advertisement


One more question on Prime Lenses (honest)

I would say the view finder on the D50 is pretty shitty.

Its basically ruled out manual focus for me, any low light shots with a manual have always been out of focus. I have good eye sight and the eye piece is set correctly, you just can't see much through it. The E10 was better in that regard (Although I did play with a friends reasonably expensive Canon DSLR and the finder through that was significantly better still)
 
Gary,

Its basically ruled out manual focus for me, any low light shots with a manual have always been out of focus. I have good eye sight and the eye piece is set correctly, you just can't see much through it.
Click to expand...
As Tony would say, "Nail, hammer, thwack!"

The Pentax *ist DS is a bit of an anomaly among reasonably priced D-SLRs in that it has a decent finder, especially in its class. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the D50, D70, D100, as well as the various Canon Digital Rebels.

If you want a proper finder, one that's good enough to manually focus, it seems you have but two choices -- the Pentax or the much more expensive Nikon and Canon cameras.

Joe
 
Indeed.

At least with the cheap DSLRs coming onto market it allows people like me to have a go and keep our lenses if we do choose to spend out on the more expensive stuff, presumably the whole point.

Now just when I really want to get my 35mm no one selling them is talking to me haha.
 
Don't forget the smaller area of the digital cameras. A 50mm lense on a film SLR works like a 75mm lense on most digital SLRs. This effectively makes it a specialist portrait lense and not much use for general photography.
Likewise to get a proper wide angle fixed lense you need to find something like a 20mm at most (works like a 35mm on digital). And a 20mm is quite an expensive lense.

You might also want to consider that a lense designed for 35mm film will be bigger and heavier than one designed for the smaller digital format. But it won't be any better.

On balance I'd consider the zooms designed specifically for digital eg 18-70mm
They're apparently very good for most purposes.
 
messengerman,

You might also want to consider that a lense designed for 35mm film will be bigger and heavier than one designed for the smaller digital format. But it won't be any better.
Click to expand...
I have old MF Nikkors that are quite a bit better than the 18-70mm DX zoom at the same focal length. Granted, CCD and CMOS sensors put different demands on glass than film does, but you can't assume that a lens designed with film in mind will be crap on a digital body.

Joe
 
I just ordered the lens from Microglobe and got this email:

Microglobe
Thank for purchse.
Your order will be processed and dispatched by Royal Mail recorded or special delivery,
so the item will have to be signed for. We will update you when we ship the good to you.
Royal Mail will only attempt to deliver the parcel once.
If you are not available when the postman attempts delivery a ' while you were out ' notice will be left which has thier phone number.
If you fail to do so Royal mail will return the parcel to us.
Then you will be required to pay a second postage before we resend it to you

Should I be concerned?
 
I think it just means that if you're out when the royal mail try to deliver it, you'll need to collect it from your local sorting office or post office.

Heath
 
My main concern Heath was the appalling grammar and spelling. Now I am aware I am famous for my appalling grammar and spelling but I am not an online shop selling expensive items. That text is copied and pasted from the email.
 
guybat said:
The Nikon D70 is/was more aimed at the Canon 20D.
Click to expand...
In trying to understand how Canon bodies map to Nikon's I'm told by AJ Purdy that the D70s is not comparable to the 30D. Though it seems perhaps better built than the 350D. They said they considered the 30D to be aimed at the D200, but that the D200 kind of sits above the 30D, but below the 5D. I still cant really decide whether there is any like for like comparison between the models in each range. :confused:

In some ways I dont like the logic which lies behind the 2/3rd sized CCD's in the Nikon range, though I understand why it is that way. Though their offering of the DX lenses provides a solution. It seems Nikon dont plan to offer a full frame CCD so I would like to think buying into their tech and this compatible lenses would provide a reasonable investment vs lifespan (presuming Sony dont pull the rug on the use of the CCD technology).

Conversely from what I've read, there are some technical issues with the full sized CMOS in the Canon 5D and anything below that is reduced frame anyway.

