marius_mirea

<p>Either one is good as a starter DSLR. Beware that the shuttercount can be near the manufacturer limit and if your shutter gives up, the price to change it is around 100-150 USD, that is IF they are still available as spares.<br>

I can vouch for the Nikon, the IQ is amazing, especially in daylight, the Nikon JPEG engine really gets the most out of the sensor. One does not need more than 6 mpix, for screen view or usual prints.<br>

If I were you, I'd wait and get a Nikon D3100 which gets you the latest technology, much better resolution, guide mode, video with AF, warranty etc.</p>

 

<p>A sample<br>

Contrary to what I've read, the wb and colors are perfectly satisfying right out of the camera!</p><div></div>

<p>point taken about upgrading. I must say I am so far very pleased with the IQ, I fail to see the color issue mentioned by others (green-ish casts). Anyway, shooting raw is the option when one wants the ultimate quality from a camera. I like very much the AF speed and precision, and the general feel and controls.<br>

What i kinda dislike is the price of the lenses, but sigma will soon offer some (I hope) nice alternatives.</p>

<p>Hello all!<br>

I just bought my first m4/3 camera, and I am intending to use it extensively for street and landscape shooting.<br>

The true reason of purchase was access to the 20mm pancake - thus I am considering in the future to upgrade to an Oly E-PL2, depending on the pewrformance of the Panasonic body.<br>

However, whilst still early for in depth opinions, the first impressions are very positive ;)<br>

One thing that I am looking also very much forward to is using some manual lenses with it.</p>

<p>I have a D7000 and a D40.<br>

If I were you I'd take the D3100 right now. Small, light, video AF, decent ISO, excellent IQ - what more to want?<br>

OK, D7000 has a sealed body - but without the sealed lenses is useless. Also better resolution (more demanding on lenses and technique), higher ISO (but much smaller than the difference from D40 to D3100), better DR and faster FPS - all differences non relevant IMO compared with the big $ difference. If sometimes you'll want to go D400 or even FF, the 3100 could be an excellent second body.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, the D7000 is an awesome camera but ask yourself if you'll gonna really use all that features or you just want to have the best there is now just for the comfort.<br>

In fact, these days I am trading my D7000 for a D90 and use the difference to buy a Panasonic GF1 with the 20mm f1.7 lens so I have DSLR quality wherever I am going ;)</p>

<p>nice challenge, Leslie :)<br>

from the final output is impossible to distinguish, of course - I would say the first is from ricoh because is a little more distorted :) - but all look fine.<br>

The subject I think is the ergonomy, speed and unobstrusiveness for street photography.</p>

<p>I have looked also to the Oly XZ-1 - seems a good camera with a very fast lens.</p>

<p>In my quest for a good street camera I have also considered the Nokia N8 phone - what could be more inconspicuous than a phone, isn't it? It's camera has a decent sized 1/1.83 sensor, fixed focus and 12 Mpixels. Anyone tried that?</p>

Finally! :)

 

When using the mirorrless, don't you miss the AF speed, OVF and ergonomy of the DSLRs?

 

Why not a new NEX lens instead of the E-PL2?

Thanks all. No NEX or Pen users 'till now, huh?

 

Fact is I do not want to go below micro 4/3 sensor wise. A G12 is almost as expensive as an Oly, yet it's sensor is a

few times smaller and pocketability is similar (compromising on zoom capabilities, of course)

<p>Thanks! Of course, one could shoot anything in the streets (see vivian maier for example who used a rollei) but I am also looking for something more pocketable and compact. A lot of times i shoot with my iphone only because i'd have needed too much time to get out from the bag the D7000 or I simply hadn't got it on me. Not sure if I got right all the times (grammar wise), thanks for understanding :)</p>

<p>Guys, I am balancing some options for a good digital street camera.<br>

I own a Nikon D7000 and it is a bit too bulky for unobtrusive street pics.<br>

Fuji X100 looks fabulous but the fixed lens is not very attractive. Samsung sounds good, but the proprietary mount is not of my liking.<br>

Leica digital is too expensive.<br>

Finaly I narrowed it down to Oly/Pana micro 4/3 or Sony Nex.<br>

If you have some thought about the above, please share. I am interested in actual users opinions.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot!</p>

<p>Thanks.<br>

The AF whirr that was mentioned before is what makes me wonder if this is a good street camera. <br>

I have read that the AF with the normal lenses is very good because it has a IR AF sensor which is supposedly very accurate. I am not very interested in the 90mm lens.</p>

 

