j_dc

<p>For the money the 18-55 is absolutely impossible to beat ($150 tops). My standard walk around lens is the Nikkor 16-85 VR II lens. That said, I also have a 18-55 and for shear light weight and mid aperture shots I have no real complaints with it. I seriously looked at the 17-55 f2.8 but decided it was just too big and heavy for an everyday lens. IMHO the 18-200 is a jack of all trades and master of none - I'd pass. Going primes? Primes are never a bad choice - optically they're hard to beat but changing lenses all the time (and having to carry them around) wears thin after a while (you do get 'fast' apertures however).</p>

<p>My, basically shelved, 35mm film system consists of 5 OM bodies and about a dozen Zuiko lenses. I opted not to follow Olympus into the dSLR world because I felt they dropped the ball on their OM system and I didn't want to get burnt twice.<br>

I chose to go with Nikon largely because of their ergonomics. I simply like the way the bodies feel in my hands along with their menu systems. I have two bodies (D300 & D70), 4 Nikkor lenses and am very happy. I agree with " fast primes' " comments that there is a fairly steep learning curve to master the higher end features of the Nikon bodies but you start taking decent shots in a few minutes with no problems - particularly with the D300 because of its highly advanced 3D metering/focusing etc.<br>

IMHO before you get further trapped with Olympus, bail!<br>

Jim</p>

<p>I second Carl Becker's comments. At this stage of the game you have no investments in lenses so you certainly should compare Nikon's offerings to Canon (the big two players). Optically both company's are great so don't let the optics sway you. Just find the camera body that feels good in your hands. Check out the menu systems etc. These days a 10 Megapixel should be your minimum starting level.<br>

At this stage of the game, I recommend you stay with 'kit lens' - typically a 18-55mm. In one sense they are a real bargain and at this point in time you are just starting out. Within a few months you'll get a feel for what other lenses will assist you.<br>

You can add flashes, other lenses, tripods etc as time progresses. Christmas time is always a joy for any photographer (and your poor spouse who trys to buy stuff you'll find useful) - from stocking stuffers to 'big' presents.</p>

<p>I also agree with Per-Christian. I went the Nikon route because I liked the way camera felt in my hands. I also found the GUI control seemed to suite my style of thinking a bit more naturally than the Canons.Optically I figure they're about the same (at least from amateur perspective). I think Canon has an edge in sports oriented optics but for my travel, landscape, portrait type stuff I'm happy as can be. I'm probably going to get flamed over this but with the exception of a Vivitar Series One zoom in the 80s I've always use the same brand optics as my camera bodies - and I've always been satisfied with same.</p>

<p>I am a Nikon user, mostly a function that the bodies simply seem to fit my hands better than the Canon bodies I sampled.<br /> But honestly, I won't defend any notion that Nikon makes a better camera/lenses than Canon. They are both top notch gear and I would be perfectly happy with a Canon system.<br /> I can't offer a personal view on Sigma optics always sticking with Nikkor optics but I'm sure there are endless reviews on the www for any and all of your Sigma optics. Suggest you read them before dissing Canon.<br /> One last thing, a good carpenter never blames his tools.</p>

<p>As the owner of a very extensive Olympus film system (5 bodies, 17 lenses), and a still being built Nikon system (2 dSLR bodies and 4 lenses - 3 high end) I also question what's wrong with the D90? For what its worth, I do own a D300 but my camera gear gets rained on, snowed on etc, and travels a fair amount.<br>

I'd make a decision on which format you plan to use (DX or FX) right now and then replace the 18-200 right off the bat. It's a so so lens and probably can be dumped. Also take a look at some primes (I became indebted to my 55f1.2, 35f2 and 28f2 Zuiko optics, but will admit the 35mmf2 wasn't the best) as well. The bright image in the viewfinder is wicked and they force you to compose a shot with more discipline than a zoom.<br>

A decent high end tripod, as noted by Kent, is a very sound investment.<br>

But if you've money to burn, how about a dye-sublimation photo printer?<br /> </p>

<p>Rightly or wrongly, I own only Nikkor optics and own both the 12-24 and 16-85. I overlap all my lenses so don't have gaps which seem appear to bother some people. With primes I have lots and lots of gaps but do have wide apertures/bright viewfinder. I've been very pleased with my 16-85. I sits on my D300 most of the time as my everyday lens. I use the 12-24 fairly frequently (it's always in my bag) but if I could only own one lens I'd pick the 16-85.</p>

<p>I own both the 16-85 and 70-300 lenses. I dismissed the 18-200 based on its optical reviews, preferring the 16-85 as my main lens. I looked at the 17-55 f2.8 as well but decided it was too bulky and heavy for daily use. The 300 on a DX frame is 450mm "equivalent". Too long to hand hold most of the time (even at 200mm for that matter), unless you boost the ISO rating to a couple of thousand.</p>

