Recommend me a DSLR
Discussion
Chaps,
I have a holiday planned for late August - two weeks in South America, with Mrs zcacogp and some friends.
I'd quite like to take some decent photos while I am there, but my camera is a very old model which takes film (as opposed to digital pictures) - a Nikon F601. I've had it for 20 years, and while it was OK when I bought it, I suspect that things have moved on quite a lot ...
So, I guess I need a replacement camera. I'd like a DSLR, and seem to get the impression that Nikon are still one of the best manufacturers out there - having said that, I am quite happy to hear recommendations of other manufacturers to look at. Buying second-hand always seemed to make sense, and I'm not at all fussed about having the latest and greatest kit.
I don't have a budget in mind. Recommend me some cameras and I'll have a think. Yes, I know this is vague, but I don't want to (for instance), budget £300 and find that I have just missed out on some great stuff which tends to go for £340.
What sort of thing should I be looking at? Including lenses ... the holiday will involve quite a lot of wildlife, so I guess a longish lens would be a good idea. As well as something for more general shots.
Where do I start? All suggestions welcome. Apologies for being vague.
Thanks,
Oli.
I have a holiday planned for late August - two weeks in South America, with Mrs zcacogp and some friends.
I'd quite like to take some decent photos while I am there, but my camera is a very old model which takes film (as opposed to digital pictures) - a Nikon F601. I've had it for 20 years, and while it was OK when I bought it, I suspect that things have moved on quite a lot ...
So, I guess I need a replacement camera. I'd like a DSLR, and seem to get the impression that Nikon are still one of the best manufacturers out there - having said that, I am quite happy to hear recommendations of other manufacturers to look at. Buying second-hand always seemed to make sense, and I'm not at all fussed about having the latest and greatest kit.
I don't have a budget in mind. Recommend me some cameras and I'll have a think. Yes, I know this is vague, but I don't want to (for instance), budget £300 and find that I have just missed out on some great stuff which tends to go for £340.
What sort of thing should I be looking at? Including lenses ... the holiday will involve quite a lot of wildlife, so I guess a longish lens would be a good idea. As well as something for more general shots.
Where do I start? All suggestions welcome. Apologies for being vague.
Thanks,
Oli.
I should probably add that I always lusted after a Nikon FM with a 50mm prime lens, but suspect that this may be a bit impractical for a wildlife trip. And it won't take digital photos. Unless some clever bugger as produced a digital back for classic Nikons, in which case I think I'll be applying for a bank loan ...
Edited by zcacogp on Wednesday 21st July 18:46
Obviously down to pesonnal choice however, I'm quite happy with the Nikon D40x and there appears to be a few second hand deals around;
http://photography.shop.ebay.co.uk/Digital-Cameras...
http://photography.shop.ebay.co.uk/Digital-Cameras...
Yep. Go look over the Nikon DSLRs - they'll feel familiar to an old Nikon user and you may even be able to use your old lenses, if you have any.
Personally I'd look at a used D300 and the 18-200mm VR super zoom. A bit more than your budget but it's a big holiday. The 18-200 covers an awful lot of shots in just the one, relatively light, lens which is great for travelling. I combine the 18-200 with an 80-400mm VR lens for wildlife but its expensive (about a grand) and it's bloody heavy. Fine if you are having a photography day - less good if you are humping the bloomin' thing up a mountain.
I bought a used D2X which is fab but the tech in it is nowhere near as groovy as the D300.
If you buy a Nikon consider getting a GPS doodad either from Nikon or from a 3rd party. This will stamp your pictures with where they were taken. When you get home it's amazing how you forget where a picture was taken: with the GPS thing you'll always be able to find out what that beautiful mountain was called...
Personally I'd look at a used D300 and the 18-200mm VR super zoom. A bit more than your budget but it's a big holiday. The 18-200 covers an awful lot of shots in just the one, relatively light, lens which is great for travelling. I combine the 18-200 with an 80-400mm VR lens for wildlife but its expensive (about a grand) and it's bloody heavy. Fine if you are having a photography day - less good if you are humping the bloomin' thing up a mountain.
