lex_jenkins Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 <p>I've had that 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor for several years. It's a good lens for the money but was the wrong lens for me. I needed a fast prime for available light photos with my D2H, which is noisy at high ISOs so I wanted a faster lens to keep the ISO below 1600.</p> <p>But the 50mm works like a 75mm on a crop sensor DX Nikon. And f/1.8 wasn't significantly faster than the 50/2 AI Nikkor I already had, although the 50/1.8D AF was slightly sharper wide open. I should have ponied up a bit more money and bought either the 50/1.4D AF Nikkor or a fast 30mm or 35mm Sigma or Nikkor - those would be closer to a "normal" lens on the DX sensor Nikons.</p> <p>If you plan to stop down to at least f/2.8 the 50/1.8D AF Nikkor is very sharp and a good short telephoto. It's lightweight, takes up little room in the bag and doesn't really need a lens shade - the deeply recessed front element is effectively shaded by the lens barrel itself. But I keep a threaded hood in the bag in case I need to use a polarizer or other filter on the 50.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebu_lamar Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 <blockquote> <p>My previous camera is a Minolta Maxxum 7000 from 1985. I've always developed the film and photographs myself. If I can get a digital camera that's notably better than that (I no longer have access to a dark room or the money to keep spending on the materials necessary for one.)<br />I'd prefer to not spend more than $600. If I can spend less than that, even better.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> I think this is a bit ambitious. You want a camera significantly better than the Maxxum 7000 and yet really not wanting to pay for much more than the Maxxum 7000 and not even consider inflation.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrankin Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 <p>You're getting good responses to your original question. As a previous owner of a D5100 and being familiar with a friend's D90, I would go for the D90. The primary reasons would be the larger, brighter viewfinder and the ability to meter with legacy lenses. The D5100 has a pentamirror assembly rather than pentaprism. This makes the viewing smaller and more dim. The D90 also seems to be more robust in overall build.<br> Being more of a B&W photographer for prints lately myself, I'm currently bidding on a clean D80 outfit, a related concept but with an even earlier sensor. These early and robust DSLRs, if clean and of limited use can provide nice raw files with which to work in B&W.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bacon Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 <p>Wouter and Howard: I think I'm convinced I'd prefer the D90 over the D5100 after reading what you said and doing some more of my own research as well. Howard's reasons are particularly convincing, since I spend most of my time in the viewfinder. I'm also very attracted to having so many settings directly on the camera as buttons instead of having to go through as many menus. <br /> What's outdated about the liveview in the D90? Also, what do you mean by "high sensitivities" regarding the sensor? What would be the practical loss? Are you talking about resolution and color depth?<br> The Tamron 60mm is quite a ways out of my budget, but the <a href="/equipment/nikon/lenses/40mm-f2.8-af-s-dx-micro/review/" rel="nofollow">AF-S 40mm f/2.8DX</a> Macro might be perfect. I don't mind getting close to a subject during portraiture and often like to include something secondary in the frame anyway. I'm not doing traditional client-focused portraiture. I've been reading about it and the 18-70 Lex mentioned, which also sounds great except that it doesn't focus until 15 inches, which is not as close as the 18-55mm Nikkor, which seems to be nearly as good as the 18-70, based on what I've read. Is that right? I'll try focusing at 15 inches with an 18-55mm Nikkor today and see if that's important to me. The closest images I linked to <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3x4b5z1k4msu8rw/onIv2L4TAv" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a> are as macro as I need to get.</p> <p>Bebu: You seem to have been missing a lot of the conversation. Thanks for replying though. I only have one worthwhile lens from my Minolta, I already have Lightroom, and the cameras you're suggesting are way out of my budget. As to your second post, I find the D90 to be a better camera (for me and the purposes I described) than the Maxxon 7000.</p> <p>Lex: I think I'll go more the direction that Wouter pushed me in, unless there's a drawback I haven't figured out yet.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bacon Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 <p>(The 40mm Wouter recommended seems to cover the whole range I need while giving me a little more macro to play with than I'm used to. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon40mm/">Flickr</a>.) The only disadvantage I'm spotting is the speed, which isn't <em>too</em> slow.