ariel_s1

<p>You could repair your D90 for much less than the cost of a new one. Heck, even if you're planning to upgrade, you can repair it for probably $250-ish (will be Nikon rank B2), then sell it for an immediate profit.</p>

<p>Bruce, I actually received a personal message about my comment. I'll just repost the comment, and my response to it. I've played with the 45mm and liked it. It's just that I don't really do much portraiture with my m4/3 setup, not enough to originally justify buying a lens specifically because of it, and also because I have a Yashica 50mm f/1.4 ML with an adapter. Still, for under $350 it's a great price (as it is from the Olympus refurb store right now), and it would be nice to have a smaller telephoto to back up my kit. Anyway, the comment messaged to me:<br>

"<em>Was quite surprised to read of your disappointment with this lens. Performed fabulously for me with the G2. The kit lens is disappointing.</em> "<br>

And my response:<br>

"Wonderfully sharp in the center, but WAY too slow AF, especially for the price, and the corner performance (due to the behind-the-scenes autocorrections) were fairly poor, again for the price. The AF is also too noisy for video. My kit lens at least has even performance across the frame, which makes me not feel so bad when I move my subject off-center or have a scene in which I'm not trying to throw the background out of focus (but I'd say that even in the corners on the 20mm, it's still in absolute terms still as good as the corners of the kit lens). Plus, I judge my 14-42mm taking into account its price ($120 right now on Amazon) and consider that it gives me the convenience of a zoom. I have higher expectations for a prime lens."<br>

<br>

And JC, first of all, it is standard practice in photography to use the lens name instead of the model number. You can just call it the 14-140mm, even though with those kinds of model numbers, it's easy enough to decipher if you know the Panasonic lineup. Still, if Gerry had opened up this thread throwing around "H-H020" instead of "20mm," there'd likely be a lot of confused faces. Second, everyone has different needs, so there is no right answer, but that's a $550+ lens that gives subpar performance to my $250 in lenses. Changing lenses isn't such a bad thing, given that these ARE interchangeable lens cameras and all. When I want a light kit and don't need telephoto, I take only my 14-42mm. When I need telephoto, the Olympus 40-150mm is so freaking small! But, I'm coming from the other side, where I am used to DSLR quality, and am already giving up enough from the smaller sensors. I had a Nikon 18-200mm which is pretty well revered online, but it just doesn't hold a candle compared to even the most mediocre duo of zooms. I suspect that the same is true for the Panasonic superzoom, although who knows with Panasonic' bungling of the telephoto lineup (first a 45-200mm, next a 45-175mm, and now a 45-150mm at $300? Maybe I should just wait another two years, and the 45-125mm will get it right. Just kidding, I'm happy with my 40-150mm Olympus).</p>

<p>You'll notice that when you move up to the fully professional systems, whether Canon or Nikon, neither of their 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses have image stabilization. Take that as a hint. It's not as big a deal as you make it out to be; there are more important considerations to make for a lens of that focal length. Give me one of those two lenses without image stabilization any day of the week. Putting image stabilization in a midrange zoom is primarily a tactic to sell lenses, not improve photography. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't turn it down if I were already set on a lens, and it happened to be stabilized, like the 24-120mm f/4, but if you're giving up image quality, size, etc. just to gain it, look elsewhere.</p>

<p>23,000 is nothing. Don't worry about it. Except for cameras that were faulty and failed well before their shutter expectancy (which were covered under warranty due to being almost new), I've never had a shutter failure due to high count.</p>

<p>Overall, this case for a D700s is the same case that has been made often enough through the years for various Nikon products. I say to just let it go, because time marches on, and the market drives the product cycles. People were clamoring the same way for a proper D2 successor, and they've also been wanting a proper D300s successor (which is another can of worms, and it may yet come to compete with the Sony a77, but I bet if the D7000 had a better buffer and didn't have the AF issues upon release, there would be 80% fewer threads about it). This seems to me more likely what you wanted the D800 to Plus, a wider AF coverage? Doesn't even the D4 "only" have the AF coverage of the D3s? So you're asking for a D700s that has a supra-D4 AF system, but for less than half the price? Good luck with that.</p>

