rj

<p>I like pretty pictures.</p>

<p>I would think a constant f2.8 aperture 24-70mm would be a pretty good all around lens and think the focal lengths on dx are about perfect for what I would consider a good "people" lens. The shorter focal length is about perfect for "environmental" portraits and the longer range is also good for isolation. I am actually one who really likes the 35mm focal length (full frame) for shooting people with surroundings. Really, a two lens set up with a 50 f1.4 and a 24-70 f2.8 would be a great setup if I was going to fully concentrate on people shooting with a dx camera.</p>

<p>Is the shot out of focus or is it me?</p>

<p>Ah, come on. Take out a loan and get yourself a D700 and a D300s, a 70-200 af-s, 24-70 af-s, 50f1.4 af-s, 14-24 af-s and you are set, unless you want a longer telephoto. You will probably have to take out another loan for that though. You know you want it. ;-)</p>

<p>I really liked the D90 when I had a chance to play with it. I like the size of the body and the control layout, and of course the price. The viewfinder is pretty good for an aps sized body. I think its one of the better bang for your buck in the Nikon lineup at the moment.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong Brad, I think flash is a very useful tool for some, but the most important tool? Its not for me now. I can't say that flash has been useful to me at all up to this point, but I have done the majority of my shooting with black and white film using 4x5 and some 35mm on a tripod, more landscape and nature than people and have never really utilized flash. I do carry a small folding white reflector when I shoot closeup and want to bounce light for fill. I used to shoot video as career and have used constant lighting pretty extensively, but just never got into flash with photography all that much (yet). I finally got myself a digital slr just today (charging the battery as I type) and will use flash more now because I want to focus on people as a subject and see the benefit. Plus, I can see it being easier to learn with the immediate feedback of digital, so I am excited to try it.</p>

<p>Flash is certainly a decent way to add light to an existing scene, but it certainly isn't needed to shoot creatively.</p>

<p>John, you are the one who is putting others down, really. You took a tone of superiority when you criticized the whole basis for the thread and proclaimed how you shoot photos, like others here don't just because they want to discuss the leica brand image. You aren't a better photographer because you don't care what camera you shoot with, and a person who likes and shoots and wants to discuss leicas isn't any worse of a photographer because they like the brand.</p>

<p>When I was shooting Leicas, I often had people come up to me and comment on the camera. Happened a lot with the M3 for some reason, maybe because it looks older than the M6 I had. I tell you though, if you want to get people to comment on your camera, go out and shoot with a speed graphic. They won't leave you alone.</p>

<p>Whether or not the D5000 is for you really depends on what lenses you plan on purchasing and whether or not the flip screen will be an added value. For me, the ability to autofocus non af-s lenses is just not that big of a deal as I don't own any and the lenses that I do want to use and buy are all af-s lenses. The flip screen/live view would really help me, its a feature that I find pretty helpful. One big downside I see with the d5000 vs. the d90 is the viewfinder quality. The d90 looks better. The other is the fact that the d5000 cannot act as a commander for wireless flash setups. </p>

<p>I honestly think the d5000 is a pretty neat little camera.</p>

<p>Illka, the quality difference between the sensors in kind of moot since the end product will be shown on a computer monitor/tv screen/high def screen or if you are really really lucky, a movie theater screen. The end product doesn't have to be as clear and detailed as a photographic print, really, the human eye isn't going to pick that kind of detail up at 24 or 30 frames a second.</p>

<p>I have said several times on this thread I can see the need to marry the two technologies and do it well, but the optical motion controls have to be there or its very limited. Video without camera and lens motion is using a third of what motion picture is capable of, creatively speaking. Frankly I see canon or panasonic or sony doing it way before nikon does it (especially sony) and the idea will really be something worth gooing over when they make a video camera shoot quality stills IMHO. This is my prediction: When we get to generation 5 of video/still camera marriage and the thing actually operates like a still and video camera, our still cameras will look and function like sony video cameras, not the other way around.</p>