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_harper9 Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 <p>Michael, if macro work is more important than auto focus, then a Nikon 55mm Micro AI (2.8 or 3.5) is an excellent lens for a D90 (or a D800). Considering your budget, you also might want to review this discussion <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cM7S">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cM7S</a> regarding pre-digital era lenses - some of which are bargains on the used market - with comparisons against the 18-55 kit lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 <p>Nikon's short macro AFS lenses are appealing. Very affordable, top quality, and versatile enough for general photography. Decades ago there were one or two Nikon macros that weren't particularly good for landscapes and distant subjects. But the recent models appear to handle the full focus range well.</p> <p>That is a tough choice between the D90 and D5100. While the D5100 has better specs and some more interesting features, I know from years of working with my D2H and other digicams that I'd be frustrated by a dSLR without a front sub-command dial. And since I already own a couple of pretty good AF Nikkors, compatibility is important to me. But if I was starting from scratch, I probably would find the choice between those two cameras difficult.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon_dragon Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 The truth is that everyone is going to want to recommend the cameras they use. Almost any modern DSLR or mirrorless camera probably has the quality for 16x20s these days. My own experience is that my first Digital was a 6MP APS and that was marginal for 8x10s and I was an amateur. My next camera was a Canon 5D. Full frame 12MP. great camera and probably good for a high quality 16x20 but not a good low light camera. My 5D could outperform my Sony A350 which was nominally more MP due to the better, larger sensor. Given your price range I might try B&H Photo or KEH for a good used model, buying a full frame at the 5D level or larger or a good APS-C camera that suits your temperament. I might not go below APS though you probably could. I'm guessing you could get a pretty good used body for well under your price range. For not too much more you could try a used Sony Nex 6 or 7 or even a new Sony A7 which would certainly have great quality and resolution and they're nice cameras to use but there are SO many choices and they will probably all work. You might try finding a friend and borrowing a body or two from various manufacturers to see if they suit you because I find that different manufacturers build cameras that have different strengths that work differently enough to draw in a different audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bacon Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 <p>John Harper: That seems like a good recommendation as well, though I might miss the auto-focus for candid portraiture (which I admittedly don't do a lot of, but would like to do more of.) It might end up being my choice. I'm used to manual focus anyway.<br> Is there a cheap older autofocusing, general purpose (like the one you mentioned) macro lens you'd recommend?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bacon Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 <p>Lex: Thanks for the opinion about the Nikkor AF-S macros.<br> I think the viewfinder and knobs seem more important for my use than the extra features and better specs. Resolution doesn't seem to matter much since I can already print at 16x20 with the D90.<br> The D5100 has a higher max ISO and a higher low-noise ISO, but that seems like the most important improvement, and it doesn't seem like I really need it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 <p>Michael, Howard's point in the better viewfinder on the D90 is indeed a big one, and would be the main reason to push me to the D90 (how I forgot to include it as pro/con... morning coffee...)</p> <blockquote> <p>What's outdated about the liveview in the D90? Also, what do you mean by "high sensitivities" regarding the sensor? What would be the practical loss? Are you talking about resolution and color depth?</p> </blockquote> <p>Liveview on the D90 is a very slow way of working; my cameras (D300/D700) have a similar implementation and while I do not mind working slow-ish, it's too slow in everything. D5100 liveview should come a lot closer to be able to use it as P&S directly via the LCD... If you prefer the optical viewfinder, not a big deal.<br /> High sensitivities are the higher ISOs. The D90 is very good up to ISO1600, though at that ISO it already looses quite some dynamic range. Above that, things go downhill fairly fast. In my experience, ISO3200 is usable for small prints and emergencies, but dynamic range is very limited and colours do not look as good. The D5100 has a stop advantage (ISO3200 very good), and I'd even say ISO6400 is quite usable. Plus, it offers a few more megapixels, but in real life you won't notice that difference - as you already answered yourself.</p> <p>A macrolens with AF, if you go with the D90, maybe you can find a AF 60mm f/2.8D just withing your budget (2nd hand) - but just. Very good lens though.