Peter_in_PA

<p>I wouldn't rely on a DSLR that old for anything serious myself. That would be my big concern. Old electronics fail.<br /><br />But the 35mm f1.8DX is a no-brainer for DX imho. and the 50mm f1.8G (I assume that's what you mean) is a little short but very usable for portraits.<br /><br />Why a D200? Why not another Canon? I know having multiple rigs makes sense for some, but it doesn't make sense to me.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I don't know about the front dial being "useless". let's face it, most of us shooting M4/3 are using it as a 2nd, backup or "just for fun" camera.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Not sure how true this is. I know for myself that my µ43 rig replaced my Nikon stuff.</p>

<p>Unlike other retro cameras I've seen (like the Df), this one doesn't seem to compromise function for fashion.</p> <p>Seems very cool...</p> <p>thoughts?</p> <p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/history-repeating-olympus-pen-f-first-impressions-review?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu</p>

<p>Elliot, exactly right.</p> <p>1,800 for a zoom that is f6.3 at the long end is kind of a bad joke, imho. And 2500 for that 300 is super steep, too.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I like to shoot outdoors stuff. wildlife/sports. landscapes. BIF sometimes. the normal stuff.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Unless sports and action is your main thing, I think the D500 is not the camera to get anyway. 200 - 500 is my vote.</p>

<p>I think the problem is that someone used the word "non-enthusiast".</p> <p>Camera companies don't make cameras for those people anymore. as soon as you care about your image quality enough to note the difference between cameras or sensors, you are no longer a "non-enthusiast". You just aren't. And the true "non-enthusiasts" probably don't even have a clue that Nikon might have more than one size sensor in their cameras... they share photos on facebook and instagram...</p> <p>Seriously, Nikon has the FX market SO well covered with their current offerings, though. If you can't find the camera you want between the D6x0, D7x0, D8x0, D4 or D5, or Df... exactly what do you expect that ANY camera company is going to make to make you happy. Same with DX, really...I think I'll unsubscribe from this now, because I think this thread has lost its way.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I am just saying I think there are also those who can appreciate differences between DX and FX shots.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> I agree. Those people are enthusiasts. I am one. I am not a pro. When you say "non-enthusiast", that's a different kind of person. They are thrilled with their camera phones and don't even buy many Point and Shoot cameras anymore.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If you are Nikon, why not make a low cost FX camera for the non-enthusiast? A camera like that would make great images for a casual user, who is not as concerned about advanced features or build, etc. Call it an FX snapshot camera. Maybe that is all the camera the person ever needs, or maybe it is a gateway to more interest in photography.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> There already is a "non-enthusiast" camera that is good enough for anybody that is not concerned about those things, and most non-enthusiasts already own it. It's called a phone. People who don't care about those things and want snapshots are totally fine with their phone camera and aren't even looking at DX or mirrorless.<br /><br />Honestly, you are imagining a product that has no market or purpose.</p>

<blockquote> <p>i kind of see Mukul's point. for Sony to implement the auto ISO feature in the A7 poorly, then put that feature in newer bodies without offering a firmware update for the older camera is an attempt at a coerced upgrade. Essentially they are punishing early adopters for their own mistake.</p> </blockquote> <p>Never... ever... buy a product for what it might do someday. THAT is a mistake... Only for what it can do today.</p>

<p>Mukul, I used to know a guy who was impossible to please, in terms of a product. I don't know what the technical term is, but I remember that when he bought a new monitor for his computer about 15 years ago, he bought 4 or 5 and returned them to the store because they weren't "just right".</p> <p>When he decided to get a digital camera, he researched it for FOUR YEARS before buying one. I wonder how many awesome photos he missed during that time.</p> <p>For some, life is always defined by what is wrong with their current situation, and they go on and on about how the current WhizBang 2000 XL II isn't quite good enough and hopefully the Mk III will fix it.</p> <p>There's a lot of that on photo.net. Honestly, there are tons of things that probably would make my life easier with my OM-D. I don't notice, I'm too busy living life and taking photos when I can...</p>

