new body, or lens for maldives trip...

jordanogrady

jordanogrady

Messages
881
Name
Jordan
Edit My Images
No
Hi everyone,
I've posted on another thread, but it was a very old thread so wasnt sure if anyone would reply to it....

here is what I posted....

Hi guys,
Just thought i'd dig this thread back up, and dont suppose anyone will mind me hi jacking it as it seems dead...
I'm in the same situation at the moment, I have a trip to the maldives coming up in september, and I dont know if I should upgrade any kit before I go.....
I've got a D40 camera, 35mm lens, and a 16-85mm lens (I sold the kit lens)

Now I was considering upgrading the body to a D90, but will I see a noticeable gain from the D40? Or should I spend the money on a good glass?

I do read alot on the forum, and dont post that much as I search and find what i'm looking for most of the time.... but sometimes silly questions need to be asked!

I was talking to a photographer the other day at a wedding (I'm a magician) and he was saying that I should spend the cash on a good lens, a 2.8f one, that I will get better results even on the camera i'm using!

So would I be better off getting something like this...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-70mm.htm
and sticking with the D40....

Or what about a fixed prime lens like the 35mm that i'm using! I really love the images from this, the DOF on the lens is really good... or even a wide angle one for the maldives?

Any thoughts greatly appreciated!

Jordan
Click to expand...

Basically, not sure if I need better lens's or all my gear is totally fine to get good snaps!

As its our honeymoon, I just want the best images possible! I may even need to take a cheap small tripod to get some shots of us on the beach on an evening....

Thoughts anyone?

Thanks
Jordan
 
I'm not sure if the D40 will do justice to the 24-70 but it's a cracking lens and gives far superior image quality to most other lenses in the range, you can't go wrong in buying it but you might want to upgrade your camera body to get the best from it.
 
gramps said:
I'm not sure if the D40 will do justice to the 24-70 but it's a cracking lens and gives far superior image quality to most other lenses in the range, you can't go wrong in buying it but you might want to upgrade your camera body to get the best from it.
Click to expand...

I probably couldn't afford to do both, and maybe not even the lens just at this moment in time, but we dont go away till september, so may be able to scrape some funds up by then!

Hmmmm :shrug:
 
I'd consider adding a longer lens but there's nothing wrong with what you've got. I don't think swapping your 16-85mm for the 24-70mm would be sensible, great as the 24-70mm is, as you'd lose out at both ends of the 16-85mm's range and you're not going anywhere where the f2.8 maximum aperture is really needed. It's not as if the 16-85mm gives poor results anyway.

Jonathan
 
I've went to the Maldives earlier in the year albeit I was on a SCUBA liveaboard.

Still, I found 50mm on my film camera to be perfect for most things so your 35mm should be good. The 18-105 on my D90 would have been great if I didn't have my 10-20 permanently attached.

So, if I were you I'd get a UWA and learn how to use it. I wouldn't bother with the 16-85 as although it is an excellent lens it is pricey for what it is (or rather what it offers you over any of the kit lenses).
 
there is a very real and noticeable difference going form the 40 to 90. I did that upgrade at Christmas time. You'll pick up 2 stops of ISO for starters. The extra MP are nice if you find yourself cropping a lot (which I would with the -85). The screen on the D90 is awesome compared to the D40. It is physically a bigger camera (I always found my little finger off the edge of the D40). Past that, there are a lot of nice functionality upgrades like dual wheels, dedicated buttons for ISO, AF, etc., and plenty of other features that you may or may not like.

The ISO, screen, and MP (in that order) were the first major improvements. The screw drive motor is nice if you want to buy AF lenses.

I would upgrade the body. The problem with upgrading the lens is that no matter what you upgrade to, you're going to need another lens to make up what you're loosing. If you go 17-55, you'll need a longer lens. If you go 24-70 you're giving up the wide angles (and a bit of tele). The 17-70 Sigma is possible, but I don't know if it is truly an upgrade.

Thanks
Rick
 
Snapsh0t said:
I'd consider adding a longer lens but there's nothing wrong with what you've got. I don't think swapping your 16-85mm for the 24-70mm would be sensible, great as the 24-70mm is, as you'd lose out at both ends of the 16-85mm's range and you're not going anywhere where the f2.8 maximum aperture is really needed. It's not as if the 16-85mm gives poor results anyway.

Jonathan
Click to expand...

Cheers for that! so the 2.8F wont get me any better results in this setting...

The 16-85 is a great lens, and its on the camera 99% of the time!