I bought a used D2X which is fab but the tech in it is nowhere near as groovy as the D300.
If you buy a Nikon consider getting a GPS doodad either from Nikon or from a 3rd party. This will stamp your pictures with where they were taken. When you get home it's amazing how you forget where a picture was taken: with the GPS thing you'll always be able to find out what that beautiful mountain was called...
Chaps,
Thanks for your replies. I think the disparity of them shows how little I know, and how much research I need to do. The D40x seems to go for a couple of hundred, and yet the D300 goes for nearer £800. Big difference. And I have no idea what extra I would get for the D300 over the D40x.
If I am heading for a Nikon, is there a simpletons guide to the different models? I'll try googling it, but I really don't know where to start. I guess one answer would be to go into a large Jessops (do they still do their very good second-hand trading scheme?), and see what they can tell me. They always used to be very friendly and helpful. Bit sneaky, as I don't suspect I'd end up buying through them, but good for advice.
Out of interest, both the cameras mentioned seem to be listed with differing specs. For instance, the D40x page linked to by cen shows D40x's with both 10.75 and 10.2 megapixels, and the D300's as suggested by Don list with 12megapixels and 13.1megapixels. Will these be different models within the D40x or D300 range, or just errors in listing?
Lenses: yes, the Nikon range is backwards compatible, but the lenses I have aren't anything too great. They are old, and by Sigma, and were the best I could afford 20 years ago (so are pretty naff.) They all are designed to have the autofocus drive from the camera body via a small axle, which I think is a very old system and would mean they would be used as manual focus lenses on a modern body - non?
Thanks your your suggestions cen and Don.
Oli.
Thanks for your replies. I think the disparity of them shows how little I know, and how much research I need to do. The D40x seems to go for a couple of hundred, and yet the D300 goes for nearer £800. Big difference. And I have no idea what extra I would get for the D300 over the D40x.
If I am heading for a Nikon, is there a simpletons guide to the different models? I'll try googling it, but I really don't know where to start. I guess one answer would be to go into a large Jessops (do they still do their very good second-hand trading scheme?), and see what they can tell me. They always used to be very friendly and helpful. Bit sneaky, as I don't suspect I'd end up buying through them, but good for advice.
Out of interest, both the cameras mentioned seem to be listed with differing specs. For instance, the D40x page linked to by cen shows D40x's with both 10.75 and 10.2 megapixels, and the D300's as suggested by Don list with 12megapixels and 13.1megapixels. Will these be different models within the D40x or D300 range, or just errors in listing?
Lenses: yes, the Nikon range is backwards compatible, but the lenses I have aren't anything too great. They are old, and by Sigma, and were the best I could afford 20 years ago (so are pretty naff.) They all are designed to have the autofocus drive from the camera body via a small axle, which I think is a very old system and would mean they would be used as manual focus lenses on a modern body - non?
Thanks your your suggestions cen and Don.
Oli.
You can see where all the Nikon models fit in the range here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nikon_Digita...
The screw-drive autofocus is an older design, although lenses with this design are still sold today. To reduce costs, the cheapest Nikon cameras (D40, D60, D3000 and D5000) don't have an autofocus motor in them and so wouldn't work with your lenses. If you're not intending to use them, then that might not be a problem though. Also, if you've got nothing tying you to Nikon, you could consider Canon cameras too.
I'd recommend going for something from the middle of the Canon or Nikon range, with a normal zoom lens (e.g. 18-50mm) and a telephoto zoom lens (e.g. 75-300mm). If you're willing to risk buying second hand, you can get a lot more for your money.
The disparity between the number of pixels listed is because not all of the pixels are used in the the final image. A bit like how a 100GB hard drive actually has slightly less than 100GB available for storing data. Some specs will list the total number of pixels, some will list the effective number of pixels.
Hope that helps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nikon_Digita...
The screw-drive autofocus is an older design, although lenses with this design are still sold today. To reduce costs, the cheapest Nikon cameras (D40, D60, D3000 and D5000) don't have an autofocus motor in them and so wouldn't work with your lenses. If you're not intending to use them, then that might not be a problem though. Also, if you've got nothing tying you to Nikon, you could consider Canon cameras too.