It's stuff like this that has always held me back from committing to D SLR in the past.
 
garyi said:
My main concern Heath was the appalling grammar and spelling.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I just get used to seeing it in your posts :D

I wouldn't worry about it. I've had loads of order confirmation emails containing grammatical and spelling errors. I think it usually means the dyslexic IT nerd who wrote it didn't use a spell check and the sales dept/management either don't know about it (because they never see the emails being sent out) or don't know how to change it. I get more worried when I don't get a confirmation email from an online order.

Heath
 
Greg,

In trying to understand how Canon bodies map to Nikon's I'm told by AJ Purdy that the D70s is not comparable to the 30D. Though it seems perhaps better built than the 350D.
Click to expand...
Nikon bodies don't map exactly to Canon bodies and vice versa. The sensible approach it is to see what x pounds will buy from either manufacturer, taking into account the whole system -- camera, lens options, future compatibility and upgradeability.


They said they considered the 30D to be aimed at the D200, but that the D200 kind of sits above the 30D, but below the 5D. I still cant really decide whether there is any like for like comparison between the models in each range.
Click to expand...
The D200's closest competitor is the 5D.


In some ways I dont like the logic which lies behind the 2/3rd sized CCD's in the Nikon range, though I understand why it is that way. Though their offering of the DX lenses provides a solution. It seems Nikon dont plan to offer a full frame CCD so I would like to think buying into their tech and this compatible lenses would provide a reasonable investment vs lifespan (presuming Sony dont pull the rug on the use of the CCD technology).
Click to expand...
If you want full frame you have one choice -- Canon. And if you go with Canon, you either pay a lot for a 5D or even more for a 1DS MkII. (Both are more than a D200, which you earlier indicated was getting too dear, so I assume that Canon's full-frame cameras are not contenders.)


Conversely from what I've read, there are some technical issues with the full sized CMOS in the Canon 5D.
Click to expand...
Vignetting with wideangle lenses is the main issue with full frame, although objectionable chromatic aberration can also come into play.



It's stuff like this that has always held me back from committing to D SLR in the past.
Click to expand...
If you want to try digital, take the plunge. Every year you wait is another year you haven't shot any pixels. Besides, if colour prints are what you're after, reasonably priced digital now equals or surpasses what you can achieve with 35mm film. (It's more complicated if you shoot slides or artsy B&Ws, but for colour prints I think the case is closed in digital's favour.)

Joe
 
Joe - wise and helpful words. I appreciate your advice, also regards lenses to prioritise.
Ta muchly
Greg
 
greg.

let me add that you should avoid nikon and canon's entry level DSLs like the plague on account of the practically unusable viewfinders. i still maintain that pentax has them clearly beat on this front. now, if are are prepared to spend a pile of money... but then there is the massive problem of not being able to use an aperture ring with canon and the equally annoying bokeh of most nikon lenses.

vuk.
 
Hi vuk. Good point. Actually a few posts earlier has left me thinking I might wait and scrape the extra together for a better body. The viewfinder is important to me (in an amateur context). Any idea if the D200 is supposed to offer something better than those below in the Nikon range?
 
Greg,

The D200 has a good finder -- as does the Pentax at half the price -- but I assumed you wanted to stay with Nikon because you already have some Nikkors.

By the way, if bokeh is important to you choose your Nikkors carefully. Decent bokeh can be had with Nikkors, but you can't bank on every lens having good rendition of out-of-focus elements.

Joe
 
Joe Petrik said:
By the way, if bokeh is important to you choose your Nikkors carefully. Decent bokeh can be had with Nikkors, but you can't bank on every lens having good rendition of out-of-focus elements.
Click to expand...

I was so intrigued by the word 'bokeh' that I caved in and looked it up on Wikipedia. I was convinced that it had something to do with 'bloke-iness' but it would appear not.
 
Joe,

Confession time: In my neophyte bokeh days, I honestly thought the word was blokeh and I pronounced it bloke, eh. Maybe we could petition dictionaries and whoever polices words on the Net that that should be both the accepted spelling and the official pronunciation of the word.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top