advertisement


Older Nikon Digital SLR

garyi

garyi

leave blank
Looking around the bay there seems to be bargains out there but its difficult to make sense of it all.

Its probably fair to say the D50 is the lowest in the pile, I was wondering if there are some older nikons which would technically be better than the d50, for instance I see a D1X on ebay for a couple of hundred.

Now I have some lenses I am just interested to know whats out there that is not necessarily the latest and greatest.

Regarding the D50 a faster frame rate would be nice as would a lower ISO looking around 200 seems quite high, apparently my E10 went down a lot lower.

Ultimate size is not so important to me, I notice that I don't print a terrific amount and those I rarely do tend to be Apple Books which arn't large anyhow.

Cheers

(I also look forward to being told to learn how to use a camera first and to get a film camera etc etc)
 
Gary,
I've recently done exactly what you're faced with. I had a point and shoot Canon which I gradually became more disatisfied with. What annoyed me was the eternity it took to take a picture and the awkward manual control mechanism.

The D50 is the cheapest serious DSLR at the moment, I think. Jessops have a very good offer on. The camera and kit lens will cost £400, but by the time you've bought the obligatory SD card, filter and camera bag my total was £460 odd. You also get the chance to have a hands-on demo.

The quality of image is not as good as my old Olympus OM1N film camera. The pictures aren't as sharp and clear. But then that camera with the standard 50mm lens was one of the best cameras around at the price.

This week's AP had a very interesting article that I wish I'd read before buying! I mostly take landscape photos these days and digital cameras struggle with this kind of picture. Where there is a big contrast between the darkest and brightest object in the picture, digital cameras don't have as much dynamic range to show detail in both the bright and the dark objects. Ho-hum.

Just some thoughts that you might find useful.
 
Gary,

Older Nikons, like the D1X and D1H, are still useable cameras and many are being used by pros today, but sensor technology advances quickly. If you sold your D50 for a D1X, you'd be trading a better sensor for a more robust body with a better viewfinder -- not altogether a bad swap, but it's a bit like swapping an entry-level 2006 Intel iMac for a top-of-the-line G4 tower from 2002.

As for the E10 going down to 50 ISO... that's more to do with its sensor being noisy at higher ISOs. In other words, many digital cameras let you set the ISO to 50 precisely because their sensors aren't sensitive enough to give clean, noise-free pix at, say, ISO 200 or 400.

My suggestion would be to quit worrying whether the grass is greener. You have a good camera and a couple of decent lenses, so put your effort into learning the art of photography. Oh, and buy Leica and a decent drum scanner.

Joe

P.S. The D50 may be the lowest in the pile (so what?), but it has lower sensor noise at high ISOs than Nikon's best, the D2X.
 
Thanks Joe. Looking at the spec though in terms of sensor technology are you saying the D50s pixels are better as well as more?

I am only asking because the D1x has 5.2 meg approx so I would lose one megs, but by god the shutter speed is significantly faster. That coupled with 5 FPS against 1.2 FPS could make a compelling purchase.

I have a manual macro lens as well and I am struggling with focus, never quite getting things sharp, I might get me eyes tested! But also the d50 viewfinder is just not great.

Anyhow I am going to put a speculative punt in on the D1x and see what happens no loss either way.

There was talk of two different types of sensor, the D50 using a lesser quality one (Sorry I am not being very technical here) I would have assumed the D1x uses the best for the time, certainly at a cost of around £3000 new in its time.

Its important to point out that I just don't do a terrific amount of printing, its more the enjoyment of getting out and about and playing with settings etc.

Thanks for the info on the iso, I see what you mean.
 
garyi said:
Its important to point out that I just don't do a terrific amount of printing, its more the enjoyment of getting out and about and playing with settings etc.
Click to expand...
Well at least that stops you from running on the field and belting the referee:D
 
But Matthew I can't help myself, its a thing I have.

My speculative bid is around half of what they are second hand in shops so I am just riding the frenzy right now.

I enjoy it. I have taken many shots with my macro lens I will put them up and you can all comment how not very sharp they are.

Hang on.
 
Put another way if the D1x and D50 were around at the same time, the D1x being 200 quid more (i.e. D70) which would you go for D50 or D1X?
 
All of these have undergone a little sharpening in Aperture and the frog was cropped the other two not cropped.

Its nice using a proper macro lens.

macro1.jpg


macro2.jpg


macro3.jpg


Admittedly they are not going to be lighting the fires of cutting edge photographic techniques but there you go I am one of those product bitches as we all know. (but i drive around in a clapped out car, admit it gents we all lust after things)
 
Gary,

The D50's sensor is better. And, for what it's worth, the D1X has weird sensor...

ccd-d1x.gif


...where the pixels aren't square.

The D1X's pixel grid layout is rectangular rather than square (though still uses the Bayer GRGB colour filter array), in camera processing turns the 4028 x 1324 raw pixels (5.33 megapixel) into a 3008 x 1960 pixel image (5.9 megapixel). While it's clear that some interpolation is being carried out in the vertical direction (to get from 1324 rows to 1960 rows) there is also compression in the horizontal direction (reducing from 4028 to 3008 columns), this compression is used to add detail to the vertical data. Nikon argue that because the input and output resolution are almost identical no image degradation will be visible.
Click to expand...

Joe
 
Nice barbed wire picture Gary. If you crop it even tighter it might start to take on properties of something other than barbed wire. Have a go.

Gary junior shot I like too. Again I'd get in tighter still and try for something more interesting than a window frame reflected in his (or her?) eye. How about Mum?
 
Gary,

But Matthew I can't help myself, its a thing I have.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, you should buy the latest 'n' greatest camera from Canon.

Canon is on the bleeding-edge of digital technology but, more important, every model Canon makes is superseded by a better one every eight months, so it'll shorten the time it takes for you to become dissatisfied with the perfectly fine camera you just bought.

Joe
 
Haha thanks Joe.

Messenger man, the macro is nearing the closest I can get with eddie, its a 1.2 and focuses up to around 11cm, I could crop after that but I am just fighting for sharpness. Some of the problem seems to be from low light and having the aperture fully open, and of course the fact its manual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top