I'd recommend going for something from the middle of the Canon or Nikon range, with a normal zoom lens (e.g. 18-50mm) and a telephoto zoom lens (e.g. 75-300mm). If you're willing to risk buying second hand, you can get a lot more for your money.
The disparity between the number of pixels listed is because not all of the pixels are used in the the final image. A bit like how a 100GB hard drive actually has slightly less than 100GB available for storing data. Some specs will list the total number of pixels, some will list the effective number of pixels.
Hope that helps.
Theres little in it between nikon and canon thersedays, canon has better video for now and more resolution, nikon tend to have beter autofocus and more physical controls on the bodies.
lens range is somewhat different too, I think theres more unique lenses int he canon range but most of them are quite esotertic.
lens range is somewhat different too, I think theres more unique lenses int he canon range but most of them are quite esotertic.
If you want to spend the day reading then the reviews here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/ are very thorough and should tell you a lot of what you need to know.
First off not all Nikon camera bodies are the same and you should read a little about DX and FX cameras.
The DX range use smaller sensors than FX cameras. Generally that means lower image quality than the FX cameras. But the quality differences are somewhat marginal in many lighting conditions and with small sized prints, and DX bodies tend to be cheaper, lighter and have a 1.5x crop factor (which means a traditional 80 - 200mm lens as you'd know it on a film body would actually be more like 120 - 300mm). So in very simple terms you get more zoom from DX cameras vs. FX cameras using the same lens. As such they are often favoured by wildlife photographers as to achieve the same level of zoom using an FX camera as you'd achieve with a DX camera you'd typically need a longer, much, much more expensive and heavier lens.
FX cameras are a lot more expensive. The bigger sensor does lend itself more readily to extremely good low light abilities and can produce great noise-free shots at pretty high ISO numbers.
FX was traditionally a lot stronger at the wider end of things but there have been a number of DX lenses aimed at redressing the balance (typically 10-20mm zooms).
You should also be aware that not all lenses are the same and there are DX format and FX format lenses. The DX format lenses have a smaller image circle (because DX sensors are smaller than FX ones) and so use of these on FX cameras means only the inner part of the FX sensor can capture a picture.
Anyway, that's probably more than you wished to know! Ultimately if you choose Nikon (or Canon) you can't go wrong - both have great systems and great bodies. It's worth considering both and seeing if one is more comfortable to hold than the other. I just couldn't find a Canon body that felt comfortable, hence why I shoot with a Nikon.
You should also be aware that the cheaper Nikon cameras (D40 / 3000 / 5000 in current range) do not have an in-built motor in the camera body (amongst other things that they lack from the more expensive cameras). That means you need to buy a certain type of lens (that has it's own motor) in order to autofocus. They'll still take other lenses and meter through them, but you'll need to manually focus (and the smaller viewfinder of these models makes that somewhat tricky). For these cheaper bodies you need Nikon's AF-S lenses to allow for autofocusing (or 3rd party equivalent). That limits the range of lenses available, and tends to make them a bit more expensive too.
Personally if you enjoy photography and have some basic technical competence from your film days (and some old lenses knocking around ????) and you have a decent budget AND enjoy tweaking settings a little then I'd recommend the D90 or D300 (now obscelete) or D300s.
All three are DX bodies, with a huge range of features and designed to allow you to adjust settings more easily than the cheaper Nikon models (generally they have more buttons on the body itself so you can change settings very quickly and conveniently, rather than having to dig through multiple levels of the in camera menus to change settings on the cheaper models).
They also have very very good screens for reviewing your taken photographs.
I've seen a decent condition used D300 from a very reputable Nikon seller for around £600.
If the idea of the feature set of the D90 / D300(s) appeals but the price does not then you might want to consider the older D80 or D200 models. Lower resolution, not quite so good autofocus, etc, and a much smaller screen to review images on but you can pick up good examples for £400 - £500.
