Posted by Whootsinator Alright now you're mixing stories. First you said the D3000 and D5000 are "both shit". Now you're saying that the D50, that is MORE obsolete than the 'shitty' D3000, is 'still one hell of a camera'. I would think that if you believed the D3000 and D5000 are both shit, then you wouldn't even want to touch a D50. Now if we're talking FOR THE PRICE, a D50 or similar outdated camera would be an excellent jumping-on point to see if you're interested in photography, without investing a small relative fortune on a new entrylevel camera. But saying two new cameras are shit then coming back and saying an even more obsolete camera is 'one hell of a camera' is, well... Shit. edit - Format tweak and grammar. |
Posted by TurboZutek Get the Canon. |
Posted by misstinavicious I should go with the Canon? Is there a reason for it's superiority over the Nikon? |
Posted by cryogenic Not sure if this has been posted, but I found it to be pretty spot on... http://theonlineph...ter-to-george.html |
Posted by misstinavicious I should go with the Canon? Is there a reason for it's superiority over the Nikon? |
Posted by Byberrian Fanman They're "shit" because they don't have a built-in AF motor. The D50 has one, therefore it is not "shit." |
Posted by Ogre Battle I don't know why such a big deal is made about the lack of a built-in focus motor in certain models. Remember, those models are bought primarily by beginners who are getting a kit lens along with the camera, and for the most part are unlikely to have a collection of non-AFS lenses already. All the kit lenses and almost all of the higher-end Nikkor lenses have been AFS for quite some time now. |
Posted by budda Yes it does. There are several times a day at my green screen zoo photo job where the family i'm shooting is nothing but a total blur and the D5000 swears it's in focus. I always try 5-8 times to refocus before eventually giving up. Seriously i'm all for a stripped down amateur camera but compared to arebel these cameras are a bad joke. |
Posted by Byberrian Fanman Did it ever occur to you that maybe...oh, I don't know...that the AF-S in everything but the pro (expensive) lenses fucking SUCKS? |
Posted by Ogre Battle It hasn't, because I don't own any kit lenses. But I sure do see a lot of people using them; can they ALL be bad? |
Posted by TurboZutek I had a D50 once!! It was exactly one quarter the camera that the 450d that replaced it is. No DOF preview and bracketing options hidden under a ton of menus was SO annoying... Also the AF wasn't the best in low light (and it couldn't use the built in flash for focus assist because of hobbled firmware). The kit lens with it, however, was one of the best I've ever had with a camera. Yeah, it's better! At least D3000 Vs XS/i anyway. Chris... |
Posted by NotBatman Where is the Official "What lens to buy?" thread, anyway? I'm currently shooting on a Canon 450D, but I'm still using the aging 18-55mm kit lens from my 300D (purchased in 2003-ish) and I want to upgrade. I don't want to go any higher than 18mm on the low end, because there are enough instances already where I want a little more than I can catch. I'm specifically interested in a Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 ($230 new after rebate). (I've found a similarly spec'd Sigma for a comparable price (new) but while I've never had issue with my other Sigmas, my understanding is Tamron is better.) The price is perfect and the range seems awesome, so I guess I'm paranoid that there's a catch, you know? Anyone have any experience or recommendations? I need to keep it at or below $300 which is limiting, but even at $300 we're entering the range where I'll have to... gloss over some details with my wife. |
Posted by robtastic generally from my research i've found that the lenses with a lot of range aren't worth much over the range. they are usually pretty soft. start a lens thread |
Posted by Papadupulous Anything below $900 that's decent? And has night vision? |
This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |