martin_aspeli

<p>I think Shun already answered the question about whether there would continue to be DX bodies, both high end and for the budget-conscious.</p>

<p>However, here's something else to consider: The name "full frame" (Fx) implies that anything smaller has a partial, inferior frame. However, "full" in this case is really just a reference to what 35mm film cameras offer. There are a lot of people, like me, who've never used a film SLR camera. For us, digital is all we've ever known.</p>

<p>Lens choices do change when you use a smaller framed viewfinder, but does that really matter? If I were to ever go "pro" (not that this would ever happen), I'd probably be more comfortable with Dx than Fx, because I'm more used to it, and because it's what my system has been built around. I'd wager that there are a lot of people closer to "pro" in talent and aspiration that would feel the same way. Being less "full" than Fx is not necessarily less desirable. My camera fills a full Dx frame just fine. :)<br>

Martin</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I have a Nikon D300 and my wife has a Nikon D90 DSLR. We use them a lot, but my wife would also like a smaller compact that is easy to put in a handbag and doesn't weigh much.<br>

The compact market is so big and good reviews seem hard to come by. Does anyone have any good recommendations?<br>

Important factors:</p>

<ul>

<li>Lens quality and final picture quality</li>

<li>Ergonomics and handling</li>

<li>Size and weight</li>

</ul>

<p>Resolution, card format and price are less important, but we're not looking to spend a fortune.<br>

Cheers,<br />Martin</p>

<p>One of the main reasons to get a D90 is that the D40/40x/60/5000 (I believe...) don't have an in-built auto-focus motor. That means that many older and third party lenses will only work in manual focus mode. When I had a D40, I wanted to buy lenses that seemed like good value for money, but couldn't because of this.<br>

The D90 is a great camera. My wife as it (and I have the D300) and really loves it. Whether it's worth the extra money is probably something only you can answer, though. It's normally better to spend money on lenses than the body, but in this case, the more expensive body may allow you to get more affordable/better lenses.<br>

Martin</p>

<p>Boat house, Swan River, Perth</p><div></div>

<p>Rottnest Island is virtually car-free. The best way to get around is by bike.<br>

Nikon D300 with Nikon 18-200 lens.</p><div></div>

<p>On the way to Rottnest Island, Western Australia. Nikon D300 with Nikon 18-200 @ f/18, 1/124s. Processed with Lightroom 2.</p><div></div>

<p>My choice would be the 18-200.<br>

I have a similar setup, with a Tokina 12-24 for wide angle, the Sigma 30 f/1.4 for low-light, and two other zooms: a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and the Nikon 18-200. The Tamron produces maybe slightly better images, and is useful because of the 2.8 aperture. However, I'm very happy with the Nikon as a "long reach" lens. The picture quality is great, unless you happen to be shooting mainly lens test charts from afar. It's light and versatile and works well hand-held. Also, I don't think you'd find 85mm long enough for outdoor telephoto use.<br>

Martin</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 30 f/1.4, and I'm very happy with it. It's a bit overpriced, but I don't regret buying it all.<br>

I also second your decision to go with the 17-50 f/2.8 over the 18-55 kit lens. I had a D40 with the kit lens, and the kit lens is just no fun. :-)<br>

I wouldn't worry about the lack of VR at these focal lengths, but you may find that you need a bit more reach. Your next purchase may be something a bit longer. I have the Tamron 24-78 f/2.8, which is also really nice, although it'd be the fourh lens in your kit covering 18-50mm, so maybe not a winner. The Nikon 18-200 is very versatile and useful for outdoor shots. Otherwise, the Nikon 55-200 VR is both cheap and versatile, and possibly a better buy.<br>

Martin</p>

<p>When I had a D40, the thing that made me upgrade (to a D300, and apart from my irrational lust for gadgetry), was the lack of an in-built AF motor. I wanted to invest in lenses, and many of the lenses I wanted to buy, that seemed like good value for money, did not have a built-in motor.<br>

So, I wish Nikon would make a D... mmmm.... 50, 60, 70 and 80 are all taken, so let's call it a D40+, with a built-in AF motor.<br>