Edited to add - best of luck with the purchase and holiday! Oh and the above was written very quickly so I am sure some PHers will come along to correct things!!!
First off not all Nikon camera bodies are the same and you should read a little about DX and FX cameras.
The DX range use smaller sensors than FX cameras. Generally that means lower image quality than the FX cameras. But the quality differences are somewhat marginal in many lighting conditions and with small sized prints, and DX bodies tend to be cheaper, lighter and have a 1.5x crop factor (which means a traditional 80 - 200mm lens as you'd know it on a film body would actually be more like 120 - 300mm). So in very simple terms you get more zoom from DX cameras vs. FX cameras using the same lens. As such they are often favoured by wildlife photographers as to achieve the same level of zoom using an FX camera as you'd achieve with a DX camera you'd typically need a longer, much, much more expensive and heavier lens.
FX cameras are a lot more expensive. The bigger sensor does lend itself more readily to extremely good low light abilities and can produce great noise-free shots at pretty high ISO numbers.
FX was traditionally a lot stronger at the wider end of things but there have been a number of DX lenses aimed at redressing the balance (typically 10-20mm zooms).
You should also be aware that not all lenses are the same and there are DX format and FX format lenses. The DX format lenses have a smaller image circle (because DX sensors are smaller than FX ones) and so use of these on FX cameras means only the inner part of the FX sensor can capture a picture.
Anyway, that's probably more than you wished to know! Ultimately if you choose Nikon (or Canon) you can't go wrong - both have great systems and great bodies. It's worth considering both and seeing if one is more comfortable to hold than the other. I just couldn't find a Canon body that felt comfortable, hence why I shoot with a Nikon.
You should also be aware that the cheaper Nikon cameras (D40 / 3000 / 5000 in current range) do not have an in-built motor in the camera body (amongst other things that they lack from the more expensive cameras). That means you need to buy a certain type of lens (that has it's own motor) in order to autofocus. They'll still take other lenses and meter through them, but you'll need to manually focus (and the smaller viewfinder of these models makes that somewhat tricky). For these cheaper bodies you need Nikon's AF-S lenses to allow for autofocusing (or 3rd party equivalent). That limits the range of lenses available, and tends to make them a bit more expensive too.
Personally if you enjoy photography and have some basic technical competence from your film days (and some old lenses knocking around ????) and you have a decent budget AND enjoy tweaking settings a little then I'd recommend the D90 or D300 (now obscelete) or D300s.
All three are DX bodies, with a huge range of features and designed to allow you to adjust settings more easily than the cheaper Nikon models (generally they have more buttons on the body itself so you can change settings very quickly and conveniently, rather than having to dig through multiple levels of the in camera menus to change settings on the cheaper models).
They also have very very good screens for reviewing your taken photographs.
I've seen a decent condition used D300 from a very reputable Nikon seller for around £600.
If the idea of the feature set of the D90 / D300(s) appeals but the price does not then you might want to consider the older D80 or D200 models. Lower resolution, not quite so good autofocus, etc, and a much smaller screen to review images on but you can pick up good examples for £400 - £500.
Edited to add - best of luck with the purchase and holiday! Oh and the above was written very quickly so I am sure some PHers will come along to correct things!!!
Edited by NewNameNeeded on Thursday 22 July 09:34
I think you'd be right to dump your old lenses and start again, if for no other reason than on a 1.5x crop sensor they'll seem 50% longer than you're used to.
The more money you spend, the more controls you have and the more they migrate from being buried in menus to handy buttons on the oustide. You'll also move away from 'kitten mode' and onto something more serious, and build quality and bulk increase. I'd say that the D90 is the best of Nikon's 'amateur' cameras, but a s/h D80 would probably suit equally well.
For wildlife, unless you're spending stupid money, I think the Nikon 70-300mm VR is very good.
The more money you spend, the more controls you have and the more they migrate from being buried in menus to handy buttons on the oustide. You'll also move away from 'kitten mode' and onto something more serious, and build quality and bulk increase. I'd say that the D90 is the best of Nikon's 'amateur' cameras, but a s/h D80 would probably suit equally well.
