keep the D40x + more good lenses or flash<br /> I.e. if you feel the D300 is an overkill, it means it is, especially if you'd use it with the Sigma 18-200. Bad spending of money.<br /> I'd keep the D40x (lovely camera, I was gonna buy it if it didn't have the overexposure problem). If it happens to break, you can get the D5000/D90/D300 later...<br /> If you want primes, well it's D90 then... A D90 with 85/1.8 is great, as well as D40x with 24-70 or 70-200 VR. Another option is the cheap good Samyang 85/1.4 lens which is not AF anyway, so the body makes no difference :)</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p> Samyang 85/1.4.. intriguing! never thought of getting a non AF lens. Was always weighing AF-S vs. AF, but to get something with no AF on purpose never entered into my mind.<br>

Stick vs. Automatic clutch. So much work. So much control? And priced at a lower point. I guess that's the point? I assume they make one woth nikon mount.<br>

I found this:<br>

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=31403989">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=31403989</a><br>

or <br>

<a href="http://www.lenstip.com/166.1-Lens_review-Samyang_85_mm_f_1.4_Aspherical_IF_.html">http://www.lenstip.com/166.1-Lens_review-Samyang_85_mm_f_1.4_Aspherical_IF_.html</a><br>

or continued here<br>

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=31613234&changemode=1">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=31613234&changemode=1</a></p>

[orpheus]

<p>Hehehe...That's what I was mentioning before. IF the swimming movement allowed for easy prefocusing (or if you plan to put some time into practicing manual focusing), then MF lenses (like the one you mentioned) would open up a whole BIG range of possibilities for low budget, high quality, large aperture, lenses...8)</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>But what are the implications of using a non-CPU lens in a d40x, where there is no ( i believe ) menu item to specify to the camera what lens is attached? ( or is this not necessary) From the below, the D200, you can menu set the lens, and some camera functions come back. I dont recall in the D40x anywhere I can specify what lens is attached, and so I'm assuming I'll lose light metering and possibly something else.<br>

ie.<br>

<a href="http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/d200_and_non-cpu_lenses/">http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/d200_and_non-cpu_lenses/</a><br>

Will spot metering work? Or if not what will a D40x do with, for example, a Samyang 85/1.4 (what ca,era functions will I be losing by using a non CPU lens)</p>

[orpheus]

<p>Basically, you'll need to go on full manual (M mode). No metering, no autofocus. So either you need an external meter (or pre-meter using a lens that you have), are good at 'eyeballing' lighting, or experiment (way better with digital since u can see the results, than film). It may be tough if the light is constantly changing, but if it's for your swimming pool application which is consistent lighting almost all the time, it should be a breeze (as I mentioned before, once you get the exposure right, it'll be like that 'forever')...8) We can go through a detailed run-through one time if you want to know how (it can be tested even with the lens you have right now).</p>

<p>Peter</p>

<p>P.S. There is the limitation, though, of post AI lenses...pre-AI lenses will screw up ur camera (just make sure it is at least an AI or AIS lens...)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ed,</p>

<p>I already pointed in that direction too in my previous post. The D40/D40x have no issues taking AI/AIS lenses, but indeed everything becomes manual, so an external light meter might be a very wise thing to add to the list.<br>

Nice as the Samyang can be according to many, it's not that cheap, I think. Given the 2nd hand prices I'd go for a Nikkor 105 f/2.5. Awesome lens. Ah well, it's up in my previous post :-)</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>So with the samyang 85mm 1.4, I can't use, say, shutter priority mode? I have to leave it on manual? Now if the lens is F1.8 and there's no zoom to vary that, what does the aperture setting do on the camera at that point? Nothing?<br>

Sorry if these are dumb questions, I've been Mr. zoom and Mr. AF-S for almost 2 yrs (although I've used manual mode of course, but just with 3 AF-S lenses) and this is my first venture into "manual lenses"...</p>

[joshuasigar]

<p>Manual metering is no biggie when you have access to histogram these days and once set you don't have to change it. But I won't recommend manual focusing for your purpose; it's not the easiest thing to do. Just try manual focusing with your current lenses and you'll probably miss a lot of shots.</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>The pentamirror viewfinder in the D40x is not particularly good for manual focusing, especially when the light is less than ideal. It's not impossible, but it's not easy either. The pentaprism viewfinder in the D90 is bigger and brighter than the viewfinder in the D40x, which would definitely make manual focusing a bit easier. Just something to think about. :-)</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>Well, I do get the drift that using a samyang 85mm 1.4 MF with my D40x would be a radical wake up call for someone who's been used to auto focus. I'm drawn by the great low-light performance and the sharpness. The auto focus on my d40x-- with my sigma 18-200 OS AF-S-- hasn't been exactly quick. Often I find myself squeezing, then it hunts for a spot it can focus on, and I miss shots 1/2 the time anyway because of this. And I'm already zooming in, zooming out, then waiting 1/2 the time for the AF to kick in. So with that same effort, I assume I can learn to do predictive MF, and get brighter shots at F1.4. And I'm aware that an added danger now is the narrower DOF, but I'd rather have more light at this point, and deal with wrestling for in-focus pics.<br>