<p>You can understand the basics of photography AND use automation. Sheesh. Gimme a break...</p> <p>There are all kinds of situations where the lighting is changing more rapidly than you can change ISO. So if y'all want to be purists, go ahead and re-set your ISO every sixteen seconds while the rest of us actually get the shot.</p>

<p>Barry, I doubt it.<br /><br />There was room for a D90 AND D300, there was room for a D70 AND a D100 even when the D100 was worse than the D70 and people still bought the 100 because of the more rugged body and interface.<br /><br />I can't see D7x00 line stopping. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Alternatively, those of us with D7x00 cameras who don't want to ditch their DX lenses can wait and see which of the D500 capabilities appear in the D7300 and/or if the D500 price drops after those that MUST have it on day one have received their orders.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Not even sure this is Nikon's target customer for the D500, though, either.</p>

<blockquote> <p>This gets even weirder when one considers the current cost for the D750/24-120/4 VR combo vs the D500/16-80/2.8-4 VR combo - FX is $570 cheaper! </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Nikon would probably say you're thinking about it wrong. It's not that FX is potentially cheaper, it's more that super speed is more expensive.</p>

<p>Mukul, but certainly if you're shooting sports, and then shoot a portrait, you want different settings.</p> <p>On my Oly EM-5, I have I think 3 or 4 "mysets" where I can go to 1 and know it's sports, 2 and know it's landscaper or portrait, 3 and know it's low light...</p> <p>Surely Sony has something like that.</p>

<p>Depends on what you are shooting. For landscapes and portraits and things where you are able to be careful, No.<br /><br />For spray and pray and quick event style shooting in mixed light? I use auto ISO, set it up within the parameters that work for me, and there ya go.</p>

<p>Cards don't last forever anyway. I say get the newest technology for the newer cameras.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Yeah if I shoot professionally I see little reason to use the D500. Weight never bothers me.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Depends on what you shoot, though... right?</p>

<p>Ilkka, I always found them really fiddly and seemed really flimsy and delicate, too. I was delighted when I switched to µ43 and my OM-D came with a separate little flash instead. Of course, I got a "real" flash too, but still...</p>

<p>jason,</p> <p>The Tamron and Sigma 17/18 - 50 zooms have a stellar reputation. </p>

<p>The 11-20 Tokina is an easy recommendation. I had the 11-16 and it was amazing.</p> <p>That said, you might be better off with a standard zoom like the Tamron 17-50, because wider than 17 on DX is really not something many of us need much really. As much as I loved mine, it was not the lens I used the most by a long shot when I had that rig.</p>

<p>I'm holding out for a camera that has such low light sensitivity that it can take a photo of something that <em><strong>isn't actually really even there!</strong></em></p>

<p>Dieter, I was using your comments as a springboard to reply to a lot of the comments here, not you specifically.</p> <p>it's all good, and you're right. If I'm shooting video, give me a video camera any day.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Note: I am not commenting on video performance - of which I understand virtually nothing and which does not interest me in the least. If I was interested, then a DSLR would not be high on my list of cameras to look at for that purpose.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Dieter, you have two excellent options. If anyone wants a svelt little DSLR that doesn't have video you can do one of two things. Buy a Df or ignore the video feature on the camera you buy. If Nikon had a D500 and a D500"video", both would cost more, perhaps, than if they only made just the one and you simply ignore the feature you don't need.<br /><br> Honestly, does ANYONE think that a camera company has any vested interested in making a large-quantity medium-to-high-end digital camera without Video. Too many customers won't buy it, so get used to it, everybody...</p>

<p>Yes. Starting with the D4/D8x0, Nikon CLEARLY decided that the big pro camera that can double as a hammer was going to be built for speed, and the studio/landscape/portait/wedding etc. group needed something very different.</p> <p>They made the right call, and if you look at Canon's history in this regard, they did the same thing.</p> <p>But THIS time, they have made the D500 JUST as appealing to quick-action photogs as the D5, more in many ways. I mean, if you are going to be shooting those long lenses, you want a D500 BAD, because you can do things you never could before. If you are shooting a wedding with a D5 or D500 you read the wrong photography magazines or web sites.</p>