For wildlife, unless you're spending stupid money, I think the Nikon 70-300mm VR is very good.
Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 22 July 09:38
Simpo Two said:
I'd say that the D90 is the best of Nikon's 'amateur' cameras, but a s/h D80 would probably suit equally well.
For wildlife, unless you're spending stupid money, I think the Nikon 70-300mm VR is very good.
+1 on both counts. Was going to suggest the D90 as being a good all-rounder and that the 'kit' lenses are perfectly acceptable, and can be augmented by zooms such as the 18-200 and 70-300.For wildlife, unless you're spending stupid money, I think the Nikon 70-300mm VR is very good.
Simpo Two said:
I think you'd be right to dump your old lenses and start again, if for no other reason than on a 1.5x crop sensor they'll seem 50% longer than you're used to.
However if he replaces an old 50mm with a new 50mm both will still have the same cropped field of view (or lengthening effect if you prefer) on a crop sensor DSLR.Simpo Two said:
I think you'd be right to dump your old lenses and start again, if for no other reason than on a 1.5x crop sensor they'll seem 50% longer than you're used to.
Don't get the logic of this if you're recommending he gets a DX body anyway? Newer lenses will be treated no differently to older ones in terms of being x1.5 longer. The older lenses he has could still be more than adequate and save money that could be spent on getting a better body in the first place (D90/300 vs. D40). Orindarily I'd recommend investing in glass over camera body, but in this instance if he's already got some glass lying around from film days it'd be a great opportunity to dust it off again.But the OP mentioned the lenses were mostly (if not all) old, and slightly naff, Sigma lenses.
So the rationale behind junking them is that:
a) if they're full-frame lenses then the OP will potentially not have any wide-angle coverage - if he had, say, a 28-80 zoom then the widest he would have on a DX body would be, in effect, 42mm. Not really very wide.
b) they may not autofocus properly - can't recall if the D90 can drive lenses which don't have an on-board AF motor. It probably can, but if it can't then he's got manual focus only
c) they may not be as good as the current crop of 'kit' lenses and other newer lenses which have been developed around the DX format.
Nick M said:
b) they may not autofocus properly - can't recall if the D90 can drive lenses which don't have an on-board AF motor. It probably can, but if it can't then he's got manual focus only
Nikon have removed the screw drive from the camera body 
? Why would they do that?(I'm a heathen that uses a Sony body and have 15+ year old Minolta AF lenses which any Sony body can work)
onomatopoeia said:
Nick M said:
b) they may not autofocus properly - can't recall if the D90 can drive lenses which don't have an on-board AF motor. It probably can, but if it can't then he's got manual focus only
Nikon have removed the screw drive from the camera body ? Why would they do that?(I'm a heathen that uses a Sony body and have 15+ year old Minolta AF lenses which any Sony body can work)
Probably done for cost / simplicity issues.
Chaps,
Thanks very much for your answers. All very helpful. Thanks particularly to Newnameneeded for that excellently helpful write-up. That's all stuff I hadn't picked up elsewhere, so it was genuinely useful. Thanks.
Current kit is a Sigma 28-70 lens and a Sigma 80-300 (I think). Both with the focus drive from the body. I don't think either of them are much cop as lenses, but both are the Nikon fitting. I know that neither of them do terribly well as manual focus lenses as the focus rings are very light and loose, unlike the traditional dedicated manual focus lenses, which had nicely damped focussing rings which were much better to use. I think if I can use these two lenses with the new camera it will be a bonus, but I'm not banking on it. So, in essence, probably best to write them out of the equation.
I am quite liking the D80. It looks like a reasonable choice, with some good second-hand bargains around. However, I am put off by comments from a friend who is into photography, who said that there are noise issues with the D80, and the D90 is a better buy. Googling "Nikon D80 Noise" comes up with the following site:
http://www.bythom.com/d80review.htm
... which, under 'performance', does give some slightly negative results. Negative enough to concern me? I'm not sure. It sounds like it's only an issue for a small proportion of the time (long exposures at high ISO's), and hence is this something to worry about? The D90 sounds like it has this issue licked, but is quite a lot more to buy.