<p>David, the D40 outlasted the D40X because of Ken Rockwell's pull with the newbies, classifying it as the best Nikon camera ever. Even if you look up until recently, it has affected used prices. The D40 was my first DX DSLR, and it was nice enough, but the increase from the 6MP D70's sensor performance to the D200's 10MP sensor performance (which I got when Circuit City accidentally sold the D80 on sale for $350 instead of the D60) was a welcome jump, but I do agree that there wasn't anything truly compelling in a D40 successor, to drive an upgrade for example, until the D3100 which was a noticeable upgrade in many different areas (sensor, AF system, live view, etc). It was the first camera since the D40 that was really a revolution like the D40 was for entry-level capabilites. The D40X, D60, and D3000, while incrementally better, didn't make anyone do a double take. The D3200, on the other hand . . . oh, that sensor!</p>

<p>I have a G2, with the kit lens you mention, and I love it. Not pro-quality, but it's pretty damn good in ample light. My biggest hesitation is the current price for good micro 4/3 equipment. I have used the Panasonic 14mm and 20mm, along with the Olympus 17mm lenses, and they were honestly fairly poor performers, The 45mm has come down to $300-ish, which means I'll probably be picking it up soon, and I would do the same with the 25mm f/1.4, but even at the recent drop to $500 that people are rejoicing over, I can't bring myself to spend that on this setup. If the new Olympus 17mm is going to be as reasonably priced as the 45mm was upon introduction, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, and I would maybe willing to spend up to $800 or so for that 12-35. Micro 4/3 finally has competitive image quality to reasonably compete with the DX SLR systems, but for my use, the price isn't commensurate with what you're giving up. Still, I can't wait to play with that lens!</p>

<p>First, learn to search please. Heck, here is a thread 2 posts down from yours, started to discuss this very thing!</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00aytL</p>

<p>Second, there is no right answer. You need to look at the lens lineup, the pros and cons of each system, and choose your intended subjects, and that will answer your question for you. The quality of mirrorless is good, but if you need a pro-style body that allows for very quick settings changes, or following focus for moving quick moving subjects like sports, then they still can't compare to DSLRs. Overall, brand does not matter. Sony, Nikon, Canon, and Pentax all make good DSLRs, and Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung, and Sony all make good mirrorless cameras. The only caveat I have is that Sony has a larger sensor, same size as APS DSLRs, while Olympus/Panasonic are "only" micro 4/3. Also, Samsung looks the best on paper, with impressive primes, but they just aren't making that final push to make their cameras really legendary. When looking at the Samsung NX on paper, it looks the best, but using it, the Sony NEX starts to pull ahead. Once Sony gets more lenses, I think it will be better for them. Overall, this topic has been beaten to death online, so your best bet right now is not to post questions, it's simply to search. Use this website, use google, use dpreview, photography on the net, etc. So many resources, because this question has been posed about 235,723,918,351 times already, as you'd expect.</p>

<p>The shutter is not in the lens itself. The aperture blades are in the lens itself. The shutter is inside the camera. The camera does most of its functioning with the aperture wide open, such as autofocus, live view, metering, etc. When you press the shutter, the aperture closes down to the shooting aperture. After that, the shutter in the camera closes to clear the live view, and then functions normally, opening and closing for an amount of time given by the shutter speed. After that, the shutter opens back up to expose the sensor, to reintroduce the live view.</p>

<p>Philip, it is not a rumor that medium format lenses have lower resolving power than 35mm lenses. And large format lenses have lower resolving power than medium format lenses. You may do any amount of searching to verify this. I believe that I have even posted links from Zeiss and Schneider in previous discussions about this. Or, test it yourself. Take two comparable lenses, zoom them to the same focal length, and take a photo of a detail-heavy scene. Look at the resolving power of some of these medium format lenses:<br>

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html<br>

If 35mm lenses had numbers that low, they'd be out of business by now.</p>

<p>Consider the Voigtlander 58mm.</p>

<p>There is no right answer. If there was, then the other options wouldn't exist. You need to decide whether you want the full-frame image quality and resolution, or whether you want an extreme crop factor that turns your lens into a nigh-telescope. With the V1, while it has AF tracking mode, when you used the FT-1 adapter and F-mount lenses instead of the dedicated F-mount lenses, then you were able to shoot only in AF-S, not in AF-C. If the V2 is the same, and you use AF-C for your BIF photos, then the choice will be simple for you.</p>