However, I m pretty sure they won't. It'd complicate the design a bit (though surely not that much, since they've built those motors for years and years), and maybe force an increase to the footprint. More likely, though, they'll simply keep it simple to make more money selling newer AF-S, DX lenses, or encouraging people to upgrade to a D90 or D300.<br>

The D40 is a brilliant camera, though. I kind of wish I hadn't sold mine when I got the D300, but then I'd never have gotten the D300 purchase past my other half. :-)<br>

Martin</p>

<p>Very little. :-) It has taken me about six months of use (not every day, but mostly every week) to really understand how to use it, though. I keep liking it more and more as I understand why Nikon put a certain button where they put it, say.<br>

But I must agree that the M/A/C focus switch button feels a bit fiddly and I can't easily operate it without turning the camera around and looking at it.<br>

Martin</p>

<p>I have the D300 and my wife has the D90. I prefer the feel of the D300 (it's heavier, mind), but I don't actually use the extra features to any real extent. I suspect you'll be a lot happier with the D90 and some decent lenses.<br>

Some cheapish leses we've got that give sharp images and are a lot of fun: Nikon 50mm f/1.8; Tamron 90mm macro; Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I'd particularly look into the Tamron, or its sibling the 17-50 f/2.8.<br>

Martin</p>

<p>Brien,<br>

I have the Sigma 30 f/1.4 and I really like it. It's great for indoor/low-light use in particular.<br>

I think you could legitimately feel a bit bummed because the Nikon 35 f/1.8 may be cheaper, but then 30 != 35 and f/1.4 != f/1.8 and Sigma != Nikon, so don't feel too offended. I'm sure you'll love the results you get with your new Sigma.<br>

Martin</p>

<p>The Nikon D40. It only lasted about 9 months before I upgraded to a D300, but it was affordable enough for me to take a chance on. Before I had a DSLR, I'd never much enjoyed taking pictures. I had a few compacts, but never bothered to take them anywhere. For all its flaws (the lack of an AF motor was the deciding factor for me to upgrade), the D40 was fun, easy to use, and let me learn a lot.<br>

After the D40, the game-changer was the D300. It's taken a few months to learn how to use it properly, but it's amazingly powerful and exudes engineering excellence.<br>

In terms of lenses, the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 taught me a lot about low light and depth-of-field, and about composition, being a prime lens.<br>

Martin</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

My right eye is about -3.5 (i.e. I'm nearsighted and that's how strong my spectacles are). I rarely wear contact lenses, but they are in fact slightly stronger, at -3.75 (I got them measured at the same time that I got new glasses, so I assume it's just a consequence of the distance between the eye and the actual lens in the specs). Or maybe I got that the wrong way around. But anyway...<br>

The eyepiece diopter on my D300 will only go down to -2. I generally use glasses, and it's fine, but I think if I could get my eye closer to the viewfinder, I'd find it easier to use the information in the bottom of the viewfinder and block out more light.<br>

So, should I buy a diopter? I can't find much information about them, or the best place to buy them. Do I need to get, e.g., a -3, fit it over my existing eyepiece and then adjust it down to -1.5 (so -1.5 + -2 = -3.5)? Or do I need to buy an exact -3.5?<br>

Cheers,<br>

Martin</p>

<p>I haven't used the Sigma or the Nikon, but I have the Tamron (and a D300) and I really like it. It's light, versatile and I'm generally very pleased with the pictures I take with it. I don't think you'll be disappointed, at least, taking price into account.</p>

<p>Hi Hansen,<br>

Since you're actually using this on a D300, I'd be interested in your experiences.<br>

Does it compromise metering noticeably on the D300?<br>

How is it to use with an f/4 or f/5.6 lens? Too dark? I'm not too worried about darkening with DOF preview above f/5.6, but if my 18-200 were to become a pain to use, I'd think twice.<br>

I've been trying to compare with an old Nikkormat that has a split focus screen, using DOF preview at f/4 and f/5.6. I think it'd be OK, but it's hard to judge.<br>

I guess worst case, I could put the original screen back if I hated it. I doubt I'll find a D300 with the screen already installed anywhere to actually test!<br>

