First DSLR Help(yup, that old chestnut!)

[JohnRebound]

Hi Everyone,
This is my first post after doing a little lurking.

I used to take a lot of photos of live bands in the early 90s using 70s Minolta gear (Loved that XD7)
Unfortunately my eysight got a lot worse and I found it difficult manual focusing in low light so traded all my gear in on a Nikon F60 and a couple of lenses (Nikkor F AFD 28-80mm f.3.5-5.6 & NIkkor F AFD 75-240mm f.4.5-5.6).

For some unknown reason I just wasn't into taking photos anymore and my new camera only had about five rolls put through it before it was put in a cupboard. I'm guessing nowadays it's worth $50 if that (?)

Anyways I've recently had the urge to take up photography again and the ease of digital certainly appeals.

I've been reading a lot online about certain models and this is what I've come down to:

D90 or D300s or EOS 7D (Nikon seems to have recently dropped their prices, is a D300s or 7D worth the exta $1K?

The Nikon lenses I have are admittedly only kit lenses but would it be worth keeping them and stretching to a D700 body?


I'm really at a loss with this megapixel thing and how it compares to film quality wise and how FX compares to DX.

Most of what I intend to take will be happy snaps to begin with but I want the option of getting back to live bands which will be low light etc.

The whole DSLR as HD movie camera thing is not something I'm worried about, I will only be taking stills.

Thoughts/Advice/Opinions?

Thanks in advance.

[fokker]

There is little point in being concerned with keeping your old nikon lenses, they aren't particularly good or suitable for low-light photography.

Judging by the specific models you listed you must have a fairly healthy budget, so from experience (my own and others') I'd recommend to just go out and the best you can afford. You won't regret it and if you buy lower end gear you'll probably only end up upgrading anyway if you're halfway serious.

Remember when buying that camera bodies become old technology pretty fast, but a good lens can last you a lifetime, so aim to spend the majority of your budget on lenses. (at least two to start out with). Because of the investment in lenses and accesories, it is not common for people to switch brands so make sure you're happy with the brand you choose from the start. Nikon or Canon get 90% of the market share, with good reason. You probably won't regret either of them but it pays to have a play before you buy and see which you like the feel of and general ergonomics.

I'd recommend reading the following article, it rings true with many photographers.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html

[JohnRebound]

There is little point in being concerned with keeping your old nikon lenses, they aren't particularly good or suitable for low-light photography.

Judging by the specific models you listed you must have a fairly healthy budget, so from experience (my own and others') I'd recommend to just go out and the best you can afford. You won't regret it and if you buy lower end gear you'll probably only end up upgrading anyway if you're halfway serious.

Remember when buying that camera bodies become old technology pretty fast, but a good lens can last you a lifetime, so aim to spend the majority of your budget on lenses. (at least two to start out with). Because of the investment in lenses and accesories, it is not common for people to switch brands so make sure you're happy with the brand you choose from the start. Nikon or Canon get 90% of the market share, with good reason. You probably won't regret either of them but it pays to have a play before you buy and see which you like the feel of and general ergonomics.

I'd recommend reading the following article, it rings true with many photographers.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html


Thanks for your reply.
I enjoyed the article.

Really at a loss as to what to buy.
I can afford a D700 but with lenses it is a lot of money and I guess what worries me is what happened with that F60!


I think it will either come down to the D90 or the D700.

[Redal]

Any of the cameras you were looking at are good, there is not much difference between Canon and Nikon now.
The question about megapixels, it depends on what you are going to do, if you are printing above 50x75cm regularly id look at 12+ , if you aren't printing that big any DSLR would do, megapixel wise.

One thing to take into account is lens availability, if you are buying new , compare costs between manufactures , if going for used , compare prices of similar lenses and how often they come up for sale.

[jackinavox]

I'd recommend reading the following article, it rings true with many photographers.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html

i really enjoyed reading this. rings true with me too!

i agree, get the best that you can afford if you can. but in saying that i think the D90 is quite a capable camera.

[AcurA]

If you are thinking of getting a nikkon check this site out http://www.kenrockwell.com/
He has interesting comments on the d5000 as apposed to the D90.

[fokker]

If you are thinking of getting a nikkon check this site out http://www.kenrockwell.com/
He has interesting comments on the d5000 as apposed to the D90.


An awful lot of serious photographers completely write off ken rockwell's site as full of half-truth's and sarcasm that can't be seperated from the facts. He also has dubious advertising connections. My point is I wouldn't take anything he says too seriously...

[tomberkley]

i second that!