<p>500mm is a pretty reasonable focal length, even on FX. I don't know what camera you're using now, or if birding is your primary use of the camera, but maybe a DX camera will be a nice compromise for you if it is. Give you some additional reach while costing less.</p>

<p>If you're happy with your E-PL2's control layout and lack of viewfinder, then the E-PL5 will be right at home. If you want more controls, weather sealing, and a viewfinder is make-it-or-break-it for you, then get an E-M5. That simple. Image stabilization is slightly better, but is that really a selling point for you guys? I wouldn't turn down image stabilization, but I don't understand people placing it higher up on the list than features that seemingly matter more. I always liken it to choosing between a Porsche and a Mercedes based on the layout of the cupholders. Sure that's a feature that you're likely to use, but if you are eschewing all other metrics in favor of it, you need to rethink your decision-making process.</p>

<p>I still have my D200, although a friend of mine has an unused D3100 that his work bought him for a project and let him keep at the end, which <strong>may</strong> convince me to sell my D200 and move "down" to it. We'll see after a short test drive. Overall though, while I use a Panasonic micro 4/3 system as a backup to my DSLR, I haven't found that the quality or the feature set are enough to allow me to replace it yet. I picked up the Panasonic G2 originally as a backup to my D200, being much smaller, lighter, and more user-friendly for my girlfriend. It's basically your GF1, but with a built-in viewfinder. It was on too-good-to-pass-up clearance for $300, and the 14-42mm and Olympus 40-150mm were on sale at the same time for $100 each. I was initially rather annoyed at the micro 4/3 lens lineup, but it's getting progressively more enticing. The Panasonic 25mm is way way too much money. The old Olympus 17mm f/2.8 is a joke of a lens, but the new 17mm f/1.8 is drool-worthy. If they make it close to the 45mm's awesome performance and awesome price, they're going to have a real winner on their hands. </p>

<p>Things I don't like about the camera:<br>

-The "What you see is what you get" is rather wonky. The screen brightens and darkens when you adjust the exposure compensation, but the actual brightness is way off from the final result. And yes, I have the histogram during live view turned on. Related, the meter is not as reliable as my D200, I think I've been spoiled.<br>

-The buffer is pathetic, and waiting for the buffer to clear is even worse. If the G5 fixed this, I may consider moving "up" to that camera, or if the refurb/new old stock GH2 prices drop enough.<br>

-Flash exposure is annoying. It only allows you to adjust flash EV compensation. So, I have to rely on the (crappy) meter to choose a flash value, and then adjust flash compensation by plus or minus 2 EV, instead of just being able to set a discrete value, such as 1/16 power, 1/2 power, etc. This also ensures that you will have a preflash, so I can't use some of my manual strobes.</p>

<p>That is nothing, that thing has been hardly used. I would expect somewhere in the range of 50,000 shots average life expectancy. Stop worrying and go enjoy your nearly new camera.</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind that shutter life is not a guarantee whatsoever. I had a Nikon D80 fail at less than 2,000 shots, a D90 that was shooting like new at 65,000 shutter count (sold to free up money for other endeavors), and a D200 that was well above 100,000 and only had to be sent in for service for non-shutter related issues (Nikon has a flat repair policy, so they replaced the shutter while the camera was apart).</p>

<p>I agree with that wholeheartedly, Eric! The whole advantage of being mirrorless is that you don't have to worry about all of your wide angle lenses having so much retrofocal design in them. For example, with Nikon F-mount lenses, the 24mm f/1.4G is a more complicated lens design than the 85mm f/1.4G, and it's pretty much the same size. Without having to worry about a register distance that clears a mirror, you can make some pretty nice wide angle lenses. So they need, in addition to a fancy portrait and normal lens, to have those lenses that really entice photographers. Equivalent focal lengths of 35mm, 24mm, and possibly even something like 18mm (Zeiss has committed to making an 18mm equivalent for the Sony NEX system).</p>