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrankin Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 <p>D5100 liveview was still much slower than I would've liked. If your subjects will be stationary it might be okay. DSLRs are still trying to play catch-up with mirrorless cameras in this area of performance. I believe it's because the mirror has to be swung up and the method of achieving AF is slow on the sensor. Others probably can provide better explanations.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It sounds as if everyone is recommending cameras that deliver color images. There is not much talk about black and white captures. One could convert to monochrome in image editing or shoot in monochrome mode with the camera. Which would be better? I once tried shooting in monochrome mode and using color filters in front of the lens. That was not good, no way comparable to using filters with black and white film. The way to fix that is to shoot in color and then adjust the color channels and then convert to black and white. This is all like recommending shooting with Kodak Gold color film and then exposing on Panalure paper to get black and white prints. Not as good as shooting straight black and white film. With a true black and white camera such as the Leica M-Monochrom camera there is no color filter array in front of the sensor, meaning it captures more of the available light but cannot perceive color. It also means there is no need for demosaicing (the process of combining color information from adjacent pixels), so higher levels of detail are retained. Of course, that Leica costs about ten times what the OP wants to spend. Is there a cheaper black and white digital camera? James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon_dragon Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 There are companies who say they will remove the bayer filter making the camera black and white but I think it's more in the nature of a expensive experiment. Look at it this way. Taking black and white pictures with a color camera allows you to LATER decide what color filters to use to accentuate the clouds or the flowers etc. That freedom means that color photos are very versatile as black and white if the subjects are chosen for black and white. My shot below of the boats and the clouds (if it is there when you look at it) is a Leica M8 with an Infrared filter, converted to black and white. M8s are Too sensitive to IR really, but that can be an advantage in black and white work. Take some of your pictures and go experiment in Aperture 3 or Lightroom or Photoshop with black and white conversions. You don't need a dedicated camera like the M Monochrom though I'd love to have one myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bacon Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 <p>The ISO difference is the only thing making me reconsider a D5100 instead of a D90, but it's really making me think about it. That's quite a lot of difference. I'd enjoy being able to freeze subjects in motion and being able to shoot in lower light.<br> <br /> Wouter: Used, the AF 60mm f/2.8D is $5 less expensive than a used 40mm off the model we've been talking about. I have a slight impression from what I've read that the 40mm might be a better walkaround lens. There are also some complaints about flaring and poor edge focus in the 60mm, but I think those might just be from people with damaged lense builds. Opinions?<br> <br /> David and James: After using a D5200 paired with Lighroom recently, I can say that I agree with David that being able to control how colors are interpreted in black and white is quite valuable. I really like being able to do that much better than using lens filters.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_harper9 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 <p>Michael, I skipped the Nikon "AF" days using my 70's vintage pre-AI and AI lenses on film bodies that had excellent screens for manual focus. My first DSLR with the kit lens (D40x) showed me that current production zooms can out-perform many of my classic lenses (the exceptions are the previously mentioned 55mm micro, and my 50/2 and 105/2.5). I also found that DSLRs with auto focus are much harder to quickly focus so I bought a used copy of the "Swiss Army Knife" lens 28-105 AF macro from KEH to pair with a D300. A great lens when I don't want to carry the weight of the other AFS lenses I have acquired, and since a D90 uses only the center of the image circle, you would have no issues with edge sharpness. Covers the portrait lens range you need plus macro capability. You may find that you still need a wider lens and the inexpensive kit lens may suffice. </p> <p>If you choose a D5x00, then you loose the screw feed auto focus so the 28-105 is not a good choice, and I would recommend the kit lens and find a bargain copy of one of the recommended macro lenses, or try a close-up lens for macro work.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bacon Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 <p>You guys have been great!<br> After a few more hours of reading, I'm now strongly considering a purchase of a D5100 with a 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR lens. I'll wait a while in case anyone here would like to try to persuade me toward something else.