<p>Of course individual shots are shorter than 5 minutes in a finished cut piece, but if you are stopping and starting, like say while you are doing an interview of the President of the United States or you are shooting the Cubs actually take the series because you only have 5 minutes of "tape" you are screwing yourself and it doesn't matter what the quality is like. Back when I was shooting, changing the beta sp tape out at 30 minutes was an annoyance (thankfully you could get longer tapes), I couldn't imagine doing it every 5 minutes. Talk about pissing the interviewer and interviewee off. </p>

<p>Our average interview went from 20 minutes to an hour or so to get one or two soundbites talking head shots, maybe a bit more if you were lucky and the dude or dudette had something to say. Of course you had a break or two, but every five minutes aint going to happen.</p>

<p>I find the video "feature" to be crude and really limited, but the future implementation of the two can become something a lot more, and I hope it does get better. But, like I said above, if the still camera makers don't figure a way out to get video/motion picture optical controls on the camera and lenses, the "feature" will be nothing more than a glorified toy. </p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. </p>

<p>As for the lenses, I am pretty set on getting the Tamron as I want a constant and faster aperture lens for an (man I hate to use the term, but it fits) "all around" lens. The extra speed will help me quite a bit over the kit lens. I have a lead on getting one fairly inexpensively too. As for the 85, I really like the idea of a fairly light, smaller fast telephoto that I can use as a two lens kit while traveling. Some like wider but I would use a short telephoto more. I haven't decided between the 85 or the 100mm though. </p>

<p>Does the new Digic processor make the new camera noticeably faster?</p>

<p>Milton, video is motion picture and photography is still picture. Its a different medium. Not that the same person can't do both, but they are different. When you shoot 8fps you are after one frame (or several depending on the final outcome). Bottom line, the final image is a still frame. </p>

<p>Do you have a link or some info page where these feature movies were shot using a 5d2? I find that really fascinating.</p>

<p>I tell you, if they made a dv cam with full manual controls of focus, motorized zoom, stepless aperture and xlr audio inputs that also shot d700 quality still frames with interchangeable lenses and flash control, it would be a dang hot seller. A wedding photogs dream camera. But they don't. What they have now is not anywhere near what I would need a video camera to do.</p>

<p>If they made a mini dv camera that could take Nikon or Canon lenses, shot the same quality as a Eos 5dII or a D700 as a still camera and still retain full video control (manual focus, manual aperture-stepless and have a good motorized zoom with xlr audio inputs) I would buy it. That, right there, would be the wedding photographers dream camera.</p>

<p>A crane or dolly are ways to move the camera, which look different than zooming. Watch some tv closely and you will see cameras zooming all the time. <br>

A basic head shot interview scenario with camera on a tripod you would be zooming to change framing during the interview fairly frequently. Get your wide shot chest high, if subject starts talking all intimate or whatever, slowly zoom into the face. The trick is to make it look like its not really happening. Or for instance, you shoot news and you get to a car accident scene. One shot you know you want is to start on the shoe that is lying in the gutter in the shade and tilt up to the wreckage farther off in the distance that is in the sunlight. While you are tilting and panning, you are going to be zooming, racking focus and changing your aperture so the sunlit scene isn't blown out. </p>

<p>Anyway, camera movements like this are going on all the time in video, tv, film, whatnot. Changing focus, changing focal lengths, changing aperture, changing camera location are all things that can be done real time during a shot that add to the creative aspect of a video production. A dslr that has video capability is pretty limited in this regard, which is why if I were going to shoot video, I would use a capable video camera with manual focus, motorized zoom and stepless manual aperture ring on a decent fluid head. With the mini dv cams on the market, you can get into some a very quality video camera for not a lot of cash outlay. What the camera engineers need to do is find a way of making those cameras shoot stills like a D300 and then you would have a kick butt system for both formats.</p>