[JohnRebound]

The more I think about things the more I'm leaning towards a D700.
Sadly there don't appear to be any in the country atm.
Luckily Nikon have just dropped body prices for DSLRs and one should hopefully be available in about a month.

What lens (or lenses) would you suggest to go with it?
say an initial lens budget of $1k.

(I plan to get the body and lenses at once from the same retailer, pay cash and hopefully get a slightly better offer)

[tomberkley]

maybe a 50mm with a fast f stop. the nikon 50mm f1.4 AF-S. ($1100 new) tho only one focal can limit its use, many photographers sware by the 50mm lenses, and there very sharp.
Im not a nikon user so i cant say how good the lens is, but i cant see it bieng no good.

[Canvart]

I can put a vote in for the Nikon, but as said above you wont go wrong with a Canon either.

I started with a D70s and now have a couple of D300s. For what you need, in my opinion the D300 or 700 will more than meet your requirements, they are pretty good in low light and with the right lens (and photographer lol) they will take a great pic.

Whatever you go with, be assured that a DSomething else will come out a week later and will have more bells and whistles than what you just spent your hard earned money on. But dont let the marketing hype get the better of you.

If you are planning on low light shooting though, make sure you have the budget for some fast lenses, there is no point in getting an expensive camera and then having to sacrifice in the lens department - this was my first mistake, which as per that article ended up costing me more in the end.

[Siglo6]

As for prices I've found Auckland Camera in Kingsland to be the cheapest if that's helpful, i'm about to get a Canon from there

[jackinavox]

if i was in your position, i'd probably spend more on the lens than the body.

perhaps a D90 + 24-70mm f2.8

[JohnRebound]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts.
To further complicate matters thoughts on the D700 Vs 5D mk2?

---------- Post added at 11:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 AM ----------

As for prices I've found Auckland Camera in Kingsland to be the cheapest if that's helpful, i'm about to get a Canon from there

Paul's Camera Shop in Christchurch are worth checking out. They have a website. I live in Dunedin and will probably buy from Harvey Norman as the guy I'm talking to will (slightly) beat the best price I've found which was Paul's.

[Canvart]

Canon or Nikon can be like Ford or Holden - but in saying that here is my 2 cents......

The 5D has 21 Megapixels, which if you are looking at doing huge prints will be an advantage over the D700's 12 - BUT, if you are shooting in RAW, which I would recommend - you will be dealing with much larger files, which depending on your computer/storage could be cumbersome.

The Nikon has an advantage with Autofocus having 51 points, where the Canon only has 9, and if I can remember right I think the Canon only has a cross type focal point in the centre, whereas the Nikon has a dozen or so cross type points.

Flash wise, I am not sure whether you will find the popup flash on the Nikon useful at all, but the Canon doesnt have one.

Oh, and Canon also has HD Video, but you have mentioned that this doesnt interest you....

Hopefully that helps you out a bit :cool:

[JohnRebound]

Canon or Nikon can be like Ford or Holden - but in saying that here is my 2 cents......

The 5D has 21 Megapixels, which if you are looking at doing huge prints will be an advantage over the D700's 12 - BUT, if you are shooting in RAW, which I would recommend - you will be dealing with much larger files, which depending on your computer/storage could be cumbersome.

The Nikon has an advantage with Autofocus having 51 points, where the Canon only has 9, and if I can remember right I think the Canon only has a cross type focal point in the centre, whereas the Nikon has a dozen or so cross type points.

Flash wise, I am not sure whether you will find the popup flash on the Nikon useful at all, but the Canon doesnt have one.

Oh, and Canon also has HD Video, but you have mentioned that this doesnt interest you....

Hopefully that helps you out a bit :cool:

Thanks,
I guess it comes down to a nagging fear I have regarding 12 megapixels not being enough in someway.

Irrational?

I doubt I would be printing anything larger than A4.

[tomberkley]

irrational yes. mp is just a marketing seller. the canon g10 has 15mp and the newer g11 has 10 so it think the megapixel race is slowing down.
both are very good cameras
canon has very good image quality and good high noise setting
nikon better af system and is more user frendly.

[Canvart]

Thanks,
I guess it comes down to a nagging fear I have regarding 12 megapixels not being enough in someway.

As said it is marketing hype - what is equally if not more important is the quality of the sensor. My Nikon D70 which is only 6mp still has a much better sensor than most of those little digicams that are boasting 10+ megapixels. The sensor size in some of these cameras is as small as a rice bubble.

But yeah, 12 megapixels is plenty, even for large prints

[Haim]

12mp is enough. but sometimes it feels nice to have more. but it's normally a trade off with noise... any way... get more glass. getting a better body is useless unless you have the good lens to support that good body.