albinonflickr

Apurva, I think you incited a lively thread. Nicely burning up again all the old arguments around the newest contribution to

photographic technology.

 

Apart from my earlier posting above, let me tell you a short story from 'the eighties'.

 

I started out learning photography with my fathers Praktica MTL - the typical low budget mechanical SLR of the time, in

Europe. Then I wanted a bit of automation and saved some money - I was 17 at the time. The shopkeeper 'advised' me to

buy a beginners' camera (the first Canon EOS? The Pentax of the time?).. In the end I decided upon the Nikon F401

(N4004 in the US?). Nice camera, loved the feel and interface.

 

But I soon learned: that exposure automation is not fool proof and I manually did it better already. I could not change the

ISO setting (a problem for B/W). I could not meter with old AI(S) Nikkors.. And AF was very young, then..

 

WITHIN A YEAR I sold the camera to my brother, and got myself the F801 (N8008). Now THAT was a camera that did what

I wanted. Obviously I never regretted the choice for that change. I might regret the choice for the F401, but hadn't I chosen

then, I'd probably be (happily) taking pictures with Pentax or Canon now.

 

Now -circa 20 years later- camera's like the F401 and the F801 found their digital siblings in the D40 and the D200, and are

rapidly evolving into newer models. For analogue photography the F801 still provides almost everything I need in a camera.

Same for the D200 for digital. Although high-ISO performance (very well on the D300! and D700 is even more promising)

and FX are deciding factors for the next step.

 

Use whatever moral you find in the above contribution to your own advantage! ;-)

Calculating is one thing. Good for understanding flash exposure and for consistency.

Metering (flash meter..) is another.

And: With digital you have the very useable option of a test-shot and a histogram!

 

Most of my recent micro images on www.flickr.com/photos/albinonflickr were done that way!

 

Regards,

 

Albin

Dave Lee wrote: ---- "If you're shooting FX format, sure. I'd go for the 24-70mm f2.8 if you're shooting DX format." ----

 

And - considering also other remarks about prices going down somewhat in the near future - I agree with him.

 

And yes, I have this itching feeling again too.

Wise things were said already, Apurva.

 

Another thing I learned from photo.net is the expression "upgrade junky". It never fails to put a smile on my face!

 

I don't think that the D40X in terms of image quality will confront you with serious limitations (correct me if I am wrong). Next (apart from questions already asked in this thread) come: "Did I miss shots because of this camera", or "Didn't people take me for a serious photographer because I work with a cheaper model...?". For some people - not necessarily you - image is important in more than one way.. :-0

 

Enjoy making images with what you have. And the longer you wait, the now desirable 'bodies' will get cheaper. Until they are either affordable, or un-desirable, haha! Oh, and yes: keep on taking images, because that is 'the only way' that you can justify the dropping value of your current camera in posession! Still compairing it to the old days: it is the money saved for films and development..

The only lense I added when I got my D200 was the 12-24. For the rest, I use the older type Nikkors (primes) with pleasure. That is basic option #1 for you, too, I guess.

 

The wide angle primes gave some CA problems, though. The D300 seems to handle that better than the D200. (option #2...) The '700 (see reviews of the D3) will probably make your older wide angle primes more useable - you don't have to get ANY new lenses, just a more expensive camera, haha! (#3...)

 

As was posted above by Joe A, don't forget the additional expenses for software, memory and storage/backup...

I am exactly somewhere in the 'niche' this camera is targeted at.

 

I want one and will (if money allows..) get one.

 

This camera induces the same sense of urgency that the D200 inspired when it was announced in December 2005: a camera that does what I want from it and even a little bit more. Back then it was good image quality at 10Mpx or more, and compatibility with older lenses.

 

Right now.. It is exactly the same! But with much better high-ISO performance (cf. the D300, maybe even better) and with the beloved 24x36mm format! I love it.