Jordan
 
Nawty said:
I've went to the Maldives earlier in the year albeit I was on a SCUBA liveaboard.

Still, I found 50mm on my film camera to be perfect for most things so your 35mm should be good. The 18-105 on my D90 would have been great if I didn't have my 10-20 permanently attached.

So, if I were you I'd get a UWA and learn how to use it. I wouldn't bother with the 16-85 as although it is an excellent lens it is pricey for what it is (or rather what it offers you over any of the kit lenses).
Click to expand...

I already have the 16-85. I sold the kit lens and got this.

Yeah the 35mm is a great lens, so wont be parting with it!

Jordan
 
casts_by_fly said:
there is a very real and noticeable difference going form the 40 to 90. I did that upgrade at Christmas time. You'll pick up 2 stops of ISO for starters. The extra MP are nice if you find yourself cropping a lot (which I would with the -85). The screen on the D90 is awesome compared to the D40. It is physically a bigger camera (I always found my little finger off the edge of the D40). Past that, there are a lot of nice functionality upgrades like dual wheels, dedicated buttons for ISO, AF, etc., and plenty of other features that you may or may not like.

The ISO, screen, and MP (in that order) were the first major improvements. The screw drive motor is nice if you want to buy AF lenses.

I would upgrade the body. The problem with upgrading the lens is that no matter what you upgrade to, you're going to need another lens to make up what you're loosing. If you go 17-55, you'll need a longer lens. If you go 24-70 you're giving up the wide angles (and a bit of tele). The 17-70 Sigma is possible, but I don't know if it is truly an upgrade.

Thanks
Rick
Click to expand...

Cheers for that rick!

I was considering the D90 upgrade, but wasnt sure if I would benefit that much from it, but i'm guessing that I will! Shouldn't cost me that much to swap the camera's too!

I'll keep my eye out on the forum for one!


Jordan
 
I recently got the 24-70 and was blown away by it. Much better than anything other than a prime, and then it's still pretty close. However, even 2nd hand it's £900. Ideally get a d90 the 24-70, although if I had to choose I would go d90 as it is a big upgrade from d40.
 
cambsno said:
I recently got the 24-70 and was blown away by it. Much better than anything other than a prime, and then it's still pretty close. However, even 2nd hand it's £900. Ideally get a d90 the 24-70, although if I had to choose I would go d90 as it is a big upgrade from d40.
Click to expand...

I just had people telling me that the picture quality is in the lens, rightly so, but as I only have the D40 then probably the 1st upgrade would be the D90 then to look at different lenses once I've got used to it!


I wouldn't know what prime to get....

The main thing I'll be shooting (I'm guessing) is the wife, and the sun set's..... ????

Beach shots, day and night!
 
daugirdas said:
Perhaps you'd fancy something really wide for sceneries, or longer for a bit of wildlife? I just don't know what you may like to do.
Click to expand...

Not really into wild life to be honest... But wide maybe.. I've even considered a fisheye as I do love the results!
 
jordanogrady said:
Cheers for that! so the 2.8F wont get me any better results in this setting...

The 16-85 is a great lens, and its on the camera 99% of the time!

Jordan
Click to expand...
I doubt you'll see any benefit from the 24-70mm on a 6MP camera.

I agree on 16-85mm - had one for several years and use it most of the time. The rest of the time it's my Sigma 50-150mm f2.8.

Personally, I'd stay with what you have and know rather than trying to get to grips with a new (camera!) body before your trip. I think you may have other distractions anyway once you're there. :D

Jonathan
 
D90 is a big step up from D40, not only in megapixel and ISO stakes (not a massive issue in 'sunny 16' maldives), but in handling... Are you unhappy with the results that you get from the D40, or is there something in the handling that's annoying you? If everything is tickety-boo, I'd look at lenses first and foremost. However, the 16-85 is a good lens (as is the 35mm) and TBH, going and getting a 24-70 will probably leave you frustrated at not having a wide end like you have at the moment..... it's not a lens designed for DX; if you are going to go down that fast aperture route, get the 17-55mm f/2.8 instead..
 
I suppose it's just the fact that I want something new! Maybe I don't need it! Yeah the results I'm getting are fine, I've had the camera over a Year now, and I'm starting to mess with the settings a little more Like the iso. Also im mainly shooting in Aperture mode all the time, so may try to move to manual. I'm still getting to grips with what everything does, and actually understanding what the shutter speed will be like when in different aperture modes, and different times high or low light.

