Home Forums Gear Photography Camera and Lens Question

The D50 body is more than adequate for you. I have a D40 and a D80 and usually carry the 40 due to its ergonomics. The 40 and 50 have fewer pixels on the sensor, but the larger pixels on the same chip provide better low light performance. www.kenrockwell.com is an excellent source for you to review and I would also call Joel at Cameraland for advice. My largert lens is the Nikon 18-200 an it performs very well. Pair it with the excellent 35mm 1.4 and they can handle most everyday chores. I would save for a while and get a better long lens if you find that the 200 will not work for you.

I think the lens that might work best for your situation would be the Canon 100-400L for about $1600. This would require a change to Canon, but you could get an EOS XSi (12MP crop sensor, similar to Nikon D90) and 18-55 kit lens for less than 700. You could sell the Nikon stuff to help cover costs.

Is $2300 beyond the budget?

must've scared him away, eh Doug ?

Not even Halloween yet

I was reading this "Why so many megapixels?" http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/947962/0
Guess my D90 will only be good for postcards...
...until I get this new Canon Sensor
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10083101canonlargestsensor.asp

you're just jealous you're not dealing with 1.0 terabite 25MP TIFF files !


meanwhile, back in the real world: +MP = +noise. ever tried to de-noisify a MFDB file?

I'll believe 30+ MP DLSR files when I see it.....

I am still here. I was actually in DC yesterday to drop my Girlfriend off at the airport. I tried to find a camera store in that town and it drove me crazy! It appears that Ritz closed a ton of stores as the ones I was going to were out of business.

I never did get to handle any cameras.

UtahLefty, from the sounds of your posts, you are partial to the canon but you currently own Nikon also? If you had to choose, which would you choose? I do like auto focus just for the simplicity and speed.

This topic could go on for days... but I'll chip in with telling you to ignore any bastid who tells you to switch to Cannon. Sacrilege!

I had a D90 for years as my main camera. I've since way upgraded and son has the D90. It's still kicking right along.

Correct me if I'm wrong (in a hurry) but it sounds like you're happy with the wide angle lens and are looking for a good long lens for wildlife.

Unfortunately %500 is a bit cheap for any decent long lens unless you find a smokin' used deal.

Frankly, my best advice would be to save your sheckels and invest in something like a D300 body. I love mine. All my professional shooting (for my magazine stories) is done with this body. I also highly recommend, as an "affordable" big lens, the Sigma AF APO DG HSM 150-500 mm (225-750 effective, with D300 crop factor) F 5-6.3 OS (Optically Stabilized). Fantastic lens! You wouldn't believe what I'm able to shoot handheld with it. Simply amazing from lenses just a few years ago.

Benelli,

Actually my primary camera is a 25MP Sony A900 and by backup is a 12MP Sony A700. I was attempting to avoid being a brand slut and give you the pros and cons of the brands I've used as I see them.

I like the in-body IS of the Sony, the user interface is stellar, and the FF A900 fits my shooting style well. I do indeed have a Canon 40D, but mostly it's the one my kids drag around (grin)

I'm partial to Zeiss lenses - I have a ZA 85 1.4 , ZA 24-70 2.8, Sony G 70-200 2.8, and Sigma 300 2.8. They're releasing a ZA 24 2.0 next month I've got my eye on - unfortunately all these lenses run $1500 to $3500 each, so getting 1-2 a year is a stretch.

BenelliHunter,
You might checkout what the birders think of the Sigma
http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/271/cat/14/limit/recent/date/1067115672
http://www.birdforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=454
http://www.michaelfurtman.com/sigma150_500.htm
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=358

Not going to be much help here but thought I would chime in. My wife is running a Canon right now that we are very happy with. It was a quantum step up for us. I've been a film guy with Nikon since the 60's. One issue we discovered with my wife's unit is that filter quality can really bite one with a big lens. I spent a fair number of $$$ buying some filters for her Canon 100-400 mm. We hit the field for the weekend, thought we had some world class wildlife shots, and the crisp images we had come to expect were gone. We cleaned everything, tried again, and totally wasted another weekend.

Finally in frustration, I went out with the tripod, took some shots of distant signs (with and without filters) that were really a stretch for the lens, and by zooming in on the downloaded images, realized that those filters were costing us the fine edges and minute detail.

Right now, she's running with no filters, which has me quaking in my boots, but the images are crisp again. We will get some filters, but are going to hold off until we can get to a real city and do some instore trials before buying.

I guess this is a long thesis to just say... If one is not happy with a lens, do some comparison shots with and without your filters. One may find his lens is better than he thinks, and the fault is in that last layer of glass up front.

Good luck in your quest,

sweat it not, my friend. minor scratches will never show up in an image and if you hit it hard enough to crack the front element, it's gonna get cracked whether there's a filter on it or not.

this picture:



was taken with this lens:




and these pictures:





were taken with this lens:





multiple examples in this article

and more here

Those are significant scratches. Wouldn't want to point that toward the sun at all.

I was in a aerial photo outfit in the Navy using cameras that had rolls of film 12 inches wide. One batch of shots had to be redone because each had a slightly yellow hue. Turns out there was a yellow 3 x 5 note card on the belly window of the plane. It was about 6 inches from the lens, and other than the yellow haze, it still did a fair job of resolving the images.

Scratches on the lens can be mitigated by using a lens hood to block stray light and avoiding shooting directly into the sun; in fact, I would take a small scratch on one of my Nikkors over shooting through a budget filter any day of the week.

Lot's of good advice on this thread. My only thought would be: cameras come and go, lenses are forever. I run 1960 vintage Nikkors on my Nikon D1x made in 2003. Also, if you are buying lenses buy the fastest lens (biggest aperture) you can afford. Depth of field control is the key to truly fine photography.

I have a D50,and I think it will do all you could possibly want it to. Of course, if you are having a wet dream about the D90, Then go right ahead and buy one. Like guns, you can never have too many cameras!

A sweet young redheaded thing said to me recently at the zoo; "Yours is what my camera wants to be, when it grows up." I told her I keep telling mine if it eats its veggies, it will grow up to be a D 90.

A couple of Rules of Thumb from the stone ages: Shutter speed at least equal to the maximum focal length of your lens, handheld. That means 1/50 sec. or more for a 50 mm, 1/350 sec. or faster for 300mm. Be aware of the "crop" factor. With a film or full-size sensor lens, the smaller sensor of the D50 and D90 give you an effective 50% enlargenment. 450mm equivalent from a 300 mm lens. I call that a goodness! The smaller sensor uses the center of the lens' coverage circle, which is the sharpest and most highly corrected part of the lens. But, camrea movement is magnified, too.

Brace yourself,camera and lens. Steady on, there!

You will notice I didn't mention megapixels or video. Our little 6mp D50s are capable of 11 X 14 enlargements and 'waaaay beyond in jpeg. Good technique and quality (not necessarily expen$ive) glass will do marvelously. Case in point: the grand little 18-55 mm "kit" lens Nikon supplies with some of its cameras. One heckuva capable lens, IMO! Another one is the Nikon 50 mm f/1.8...75mm equivalent,gives the fabled 85mm f/1.4 a run for its money, inexpen$ive, light, sharp and FAST!

I didn't mention camera brands, either. Canon has about 70% of the market, Nikon ~30, and the others are scrambling for the remaining 10%! They ALL make good machinery! It's all about what their ad departments can talk you into believing.

Myself: I have the 17-55 mm lens, a 10 year old 28-105, and the "Iron Duke", my 25+ year old 70-210 (105-315mm equivalent) D series lens, that is heavy, "slow" and sharp as a tack. Great all-around lens! I recently acquired a 70-300 VR,(Happy birthday to me!) which is becoming my sports, wildlife, air show and race track lens. Perfectly adequate for my needs. Would I like the 80-200mm f/2.8? O heck yes! But; fixed income being what it is, in my dreams! Do I feel underprivilegd, with my "old" lenses? Nope!

But, my shooting buddy just bought him the smaller Sigma 18-200 lens for a "walking around" lens, and it has nearly replaced his 100-400 Siggy "big gun" at the racetrack. It is light, has a great range, decent quality, and best yet, doesn't require the selling of your left reproductive attribute to finance. Hmmmm...that looks like a good travel lens, and I can't borrow his'n. He are a Canon shooter. Hee Hee!

HOLY COW Lefty, that's purely amazing!

When I was in the Air Force, the old camera repair Sergeants told us that when our Graflex lenses got bad chips in them, they filled them with black paint to cut the reflections, and returned them to service.

I talked to a Nikon rep once, and he told me they had mounted a camera with the 50mm f/1.8 on an Indy car during the Memorial Day 500. After the race, the front element was well and truly sandblasted and oily, but still produced respectable images. I couldn't see how that was possible and still don't, but the proof is staring us in the face. Much food for thought.

I guess the arguments re: sharpness with/without filters ir uncleaned lens elements can be relegated to very minor concerns.
No matter what kind of filter/goobers you have on your lens, it will not degrade the image nearly as much as the damage to that lens did.

Thanx.

Subpar filters absolutely can/will/do crush IQ...............

Stick; Absolutely, no doubt about it... but the big question is; "How Much?" as shown in the abused lens post, acceptable sharpness can be achieved under severe circumstances.

I did it on purpose...taking graduation pixes of my granddughter with a Tiffen black softnet filter hung on me lens. I enlarged them to 11 X 14, for entry into our County fair. The photo was a bit "soft" at larger sizes, meaning not "tack sharp", but excellent. (others' opinions, not mine) The main portrait thing was present...EYES sharply focused! She and her parents love the photos.

We agonize over the "correct" lens to produce the sharpest photos, not realizing that NOBODY ever set out to make a "bad" lens. Unless a lens has been truly brutalized, it WILL take sharp photos, if our technique is up to it. For ultimate sharp, go to medium format, or the old-timey giant killer, 4X5.

But, since we are talking real world, and what most of us mere mortals can afford, less obsession with "My lens/camera/etc. is sharper'n yourn, and I got the figgers to prove it!", then believing that throwing money at the problem will solve it, when in actuality, more learning the capabilities of the glass we have and even more important, like in football,"going back to the fundamentals" will provide a lot more satisfaction with our photgraphy, and development of our "eye", which is the main ingredient of good photography. Equipment is only a minor part of this wonderful, magical process called photography.

Don't worry about lens resolution, or megapixels, or gigaframmises,and shoot pictures. The more we shoot, the better we get!