tom_barrance

The town on the coast is called Essaouira. It's much more laid back than Marrakech and a

really good place to wind down after the hassles of the city.

I'm probably going to get a D300 but the body alone weighs more than my OM4T with an

85mm f2 lens fitted. That makes the difference between a 'carry anywhere' camera and a

'carry when you're planning to take photographs' camera.

I'm finally going to make the transition to a DSLR and Nikon seems like the best replacement for my

Olympus OM system (I currently use mainly an 85mm f2, plus 24mm, 50mm and very occasionally 200mm

primes).

Two main uses: one is fine art stuff like these

http://tinyurl.com/2kpped

http://tinyurl.com/2op2dy

http://tinyurl.com/yrsgxr

which I want to be able to blow up BIG, and the other is low-light synchro-flash shots of dancers like this:

http://tinyurl.com/2foryu

I want to use prime lenses for their shallow DOF, small size and low light ability. I'm looking to get mostly

used lenses to save cash. This is what I'm thinking of getting:

D80 or D300

20mm f/2.8

50mm f/1.4

105mm f/2.8 micro

SB600 or SB400 flash

Any views or advice on these?

Thanks all, you've confirmed what I thought, which is that I don't need more than a D40x. I'll

spend the money I save on a decent lens : )

I use a digital P&S but I want a DSLR for better image quality and speed of operation in low light. I'll still be

using film for my 'art' photography. (I don't want to get into a digital versus film argument here.)

A few reviews say that the D40/D40x are good beginners' cameras but lack the advanced features of

higher end DSLRs. My question is whether I would need any of these features.

Easily usable manual controls are important. 2.5 fps is enough for me and I'm not worried about

megapixels. The D40x is small, quiet and light, and according to Imaging Resource it has a better dynamic

range than any other DSLR except the Fujifilm S3 Pro.

So apart from the limited number of DX lenses available, what would I be missing if I bought a D40x

instead of a more expensive DSLR?

I'm debating the same decision myself. I think I'm going to go for the D40, one reason being

that I like wideangle lenses and the Nikon goes to 28mm equivalent, while the G9 needs a

hefty adaptor to go wider than 35mm. If you're more a telephoto person the G9 might be a

better bet as it goes to 210mm with the standard lens

I'm tempted by a D40 as it's light and low noise, but I want an affordable and reasonable sized 24mm

equivalent lens. So I'm thinking of getting the 16mm fisheye and using lens correction software to

straighten out the images. I'm assuming that if I stop down to around f/5.6 I'll have enough DOF not to

worry about the lack of autofocus.

Would anyone recommend this? Or will I lose too much resolution when correcting the distortion?

Good point. Might tip me over into getting a Canon G9 instead as it has a built-in ND filter. I

don't want to use an SLR as I need something pocketable.

How much control will I have over flash if I buy a P5100 and an SB-400?

Specifically, will I be able to easily adjust the balance between background lighting and flash so that I can

combine flash (to freeze action) and motion blur (to give the impression of movement)?

Some examples shot with a P5100 or P5000 would be great if anyone has them.

I'm planning to use this for taking pictures of dancers in clubs - I'm looking for a small camera/flash

combination as I want to be relatively unobtrusive.

Surely if they furnished a camera that had it all, everyone would buy their camera rather than

the competitors'? Or is there something about capitalism that I don't understand?

Thanks for the suggestion. It looks nice, but it doesn't appear to have a hotshoe. One of

the main reasons for switching from the S70 is that I need more control over flash.

Ralph, the reason I was considering an older camera is that fewer pixels generally means

less noise. I wondered if I might have missed one.

Rob, I don't judge cameras on 100% crops but I do take note if several reviews say that a

camera has noise issues.

I've considered an SLR - too big, too noisy, too obtrusive. And I'm happy with my film SLR

system for when an SLR is appropriate.

Looks like I'll have to go for a compromise - probably the Canon G9 or the Nikon P5100.

Thanks for the suggestions. I've considered all those cameras but they all have noise or

image quality issues, which is a shame as Ricoh have great ergonomics (I still use a Ricoh

GR1s film camera).

I'm looking for something a bit better than my Canon S70 for taking pictures of people up fairly close,

sometimes in low light.

The camera must have

- a hotshoe

- aperture priority and manual exposure

- short shutter lag

- fast handling

- low noise at 400 ASA

- wideangle lens, 28mm equivalent (though I could accept a 35mm equivalent if a high quality conversion

lens is available)

- good-sized screen, at least 2.5 inches (my eyes are getting too old for 2 inch screens

It doesn't have to be a current model - I'm happy to hunt around on ebay - and it doesn't have to have

more than 5MP. Price isn't a big issue but I can't afford a Leica.

I don't need a big telephoto range: 80mm equivalent would be enough, though 100-120mm would be

nice.

I don't need an optical viewfinder (I've got used to using the LCD screen as the S70's viewfinder is so

inaccurate.)

Any ideas?

Jane Bown, the celebrated Guardian photographer, takes all her pictures with very old OM-1s

which she bought second-hand, so I think they do last. But I did read somewhere that the

OM2n is the most reliable of the Olympus bodies.

Thanks for some helpful suggestions.

I don't have enough budget to get a D3. Even the D300 and prime lens combination I've

suggested is going to be hard to justify.

When you're up close to people the size of the camera you point at them does make a

difference, however you behave. For my classroom shots I tend to get in really close -

often resting the camera on the desk where the children are working. P&S live view is great

because the children tend to forget that I'm taking pictures. At least 28mm wide is

essential - 35mm isn't wide enough for me even on full frame. For this kind of work I'd be

happy with my Canon S70 if it wasn't so noisy above 100ISO.

I'm not keen on zooms, partly because of size and bulk, partly because I'm old-school and

I'm used to using primes. Apart from the classroom stuff I'm still shooting film, with an

OM4T and 85mm f/2, and a Ricoh GR1s (fixed 28mm 2.8). The dance stuff is an area

where I think a good DSLR with the right lens and flash could make a big difference.

I'm looking for a fairly unobtrusive camera for use in available light. I'll be using it for two main purposes

- taking pictures of groups of people working together in classroom situations, and of dancers in clubs

(where I'll be mixing flash and available light).

So I'm thinking along these lines:

D300 (at the moment I'm using a point-and-shoot for my classroom work and I find live view really useful)

20mm 2.8

50mm 1.4

I'm planning to use primes as they're less threatening to point at people compared with big zooms. I know

the d300 is big and heavy, but without a big lens it doesn't look much bigger than other bodies.

Does this seem like a good setup? Any alternative suggestions? Any suggestions for a good flashgun?

Can anyone suggest which is the quietest Nikon (new or used, 6MP or over)? I don't want a D40 because I

want to be able to use older prime lenses.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think so - according to dpreview it has noise issues at

anything over 80 ASA.

Noise (and the price...) is also the reason I didn't go for a GRD. I know people say it has

'film-like' noise but I tried one and I didn't like it.

I should also have said that I'm looking to shoot JPEGs and do as little post-processing as

possible - I spend half my life in front of a computer as it is.

I'm looking for a reasonably priced, relatively small camera for taking slow synchro shots of dancers in

clubs. Must go to at least 28mm wide and have good high ISO performance, and be able to adjust the

flash level.

Currently I'm using a Ricoh GR1s film camera with fast colour film but as it's a bit hit-and-miss it's getting

expensive. Also I'd like to be able to use off-camera flash for better modelling and less redeye.

Here's an example, though I'd like to do better than this:

I'm wondering about a second-hand Sony R1 with a Metz flashgun, or will I have to go the DSLR route -

and if so, which camera/flash combination would you recommend?