Very good advice I am getting, thanks a lot. Unfortunately the camera was not available anymore. I hope i will find a contax eventually

:)

<p>It will be a hand-to-hand delivery, thanks for the advice. Are there any particular look-outs for the G2/G1 besides the usual checks (responsive shutter, AF, clean lenses...)?</p>

<p>I am on the fence for a Contax G2 Body+lenses deal<br>

The owner asks USD 600 for the said body and 28mm f2.8+45mm f2 lenses in good shape. <br>

Is this a good deal? I am from EU and buying from KEH would mean +30% taxes.<br>

The owner says he throws in a G1 body as well - could it be real at this price?<br>

I am looking for a RF for street photos and candids and from what I've read the AF of Contax is almost unbeatable by any other system, including modern DSLR. Also the lenses have excellent reviews. Leica is over my budget.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your opinions.</p>

<p>In daylight with static objects, almost any camera from the last years will give you a nice image, with maybe a difference in resolution and dynamic range, but seldom relevant for day to day use, IMO. When it's getting dark or the subjects begin to move faster - situation changes a lot. The D7000 is too advanced to pass on it compared with a D90 in some critical areas of still imagery with the added bonus of better HD video.<br>

However, for $300 difference I would choose the D7000 in a heartbeat, if only to avoid the frustration and remorses that will come after if I'd had chosen the D90 and read the rave reviews of the D7000 :)</p>

<p>Here's what I did: I was suspecting that two of my lenses could do better in terms of sharpness (18-200mm VR and 35mm) so I took some test shots from a tripod and then tried to fiddle with the AF fine tuning, by trial and error (meaning setting a value, taking again a test shot, comparing with the initial shot). Eventually I ended up with a -7 setting on my 18-200 and a +5 setting on the 35mm. The whole process could take some time, so arm yourself with patience.</p>

<p>I am a new nikonian (former pentaxian) and I have to say that the pentax forums seem more actual shooting oriented than nikon forums I have visited (photo.net, nikonias - yes, I am paying :), and nikonians the Romanian breed - luckily this is free because it is kept by the nikon importer in Romania)<br>

Maybe it is a false impression, but still, the gear discussions seem more prevalent here. I love gear discussion anyway ;)</p>

<p>You kinda compare apples with oranges here. Both lenses are very good to outstanding for the purpose, and it's clear that with the fastest lens you have more headroom for DOF play whilst the 70mm is a very nice mid tele/portrait lens (although some might say a little too sharp, but that could be solved in pp afterwards) but obviously slower. Depends very much what you need the lens for. Check the photozone.de for in-depth reviews.</p>

<p>this is likely the best you can get from the Pentax stable, but it will set you back at least 2000 USD. I had them and sold them because, even they are outstanding lenses by all means, they just did not justify the cost against the equally outstanding (IQ wise) alternative in Nikon mount: 35mm f1.8+85mm f1.8. The feel and looks are truly exquisite but I've passed that stage. In an ideal world, I'd have them mounted on a K5 as a dual system ;)<br>

<img src="http://kytra.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v15/p24620015-4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>AS someone who switched from Pentax to Nikon, I can tell you my main reasons:<br>

- AF performance (I had a K7, now the K5 seems improved but I believe it's still below D90, not even comparing with D7000)<br>

- flash capabilities - Nikon highly superior to Pentax<br>

- availability, service, warranty<br>

- better price/quality ratio<br>

What I liked in Pentax:<br>

- higher grade body, slightly better controls (I had a K7 which has the same body as K5)<br>

- the feel of the limited primes, truly work of art <br>

What I particularly disliked in Pentax<br>

- SDM issue (google it and you'll see or better go to pentaxforums.com) and the handling of it by Pentax<br>

- weak warranty (1 year) and long service times<br>

Currently I am very satisfied with my Nikon setup (D7000/35 f1.8/18-200/70-300/SB600)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why not build an AF module with fewer AF sensors but make all of them cross-type?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is one: Canon 7D AF module - 19 AF sensors all cross-type. :))</p>

<p>good question, I will follow this thread because I am waiting for the launch of D7000 in my home country.</p>

<p>I respect your option but cannot stop wondering why you want to keep an outdated body like the D60 and buy a pro-grade zoom 70-200 f2.8?<br>

If I were you, I'd sell the D60, buy an used D90 and after that your AF problem would be solved AND because of higher ISO capabilities and VR you might be able to squeeze similar low-light performances from the consumer grade 70-300mm VR. Am I wrong?</p>

 

<p>OK, I think that settles it then, thanks a bunch for your fast replies!</p>