Although I love the responsiveness of my D200 (and my wife's D300..) I am still looking around for a good compact. 10-12 MPix or so. One the FITS IN MY POCKET.

 

I think the P80 is a lovely camera for people that want a lot in one package (as William points out in his example). For me it 'would not fit the bill'. Too big for a compact. Not as responsive (= fast reacting, clear viewdiner, and MF, when I want it) as a DSLR. Probably not as good high-ISO performance - sure the D300 is addictive in that respect (and there I disagree with you, Pankaj!) !!

A short answer from me:

 

- Practically ALL manual film SLR's are cheap now!

 

- Having basic automation at hand when you need it is very nice to have. I am thinking: [A] aperture priority exposure automation. Like what a F3 has to offer. And the FE2, FA, FM3a.. It is the fastest way of working with such a camera (for me), with a good amount of control over the exposure. When more consistent lighting is required, [M] works fine and mechanical functioning can be an advantage with extreme long exposures and/or very cold weather.

 

Choose wisely! ;-)

But at these prices, don't be afraid too much.

 

Albin

I still use MF lenses regularly. It is one of the main reasons to buy a camera like D200/300, instead of a model lower in the line-up.

 

...And (insisting that Carthago should be destroyed) why they are still not able/willing to up-date to an *AF* extension rings set, is baffling me just as regularly!

I admit being guilty of the same gut-feeling reaction to the original question, as was posted earlier!

 

Russ Konrad, Apr 01, 2008; 08:07 a.m.

"...Other than for shooting interiors, what other practical uses are there for lenses this wide?..."

>>If you have to ask then you should just save your money.<<

<P> In the posted image, the upper left and right corners do not look good. The underside seems better! On DX or FX (I'd say the latter) ? At what aperture?

 

@Andrew Robertson: ("Seems to me that a 25mm lens is not a good candidate for much bokeh, good or bad.") I find your assumption strange and incorrect. The image attached here (visible underneath?) shows how even a 20/3.5 Nikkor on DX sensor can exhibit 'bokeh', pleasant or not. </P>

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3012/2323315625_b1be815aa0.jpg

I recently took the time to do some (table top) macro work with the Nikkors 24/2.8 and 20/3.5 on my wife's D300 and I must say that all my D200 chromatic aberrations problems seem to have gone away!

 

On this camera, at close focusing distances (as I frequently use them), these lenses perform fine! No direct comparison with D200 side-by-side, though.

Good answers above!

 

Before running towards new gear, check your current material first. Showing some images is one thing. Checking settings (slider on lense on M/A, for example?) is second.

 

Running towards new gear is always nice - and the 50/1.8 might provide an interesting no-regret-lense anyway, unless you want to do micro photography too. Then a 55/2.8 or newer 60mm alternative seems good (and evidently somewhat more expensive) advice. My wife bought the basic 18-70 with her D300, which proves to be fine, although not very light-sensitive with largest aperture ranging between 3.5-4.5.

 

good luck

I was also triggered by the 'fine art' requirements of the original poster in this thread. With much amusement I read all the comments, not only helping Rob Ostby out in his search for quality prints, but especially the ones discussing 'fine art'.. :-)

 

I am using a D200 myself and find it more than adequate for producing quality images (like Rob), certainly at ISO<400. I would love a(n) FX camera body for its wider view and updated high-ISO performance. My wife's D300 already proves to be a great improvement on the latter.

 

If money was not an (overly important) issue, I would get the D3, no doubt. To Rob, in that respect (and with respect): If you have to ask, you probably don't need it.

"hiro matsu, Feb 29, 2008; 11:14 a.m.

 

Isn't that the point of all the advanced equipment? You "can" shoot in APriority or Flex program when there is no time to set up and still get excellent results or in manual mode when you have time and need the "exact" results.

"

 

Ditto that!

 

A-setting gives me the best control, for my work. Aperture is most determining for the outcome of my imagery. M-setting is used when I need to repeat a certain shutter speed (exact same exposure repeated, or in combination with flash in a dark environment). AF is useful, MF often gives me better control.

