budi_surya

<p>hmmm, let's see :<br>

Nikon D3100 : good entry level.<br>

Nikon D7100 : currently best Nikon DX DSLR.<br>

18-55 : Good Kit lens, slow aperture though, good with external flash (if available)<br>

35/1.8DX : good, fast, sharp, FTM Focus, DX. Good enough for lowlight, good FL for normal lens<br>

55-200VR : pretty good cheap tele zoom with VR, slow aperture though.<br>

85/1.8G : FX Lens, good enough for everything tele on DX & short tele on FX (currently u don't have any FX body though).</p>

<p>If I were you, i'd opt for :<br>

55-200VR --> AF 80-200/2.8 (~300US$) : VR could save you in some situation, but as event folding out, you might not be able to get fast enough SS; sure it is better to get 70-200/2.8VR (over 1k US$).<br>

Tokina 11-16/2.8 : you'd never know venue focus distance space availability & lighting :)<br>

OR Sigma 10-20/4.5-5.6 EX DC, cheaper, wider, more versatile zoom, slower aperture though.<br>

18-55DX --> Tamron 17-50/2.8VC or Tokina 16-50/2.8 for those wider end, not very important if you already have Nikon's VR lens, but 2.8 would helps a lot freezing action.<br>

Proper Nikon Flash : SB-700/SB-800/SB-900/SB-910. (I love Nikon's TTL commander mode, so cheaper alternatives would be like YN-560EX & it works with canon's master flash too :D )</p>

<p>So, here's my setup for most general events :<br>

Nikon D3100 + one of DX normal zoom (18-55/17-50f2.8/16-50f2.8)<br>

Nikon D7100 + 80-200/2.8<br>

1 or 2 Nikon's flash<br>

1 UWA in my pocket<br>

optional : 35/1.8 or 85/1.8 for just in case you can't use flash :( (actually it is better to get 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 or 85/1.4 :D )</p>

<p>Sorry for bringing up old thread, just sharing here in Indonesia (so bear with my English :) )<br>

Happened I just started learning photography by myself just about 2 years ago, it was nice & fun, but somehow I felt "hollow" without proper base.<br>

So tried to get some old photography magazine from film era around 80's & 90's.<br>

Boy, I was in for surprised, found a LOT of very creative exposure techniques that I've never read on "modern era" (ie. digital) photography sites & magz. There were no Photoshop yet then, but sure they can do "layering", Dodge & burn, cropping, contrast & exposure manipulation in post, etc.<br>

Anyway, one thing quite interesting is, Canon knew they had some blunder by abandoning their FD/FL/etc. old lens mount standards (circa 1986, anyway their old lenses were never really good worthy enough, well save some for exotic f/1.2 or bigger lens); hence they'd emphasize on marketing & advertising of their new system. It was in the late 80's, so maybe their efforts quite paid out today (or a few recent years back).<br>

Funny thing is (was) though, throughout many magazines, I've never seen any single Nikon SLR ads. Dunno whether overconfident or no budget.<br>

As for optical quality of lens design, sure CaNikon got some quite good lens, but most important they become so popular is that they can made & sell it quite economically price-to-performance ratio. Red somewhere that in order to create a "perfect" lens, then basically the price wouldn't be "economical" for most of population of the world. Only industry & government agencies could afford (cinema, hollywood, Intel, CIA, NSA, NASA, etc.)<br>

Zeiss Otus can be taken as an example; quite industrial standards, being sold and targeted for consumer/professionals.<br>

Back in the old days, Nikon was king, and crazy enough to produce some really "wild" lens designs, lens which can see "behind" them, lens that can resolve up to thousand of LP/mm for creating electronic Integrated Circuit industry, their true "macro" lens instead of their current "consumer" standard of "micro-Nikkor".<br>

<br />Talk about their "old" 35mm lens quality, generally for the same condition & specification, Nikon's pre-Ai/Ai/Ai-S lenses would fetch higher value in the market compared to old Canon FD/FL/etc or any other manufacturer.<br>

As for DSLR body quality, sensor quality (thus producing the image), old Nikon DSLR would fetch higher money too compared to Canon DSLR from the same era/same condition (at least here in Indonesia).<br>

As of me, I use Nikon primarily because it is more comfortable for me (user interface & body design); however if I to get better image quality with minimum resource spending, I'd get a canon 5D (not mark II or III) and some chipped Nikon to EOS lens adapter paired with (any) Nikkor 50/1.4 or 85/1.8.<br />5D's body about 600US$ where similar 12MP Nikon D700 still around 1200US$ here.<br>

Currently using D1x with 1/16000 flash sync speed, really useful with my 50/1.4 & tropical sun here, can't afford singh ray ND filter. (supposing Canon 1d could do the same thing ).<br>

Fast forward to modern day, now we have "HD Video DSLR" and most "good quality" video camera going for thousands of dollars (if not tens of thousands), the only "Sub 5.000US$" video recording system you can get to compete with hollywood quality would be with Canon 5D Mk.III and Magic Lantern for RAW Video capture (let alone the lenses though).</p>