dave_green5

<p>I prefer the X-570 (also known as the X-500 in some parts of the world), for exactly the reason that Andrew Lynn mentioned above. Other than lacking program mode, the X-570 has all of the features of the X-700. </p>

<p>FYI, I had the Sigma 14mm f2.8 lens, and I sold it in favor of the Tokina 12-24mm. The Tokina is sharper, and has no more linear distortion.</p>

<p>There would only be 3 reasons to get a D300s over a D700</p>

<p>1) You have not got the budget to get the FX lenses that are needed to do justice to the D700. This is, almost certainly a significant issue for many people, but it's one that surprisingly few folks really think through before making a purchase decision.</p>

<p>2) You must have video.</p>

<p>3) A significant portion of your work is done with long telephotos in good lighting - in this situation, the ability to use shorter length smaller physical size lenses on a DX frame can be compelling.</p>

<p>If none of those reasons applies, get the D700.</p>

<p>The X-570/500 is even better than the X-700 - at least for serious users. It has a very well executed metered-manual mode, which the X-700 lacks. All that the X-570/500 lacks compared to the X-700 is program mode. IMHO, metered-manual is MUCH more valuable than program mode. The two cameras are otherwise feature identical.</p>

<p>If you are looking for a motor drive, every XK Motor I've ever seen had an AE-S finder. And frankly, I'd never buy a camera of this caliber and bulk that DIDN'T have a motor drive. The only XK I ever lusted after was an XK Motor with AE-S finder.</p>

<p>The best ones were version 2 by Tokina (f3.5 max aperture, 62mm filter size) and Version 3 by Komine (f2.8~4 max aperture, 58mm filter size). The later Cosina versions were softer at the long end.</p>

<p>BTW, the claim in the Roberts Series 1 page about avoiding the AF lenses is not true. I have an AF version of the 70-210 f2.8 to 4.0 zoom, that was apparently made by Cosina, and it's pretty good. A bit soft at 210mm but pretty darn good at 180mm or less, and stopped down one stop. A quite decent midrange zoom lens for the $99 I spent on it brand new in Nikon AF mount. Certainly competitive in IQ with the much slower Nikkor 55-200 Kit lens.</p>

<p>My take, having owned both, is that the Nikon D90 is A LOT better than the D80 in real life - much more so than the seemingly similar specs would imply. Basically, in addition to much better High ISO performance, the D90 also focuses faster, and the metering is noticeably more reliable. I think that a D90 is well worth the $300 premium relative to the D80. And I NEVER use the video - that is based purely on the capability as a still camera only.</p>

<p>I can't speak for Canon, but from what I've heard and read, I wouldn't be surprised if the 40D wasn't at least equal to, and possibly actually superior to the 50D in terms of image quality, as I think that Canon may have reached the point of diminishing returns relative to IQ vs. pixel count when they pumped the 50D all the way to 15 MP. I would drop the Rebel XSi from the comaparison - I would expect that the 40D is a much better camera and certainly is far better built. Don't get hung up on Pixel count - image quality is very close on all of these, although the Nikon D80 is the weakest at high ISOs, otherwise, you will mostly not be able to tell the difference.</p>

<p>As far as ergonomics are concerned between the two systems, only you can figure that out. I personally greatly prefer Nikons, but I will be the first to admit my own bias on that score.</p>

<p>For my money, I'd get the D90 (and I actually did - after first getting a D80), but the Canon 40D might be the best value out there right now in terms of Image quality per dollar spent. But I prefer the D90 handling characteristics personally.</p>

<p>I would add, I typically see Mint D300 Refurbs with Warranties from Cameta selling for $1200-$1250, and D90 Refurbs with Warranty selling for under $800. I paid $785 for my D90 refurb (it had under 50 shutter actuations on it) including a 90 day Nikon USA warranty and a 3 year Mack extended Warranty about 6 months ago.</p>

<p>It will be interesting to see if the new D300S drives D300 prices down, or if in fact the inventory of D300 new bodies is already nearly totally depleted, which would probably cause clean used D300 bodies to actually go UP slightly in price.</p>

<p>Shun, I think it oversimplifies the issue to claim that any Multi-CAM 1000 module camera will perform poorly. It's clear to me that Nikon has improved the software that controls this module over time - Having owned both, I can say with 100% certainty that the AF performance in poor light for the D90 is noticeably improved over that of the D80. And I am not the only person who makes this claim - Thom Hogan does and the Popular Photography AF test scores show this as well. I can't speak for the D200, having only handled one for but a few minutes in a store, but considering that the D200 predates the D80, it would not surprise me in the slightest if the D200's AF was inferior to that of the D90, just due to over 2 more years to tune the controlling firmware. Pop Photo's tests basically show that the D90 is even very slightly faster in AF than the D300 (at least at it's intro - Nikon may have improved the D300 AF firmware afterwards as well) at EV6 down to EV2, at EV 1, and 0 they are essentially equal, at EV -1 the D300 is very slightly faster, and it is only at EV -2 where the D300 AF is notably faster.</p>

<p>In any case, the AF on the D90 is no slouch. Despite using the same underlying hardware, it is clearly a faster implementation than it was on the D80 and probably the D200 as well. It's only logical to assume that Nikon was able to tweak the firmware to get this improvement in the intervening 2 years. It could also be as simple as having a larger ROM space in which to pack code on the newer D90. An advantage that the D3000 may not have.</p>

<p>In real life, My D80 often hunted in low light. My D90 is noticeably better in this score using the same lenses.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, there is no really top-notch Nikon AF prime lens in the 17-28mm range. The 24-70mm zoom is superior to Nikon's 24mm and 28mm prime offerings. </p>