<p>I am most active in the Nikon subforum of the site, but I also have a mirrorless system, so I go into that forum as well. In the Nikon forum, you guys have wisely banned links to sites such as NikonR*mors. However, you don't do anything about other rumor sites. For example, about two months ago, there were threads right before the RX1 came out, with threads discussing a "full frame NEX." It was the same rumormongering that led photo.net to ban the Ni-rumors links. Can the same be done to the sister sites? Sonyalpharumors, eosrumors, 43rumors, etc.</p>

<p>Google is your friend. This is after 4 seconds of google searching. First link, to the very respectable compendium at mir:<br>

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf2/f2/variants/f2slidemagic/index.htm<br>

And a photo.net discussion:<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Vknn<br>

I wouldn't pay any more for it than I would an F2 in comparable condition. Actually, I'd probably pay less, because as mentioned, it has a fixed focus screen, and if it needed repairs to the film transport mechanism, you'd be better off just getting it back to regular F2 setup. Let the collectors overpay and gobble them up; you're better off putting your money towards something that you won't be afraid to take out shooting.</p>

<p>Craig, I use a D200 too, and it's more than 2 clicks, especially when you are using lenses of noticeably different focal length and aperture. Given that I'm already at the non-CPU menu option, I have to choose the focal length option, then focal length range, and then scroll to the correct focal length. You then have to choose the aperture option, and scroll to the correct aperture. I find it quite tedious, and I welcome Nikon's new shooting bank. Depending on how many lenses you use, one may choose his own way of identifying the lens. You could write the lens number on a small piece of scotch tape on the lens (or with a sharpie on the lens itself), or organize them by focal length. Lens 1 could be 24mm, lens 2 could be 55mm, lens 3 could be 90mm, and lens 4 could be 180mm. Who goes out shooting with more than 4 lenses anyway? So many lens changes!</p>

<p>Definitely a move in the right direction! They clearly listened to all of the reviews and forum discussions on the V1. Made the camera more serious by giving it the ergonomics, controls, built-in flash, and hotshoe so that anyone using a larger Nikon DSLR system wouldn't mind setting this as a backup. Heck, I've half considered picking up a Nikon 1 camera with FT-1 just to get some serious reach from the Tamron 70-300mm VC!</p>

<p>However, two things strike me. First, it's still WAY too expensive. $800 for the body is more than a D3200 with lens, and it's also more expensive for comparable performance options from the other mirrorless crowd. The Panasonic G5 and NEX-6 are cameras to look at instead of this. Second, the battery issue that Mike mentions sucks. I'd say that a large percentage of Nikon 1 users are doing so for the reason I mentioned above, already having Nikkor lenses or third party F-mount and wanting to increase their capability. However, if I already need another battery, then there is that much less tying me to Nikon. They're just not hitting the market hard enough to entice users away from micro 4/3 or NEX. I really can't decide how I want to upgrade my Panasonic G2. I got it on a good deal, when it was being clearanced, and got the same deal for the lenses, $100 each for a 14-42mm and 40-150mm. However, today, my two most likely options are to either just upgrade the optics of that camera with lenses like the 17mm f/1.8 and 45mm f/1.8, or to grab a Sony NEX-6 and start building a kit there. Even with the V2, Nikon's not in the running.</p>

<p>If you're willing to shell out the money for the 70-200mm, then there is nothing wrong with using it on a D60. The D60 has the D200's AF module and the D200's sensor, which was a professionally-oriented (or prosumer-oriented, at least) camera. When I used to work for a newspaper, in the days of the <strong>Canon</strong> D60 which was the precursor to the 10D/20D/30D/60D/etc. generation, we had some Rebels as backup. If there were many events going on, or if many of the D60's and 10D's were in the shop for repairs, then I would sometimes use a Rebel with a 70-200mm or a 300mm f/4. If you can live with the control layout of your camera, and you're happy with the image quality for now, then there is no reason to upgrade the camera. At the end of the day, it's the sensor and the lens that provide the image quality. The rest of the camera body is just controls, features, etc.</p>

<p>The E-P2 was basically just an E-P1 with additional software art filters, plus the accessory port for a viewfinder. The E-P1 was obsolete when new, much less the E-P2. Where are you finding generic reviews? I've found quite a few that are fairly independent.<br>

http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/03/olympus-om-d-e-m5-review-batu-caves-kl.html<br>