Martin</p>

<p>Since you'll probably only get $10 if you sell it, and it doesn't take up much room, I would just keep it. You never know when you may need it. Alternatively, give it someone you like who doesn't have a 50mm lens. The satisfaction will be worth more than the money you'll make selling it. :-)<br>

Martin</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses!<br>

I have two other (dumb) questions:<br>

 

<ul>

<li>If I use an off-centre focus point on auto-focus, will the picture will appear out of focus in the viewfinder?</li>

<li>Is the dimming effect that happens at small apertures and issue in general, or only when using DOF preview?</li>

</ul>

Martin

</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I have a D300, and my wife has a D90. We have the 50mm f/1.8, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Tamron 90mm f/2.8, Tamron 24-75mm f/2.8, Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and Nikon 18-200mm lenses.<br>

We also have some older gear: A Minolta X-700 with a 50mm f/1.8 manual focus lens, and an old Nikkormat manual body with pre-AI 50mm and 35mm lenses (f/2.8 I believe, but I can't remember).<br>

I've grown up with digital and love the D300. However, the feel of manual focusing on the X-700, especially for portraits, is just amazing. I want to recreate that on my D300 (and I suspect that when I do, my wife will want it on her D90 as well). The X-700 has a split focussing screen, and my research suggests that to get the same effect, I should buy a KatzEye screen and install it myself.<br>

I'd also look into doing the AI conversion on the two old Nikon lenses and use them manually, even if they are matched by the newer (plastic) 50mm f/1.8 and Sigma 30mm f/1.4. As far as I know, the D300 can meter with these, but the D90 cannot?<br>

I have a few questions, though:</p>

<ul>

<li>Am I making it harder to use auto-focus by installing a manual focus screen?</li>

<li>Will the focus dot in the viewfinder still work? </li>

<li>The KatzEye installation is a bit terrifying. Has anyone done it on a D300 and have any advice to share?</li>

<li>Will the red focus indicators and optional grid lines work with the screen? If so, there's no point in getting a screen with grid lines.</li>

<li>Would you go for the OptiBrite option?</li>

<li>Does it affect metering at all?</li>

</ul>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Martin</p>

<p>Flickr is great for finding samples. Search for pictures tagged sigma1020 or similar and you'll get a ton of results.</p>

<p>If you've recently moved, you may be in a position to be clever with currency. If you have money outside the UK, you can possibly get a "good price" (in terms of the currency you have) by changing to pounds now, or by buying in the foreign currency.<br>

Also, these things change. Six months ago, I bought a lot of Nikon gear in the USA, when it was $2 to £1. Now it's $1.40, which is pretty nuts. If it swings that far one way, it can swing again (though probably not next week or even in the next few months).<br>

Alternatively, try to get paid in a foreign currency, or find a country where stuff is even cheaper. The Korean Won, for example, is cheaper in pounds than it was before, and you can get some great prices in Korea. Conversely, the Yen is expensive. And you could always buy some gear in Iceland. :)</p>

<p>I'd vote for Lightroom 2. It really is an excellent piece of software with very good UI and a natural workflow. Unless you have very specific needs, then I doubt you'll find the need for anything more. If you do, it'll probably be Photoshop or another more specialist editor, which would complement Lightroom if and when you need it.</p>

<p>The 18-200 is very versatile and produces good images. It falls down a little in low light, or when you try to do portraits by blurring the background.<br>

I have the 18-200, but also a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. This was relatively cheap, but produces great images and is one of the better regarded Tamron lenses, along with the 17-50 f/2.8. Obviously a smaller range, but a very practical one, at least for me. I tend to use either the Tamron or a prime (50 f/1.8, Sigma 30 f/1.4) indoors, and the 18-200 outdoors, in particular for the extra reach and VR.<br>

If you're looking for ultra-wide, the Tokina 12-24 f/4 is really nice as well, and can be had cheaply.<br>

Martin</p>

<p>Some favourites:<br>

 

<ul>

<li>Nikon 50mm f/1.8</li>

<li>Tamron 90mm macro</li>

<li>Tamron 28-75 f/2.8</li>

<li>Tokina 12-24 f/4</li>

</ul>

Martin

</p>

<p>I presume you meant you're waiting for the 28-75? If so, you'll love that one too. It's a great lens, very practical and great image quality.</p>