<p>If you must have a full frame AF lens wider than 24mm you perhaps need to bite the bullet on the Nikkor 14-24mm. A possible ultra-wide solution would be the Sigma 14mm f2.8, or their 15-30mm zoom, but that 14-30mm lens is known to flare like crazy. There really is a gap for any high quality 15 to 21mm full frame prime that fits Nikon.</p>

<p>Personally, I prefer the lighter weight of the D90, but if you don't mind a little more bulk, then the D300 certainly will do the job, and give you 3 added benefits: Slightly faster and more controllable AF performance in marginal lighting, a more rugged, robust body, and a camera that will never cause your client to cast aspersions upon you for using amateur gear. Actual image quality is indistinguishable between the two cameras. </p>

<p>One question is, might you have any professional need to offer video clips to your clients? If you do, that would tilt the scales back to the D90, or the newer D300s, which is debuting just beyond your stated budget.</p>

<p>For wedding work, at this stage, I would not bother with a D2X or D2Xs, they are over-built for your needs, but lack the sort of high-ISO, low light performance you might need.</p>

<p>An F100 may be light weight compared to a Mamiya RB67, or an F4 with full battery pack, but there is no way that it's appropriate for someone looking for a light weight travel kit who's looking at an FG or FA. </p>

<p>How does an F100 qualify as a light weight compact camera?</p>

<p>Well, the F-1's metering may have been up to the level of an XK with an AE finder, an XK with an AES finder was the best of all.</p>

<p>For $50-80, an FE or FG is a great, lightweight manual camera, but an N80 is also a light camera that also provides AF and works fine with G lenses and has excellent, modern matrix metering.</p>

<p>If you really want a manual camera, an FG is fine. But it won't get you all that much weight savings vs. an N80.</p>

<p>If you want to get 90% of the camera an F100 is, for 1/4th the price, get an N90s. They can easily be picked up for $50 or so nowadays. And it's just too good a camera at that price.</p>

<p>My favorite M42 lens is the 55mm f1.8 SMC Takumar - it's a superb portrait lens on 4/3 with the 2x crop factor. And it's mechanically as solid as any lens you'll ever find. Mine cost me $10 at a photo fair a few years ago. Nowadays, they go for more, because people have caught on to using them on DSLRs.</p>

<p>M42 lenses can work quite well on Pentax, Canon, Olympus, Panasonic cameras, when used with the proper adapter.</p>

<p>I use a couple of M42 lenses on my Olympus DSLRs. But, you are limited to manual focusing, and also metering at the shooting aperture. My 55mm f1.8 SMC Pentax lens makes a superb portrait lens on 4/3. In-body IS works the same way as on Pentax DSLRs - you set the focal lenght manually on cameras that have in-body IS, such as my E-520.</p>

<p>FYI, it's probably the same lens as the widely available Vivitar 75-205mm f3.8 zoom from the same era. But that lens is worth perhaps $10 nowadays, so that would be an upper bound on what your lens is worth. It's not worth doing anything with, other than using it with the cameras that it already fits.</p>

<p>The most accurate site that will tell you what you can sell your gear for is by checking the prices of completed sales of the same item on ebay. </p>

<p>FYI, an 18-200 lens is fairly priced at $550 if it's in excellent condition or better. If it's got noticeable signs of use, the price is too high. If it's absolutely pristine, the average is $580-600.</p>

 

<p>Personally, I prefer both the Konica 50mm f1.4 and the Minolta 50mm f1.4 MC to the older Minolta 58mm f1.4 MC.</p>

<p>Will you settle for a 4x5 TLR? If so, how about the Gowlandflex? Not a high volume item, to be sure: The vast majority of Gowlandflex cameras were 4x5 TLRs, but Peter Gowland also made a range of custom 8xq0 TLRs and aerial cameras as well.</p>

<p>http://www.petergowland.com/camera/history/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Probably the reason we don't hear as much about Nikkormats is that the folks that have and use them have more heavily developed upper body muscles than most, due to the workout of lifting and carrying these cameras, and they may be somewhat muscle-bound as a result, which may interfere with typing on websites. :)</p>

<p>The X-500 or X-570 is the superior camera to the X-700 for a serious user. The only feature that the 500/570 lack from the X-700 is program auto mode - which is the best mode for novices and those who don't wish to think about the exposure - but serious users rarely if ever rely on program mode. Meanwhile the X-500/570 implement a very well thought out metered manual mode that the X-700 lacks. Also, the X-700 program mode requires MD lenses. By doing away with this mode, the X-500/570 also gain 100% compatibility with older MC-mount lenses.</p>

<p>Other great cameras to consider are any XD-series camera (but these need MD lenses to support the shutter priority mode) as well as the XE-series.</p>

<p>If you are looking for a great completely manual camera, any of the SRTs are also great.</p>

<p>To me, the SRTs, the XEs and he XDs are more collectible, and more elegant cameras, but from a standpoint of being purely practical picture takers - the X-500/570 are as good as anything Minolta has ever made. Oh, and just for reference, the Minoltas I own currently are two XD-11s, an XE-7, two SRT-202s, an X-700 and two X-570s.</p>

<p>Kevin, I have no idea if a UV lamp would work as well as sunlight, because I don't know if it is the UV spectrum or some other part of the spectrum that gets rid of the yellowing. All I know is that sunlight works with the particular glass in a SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4.</p>

<p>Be sure to rotate the lens, and expose both front and back to the light over the course of several days so that the whole glass gets exposed to the light for a period of time.</p>