 

<p>I own a D300, the 12-24 and a longer reach 70-300mm. I love the 12-24 but it is a specialized lens - ultra wide angle as noted earlier. I'd say you're actually missing the all important 'walk about lens' - the lens you stick on your camera and it takes 85%+ of all your shots. The 17-55 is a beast of a lens - the large aperture means heavy and big. I've been very very impressed with the 16-85 Nikkor VR lens. It really is a great all purpose lens.</p>

<p>I was in the same situation a few months back. In my film days, I only used primes (and own 17 of them) but when I switched to dSLR opted to go with the higher end Nikkor zooms to begin with. When I purchased my D300, I also looked at the 50 f1.4, the f1.8 and 35mm f1.8, the 17-55f2.8 but in the end purchased the Nikkor 16-85 VR II lens. I was taken with the 17-55mm but it's just too big/heavy for my wants. Take a look at the 16-85 ... just for fun!</p>

<p>I'd say hold on a bit before you spend all your monies. You'll soon get a feel for what becomes important to you. If you're itching to spend, I'd take a look at the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 (or f1.4) in place the 35mm Nikkor. It's great for portraiture, generaly family photos etc and has a nice bright image in the viewfinder for low level light.<br>

I own the Nikkor 12-24mm and it's a great lens for scenery but not really for what appear to be your (current) interests. At the other extreme I also have a Nikkor 300mm (which coupled to my D300 sort of acts like a 450mm). It's a tripod mount only lens IMHO unless I boost the ISO to 3200/6400.</p>

<p>As a D300 owner, I can attest to its fine handling, ruggedness (and weight) and advanced focusing. But as other users have stated, buy your optics first and then buy the D90 if you run out of money. I can also attest to the Gold Ring Nikkors being generally magnificent lenses (and expensive). The 17-55f2.8 is a heavy lens but permits a (relatively) bright image in the viewfinder. You could always go with large aperture primes however. You might want to take a look at the Nikkor 16-85 VR lens. It's a pretty handy lens, decent quality, and has VR capabilities. I'm quite happy with mine.</p>

<p>Up until about 10 years ago, I had about dozen fixed length lenses and no zooms because in my experince zooms were not in the same league optically. But times (and the market) have changed. Why not consider a VR based zoom (the Nikkor 16-85 for example)?<br>

As other posters have noted the Sigma 30mm enjoys a decent reputation and it's not matched in the Nikkor line-up.</p>

<p>As Cameron Fan states - find out what's most comfortable in your hands and buy it (take a look a several Nikon and Canon bodies though just to expand your knowledge of how they handle). Check out the user interface and decide what you're willing to pay (you do pay some what of a premium for the Nikon/Nikkor name) for optics etc. I'm a Nikon dSLR user (D300 with a fairly extensive Nikkor lens collection) but honestly if somebody dropped a Canon system in my lap I'd be more than happy. Maybe when I was younger I defend one over the other but both camera lines are great - and that's the operative word - camera lines.</p>

<p>My own experience is the 6x6 format changes the way you photograph. First off it's a square not the (mostly) horizontal format of 35mm/APS-C. Also the size of the cameras (Hassie, Rollei etc) may encourage to use a tripod which always causes me to slow down and think a little more. Optically the Zeiss T* line is second to none and remain one of the defacto standards of modern optic perfection.<br>

And now of course you'll deal with film. My own experience with digital media is that the subtleties of film have yet to matched with CCD/CMOS sensors (although I do like my D300 sensor output). Film is expensive so you take your time (see above), concentrate and like.<br>

On a different note, if you're going to pursue B&W take a very serious look at your darkroom setup. IMHO shooting B&W and developing of same will teach you more about photography than everything else combined.</p>

In the 70s and early to mid 80s I was a committed fixed lens guy. Then one day with a money back guarantee I purchased the Zuiko 28-48 - dirt cheap as it had been recently discontinued. I came to love that lens. As Skip noted it was great walk about lens. I backpacked it all over western Europe on many business and personal trips. If I had to pick one lens above all my other 6 Zuiko (fixed) lenses, it would be my #1 (the 100mmf2.8 would be #2). What it may have suffered in (a purist's view of) optical quality, it more than made up from a pragmatic perspective.

 

Jim

I cut my teeth learning photography with B&W film plus darkroom some 4 decades ago - you're in for a lot of fun. Like others, I would suggest you either invest in some basic development equipment for the film or switch to the C41 chemistry pseudo B&W film in the short term.

