Nikon equipment

sparker

sparker

Messages
585
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi and good morning, I'm after some advice please and I'm sorry if its been done many times before.
I am looking to get back into photography and am new to digital SLRs. In the past I have owned Canon EOS 35mm but always fancied Nikon.
Now... I have been looking around at the Nikon range and, as usual, am confused by the diffenent models. I want to make the right choice first time. I don't need all the bells and whistles of a top of the range model but something mid range which will allow me to grow with experience. I would also like a bit of help with the range of lenses.
Is there a site which could help? Can you recommend a decent publication?
Many thanks in advance.

Simon
 
This is pretty much the site to go to for help :)
For starting out I would recommend the generation before this one, they are still phenominal cameras and will give you room to grow without being too expencive.

Best value nikon for your money right now: D5000 as they recently bombed in price with the D5100s release, lower med range.

Best value with lenses factored in: D90 can use both AF and AF-S lenses

I would avoid the D3100 now that the D5000 is the price that it.

If money isn't a factor get a D7000 and go nuts.

edit: missed the lenses. AF-S is newer and will focus on all cameras, AF is older and so you need a camera that is backwards compatible if you will. Nikons don't have image stabilization in the bodies and instead have VR (or the sigma, tamron equivalent). The VR version is always far more expensive than the non-VR. I'm personally not that sold on VR, we were fine without it back in the day, you just have to use your head and use faster shutter speeds or a tripod (in fact if you are using a tripod then VR should be turned off anyway), I prefer the older 18-70 AF-S to the kit lens for example. Should be noted that the 55-200 AF-S VR is one of the best value for money lenses you can get though. Another lens everyone will tell you to get is the 35mm 1.8 prime, it's a bargain at around £200 and is our nifty 50.
 
Last edited:
As above have a look at the D90. Go into a shop hold it in your hand and see how it feels before you decide.
 
Thanks guys. Am I, then, right in thinking I should look for a D50, D60, D70, D80 or D90? Do they all have motor drives in the bodies?
 
Correct, although D80 is the lowest I would recommend you go in the range.
 
The D60 does not have a motor the rest do they are all fairly old models. If you need a motor then the D80 would be the oldest I'd look at but I'd really be tempted and spend the extra 100£ or so and buy a s/h D90.

If you don't care about the motor the D5100 is the way to go with tons of features.

Why Nikon? any specific reasons? You might be better served by other manufacturers actually like Sony or Pentax...
 
hehe love it when fans of other brands do this.

Begon with thee he be one of ours and we be keeping him

:nikon:
 
Go out and try a Nikon or two - see if you like the control dials, how they are to change settings, if you like the menu systems, if you like the way that Nikons display settings information in the viewfinder, ergonomically how it is (obviously this varies from the entry level all the way up to the pro bodies, so best to try out a few different body types). If it clicks with you, then go down the Nikon route. If it doesn't, try a few of the other mainstream manufacturers - at the end of the day, for what you want, all the cameras out there will produce great results, it's just what sort of controls & camera body ergonomics that you wish to use.

Decca said:
I would avoid the D3100 now that the D5000 is the price that it.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree - the D3100 is an awful lot of camera for the money, and it has a bigger screen than the D5000, it's cheaper, offers better ISO performance, although the swivel screen is perhaps useful on the D5000 the D3100 has better video performance (although buying a Nikon for video performance is like buying a sports car to carry furniture - you *could* use it for that task but it would be a silly idea to).

That said, depending on your budget (if you state a firm budget it makes things much easier, and whether or not you don't mind buying second hand) the camera that classically fits what you want - a camera to grow into - has always been the D90.
 
Last edited:
Two things.

1. What do you shoot?
2. Budget?
 
Another one to consider is the D200. Can pick them up for decent money now can't you?
 
What will I shoot?....well general stuff really, family portraits, general landscapes but I know what will happen, once I start.........
I really enjoy candid portraits.
I don't mind second hand at all and the buget is around £500.00 including a good lens. I was thinking of something around a 28-105 ish?
 
Hmm, D90 + 18-105 sounds like it would fit you nicely but even second hand it's out of reach for £500. You could alternatively consider getting a used body (one of several models mentioned so far) and a 50mm f/1.8 prime which would be great for portraits - but you'd lose the versatility of a zoom, which many people don't like, and that lens would probably not be so good for some of the other stuff you want to shoot.

Grays of Westminster currently has a D3100 with lower shutter count for £339, leaving you £160 to get a lens - you could easily get an 18-105 for that price, or for £80-100 the 50mm f/1.8 prime. MPB Photographic has a D3100 for £314 leaving £186 for glass. They also have several D200's, worth a look.
 
Or this?

Great store and great combo. Image stabilisation built in and a better camera than the D3100 in far too many ways.

If you can't afford the D5100 or the D90 then the K-r is a great camera especially when you get two lenses with it :)
 
Last edited:
noooooooooo 18-105 is a dog, he would be better off getting the D90 + a cheap kit 18-55 VR from ebay, it's half the price and twice as good and then the 55-200 VR a bit later on. After that get the 35mm 1.8 and start saving for the more expensive glass.

I had a D3100, it was frustrating, gimped and the light meter was a random number generator. It was good at first but then you end up with nowhere to go and no option of using the cheap AF lenses. This is fine for the D3100s target audience but no good if you intend to use it daily for the next few years.
I much prefer the D300, sure you need to watch your histogram like a hawk but the pictures it produces are much better and oddly the shutter speed with the same light/lens/iso/conditions is much much faster, which is quite shocking when you consider that the D3100 has supposedly better/newer guts.
 
I've just been looking at the spec sheet for the D200, they look quite good. What are your thoughts on that for an all round body?
 
vrapan said:
Or this?