I just don't know what the camera controls I"m used to-- shutter priority, manual mode, etc-- will be like with this lens. I assume I set the shutter speed (on SP mode) and the camera then know that the lens is F1.4 prime, and keeps the F there (has no choice). Or do I need to (can I) go into the d40 menu and specify that I have an F1.4 lens on there (since the camera doesnt know since it's not a CPU lens)</p>

<p> </p>

[orpheus]

<p>Basically, you'll need to work in M mode. The shutter speed will be controlled on the body, just like shutter-priority (S mode), but the aperture will register "--" on the LCD display, and will actually be set by the aperture ring on the lens itself (anything non-G lens has an aperture ring on the lens mount end of the lens with tick marks showing the major f-stops (1.4,2,2.8,4,5.6,etc.). You can 'part' stops by delicately turning to inbetween tick-marks.</p>

[orpheus]

<p>An added bonus also will be your viewfinder will be a lot brighter (so will help with your manual focusing in the dim light), although still small...8)</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>I see. So I can go ahead and adjust shutter on my d40x dial as before, but I'd have to adjust aperture using the ring on the lens itself. Thank you. ( I realize that this must sound like a kindergarten class here to many of you, stating the most obvious of facts, but I've always dealt with digital, and don't have the solid underpinning many of you do with earlier cameras and lenses)<br>

By the way, there's no reason a teleconverter wouldnt work on a Samyang 85mm 1.4, would there?<br>

ie.<br>

<a href="http://www.cameta.com/Phoenix-2x-Teleconverter-Nikon-AF-10519.cfm">http://www.cameta.com/Phoenix-2x-Teleconverter-Nikon-AF-10519.cfm</a><br>

I know that the combination of the f/1.4 samyang and the teleconverter would cut light out of my 85mm in order to let it function as a 170mm, but if I want to get a series of tele shots, it still might give a better f value than my existing cheaper sigma zoom (without the teleconverter)<br>

<a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3324&navigator=6">http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3324&navigator=6</a></p>

<p> </p>

[orpheus]

<p>Most teleconverters (Nikon mount) should work, with some exceptions where there is a lens portrusion (usually those designed for 300mm or above). What you have to be careful of though is not all teleconverter and lens combinations work well. Some degrade the quality of the lens (sharpness, contrast, colour, etc.) by a lot. Furthermore, if you get a 2x converter, it'll (on the average) cut out 2-stops of light, so ur 1.4 will effectively become a 2.8 (and possibility slightly worse). And judging from ur need of MORE light gathering to freeze action rather than being actually closer, I'd probably not recommend going for that teleconverter...2-stops is a lot.<br>

If you wanted to go for 170mm, i'd probably recommend getting a AF or MF 180mm 2.8 (400-800, depending on condition) or a MF 135mm 2.8 (150-300) or as wouter suggested, the MF 105mm 2.5...All of them would be way better than an 85 with a teleconverter combo.</p>

<p>If you want to check out the framing, i'd recommend going to the pool when less people are there, and shooting using ur those focal lengths using direct flash at ISO 400-800 with an aperture of f8. Then go back to the computer and crop to the area that you would want composition-wise, and see if that level of noise and level of detail is enough.<br>

The reason for this 'experiment' is to see IF you got a sharp picture (since there is flash) at an ISO and focal length that you might be getting, would you be sufficiently ok with the cropped image. The reason for the smaller aperture is to increase the quality of the image that might otherwise be 'crappier' with ur zoom lens' quality, so it'll approach a bit more closer to the actual quality of the lenses u are getting (minus the whole shallower DOF feel).</p>

<p>So say you adjusted ur zoom to 85mm and u shot a sharp shot of it with flash at the pool. Go back and you crop it on ur screen to what you want (ideally), then u look at it and say, "hey, that's not that bad", then the 85 would already be sufficient for you....but say you say, "whoa, it's so pixelly now and the image is so small..." then u might need a bit more, like 105 or 135...repeat experiment again using the other focal lengths, until one achieves the resolution, quality, and size that you need.</p>

<p>Technically, if you are mathematically gifted and understand optics well, it's possible to do the cropping part without actually testing it. i.e. you 'estimate' the resolution of image that you need (e.g. 200dpi for a 4x6 print, u need 1200x800 image), u've been using 250mm focal length to shoot ur daughter most frequently, ur sensor is 6MP (3000x2000), you can calculate back what angle of view is needed from the area of the minimally needed cropped image to what is available on your sensor, then u can figure out what is the minimal focal length you need. If this was totally too much, you can ignore this last paragraph...hehehe 8)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>A 85mm lens is a bit short for a TC, to be honest, so not likely the Samyang is designed to handle one well (or at all). Next to that, 2xTCs tend to rob a lot of quality. Especially one this cheap.<br>

