advertisement


which basic Nikon D-SLR

andc said:
with Pentax being a good option if more budget-conscious.
Click to expand...

Pentax is more the traditionalist option and is the DSLR for people who wish they could still use an FM2, AE-1, K1000.

The big knock against the Pentax is that they don't have the range of lenses that Canon and Nikon do; so if you generally have more choice, especially when it comes to specialist interests like macro, wildlife/sports, etc. E.g. its hard to find a really good 28mm.

"Budget option" also implies that the extra money gets you something that is actually useful and I would be interested in what you think this might be.
 
Seems I have a Nikon nerd reputation to live up to...

What was the question?

Joe
 
matthewr said:
The big knock against the Pentax is that they don't have the range of lenses that Canon and Nikon do; so if you generally have more choice, especially when it comes to specialist interests like macro, wildlife/sports, etc. E.g. its hard to find a really good 28mm.
Click to expand...
What Pentax concedes in range, they make up for in quality. Spades of it. The FA35/2AL is a stunningly good lens, and the somewhat pricey Limited 31mm, 43mm and 77mm are even better. Some of the older, manual focus lenses are also worth hunting out.

James
 
Don't forget that you can also buy some fairly cheap adaptor rings and use a decent old manual lens placed backwards either on the camera body , or filter to filter to get macro shots. This also opens up a whole world of legacy lenses to you and you don't even have to stick to one brand as long as you have the correct size of adaptor ring to couple them.
 
What Pentax concedes in range, they make up for in quality. Spades of it. The FA35/2AL is a stunningly good lens, and the somewhat pricey Limited 31mm, 43mm and 77mm are even better. Some of the older, manual focus lenses are also worth hunting out.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much it. If you want high-quality primes and a nice, light body with good viewfinder Pentax is a great choice. It's where I'd go if starting from scratch, but I have a pile of old Nikkors bought over many years and switching over to another brand would require effort and non-can't-be arsedness.

Another option for "old skoolers", although far more expensive, would be a Nikon D200/D300 or Fuji S5 with a few Carl Zeiss or Voigtlander primes. With Voigtlander you also have the choice of KA-mount primes, so take note Pentax dudes.

http://www.cameraquest.com/Voigt_SL2.htm

If I didn't already have a pancake and a superfast ~50-something, I'd be tempted by the 40mm Ultron and 58mm Nokton, since Ultron and Nokton sound way cooler than AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED.

Joe
 
Vuk,

Just a little misleading. Who's the goth chick?

Joe
 
Joe Petrik said:
Seems I have a Nikon nerd reputation to live up to...

What was the question?

Joe
Click to expand...

On the specialist subject of Nikon nerdery 1977-2007 there were two questions on which you passed:

"Having had a quick look around D70 bodies seem to be low £200s while for not much more (with a Nikon cashback) is a D40 body/lens pack.
Anything to choose between them?"

and:

"if you had to use one - and for fairly close up product work - would you choose a manual 55mm micro-Nikkor or a AF-S DX 18-55mm?"

happy new year!
 
Coda,

"Having had a quick look around D70 bodies seem to be low £200s while for not much more (with a Nikon cashback) is a D40 body/lens pack. Anything to choose between them?"
Click to expand...
Digital cameras depreciate quickly the way computers do, so a used D70 should sell for less than a new D40 and kit lens. The shops probably feel differently, but you could ask why an older, out-of-warranty entry-level camera from 2004 ought to sell for more than a current model, new in the box. The pro Nikons from that time (D1X, D2H, etc.) are worth more, but that's mainly because they're more robust, have better finders and are more compatible with older glass.



"if you had to use one - and for fairly close up product work - would you choose a manual 55mm micro-Nikkor or a AF-S DX 18-55mm?"
Click to expand...
The 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor is indescribably sharper and better corrected than the 18-55mm zoom, especially for macro shots. The only drawback is that you won't have internal metering, so you'll need a handheld meter or will have to bracket to get exposure right, but neither is an issue for macros of ribbons.

Joe

P.S. The scale may tip in favour of the D70 if you shoot RAW and have an older version of Photoshop since newer cameras models are not supported by older RAW plug-in converters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top