<p>Well, after deciding finally to go with Canon over Nikon, with the current crop of cameras on the market, would you buy the 450d before you bought the 500d or would you go with some different canon? I am having trouble deciding between the two cameras and probably just reading too much about them and second guessing decisions. I just would like some honest imput from some users, does the better screen make that much of a difference? I am not into using video, so that doesn't matter. Basically, the price difference between the two would put me well on the way to getting an 85 f1.8 lens, but can't figure out if the differences between the two cameras would justify just going the 450 route. What I can see being important is better quality higher iso and viewfinder quality. Are the viewfinders the same on these two cameras or is one better than the other? I am going to get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 with either one of these cameras, its a lens I can see using a lot. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.</p>

<p>Shooting video is a much different discipline than shooting still photography and I just don't see how the current dslr and lenses could be adapted all that well for it. I actually could see a video camera being adapted to still photography over a dslr adapted to video, at least in my mind that would be the logical and easier progression and give the creative brain behind the lens a better tool.</p>

<p>I understand the need or want of having both for some people, and I can see a photographer making good use of video and stills in the same camera, but just don't see the implementation of video in dslrs as that great of a technological leap because its so crude. When I shot video, zooming in or out while racking focus and at the same time changing aperture, all fluidly and steadily, was something that was done a lot (afterall, camera movements are a staple and frankly imho essential to good video) and I do not see how you can performe that same task with a dslr, unless you are relying on some form of auto exposure/auto focus that actually gets it right. To me, that is a big failing in a video camera. If the technology gets to a point where that is possible, hey great.</p>

<p>I guess what I am really trying to say with my rant above is a video camera that I didn't have real time manual control over the focus, aperture and zoom of the camera lens, the video camera is way too limiting to get excited about. There isn't any way to do camera movements properly, which for me, that is half the fun of video.</p>

<p>Sure, video is useful for some, not useful for me because if I want to shoot video I will buy a decent video camera with good zoom, focus, aperture and sound controls and make the video look and sound good.</p>

<p>If I am going to shoot video, I want to shoot a decent video and see the need for riding the exposure, focus and zoom manually to make it look clean. Can you do these things on a dslr? How can the operator manually change the aperture without it being clunky. I guess I am thinking back on my television days when changing the aperture without it looking like you are changing the aperture during a pan or tilt was important. How does this work on a dslr when the lens not only doesn't have a seemless aperture ring but doesn't have an aperture ring at all? I guess crap quality video is all the rage now so its a selling point.</p>

<p>If it doesn't add to the cost of the camera or degrade the photographic quality fine, put it in. But if it does, I don't want it and would be better served with a still camera and a good video camera, probably something that has a zoom ring, manual focus ring and manual aperture ring and an xlr input for audio.</p>

<p>JC K, your argument is confusing me a bit. Why would a photographer who has primes not be able to capture the entire event? When you take away a stop or two because of the lens is not "optimal" at the fastest apertures, what exactly do you mean? Is it optically optimal, as in there is a degradation of the image with the faster aperture? If that is the case, why would a prime user really care about optimal aperture as opposed to the zoom user who has already decided that some optical sacrificing is okay. Don't zoom lenses perform better, in general, at a stop or two below their fastest apertures? Don't you think that two extra stops of shutter speed would help greatly during a wedding?</p>

<p>"Compelling photographs are not about ultimate lens sharpness."</p>

<p>This is totally the truth, however the idea that people who shoot with primes are doing it because its fashionable (btw, is it fashionable nowadays or are zooms more fashionable? because if I had to pick, I'd say big zooms are more fashionable) and want to be the next HCB is ridiculous. Many prime lenses offer real advantages over zooms such as generally faster apertures, smaller size, less weight, closer focusing and visually thinking in terms of single focal lengths.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses. I have some pondering to do and it seems like I may be able to swing for the D90 if I get the 50 f1.8 instead of the g model. I will have to check out Rawtherapee for raw conversions, this is the first I have heard about it. Can't beat the price.</p>

<p>The recall on the D5000 is a bummer, I am sure it will be sorted out, but I think if I am going to go to a newer/better body I may just stick with the D90 because of the commander mode on the flash, this is something that I will probably use a lot.</p>

