ted_raper1

<p>I'm with Wouter on this autofocus thing. There seems to be a lot of AF complaints about Nikon's recent bodies; these new cameras have very sophisticated AF systems and do require some time learning how to properly set up and use them. Even my D300, with its 51 point AF system, is fairly complex, and coming to it from a D200, it took me a while to get the hang of it. Now, I never have any AF problems - no back focus, no front focus, etc. As Wouter mentions, I almost always use single point AF and can't remember the last time I had a focus problem. I use mine mostly with an AFS (17-55) Nikon lens and this combination nails what I want in focus every time, and does it quickly, too.</p>

<p>Please understand, I'm not saying that some of these new cameras don't have real problems; given the conditions under which Nikon has been producing them the last year, that's realistic. But I am saying that I believe a lot of the focusing issues being complained about are simply operator error, and you certainly can't blame the camera maker for that.</p>

<p>The fold out screen by itself would be enough for me to get the 5100. Once you use a camera with one, you don't want to go without. Especially for low to the ground tripod shots, or waist level shots. I use Nikon equipment, but did buy a Canon G1x, and the fold out screen was one of the major reasons I did (that and the big sensor). It's very handy - keeps you from having every single shot at the same old "eye level" perspective. I actually used to lie on the ground with my D300 sometimes! Now I use the G1x and the fold out screen.</p>

<p>As a general answer to your questions, most folks her at P-Net would say lenses are a higher priority than what kind of body you get, especially if you have something specific (like wildlife) to shoot. Andrew's suggestion about waiting a couple months is a good one as there should be some new stuff being announced in the near future.</p>

<p>My advice would be to get the best body you can afford that does what you need as far as autofocus, high ISO performance, shooting speed, etc. but spend the majority on good lenses and a good tripod.</p>

<p>I kept mine for a while after buying a D300; I used it in rough conditions - rain, river trips, places it might be dropped - so I wouldn't have to risk the D300. I did eventually sell it because I now have other backups, but for what you'd get for it these days, I'd probably just keep it, for sentimental reasons if nothing else. It was a great camera in its day.</p>

<p>My 17-55 lives on my D300 most of the time; if it had to be a prime, probably the 35.</p>

<p>$39 sounds like a misprint for a new lens. And if it's true, I'd personally never buy a lens that cheap because it almost has to be a piece of junk. Perhaps you should call KEH and ask them if the price is correct.</p>

<p>Shun, I also use a D300 (not the S) and am patiently waiting for its replacement. I know you are bound by the Nikon NDA, but do you by chance have any predictions, or a rough idea, of when the D300s replacement will come out? I love my D300, but have already decided to stick with DX equipment and likely will replace the D300 with its successor. </p>

<p>I understand that camera repairs can be expensive and that some can't afford to have them done. But I hesitate to recommend that anyone actually tear into a modern camera and start spraying lubricants...I have been an electronics technician and have a good understanding of modern cameras, but I would never attempt to open up a D40 and try to fix an error myself. I'd remove the battery, charge it up, reinstall and then do a "reset all'. If that didn't work, I'd start saving for a repair. If I tore into the camera and killed it, then I'd be looking at even more expense to buy a new one. </p>

<p>My viewpoint may be skewed here, because my cameras are fairly expensive; I'd rather absorb the cost of a repair than have to figure out how to come up with $2,000 for a new camera. </p>

<p>It sounds like you have the basic stuff you need to get started, so why not set up some shots and see how you do? The only lens you list I'm familiar with is the 50 1.8, and I'm not sure that will focus close enough to fill the D80 frame with jewelry. You will need a lens that focuses pretty close, depending on how small the jewelry is. What do you intend to do with the images? If posting online, you will need a frame filling shot so it can be seen well.</p>

<p>So give it a try - put the 50 on the D80, put the rig on a tripod, set up your lights and softboxes and do some test shots. Then, you'll have a better idea if you need additional equipment.</p>

<p>There are lots of good brands of tripods out there; the best ones are expensive. Let me just add to what Lex says above; I recently retired an old Slik aluminum tripod that I bought for about $25 - in 1975. It deserved to be retired - about 35 years of hard use. I currently have a Slik mini like the one Les is referring too (as well as a Benro carbon fiber one) and it is a very good small tripod. Any piece of gear that serves me for 35 years has my brand loyalty for quite a while.</p>

<p>I'm pretty seriously interested, depending on how much it comes in for. I have six cameras already and can't justify another, but if it comes in under $1,000 I may be willing to sell something else and get one. I used a DP1s and loved the IQ, but it's aggravations (as mentioned above) finally wore me down and I sold it. It certainly captured some great images, though.</p>

<p>So we'll see. Anyone hazard a guess as to cost/availability?</p>

<p>It's all about light - at its core, photography is about painting with light. The equipment you use is not as important as your knowledge of how to use light; as Chuk says, the hours right after sunrise and before sunset will generally give you the best light for nature photography. One thing I have learned in 45 years of photography is if you see a scene with the kind of lighting you want, capture the image NOW. Do not assume it will be there indefinitely; light can change in a matter of a few seconds and if you miss the shot you may never be able to duplicate the conditions again. I have on occasion tried to re-shoot things where the image was pretty good, but not quite as good as it could have been, and been unable to capture the image again because the original conditions were not able to be duplicated.</p>

<p>So study light! Learn about how it affects your shots, practice. Shoot the same scene in different lighting conditions and see how the image changes.</p>

<p>And also as Chuk says, get and use a tripod. The camera/lens is really a matter of personal choice; most all the modern cameras are technically capable of making good images.</p>