A D300 would be good, but it sounds like they are bigger, heavier and quite a lot more expensive. More camera than I need. The D40x is appealing, but I fear it would fail for the opposit reasons; I may outgrow it quite quickly.
In short, I don't know what to decide. How much of an issue is the noise on the D80?
I think I need to go to a local camera shop and find some cameras to look at and play with. That could be very informative.
Thanks for your input.
Oli.
Thanks very much for your answers. All very helpful. Thanks particularly to Newnameneeded for that excellently helpful write-up. That's all stuff I hadn't picked up elsewhere, so it was genuinely useful. Thanks.
Current kit is a Sigma 28-70 lens and a Sigma 80-300 (I think). Both with the focus drive from the body. I don't think either of them are much cop as lenses, but both are the Nikon fitting. I know that neither of them do terribly well as manual focus lenses as the focus rings are very light and loose, unlike the traditional dedicated manual focus lenses, which had nicely damped focussing rings which were much better to use. I think if I can use these two lenses with the new camera it will be a bonus, but I'm not banking on it. So, in essence, probably best to write them out of the equation.
I am quite liking the D80. It looks like a reasonable choice, with some good second-hand bargains around. However, I am put off by comments from a friend who is into photography, who said that there are noise issues with the D80, and the D90 is a better buy. Googling "Nikon D80 Noise" comes up with the following site:
http://www.bythom.com/d80review.htm
... which, under 'performance', does give some slightly negative results. Negative enough to concern me? I'm not sure. It sounds like it's only an issue for a small proportion of the time (long exposures at high ISO's), and hence is this something to worry about? The D90 sounds like it has this issue licked, but is quite a lot more to buy.
A D300 would be good, but it sounds like they are bigger, heavier and quite a lot more expensive. More camera than I need. The D40x is appealing, but I fear it would fail for the opposit reasons; I may outgrow it quite quickly.
In short, I don't know what to decide. How much of an issue is the noise on the D80?
I think I need to go to a local camera shop and find some cameras to look at and play with. That could be very informative.
Thanks for your input.
Oli.
zcacogp said:
I am quite liking the D80. It looks like a reasonable choice, with some good second-hand bargains around. However, I am put off by comments from a friend who is into photography, who said that there are noise issues with the D80, and the D90 is a better buy. Googling "Nikon D80 Noise" comes up with the following site:
http://www.bythom.com/d80review.htm
... which, under 'performance', does give some slightly negative results. Negative enough to concern me? I'm not sure. It sounds like it's only an issue for a small proportion of the time (long exposures at high ISO's), and hence is this something to worry about? The D90 sounds like it has this issue licked, but is quite a lot more to buy.
Short answer - don't worry about it.http://www.bythom.com/d80review.htm
... which, under 'performance', does give some slightly negative results. Negative enough to concern me? I'm not sure. It sounds like it's only an issue for a small proportion of the time (long exposures at high ISO's), and hence is this something to worry about? The D90 sounds like it has this issue licked, but is quite a lot more to buy.
Slightly longer answer - unless you're into the realms of cameras like the D700, D3 and D3S (and I'll count the D300 as well, though it's not quite up there with the D700, etc.) then noise at higher ISOs will be a problem. Much like higher ISO film is more grainy.
While there may be a slight lack of performance in particular circumstances, always try to bear the following in mind:
- the interweb is an amazing tool for finding out about stuff, but the signal to noise ratio can be quite high. Thom Hogan is, however, a pretty good resource.
- it's also very good at 'amplifying' molehills into mountains. See also the Nikon D70 and it's back-focus issues, the D200 and 'banding', etc., etc., as other examples of problems with cameras, both real and imagined. Once one person has found a problem, everyone else will also start to suffer from it as well...
- just because a camera might be less good at one thing, doesn't mean it's rubbish. The D80 is a very competant camera and I'm sure you would be more than happy with it. That said, the D90 is better in terms of higher ISO performance and has quite a few features which the D80 doesn't, so if you can push the boat out then you'd end up with a camera which would stand you in good stead for a long time. The D80 would be fine too though.