<p>I think I have finally figured out a small kit for my first jump into the realm of the digital slr. After doing quite a bit of research on Nikon vs. Canon I have decided that Nikon is the way to go for me and I have decided on a D60 camera. I don't believe I will miss the differences that the D5000 or D90 offer for now and quite frankly I don't know if my budget will stand the cost of the D90. I like the size of the D60, the control layout seems pretty straightforward and think that the difference in the sensors won't be that great of a hinderance, my max print size right now is going to be 8x10, mostly in the 5x7 range. Higher noise free ISO might help though.</p>

<p>Here is what I decided on: D60 with 18-55 kit lens, Nikon 50 f1.4 G lens, sb600 with off camera cord, little bounce reflector thingy, Nikon NX2 for an editing solution for now and a couple of sandisk 4gig cards. I am going to be shooting primarily people and event photos and choose the 50 because of the possibilty of not only use the fast aperture but the focal length seems to be pretty good for portrait photography, something that I will be using the kit for too. I am not too excited about the kit lens, and in the future might replace it with a single wide prime lens or a faster zoom, but for now I guess it will do. Do you have any recommendations for a suitable replacement in the future? Something f2.8 or faster and something in the realm of 30-24mm in 35mm terms for focal length?</p>

<p>I am not a beginning photographer, but am a beginning dslr photographer, really a relative newb in the digital land, and I want to get into a system I can grow with as time and requirements demand. Do you think this is a decent system to get started with, or should I go for the better high iso, low noise of the D90-d5000 and skip the d60? Is the D60 just old technology that is just completely surpassed by the d90 and d5000? Does it make any sense to just buy a D90 with the 50 and skip the flash stuff for now and wait till I can save up for the extra lens and flash? Basically buy better quality at first and add quality stuff later as funds become available. What do y'all think?</p>

<p>I am a prime lens kind of guy and have often traveled with two lenses, sometimes three. One wide, one normal and one tele or if I am feeling like carrying less just one moderate wide and one moderate tele. I like the fast prime lenses, but also want them relatively small, exceptional image quality is important too.</p>

<p> I don't know much about Nikon's prime lens choices as I have just started researching them, but I certainly wouldn't feel outgunned, so to speak, with a 24 and a 50 on a dx sized camera. It is kind of dissapointing to hear that the company's prime lenses are not as good optically as their zooms. Is this really true? </p>

<p>It really depends on what you are shooting and if you need the flexiblity of a zoom lens, they are generally slower than primes. The idea that you need to cover every focal length to have a complete kit is lost on me though. I read on another thread, some guy stressing because he didn't have the 50-70mm focal length covered in his zoom kit. Really, you think you have to have every possible focal length covered to shoot photos? Weird to me. Use what you got man!</p>

<p>At one point in time I owned three leicas, two M6 ttls and the M3 and three different lenses. I loved using leicas and still own one of the M6s loaded with tri-x, but I just cannot see dropping the kind of cash on a leica digital today. </p>

<p>Shooting with a rangefinder is different than shooting with a slr, it really is. Before you dropped that kind of money on a digital leica, I would caution you to find out if you like working with a rangefinder camera before you dump the money into the M8.</p>

<p>I personally wouldn't do it and the ridiculously high price is the exact reason that I am in the process of figuring out my first dslr purchase and will probably either go with a Canon 450d or 500d or something in the Nikon line like the D5000 or even a D60. A D60 or a 450d with small lens on it isn't all that much bigger and certainly no heavier than a leica. Just remember, the dslrs from the various manufactures can pretty much be made completely manual and easy/intuitive to adjust the most needed functions like aperture, shutter speed, iso and focus. I find the control/user interface of the Canon and Nikon dslrs to be pretty simple to use and use quick.</p>

<p>A pentax dslr with that pancake lens they have, or any one of their small limited lenses would be a killer digital replacement for a leica.</p>