ecarter

<p>I've had a D70 for many years, but when it was time to upgrade, I decided to go with an incremental upgrade and get a D90. I have to say upgrading to this camera was very nearly seamless - these two cameras are very close in overall feel and handling - and the results are great for a minimum cost. You could get this and given the budget you have add a few nice lenses to your stable as well if you're so inclined. Some time back, I might have suggested you go with a FX sensor camera, but there are some pretty decent wide-angle offerings now for the DX camera. For instance, I have a Tokina 12-24 F4 which has proven to be a solid and sharp wide-angle lens. For instance, you could get that lens AND a D90 for $1300 - just over HALF your indicated maximum cost and have a pretty nice wide-angle combination right there.</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM and it is an excellent lens - got it in lieu of the Nikkor for just your reason - I don't have the huge disposable income. :-D Image quality is quite good, but the f/2.8 was the decider for me. Sometimes, there's nothing that substitutes for extra speed. I don't know how the image quality compares to the 18-200 you already have, though I generally find that moderate zoom range lenses and fixed length are generally better in sharpness than "superzooms." I don't want to make a blanket statement, not having really tested that lens. The speed on the Sigma will help you freeze or reduce motion blur in lower light situations where you're shooting action better than VR - for what you're doing, it'd be a good addition.</p>

<p>What limits my photography? A whole bunch of personality flaws, first and foremost. Also, I hate to say it, but my legs and a slew of other health issues do not allow me to go a bunch of places or do things that might also be helpful to my photography. But if that were the problem alone, it wouldn't stop me from doing it. As far as equipment, that's never been the limiting factor. I love having the nice gear, but never really needed it to do pretty much what ever I want to photography-wise.</p>

<p>I'm a cheerful snap-happy tourist and proud of it! :-D I also like to think I'm a photographer - the two aren't exclusive. I just try not to be an ugly mean and nasty tourist.</p>

<p>The biggest problem with APS was that it came out just in time to start competing with digital. APS actually had a lot of great things going for it - I liked the idea that the negative/film was generally better protected in the APS case - cartridge/film handling for the photographer is easier and frankly having a "data" layer on the film itself is a very cool idea. On the other hand, processing the film appears to have been a PITA. For many amateurs and point-and-shooters out there, negative size just isnt' a concern. Heck, 35mm is a compramise format itself - it took off because convenience won out over absolute quality for the unwashed masses.<br>

If it hadn't been for digital, APS might have gained some traction and taken over - but digital possessed many of the good characteristics of APS without a lot of the drawbacks. A lot of people pooh-pooh APS and it certainly has shortcomings, but to me most of that seems to come from 35mm "snobbery" and digital just doing what APS claimed to do, only better for a fairly undemanding mass audience. If APS had come along 5-10 years earlier, things might have turned out quite differently for it...</p>

Hmmm. Depends on how I feel and what I intend to shoot really.

 

My normal walking around kit is my D70, the Nikon 18-70 D70 kit lens and a Sigma 70-210 F2.8

 

If I think I really need something faster than the 18-70, I have a Tamrom 28-70 F2.8 which is hard to beat, and if I think I'll also need wider (or am going to shoot landscapes and think I'll need wider than the Tamron or the Nikon kit lens) I'll add my Tokina 12-24 F4.

 

On occasion, I'll go old school (well, as much as is possible with a D70 anyways) and just take it and a Nikon 35mm F2 or the 50mm f1.8 to see what I can find.

 

I won't comment much on what I shoot or my level of skill is - instead, check my portfolio and that should tell you what you need to know.

 

Enjoy!

Huh? Far better?

 

I've dealt with D40, D50, D70 and at least have handled a D80.

 

I'd agree that the D40 has merits over the D50 so long as you don't already have a stable of non AF-S lenses you intend to autofocus with. If you do, then the D40 simply won't work for you as it doesn't have the drive pin to focus those lenses. If you're just getting into the system and have no interest on those non AF-S lenses or don't have any and don't intend to get any, the D40 is fine.

 

Otherwise, the D40 has a better continuous shooting capability and arguably better image quality out of the camera, though the D50 isn't a slouch in this regard either. The viewfinder is pretty comparable to the D50 from what I saw - better than the D70 but not as good as the D80 by any stretch of the imagination. I prefer the interface on the D50 to the D40 (though for general use I'm still with my D70 and its top LCD and 2 control dials).

