pete_su

<p>re: build quality. This is my favorite thread about build quality.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00LE7S</p>

<p>read a bit down to the guy jumping out of airplanes. if you think you need better than that, by all means buy a camera that's too heavy.</p>

 

<p>I don't know about cult status, all I know is about my experience.</p>

<p>When I replaced my P&S with a D70, the only complaint I had about it was that the viewfinder was not super, and it was a bit too big. When I felt like I had a good shot, the camera delivered</p>

<p>When I got the D200, my complaints were that it was too big, the battery life was no good, and sometimes even when everything was set right, the pictures just lacked a bit of sharpness in the edges.</p>

<p>When I got the D700, I was back to only complaining that the camera is too big. In every other way it does everything I would want, and exactly what I tell it to.</p>

<p>It's super. Probably more camera than I need. But whatever.</p>

<p>http://bythom.com/upgradepath.htm</p>

<p>Or this</p>

<p>http://cielphoto.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-first-dslr-rebel-xt.html</p>

<p>Build quality does not take pictures. The bottom line is: use the camera, take some pictures. See if they are good.<br>

As for the durability of "plasticky" cameras, consider the parachuting story in this thread:<br>

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00LE7S</p>

<p>The majority of the "user interface" in a modern higher end DSLR is generally implemented through direct settings on electronic buttons or dials. What I mean by this is that all the major settings for each *shot* can be set directly and without taking your eyes out of the viewfinder. This means:</p>

<p> focus, aperture, shutter speed.</p>

<p>IMHO these settings are entirely straightforward to set on any Nikon (or Canon) body, the exceptions being the lower end bodies that don't have separate dials for aperture/shutter speed. But even there it's not a hardship to hold down an extra button to set one or the other. In any case, if this is giving you trouble you should perhaps study the camera a bit more.</p>

<p>In addition many secondary settings like ISO, White Balance, AF modes, metering modes, and so on are also directly settable without using "horribly complex" menus. The awful complexity only comes into play when you want to customize and tailor the machine to your particular whims and preferences. But interfaces for customization are always complicated and in general, by their nature, always will be. This is part of the nature of electronic machines. However, if you don't want to customize the machine you can almost completely ignore these settings and all of the hassle they bring.</p>

<p>I would personally much rather use the focus/shutter speed/aperture dials on the more modern cameras than the tiny and inconvenient dials for (say) shutter speed and ISO/exposure compensation on the FM3a. That said, I keep the Fm3a around to remind me what a real camera should sound like when you shoot it. :-)</p>

 

<p>The lens is not your problem here. <br>

http://tleaves.com/2009/10/14/look-sharp/</p>

<p>http://www.bythom.com/upgradepath.htm<br>

Listen to Thom. He's right.</p>

<p>IMHO all of the upper line digital bodies are too big. I see no reason why they should be so large compared to (say) an old 8008s or F100 or Konica Hexar. But they are. I mean, they don't even need a big clunky film transport of anything.</p>

<p>As was already mentioned, the pop-up flash on the D700 is a fantastic feature because you can use it as a wireless trigger multiple off camera flashes. You'd almost never want to use it as your only light, or even fill light, but using it was a trigger is great.</p>

<p>http://bythom.com/upgradepath.htm</p>

<p>What I find limits my photography is the fact that I'm not really that skilled as a photographer.</p>

<p>Here<br>

http://bythom.com/upgradepath.htm</p>

<p>I like the Domke satchel bags. Not so much because they don't look like a camera bag. More because they are the right size and shape for what I carry. One body, two or three lenses. Flash. Other stuff.<br>

And, FWIW, I tried the Courierware bag and it's nice for the most part but a bit too "squishy". Makes it hard to work out of fast because the shape of the bag is always shifting as you put stuff in and take stuff out. I like the fact that the Domkes are slightly stiffer.</p>

<p>The issue here is that the camera puts proprietary meta-data into the RAW file for the "picture settings" that effect contrast, color saturation and so on that Lightroom ignores. The preview you see in the camera is processed using these settings, but processed image you get in LR is not.</p>

<p>The reason you see the picture change in LR is because Lightroom initially displays the embedded JPEG preview, which is also processed with the in-camera settings. After a bit of a delay, this preview is replaced with the Lightroom-processed preview, and the color balance changes.<br /> <br /> There are two ways to mitigate this problem:</p>

<p>1. You can get the in-camera image settings to back off the saturation and contrast a bit to better match the Lightroom defaults.</p>

<p>2. You can use the Lightroom camera profiles to better match one or more of the canned settings that are available in the camera. But if you do this and then move the picture settings off of the canned set the images will no longer match.</p>

<p>IMHO these picture settings are a pretty transparent way for Nikon to try and get you to use their crappy workflow tools instead of something that's fast and usable.</p>

<p>Listen to Thom: http://www.bythom.com/upgradepath.htm</p>

<p>I would buy the old 24-85 AF-S lens used. Cheap, small, light and decently sharp. </p>

<p>I had this lens for a year and found that I did not like the range of apertures. 5.6 on the long end does not seem that much worse than 4.5 on the long end, but in practice it felt like this lens was always at around 5.6 wide open except at 16mm.<br>

I ended up selling it and going back to my 18-70.</p>

 

<p>The old 24-85 AF-S is a pretty good lens IMHO ... not the one that is not AF-S. I don't remember if I ever used it full frame. But I sadly sold it when I bought my D70 with its kit lens.</p>

<p>The only cameras I've ever had that survived a hard drop on to concrete were made out of plastic.</p>

<p>The Nikon 18-70/3.5-4.5 kit lens. Only loses a stop to the 17-55 monster and is very sharp when everything is in place.</p>

My rule is, if it does not fit in a Domke 803 or "little bit smaller bag" then I don't need it. I'm too old and weak to carry around

20lbs of gear. I adjust what I shoot to the stuff I have.

laptop and an external firewire disk drive. or two.

 

burn DVDs for extra insurance if you want.

The 18-55 won't do you much good if you want to go out to 16mm without changing lenses.

 

Whether this is worth it to you is a different question.

I got the 16-85 because it goes to 16 and that extra little bit is what I've wanted for a long

time. I'm happy with the lens.