 

I love my point-and-shoots! F3, F4, D200..

jose angel wrote:

 

"To my taste, ISO 800 on the D300 is exceptional. Sometimes I like to shot at ISO 1600, which I consider perfectly usable. ISO 3200 is out of my liking. Of course, it is matter of taste...

"

 

My opinion: exactly that!

Just yesterday I was debating the merits of the Canon lenses line-up, in which I was always impressed by their 24 T/S.. Much to my surprise I read these new announcements and conclude that Nikon really is in line with the competition now! My only (old fashioned, but non-wavering) gripe about these lenses is the G-lack of an aperture ring, which I consider a very serious drawback for flexibility of use withex extension rings. ..A K-1 ring in particular.

 

No announcements of Nikon extension rings yet? Fools!

 

Sorry, I will show more restraint here in the future.. ;-)

I took most of my daughter's portraits with D200 and the..

 

50/1.8

 

..since her 3,5 months existence.

 

Manually focussed, all of them. So the D40 comparison is valid.

A Micro lens that cannot take Nikon extension rings, or cannot be mounted on a bellows is a mistake, in my opinion. The lack of an aperture ring ('G') still baffles me.. VR is a nice feature to have, but a nice feature on a crippled lens.

And these two images very nicely illustrate that DOF is relative to enlargement, not to lens-length per-se! Great example! Thanks.

 

O, yeah, congratulations with your new j/toys too.

I second/third/quadruple all the postings above that recommend the 50/1.8 as a very affordable, excellent quality, pleasing to use portrait lens in combination with, say, a D200 or other DX Nikon body.

We must have done this discussion a million times before, but I'll chip in naively as ever ;-)

 

I never liked the handling of this lens much on analogue bodies. Somehow (has to do with the crop-factor..?) I really like the lens on D200 - images and handling alike!

 

Performance with TC14b is fine. Exactly a year ago I and my wife travelled in The Gambia and I was able to manually get a lot of good shots from a floating boat in Bao Bolon, near Tendaba (see: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/347698470_df2f73f111.jpg and http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/347698468_61ec8b1859.jpg).

 

A member of my nature photography club consistently gets very good results with a Nikon 2x TC on this lens.

 

Enjoy!

Thanks for this information! This is exactly what I wanted to ask on this forum. ..And specifically for the following lenses:

 

- 24/2.8 (AI/AIS) & 20/3.5 (AI)

 

Could someone who owns these lenses do a short check for me how they perform CA-wise on the D300??

 

regards & thanks

 

Albin

I am still completely baffled by the fact that Nikon refuses to provide us with a decent set of AF/CPU-coupling extension rings - FOR 20 YEARS now!

 

And all those years they crippled (practically) all but their pro(sumer) camera's: they will not meter with non-CPU lenses.

 

And now they manage to come up with "G" macro lenses, that don't even allow their apertures to be set manually. It irritates me, it really does. Bjorn's comments concentrate on some serious technical considerations. I myself am still wondering where the future will lead us. Automation is all very nice, but there ALWAYS needs to be a fully manual backup, where just a few rings and a manually set aperture can be used under controlled conditions.

 

Should I buy an extra 105/2.8 MF and put it safely away, for when Nikon's fully automated future is here to stay?

A quick response from me, someone who chose (sp.?) the Nikkor over the Tokina.

 

A friend of me bought the Tokina shortly before, was happy with the results and showed good images. My most important gripe was with chromatic aberrations at high-contrast edges towards the sides/corners of the images.

 

I had bad experience with CA using the older (and much loved) 24/2.8 and 20/3.5 on D200, and wanted to avoid the problem as much as possible. I am now happy to say the the 12-24 Nikkor (at least my sample) does perform very well in this respect. Better then the oldies, and better then the Tokina.

 

YMMV..