 

The only advantages I can see for it to the D80 though is cost and weight/size. For people who want a ultra-lightweight camera or on a tight budget, the D40 is fine but it certainly isn't better than the D80.

 

I like the D70 kit 18-70 better than the 18-55 that comes with the D40. As far as the "amazing" 18-200 VR, well I'm gonna agree to disagree. Not that it isn't good, but it isn't about to replace my f/2.8 or faster lenses. VR is nice, but it isn't a substitute for the wider aperture - it just helps kill your camera shake, not motion blur in your subjects. Sometimes there's no substitute for getting that higher shutter speed.

Brian - I also liked to do a lot with the 50mm in film - I found that I missed it when I went to digital, but picked up a Nikon 35mm f/2D lens - pretty much the same feel and also a very good lens in its own right. Something to think about.

Don't touch the mirror with anything - believe me, it is too easy to make the problem worse! You may get away with it but it's likely that you'll damage the mirror surface.

 

Best bet is to get a blower bulb and try to dislodge the dust with that.

 

BTW - whatever you do, NEVER use "canned" air to try this though - the propellant in the can often can spit out and that can just RUIN your mirror, not to mention that you could do harm otherwise depending on how much pressure is caused by the canned air. If they aren't visible in the viewfinder, don't worry about it though. This shouldn't affect your image quality.

<P>It's a good general lens - not too expensive, certainly sharp enough and easy to work with in reasonable light, or with a tripod naturally...

 

<P><CENTER><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3811721-lg.jpg"><BR><I>Luray - Lake of Dreams 2 - Nikon AF-S 18-70mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED DX - F/16, ISO 200, 10 Seconds Shutter</I></CENTER>

Sweet series Carsten! Good use of flash and ambient light, very dynamic and engaging.

 

Excellent stuff!

The Tamron 28-75 is a really nice lens - well worth the money, very sharp and a nice performer and works fine both on film and digital lenses. Go get it, you won't be sorry.

 

If you need wider on digital though, don't discount the Nikon 18-70mm kit lens too quickly - it's a good lens at a bargain price for what it is.

Bo has the right of it. If they're talking 8 hours of shooting and are gonna do all editing and photo selection for you (ie, you're going to shoot then just hand over the film or files and get your money at the end of the day) then you're getting $75 per hour. If you're also going to put in hours and hours of photoshop and printing and all the other stuff associated with doing a wedding job, the deal doesn't look nearly so good. I've done the contracted shooting stuff before (not like this or weddings though) where all I did WAS turn over the film and files at the end of the day (didn't get paid anything like $75 an hour though!) and it's a good way to get some experience, but honestly at this point, I wouldn't do it again.

 

Even with just being paid literally to shoot, you don't have control over editing and selection - if you get a customer who's unhappy with your work because the editor and printer did a lousy job, it reflects bad on you.

 

There's lots of books and information out there if you wanted to shoot weddings and events on your own, and compared to your deal there, I think you'd be better served going that way, charging a reasonable amount and having total control over the process. Another way to go to get experience is to check into local wedding photographers in your area and see if you can assist them on a wedding or two. This can give you a good idea of what's involved specifically with shooting a wedding if you've never done one before.

Should be fine but you'll need the right software - one of the versions of Nikon Capture or their new Nikon Capture NX (or at least camera control pro).

 

http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=61

I've got a D70 and am very happy with it, thank you very much...

 

But I must admit the idea of a better finder is very attractive.

 

I don't have the pennies saved up for a D80 or D200 (yet) - when I do, it'll be off to the shop to see if the viewfinder and other stuff is worth the extra cash.

 

The answer is probably "no" - at least not for a while - but if prices come down some... who knows?

The Fuji S2 was known for its vivid (and occasionally unusual) color rendering. I don't think the Fuji S2 had much (if any) more dynamic range than other similar digital cameras (like the Nikon D70 or the Canon 350D, etc). The Fuji S3 uses a different sensor - I'm not so familiar with it, but it does seem to preserve highlights better.