- Good lenses will last a long time, but digital camera bodies will come and go as sensor technology improves. They're much more of a disposable element to a camera system than a film body was, where you would typically see improvements in autofocus or metering. But sensor technology is still improving so the quality of images offered by consumer level cameras is definitely better now than it was, say, 5 years ago. Compare a D70 with a D90, for example.
- opinions are two a penny on the interweb
But there's no substitute for a hands-on assessment in a camera shop or for actual feedback from people with hands-on knowledge of the particular camera you're interested in. And seeing as I don't have a D90 (or a D80) you can count me in the same category and take my suggestions with a suitable pinch of salt zcacogp said:
Chaps,
In short, I don't know what to decide. How much of an issue is the noise on the D80?
I have a D40/D80/D300/D700In short, I don't know what to decide. How much of an issue is the noise on the D80?
In terms of ISO noise, the D40 in some cases outperforms the D80 in noise reduction. I've never really been sure why but it does. The shodow noise especially on the D80 is quite nasty at 1600 ISO. The D40 doesnt seem to have this problem but does show up colour noise. I dont know whether thats the technical terms, just what I see in my photos.
Both are useable up to around 800'ish, the D300 can be used at 1600 but on a properly exposed image. The D700, you can create light with it and be stunned at the results
Is the D80 a noisy b
d? Yes, when pushed, but it's not a bad camera to use in 90+% of cases. Happy to share images and 100% crops if you need to look at something side by sideAnother thumbs up for the D80. Girlfriend had one. Is it noisier than the newer D90 and D300? Yes. Is it unusuable ? Absolutely not. My gf actually preferred it to her current D90 as it is a fair bit smaller and lighter. She regrets not getting a secondhand one to replace her first one (major accident meant it was written off) rather than getting the D90.
The only real negative I can see with the D80 is the smaller and lower resolution screen for viewing your photos (and that's because I'm spoilt by the bigger screen on the D300) but it's far from being a deal breaker.
Might also be worth you looking for a D50 which is a bit older still and is widly recognised as a bit of a gem. The D50 was also the last of Nikon's budget DSLRs that did include an inbody drive. It's what I cut my teeth with and it's a lovely camera. I preferred it to the newer D40.
BTW - noise in film days was somewhat grainy and in my mind often presented a somewhat atmospheric look and feel to a shot. It could actually add to a shots appeal if used correctly. You'll probably find that digital noise at higher ISOs isn't quite so 'pretty' and is generally better avoided (though still an improvement on a blurry image!).
The only real negative I can see with the D80 is the smaller and lower resolution screen for viewing your photos (and that's because I'm spoilt by the bigger screen on the D300) but it's far from being a deal breaker.
Might also be worth you looking for a D50 which is a bit older still and is widly recognised as a bit of a gem. The D50 was also the last of Nikon's budget DSLRs that did include an inbody drive. It's what I cut my teeth with and it's a lovely camera. I preferred it to the newer D40.
BTW - noise in film days was somewhat grainy and in my mind often presented a somewhat atmospheric look and feel to a shot. It could actually add to a shots appeal if used correctly. You'll probably find that digital noise at higher ISOs isn't quite so 'pretty' and is generally better avoided (though still an improvement on a blurry image!).
NewNameNeeded said:
Simpo Two said:
I think you'd be right to dump your old lenses and start again, if for no other reason than on a 1.5x crop sensor they'll seem 50% longer than you're used to.
Don't get the logic of this if you're recommending he gets a DX body anyway? Newer lenses will be treated no differently to older ones in terms of being x1.5 longer. The older lenses he has could still be more than adequate and save money that could be spent on getting a better body in the first place (D90/300 vs. D40). Orindarily I'd recommend investing in glass over camera body, but in this instance if he's already got some glass lying around from film days it'd be a great opportunity to dust it off again.Plus, old Sigma lenses of F601 vintage won't have much functionality on a D80/90.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff