|
|
Post by kidrobotct on Mar 18, 2009 9:32:07 GMT -8
Have had a little Nikon D40 for just over a year now and the photog bug has bit me hard.
Primarily take photos of landscapes and people. Sports occasionally. Not pursuing professionally at all but wanting to further the hobby.
contemplating the D300 or jumping to full frame d700. Costs are significantly different. Also looking for suggestions for lenses. Currently have a 50 mm 1.8, 18-55mm and 55-200mm (both 3.5-4.6)
any personal suggestions/biases are welcome :-)
thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Mar 22, 2009 23:25:46 GMT -8
Have had a little Nikon D40 for just over a year now and the photog bug has bit me hard. Primarily take photos of landscapes and people. Sports occasionally. Not pursuing professionally at all but wanting to further the hobby. contemplating the D300 or jumping to full frame d700. Costs are significantly different. Also looking for suggestions for lenses. Currently have a 50 mm 1.8, 18-55mm and 55-200mm (both 3.5-4.6) any personal suggestions/biases are welcome :-) thanks! Just curious, but what is wrong with your D40? I know many people go for the next big camera with the most pixels, but that is not often the best route. I have some great articles to share about why more pixels often equal lesser quality and more noise. I have a Nikon d70s still and when I get that bug to get better pics, I buy a new lens. Nothing beats high quality glass. I have the 50mm 1.8 as well, nice lens for the price. I assume the 18-55 is the kit lens that came with the camera? What specific application are you going to use the camera for? Art, portraiture, events? |
|
|
|
Post by kidrobotct on Mar 23, 2009 4:56:14 GMT -8
the d40 is great and I will keep it. I also realized that the lens is really just as important if not more important than the camera. I completely agree on the mp debate. It was one of the reasons I went with the D40 instead of the d40x at the time. I don't enlarge anything beyond 8 x11 yet anyhow but hoping as my skills and composition get better I can maybe enlarge a few for the house around 16 x 20.
I mainly like taking pictures of landscaping and people. Being a soccer and volleyball player I occasionally take pictures of these as well. Some of the best pictures I've taken have been during inclimate weather or lower light conditions so I'm hoping to make the move to a better camera that has better construction/weather sealing and a better processor.
as for lenses I'm contemplating include the 10.5 fisheye (would really love a fisheye lens), 12-24 f4, 70-200 f2.8 and replacing the 18-55 stock lens with an 18-55 f2.8. My three lenses now are all Nikon but I know the pricing can get up there so any experiences with other lenses like tamron, sigma, tokina would be greatly helpful.
Thanks for your response creep and any additional advice or insight is always appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by becomingrobot on Mar 23, 2009 6:15:12 GMT -8
The Nikon D700 is coming out soon I think. Full HD video capabilities, etc.
Yum.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Mar 23, 2009 13:18:31 GMT -8
the d40 is great and I will keep it. I also realized that the lens is really just as important if not more important than the camera. I completely agree on the mp debate. It was one of the reasons I went with the D40 instead of the d40x at the time. I don't enlarge anything beyond 8 x11 yet anyhow but hoping as my skills and composition get better I can maybe enlarge a few for the house around 16 x 20. I mainly like taking pictures of landscaping and people. Being a soccer and volleyball player I occasionally take pictures of these as well. Some of the best pictures I've taken have been during inclimate weather or lower light conditions so I'm hoping to make the move to a better camera that has better construction/weather sealing and a better processor. as for lenses I'm contemplating include the 10.5 fisheye (would really love a fisheye lens), 12-24 f4, 70-200 f2.8 and replacing the 18-55 stock lens with an 18-55 f2.8. My three lenses now are all Nikon but I know the pricing can get up there so any experiences with other lenses like tamron, sigma, tokina would be greatly helpful. Thanks for your response creep and any additional advice or insight is always appreciated. No problem, glad to help. The Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5, is about $400 cheaper and gets higher marks. That fisheye rules, good lens. And as for a lens to replace the kit, I would go for either of these: Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical IF SP AF Both are reasonably priced, and great lenses. My buddy Jeremy uses the Tamron He has some shots here: www.myspace.com/fgf |
|
|
|
Post by StephenW on Mar 24, 2009 23:08:10 GMT -8
Canon guy here. Was using a 20D and recently picked up a 5D Mark II. Over the years I've built up my lens line-up and recently picked up a Canon 24-70 f/2.8. My only non-Canon lens is my Sigma 15mm fisheye is which awesome in terms of image quality. It's discontinued now though. Was great on my 20D and even better now on my 5DMKII.
kidrobotct - you absolutely hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that having good glass is way more important than the body itself. However, the new bodies definitely have advantages in terms of a more usable high ISO range an d better AF performance (especially with Nikon).
As a landscape shooter a transition to a FF body would be amazing for you. Not sure what the crops are on a nikon body (1.6x?), but even the Sigma 12-24 wouldn't be wide enough and I would imagine it would cause quite a bit of distortion and vignetting. Never used the lens though, so I may be talking out of my butt.
I usually rely on reviews over at fredmiranda.com to do all my lens research.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Mar 25, 2009 10:33:01 GMT -8
Canon guy here. Was using a 20D and recently picked up a 5D Mark II. Over the years I've built up my lens line-up and recently picked up a Canon 24-70 f/2.8. My only non-Canon lens is my Sigma 15mm fisheye is which awesome in terms of image quality. It's discontinued now though. Was great on my 20D and even better now on my 5DMKII. kidrobotct - you absolutely hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that having good glass is way more important than the body itself. However, the new bodies definitely have advantages in terms of a more usable high ISO range an d better AF performance (especially with Nikon). As a landscape shooter a transition to a FF body would be amazing for you. Not sure what the crops are on a nikon body (1.6x?), but even the Sigma 12-24 wouldn't be wide enough and I would imagine it would cause quite a bit of distortion and vignetting. Never used the lens though, so I may be talking out of my butt. I usually rely on reviews over at fredmiranda.com to do all my lens research. Even with the crop factor the vignetting isn't that bad at all, hardly noticeable. The d40 as well is pretty good with noise in the higher iso's. I can say that it is actually better then the d70 and d80. Fred Miranda is a good site. Slrgear.com has some great reviews of lenses |
|
|
|
Post by kidrobotct on Mar 26, 2009 10:45:42 GMT -8
those are great sites! I've been relying on dpreview and steve's digicams in the past. Think i'm going to settle on that sigma 10-20.... the rest i'm still reading up on :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by reactor88 on Apr 1, 2009 10:49:35 GMT -8
|
|