 

Used enlargers are essentially free given their original prices. You can of course develop your B&W film in tanks and then use a high end film scanner/PC/photo printer for 'printing'. Just a thought.

 

Jim

A complicated question! Certainly switching to digital has it challenges. I liken it to starting photography all over again. Once I had figured out how to make sense of the histograms things began to fall into place quite nicely. For the most part I do use auto focus and autoexposure but for tricking lighting still exposure 'manually'. A DLSR is really an embedded computer system - it just happens to make images. You are really mastering pieces of technology (the camera, the post processing software, the printer etc). If you enjoyed the science of film of old you will truly truly love the new digital world.

 

Shooting digital is akin to shooting slide film - it's far less tolerant of incorrect exposures than print film. But that said, it has a near instant feedback loop - study up of interpreting the histogram.

 

I sincerely believe film will become a specialty store item - try and buy 126 or 110 film or black and white developing supplies.

 

Jim

I have a reasonably complete (for my needs) OM system comprising of several bodies and about a dozen lenses. I chose Nikon over Olympus when I 'converted' to a DSLR system because using 30 to 40 year old lens designs on new equipment didn't weigh heavily in my decision. Nearly four years later I have no regrets. I never ever shoot film despite having a full colour darkroom (had actually -- I dismantled it this winter). Simply junk the entire lot, treasure the memories and think of the LP, 8-track tape, slide rule, sexton and other completely obsolete inventions.

The Zuiko 28f2 was a fantastic optic. I own the Zuiko 35f2 and while I like its brightness in the viewfinder, I concur with the previous summation that "it's OK" but nothing special.

 

When I bought into the OM system, I vowed only to buy Zuiko optics. As noted previously they focus in the same direction, and have a similar look and feel. But over time, I did veer (just) a little - with the superlative Vivitar Series 1 lenses.

 

Jim

Good Comeback Godfrey. I also thought Tim's comments were that of a dickhead. I'm just a little more blunt so there will be possibility of misinterpretation of my perspective.

 

I would also comment that today's metering system are quite extraordinary thanks to modern day electronics and algorithm design.

 

I totally agree with you that learning to read the histogram plot changed my approach dramatically.

 

And lastly, am I missing something. What's the cost of bracketing? None.

 

Jim

As a long time OM system film user also with a pile of lenses, I opted to move to a Nikon DLSR system. I opted for the 'Gold Ring' professional lenses rather than the kit lens and have never looked back. There's a learning curve with coming to grips with sensor characteristics and not blowing the highlights but all in all, it's been most worthwhile.

 

I figured there's little sense in recycling 25 year old optical designs so it made a wide open playing field for selecting a new system line. IMHO, the 4/3 system uses too tiny a sensor which may not stand the test of time.

 

I just plug my Laptop into my HDTV and can show any pictures at the drop of a hat. And if somebody wants an instant copy, well that's equally trivial. Go digital - film is fast becoming a legacy medium

I own 2 of each and although I cut my teeth on a fully manual camera and b & w darkroom (later colour and E6) must admit I prefer the 2/2n/2Sp. They are built like tanks (not the 2Sp) and you've got the best of both worlds plus otfp flash exposure.

 

If you decide on a 1(n), the 625 battery is an easy fix, regardless of which approach you take. Of course, you could buy one of each!

 

Jim

As a long time OM film system user, I switched to Nikon when I decided to jump lock, stock and barrel into the digital arena. Upwards lens capability was not an issue due to radical changes in camera design (auto focus etc) so were free to pick and choose a new line.

 

It wasn't the lack of a 'professional' grade body that made me jump, it was the fact I got left holding the bag of a dropped system a decade before digital took over.

I own 5 OM bodies, the Zuiko 50 "made in Japan" f1.8, A Zuiko 50f1.4, Zuiko 35f2, and a Canon A1 (but not a Canon 35f2).

 

Of the bodies I own (OM1, 1n, 2, 2sP and a OM10), all but the 10 I would recommend. I like the 35f2 for its bright viewfinder image but, agree, while it's a good lens it's not a great lens and hence not my 'prime prime'. Which is too bad because I love the 35mm focal length. The Zuiko 40mm f2 pancake lens is a real gem, but you'll pay handsomely for it but if you're really really serious this would be my recommendation for the Zuiko line.

 

The A1 camera is a neat camera in it's own right but doesn't have the 'feel' of the OM series bodies.

 

Lastly, you might also take a very serious look at the Nikon/Nikkor lines. Fine stuff and very easy to come by. I opted for the OM system over Nikon 30 years ago but when I went digital I switched back to Nikon and am very pleased with their 'gold ring' optics line.

 

Jim