 

The other thing that Fuji S2 (and S3 I believe) can do is produce a "12 megapixel" image in camera. It is still really a 6 megapixel image, but the camera can interpolate it to 12 megapixels and then apply sharpening, etc to that image. I don't know that I see any real advantage to that over resizing in photoshop, etc except that it may save a step if you need the higher resolution. If having a higher resolution file is important you're better off just getting a camera with the extra megapixels. The extended dynamic range of the S3 is interesting and could be very useful - but Fuji made it too expensive for me.

 

The Fuji S2 wasn't particularly fast in either focus or shooting speed, but it did produce very good color and always seemed very solid - never had any real problems with it durability-wise and I always felt I could rely on it.

It's true that the "professional" market is dominated by Canon and Nikon and for very good reason - this doesn't mean that you must go with those companies. When I was shooting for pay, most of the time if I was shooting digital, it was with a Fuji S2. It used Nikon-mount lenses and accessories for the most part though.

 

I find it isn't so much that Nikon and Canon have the product line that the pros need and the others don't - it is more a question of availability. I can go into most any camera shop or rental place and if I need a special lens or accessory, I can be pretty confident that I'll be able to get it pretty easily if I'm using Nikon or Canon. I'm not as confident about that if I'm using Minolta (Sony now) because they don't have the market saturation. This isn't really about a weakness in the camera product lines or capabilities - it is more about market saturation. How many vendors carry a product and can support pros using the product, no matter where they need to go. Depending on what you're doing, this may or may not be important for you. My own feeling is that whatever else you do, get to a camera store and get some of the camera bodies in your hands to see which one is the most comfortable for you to hold and use - the best Nikon or Sony has to offer is no good if you have to fight the camera to make it work.

Unless you've heard something new about it, I wouldn't hold my breath on a Nikon full frame dSLR just yet. I admit to not having paid total attention to every move Nikon's made, but I don't see any hint of them doing that anytime soon.

<P>I've got the Tokina version of this lens - if you don't want to spend the premium for Nikon and don't need AF-S focus then the Tokina is a good performer in its own right. Either lens is a strong contender though.

 

<P>Some people love Ken Rockwell, some don't - but he does do an interesting comparison between Nikon mount ultrawide lenses including both the Tokina and the Nikkor <A HREF="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm">here</A>. This is a useful comparison IMO, at least in that it gives side-by-side examples of photos taken with all the lenses so you can compare bokeh, sharpness, color rendition, distortion, etc on each lens using similar images.

 

<P>My own view is that the Nikkor wasn't worth the extra money for this kind of lens, but your mileage may vary.

 

<P><CENTER><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4708330-lg.jpg"><BR><I>Big Sky Sunset - Nikon D70 w/ Tokina 12-24/4 Tokina AT-X124 Pro DX</I></CENTER>

Click <A HREF="http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/other/compatibility.html">HERE</A> to see a lens compatability chart for Nikon cameras and Nikon lenses.

 

<P>In short, no - not all Nikon cameras can accept all Nikon lenses, though the N75 can accept a pretty wide range of them. In some cases, not all features or modes are supported with all lenses. This is the nature of the beast when you have a product line that goes back decades and decades (or for the more cynical, when you want to get people to purchase more stuff as a company). :-D

 

<P>We'd need to know the model Vivitar lens you have to know for sure what the problem is - it could very well be a manual focus lens in which case autofocus won't be an option with it.

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3993412-lg.jpg"><P><I>Ripples In Stone - Nikon D70 w/ Nikkor 18-70 Kit Lens</I></center>

Oh, if we're only talking Nikon lenses and I'm not allowed to keep my Tamron, then it's a tossup between the 18-70 D70 kit lens and the 35mm f/2.

Who's forcing me to sell off my lenses? Well ... they can have my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 when they pry it from my cold dead hands. :-D

 

Of all the ones I currently have, that's one of the two I use most.

<A HREF="http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200604/06-033E/">http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200604/06-033E/ </A> - though they don't say late August, that's probably as good a guess as anyone's. What I don't read into this is that the first introduction is going to be a "low end" camera...

If you're shooting digital, just rack off a couple of shots to work out where exposure should be - you should be able to see the exposure in the LCD or histogram when you have it correct. For film, things are a little more interesting.

 

Tommy is right on as far as canons that support manual exposure. Otherwise, hand meter it, or if worse comes to worse, there's old sunny-16.