Maybe I don't need anything new for the trip, I just thought I was ready for an upgrade in something :-)
 
If you want to take decent holiday snaps in a hot bright country like Maldives, then lenses you have are fine, in terms of image qualilty. It'll be so bright, you'll need to close aperture even on you 16-85. And when dialled down a few stops, you'll be hard pushed to see a major difference between the lenses.

And contrary to a lot of MP BS, 6MP you get from your D40 will be enough for A3 prints, so long as you nail the focus and get fast enough shutter speed. Are you likely to want to print any larger?

A common mistake in holiday shots are racoon eyes from harsh sunshine outdoors. You'll want to use fill in flash to lift the horrid dark shadows, and the tiny built in flash on your D40 won't be powerful enough to balance the sun at f16. If anything I'd buy something like SB600 or the latest SB700, and get a bounce card/diffuser like Lumiquest Quikbounce or Bigbounce, or something similar. They take no space, lightweight, and you'll be able to come home with plenty of happy holiday snaps which will actually look good.

Keep your gear bag light, and enjoy the HOLIDAY. You are going to one of the best resort island on earth, for goodness sake! :-)
 
^^^ totally agree, don't get me wrong, I went from a D60 to D90 and enjoyed the upgrade massively but that was for the heft of the camera and the controls that were at my fingers, not so much because of the image quality.

Also, the D40 has a higher sync speed than the D90 so fill flash will be easier to do without over exposing.

Given that you have the 16-85 and 35mm (sorry, missed that) then I stick by what I said, for shots in the Maldives I would get a UWA and learn how to use it.

On the other hand, if you've got upgraditis then spend on whatever makes you feel happy :D
 
Dumb moment, what's UWA...

I already have a SB600 flash, with stofen.

I'll take your advice then, and just stick with what I have. If a cheap D90 pops up, I may be tempted, and yes the 6MP is well enough for me!
 
jordanogrady said:
Dumb moment, what's UWA...
Click to expand...

Ultra Wide Angle like the 10-20

Personally I think you have everything you need already. Enjoy your holiday & don't worry about the latest & greatest lenses and bodies.
 
Ah cheers!
I was thinking about a fisheye. But not for this holiday, just for fun :-)

Thanks for the comments again everyone, it's great help.

I don't have a wide angle lens... Maybe worth a punt :) I'll take a look.

The other reason why I thought a D90 may be good, is that it has the motor for the lenses, then can buy different lenses. But again, not needed really.
 
I'd agree with the others who say your current gear is good enough but if you want an excuse to upgrade the D90 will certainly be a step up but you may not want to take a new camera to an environment with lots of sand and seawater. When I went to the Maldives (in the days when film still ruled!) I just took an slr and 50mm lens (equivalent to your 35mm on a D40). If I was going again I would certainly take my 16-85 and D90 as a good weight/quality compromise. I would also take a polarising filter and either a waterproof digital compact or one of those disposable waterproof cameras that cost just a few pounds - you won't get high quality photos from them but you will get interesting ones especially if you go on one of the snorkeling trips.

Have a great holiday (it would be hard not to there :) )
 
If you are going to the Maldives, you are possibly better off buying an underwater housing. We went there pre-children and all I took was a cheaper underwater throwaway camera rather than a housing for my Canon EOS 5. Boy, do I regret not buying the housing!
 
I would agree with the underwater housing. Maybe look for a compact and cheap housing for it. It's absolutely the best place ive been for that. I wish then I'd had the skills i have now to make use of the experience.
 
For my two pence worth, I am not enough of an expert to comment about your selection of lenses but you have to take some kind of underwater housing even if it is for a compact of some kind. Even if you only go snorkeling, it is absolutely worth having it! If you intend to go diving it is a must. I wish I had thought of it before I went.
 
Yeah I was already looking into an underwater compact camera, I dont THINK i want the bulk of the underwater housing to be honest!

Ideas for underwater camera then?

We like the look of the fuji XP30 camera!

Jordan
 
FWIW I would steer clear of Fuji's for underwater photography, every one I've seen and used just can't do blues properly.

Canons, on the other hand give wonderful UW pics :)
 
Digital Photo magazine arrived today with a feature on underwater compacts. Worth a look. The Panasonic Lumix FT3 came out top on test.
 
Phil1974 said:
Digital Photo magazine arrived today with a feature on underwater compacts. Worth a look. The Panasonic Lumix FT3 came out top on test.
Click to expand...

I'll have a look into that! Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top