Nor does it make a lot of sense to me.<br>

Why the Samyang? It's not that cheap. The Samyang is something like $350, the TC 80. So let's say $400.<br>

Let's go shopping. A Nikkor 105 f/2.5 second hand will be around $150-200. And is about as sharp as lenses get. Search around for AI(-S) 180 f/2.8, I think $400 could be able to find you one (at least on the most famous auction site I see some). And for that money, we're talking top lenses, seriously better than the Samyang (especially paired with a cheap 2x TC).</p>

<p>My recommendation would really be: get the 105 f/2.5, since it represents the lowest investment, while getting you a very serious Nikon classic.<br>

Try it how it works. Do not try to "continiously focus", but select a point to focus on, set the camera and wait for the swimmer to be in that point.</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>Yikes. I have some serious reading and math to do. Thanks guys, you're more than generous in conversating with me and my organically-unwinding thought process here...<br>

The used lens is an idea. I also see this:<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Aspherical-Nikon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0025EX3XK">http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Aspherical-Nikon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0025EX3XK</a><br>

Here's a review of the Rokinon/Samyang/Polar/Opteka/Bower/Vivitar vs the Nikon<br>

<a href="http://www.jsvfoto.com/Home/faqs/nikkor85mmf14aisvspolar85mmf14/nikkorpolarreview">http://www.jsvfoto.com/Home/faqs/nikkor85mmf14aisvspolar85mmf14/nikkorpolarreview</a><br>

at $259, it appears to be a decent price.<br>

Oh, and I've abandoned my fantasy about a teleconverter. Didn't realize it was that much of a tradeoff-- obviously not worth it. </p>

 

[orpheus]

<p>Hahaha....nono, the math part was just me being crazy (and if you happen to be a math or physics or engineering type of person). If it looks too complicated, ignore it. You don't need it.</p>

<p>And I agree with Wouter, You'd be much better off with an actual Nikon lens, especially if budget is a concern. Nikon lenses will hold their value WAY better than almost all off-brands apart from a few exceptionally well designed ones (like the Tamron 90mm macro lens, or the Sigma 30mm 1.4 which have retained their value quite well too).</p>

<p>If you don't mind me asking, you don't happen to live in the Vancouver, BC, Canada area do you? I wouldn't mind lending you different lenses to try out for ur endeavours if you were local (but i remember you not being in this area...)</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>

 

<p>Just thinking aloud, if this lens is so good, why did Nikon stop making it? <br>

Wouldn't I be losing the Samyang f/1.4 going to 2.5 (in this instance), just for a used lens's better build? And isn't the leap from 1.4 to 2.5 fairly important in practical terms? (more noticeable than 2.4 to 2.8 or 1.4 to 1.8)<br>

Nah, I'm in NY metro, but my wife is from Montreal, but that doesn't help either of us... Very much appreciate the offer, however. Gives me the impression that Vancouver is stocked with good people...</p>

 

 

</p>

[orpheus]

<p>There's many reasons why a company may stop making a lens. Off the top of my head, the largest factor I would deduce is the fact that a newer, better variation or upgrade version of it is available. In the case of the 105mm f/2.5, it was commonly thought of as one of the best portrait lenses (due to its focal length, bokeh, sharpness, colour rendition, etc.). But the newer designs came out with AF 105 f/2 DC and 135, which were specifically designed for portraiture (with it's defocus area control), which would make the older design obsolete (not in terms of quality, but in terms of functionality). Of course, many other factors like the onslaught of AF and AF-S body designs made MF lenses much less 'profitable'. Although, if you look at the nikon website, even today, MF lenses are still made and sold brand new, which means they still do have their applicable areas.</p>

<p>Lens build I would say in this case is minor, in the sense that I doubt you would use it to the point of it breaking apart or in precarious locations. More so probably would be it's ability to retain value. I don't know too much about the quality of this Samyang 85 lens, and wouldn't be knowledgeable enough to make comments, so by all means, if you find reliable sources and good testing and reviews and the general (non-profit) public agrees it's a good lens, then you could look into it, but know that you wouldn't be able to resell it out at anywhere near its purchase price down the road.</p>

<p>But I agree with you, 1.4 to 2.5 would be a significant loss of around 1.5stops. You'd have to see whether that is what you want or not. The other difference of course would be 85mm to 105mm, but if u were going for 105 f/2.5, i'd recommend just going up to MF 135 f/2.8. The difference in focal length would be more worth it for the stop difference. I bought my 135 f/2.8 (used and battered up) for like $100, but the optics of it were still clean and sharp and great to use.</p>

[orpheus]

<p>Oh, and one minor thing, some of the MF lenses have gone through SEVERAL if not MANY iterations and versions...it would be good to do some research into which particular ones are the gems and which ones were the bad ones...I have some reliable sources here and there if u are interested. I think the 135 f/2.8 MF has gone through like at least 4-5 changes in the last 20 years. 8)</p>