<p>Over the years I have bought and used several Nikon DSLRs, and who knows how many lenses. I agree with JDM that most of the lens problems are simply operator error. The only lens I have ever had a problem with was a Tokina 50-135 on a D300, and AF fine tuning fixed that. What amazes me the most is when a person ALWAYS has problems with whatever lens they buy; it front/back focuses with every copy they get. Modern AF systems (in the cameras as well as the lenses) have become very complex and do require some getting used to. The best thing to do, as Wouter says, is to say heck with spending time shooting test charts and go out and shoot what you bought the lens for in the first place, then examine the results.</p>

<p>A further comment about what Matthew says about muted colors: lots of cameras these days (I think my Olympus EPL1 has one) have a "picture style" or "colors" mode that mimics the effects of old faded color film. Check your camera, Steve, and if it has such a setting give it a try.</p>

<p>I agree that in many cases the "problems" are user errors. The AF systems on Nikon higher end bodies have become quite sophisticated and they require some study and practice before one can hope to use them properly. When I first got my D300, the 51 point AF and the various ways to use it did take me a while to get used to; but now, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Though I mostly use single point AF, non continuous, on the occasions I've used they system's full capability I have been quite impressed. I don't have the link, but Thom Hogan did a review of the D300 (pretty sure) wherein he went into great detail about learning to use the Mult-Cam 3500 AF system, and that helped me a lot. </p>

<p>I agree with John Tran - if you liked the Sigma DP1, the Canon G1x is a similar pain in the butt to operate but gives excellent images. I too owned a DP1, and absolutely loved the images that came out of it so I was willing to put up with its pain-in-the-buttness for a long time. But I sold it eventually, and started looking for another big sensor integrated lens compact immediately; the G1x reminds me of the Sigma every time I shoot with it. The high ISO stuff is great, and though it is a better camera than the DP1, it does have its own issues (mostly slow operation and lousy macro capabilities, not a very fast lens either). But for me the image is what's important, and the G1x delivers on that front.</p>

<p>For the record, I also owned one other big sensor integrated lens camera - a Sony R1. It wasn't so much of a pain as the other two, but it was not compact and several years old, technology wise. But it was also capable of great IQ.</p>

<p>As the old song says....get your kicks on Route 66. If you drive straight across country, as on Route 50 from Md to San Fran, you'd likely not be able to detour to 66 until somewhere out west (66 runs from Chicago to LA but is gone in a lot of places). There are a lot of historic old towns, weird places, and some beautiful country on 66.</p>

<p>As an oddball suggestion, pick up a copy of Brock Yates' book, "Cannonball: World's Greatest Outlaw Road Race", wherein he describes several different ways to get from New York to California with a fair amount of commentary about the country along the way.</p>

<p>Another vote for single point AF: I use it all the time (on three different cameras!). Modern AF systems are very sophisticated (my D300 has 51 AF points) but they can still be fooled when you have multiple AF points engaged. It also helps that on my cameras (EPL1, D300, Canon G1x) you can move the single AF point in the frame to put it exactly where you want. Since I started using single point AF, I have not had any focus errors with any of my equipment.</p>

<p>I think Nikon probably puts that in the manual because as Shun says, even though it is a fairly straightforward process, you do have to be very patient and it is pretty easy to mess things up if you aren't careful or try to do it in a hurry. Also, in Shun's example, he only needed to do it for one out of twenty lenses; so Nikon would likely discourage us from doing it purely because the odds are that the majority of lenses will be fine without any AF tuning. Me, I only have four lenses for my D300 and have not had to tune any of them (12-24, 17-55, Tokina 50-135, 80-200 2.8, older version).</p>

<p>While there are several companies that make waterproof/shockproof cameras (Panasonic and Olympus come to mind quickly), I don't think any of them come with viewfinders. You may be asking for something that doesn't exist, unless you want to go to big expense and buy a DSLR and a waterproof case for it. Why not just learn to shoot with the LCD instead of worrying about a viewfinder?</p>

<p>Jim Carey. The man can do things with his facial expressions that seem impossible to me.</p>

<p>Fujichrome 50, and I owned LOTS of tripods at that time. No, wait - I think I did try Ektachrome 100 once.</p>

<p>Andrew, good point about the G1x. I probably should have said "superzoom" instead of "bridge". And it's funny to see Colin Chapman theory ("add lightness") here on Pnet!</p>

<p>Re the G1x - it is a lovely camera, as stated; I own one and love it. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone looking for a casual camera. The less than state of the art autofocus, generally sluggish performance and lack of macro capability are likely not to appeal to a casual photographer (which is what the OP is referring to, it sounds like). It works great for me, and yes, it does have good high ISO capability which can help decrease "blurry" photos, but I think the liabilities would outweigh the assets for many people. </p>

<p>Sounds like a good "bridge" camera is what's needed here. I don't consider the G1x a bridge camera.</p>

<p>The usual dilemma....do I buy a good camera now or wait for the upgrade? The NEX-5N is a superb camera, I had one for a while but sold it simply because I have too many cameras (does anyone really NEED six cameras?). The IQ was pretty much a match for my D300/17-55 combo, and it sure was a lot easier to carry around. In fact, if they do put out a new model and heavily discount the 5N, I may just buy it again. I also agree with Leslie that a 5N upgrade is not going to be substantially better than what it already is; the flash that comes with it stayed on mine all the time and was essentially a built in one.</p>

<p>My point is, if you like the camera, buy it now instead of waiting for an upgrade that may/may not happen.</p>