</p> <p>My rationale: The D5100 performs much better at higher ISOs and has a half-stop more dynamic range, which should be a noticeable improvement in black and white. The flip-out screen might also be very useful for the macro photography (mostly semi-macro, but quite close and occasionally full-macro) I plan to do. I've been using the very similar D5200 the last couple of days and feel as if the controls for it are handy enough for me. I'm a meticulous, slow photographer, so I don't think I'll really be frustrated by not having all the knobs and buttons of the D90, despite wishing for them.</p> <p>The lens should work very well for everything I like to shoot with my camera. It's fairly fast, good for portraits and macro, capable of narrow FOV landscapes (which is the only way I like to shoot landscapes/architecture/etc anyway), is very sharp, and auto-focuses accurately and somewhat speedily, which can be important for photographing humans, which I often do somewhat candidly rather than in a completely controlled environment. I'm used to manual focus and will probably manually focus much or most of the time when not photographing humans, but that's still quite an advantage.</p> <p>I'd also be interested in purchasing advice. I'm currently looking at ordering from KEH for both items:<br />D5100 cost = $350<br />40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro cost = $225<br />Total = about $588, including shipping, from KEH.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bacon Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 <p><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cOKT">I posted to ask for shopping advice in the Nikon forum here</a>. If you have further recommendations (including different equipment than what I've settled on), please let me know. I'm still open to other possibilities. Thanks so much for your help!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shutterbud Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 <p>I think it would be churlish to find fault with this choice. I own a D5100 and it takes very nice images. I can now directly compare the D5100 sensor paired with a sharp prime (35/1.8 DX), to the sensor from a Canon 650D plus sharp prime (EF-M 22/2) and it is a bit strange as, objectively, the Nikon wins by a considerable margin when it comes to detail and noise (I don't prefer the colours), but somehow all the aspects which are "inferior" with the Canon sensor do<em> not</em> result in aesthetically inferior images...especially in monochrome. If you have the time, check out my p.n page and link to my Flickr photostream and you can see what I'm talking about. The Latest Nikon pictures are mostly in colour and are on the 4th or 5th page. <br> Just to play Devil's Advocate, also check out Pentax's monochrome rendtion. It's a bit special and you might be able to get a gently-used K-5/K-5II within your budget</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bacon Posted February 18, 2014 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 <p>Stephen: Those choices are both too expensive for me. Thanks though!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bacon Posted February 18, 2014 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 <p>Bought the D5100 and 40mm from KEH. Thanks for all the help! Hopefully I'll be posting photos and joining into the community in more positive way soon.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 <p>Sounds good, Michael. Despite my leaning toward a D90 or D7000 for compatibility with my existing Nikkors, I'll probably end up buying an APS sensor mirrorless camera. I need more light weight and flexibility than the dSLR design offers, and a tilt screen and stabilized lens would suit me better than a good optical viewfinder on a tripod mounted camera. I still occasionally use my film Nikon SLRs on a tripod and that will suit my occasional needs for that type of photography.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bacon Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 <p>My stuff arrived Saturday. I'm very happy with it and the quality of it, though KEH didn't include the SD card they listed as coming with it. I sent them an email asking about it. The camera and lens are in great condition though, and I feel as if I've mostly adapted and learned most of the settings/controls.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bacon Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 <p>They are sending me the SD card now. They're confused about how to list that the camera is capable of using an SD card and intended to say only that, not that it comes with one. Still, that's great of them to send me one for free (sort of.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 <p>Media cards are incredible bargains now. When I first got into digital with an Olympus P&S, the silly SmartMedia cards were made about like old floppies - a little more rigid than 5-1/4" floppies, a little less rigid than 3.5" floppies - cost a fortune and held only the equivalent to one or two rolls of film at maximum resolution.</p> <p>When I got my first dSLR the best quality 1GB Compact Flash cards cost over $100. Now you can pick up 4GB SD cards from the drug store or grocery for ten bucks, and they often have sale prices as good as anything from Amazon or online retailers.</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