Great store and great combo. Image stabilisation built in and a better camera than the D3100 in far too many ways.

If you can't afford the D5100 or the D90 then the K-r is a great camera especially when you get two lenses with it :)
Click to expand...



CUt2hl.jpg
 
sparker said:
I've just been looking at the spec sheet for the D200, they look quite good. What are your thoughts on that for an all round body?
Click to expand...

It's unbelievably well built, iso isn't as good as the latest models but it's new enough to have 11 point focus system which is very very usefull.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/


edit: I just reeled off from memory how many focus points a camera I don't own has didn't I? :(
 
Last edited:
Decca said:
noooooooooo 18-105 is a dog, he would be better off getting the D90 + a cheap kit 18-55 VR from ebay, it's half the price and twice as good and then the 55-200 VR a bit later on. After that get the 35mm 1.8 and start saving for the more expensive glass.

I had a D3100, it was frustrating, gimped and the light meter was a random number generator. It was good at first but then you end up with nowhere to go and no option of using the cheap AF lenses. This is fine for the D3100s target audience but no good if you intend to use it daily for the next few years.
I much prefer the D300, sure you need to watch your histogram like a hawk but the pictures it produces are much better and oddly the shutter speed with the same light/lens/iso/conditions is much much faster, which is quite shocking when you consider that the D3100 has supposedly better/newer guts.
Click to expand...

I haven't personally used the 18-105, but I hadn't heard that it was that bad. Besides, he mentioned candids, an 18-55 is just a little too short for that IMO. Although I agree that it's preferable to have a body that can provide autofocus for AF-D lenses, you have only recommended lenses which are AF-S anyway? :shrug:

I should amend what I said earlier, since the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D won't autofocus on the D3100 so ignore that suggestion.

Comparing the current entry level camera to an older pro DX body is also pretty pointless, no? The D300 was, at one point, the second highest camera in the Nikon family (second only to the D3), so it's a really fruitless comparison. And the D300 is still far more expensive, second hand. Equating newer with better isn't always great - I can pick up a D3100 today but a 4 year old well used D3 would still stomp it to bits.

The D200 wouldn't be a bad bet for general photography at all.
 
Last edited:
D3100 has the latest generation of tech, newer processor, sensor and light meter, theoretically it should be better than the D300 in some ways, it isn't, also it has this really love and obsession with magenta. The 18-105 really was that bad, it's on a par with the 18-200 in quality, soft, poor focusing speed and bad vignetting/pincushioning (fyi there is no PS/lightroom lens correct settings for it so you are screwed if you are in a hurry)

Two good and cheap AF lenses:
Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF
Sigma 70-300 AF

:p
 
That's all well and true, but you talked about shutter speed (which I'm interpreting as shutter lag). Entry level cameras haven't been designed to absolutely minimise shutter lag and quick operation like the professional bodies were - the D300 you have is designed for pro usage, unlike the D3100. It also has the latest generation of tech, but shutter lag is often still a mechanical process, and the mechanics are likely to be of superior design and quality in the pro bodies. The D3100 is newer, but if you continuously snapped away on a D3100 and a D300, the D3100 would be more likely to suffer shutter failure first. It's just not a fair comparison at all.
 
That's interesting and the first plausible explanation I've had, perhaps it's calculated into the D3100s display. The test photos I took showed the D300 taking pictures at 1500 where as the D3100 was 640.
 
I dont think the 18-105 is as bad as you make out.

I haven't had any issues with it focussing and I have taken some nice sharp images with it.
 
:D Clear as mud:D So...if I can't stretch to a D90, a D200 will suffice perfectly well?...and don't go with the 18-105mm, rather a something to 55 and the a 55 to something?:thinking:
 
sparker said:
What will I shoot?....well general stuff really, family portraits, general landscapes but I know what will happen, once I start.........
I really enjoy candid portraits.
I don't mind second hand at all and the buget is around £500.00 including a good lens. I was thinking of something around a 28-105 ish?
Click to expand...

For those requirements and that budget I'd have a look at something like the combination below or as an alternative a Canon 20D and a similar lens. You'd arguably get better value for money going the Canon route.

And before someone says "fanboy" I'm using Nikon, just now :p

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...r-cameras/fujifilm-s3-pro-digital-slr-camera/

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...nses/sigma-24-70mm-f/2.8-ex-dg-df,-nikon-fit/
 
Can't go wrong with a D90/D200 and the kit 18-55 AF-S VR to start with, value for money the kit lens is the best bargin around and a jolly fine starting point, don't pay new prices for them I've seen them go for £60 on ebay auctions.

edit: you can pick up the sigma AF 70-300 (no image stabilization) for £80
 
Last edited:
Decca said:
D3100 has the latest generation of tech, newer processor, sensor and light meter, theoretically it should be better than the D300 in some ways, it isn't, also it has this really love and obsession with magenta. The 18-105 really was that bad, it's on a par with the 18-200 in quality, soft, poor focusing speed and bad vignetting/pincushioning (fyi there is no PS/lightroom lens correct settings for it so you are screwed if you are in a hurry)

Two good and cheap AF lenses:
Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF
Sigma 70-300 AF

:p
Click to expand...

Mank said:
I dont think the 18-105 is as bad as you make out.

I haven't had any issues with it focussing and I have taken some nice sharp images with it.
Click to expand...

I agree with Mank, my 18-105VR is sharp and it always focuses fast. I have a 50mm f1.8, 300mm f4 AFS and a Tamron 90mm macro and while the 18-105 is not quite as sharp as those, you have to pixel peep to see the difference.

Lightroom 3.4 has a lens correction profile for the 18-105mm VR so distortion correction is a one click job.

I think Helen must have had a faulty copy of the 18-105. Mine is anything but a "dog". I would highly recommend it as a starter walkabout lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top