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/tag/e-m5/<br>

http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/search/label/Olympus%20OM-D%20EM-5%20Review%20and%20user%20experience<br>

If you want a right angle view<strong>finder</strong> for the camera, then you have to use the VF-2 on the hotshoe and tilt it up, which again, leaves you without a flash. However, as Laurentiu mentions, you can tilt the OLED screen, which is not near-useless like it is on the E-P2 (again, such stupidity on their part to make the E-PL2 from scratch, and to 90% reuse the E-P1 for the E-P2). So, you should go to a store and play with one, to see if the screen is good enough for you. I am guessing that it will be. You can guess by looking at minute 9 of the Adorama review:<br>

<p>I'd say that if you really want some out of focus backgrounds with your D5100, then your best bet is just to jump straight to the go-to lenses for portraiture, which are created with that in mind. Get yourself an 85mm f/1.8G, and you will have the blurriest blur you could want for a reasonable price. If you want to spend a little less, then get yourself the 50mm f/1.4G, but you might find that it is a little bit too short for portraits. Or, if you are willing to go third-party and don't mind manual focus, then consider the Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 which has very impressive image quality.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/groups/1464501@N22/pool/</p>

<p>Scarlett, the replacement DSLR that you buy with your money will be NO better than your A390. It will be nearly the same camera with the same controls and the exact same capabilities and image quality, just with a different brand name on it. Additionally, there are NO lenses for Nikon that you can't find in Sony mount that will work for you just as well. The reason that you see Nikon more often in photo magazines is due to one simple thing: THEY ADVERTISE MORE, SO THEY GET FEATURED MORE. In fact, whichever Nikon camera you buy for $400 will most likely have a SONY sensor, just packaged into a Nikon body with a Nikon lens mount. It will have no improved features over your current A390, and it will have no more professional capability than your A390. Switching to Nikon is the WRONG decision, because you will gain ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from jumping ship and switching companies. Does that make it clear to you?</p>

<p>And yes, you are wrong about obsolescence, or maybe you just misunderstand it. Obsolete means that the product is no longer competitive because of the rapid advancement of technology. The camera may still be good, depending on what you want to use it for, but the reliance on processors and semiconductors means that everything new is just so much better than the model before it. If you want to spend money to improve your photography, do as others say, and take classes. Sorry for the bluntness, but if you confuse shutter delay with shutter speed, then it seems to me that you know nearly nothing about photography, and need to learn to use your camera before upgrading it. I had a camera similar to you starting out: I had 10 years of film experience, many classes (i.e. a formal education), was working for a newspaper shooting SLRs, and when I got my own personal first DSLR, it was a Nikon D40. It took me about a year since I felt that the camera was outgrown. If you think that the A390 has any shortcomings in any way for your photography needs, then you are highly misinformed. Your current camera, with current lens, is just fine for your first year or two of photography.</p>

<p>Sony, and Pentax, for that matter, make cameras just as good as Nikon and Canon. Anyone that tells you otherwise tells you more about themselves than they do about the actual subject. Your a390 is perfectly capable in every respect, and you will not get a better Nikon for $400. Your a390 has all of the manual controls that a comparable Nikon would have. You need to learn how to use your equipment In addition, for every Nikon that you show me, I can quickly show you a Sony that is at least comparable, if not better. Plus, Sony lenses are great.</p>

<p>And your analogy to cars is flawed, because cameras are tied to sensors and processors. So, while a 2010 and 2011 Volkswagen may be identical, a 2010 vs 2011 camera is like a 2010 vs 2011 computer: the older model is obsolete by now, and not worth buying unless you get a very good deal.</p>

<p>There is no reason for you to have a hard and fast line that the lens must start at 24mm. I don't understand why having overlap is bad, and people plan around it as if their gear will melt if they just happen to have two lenses that overlap a tiny bit. Focal lengths are not like pokemon cards here, if you get a good lens that just happens to have overlap, you're not losing anything. For example, the Nikon 16-85mm is about the same price as the 24-85mm, and the 16-85mm is actually smaller. So why would it bug you to just happen to have two lenses that cover the same focal length? Especially if you're a landscape shooter, because you'll be stopped down anyway, so the smaller aperture is a bonus for you, because it means less weight in the bag than if it were constant.</p>