Is this better than the Nikkon D50? This will be my first SLR, but I'm interested in semi-serious photography. Which camera, this or Nikon D50 would be more suitable? My a priori believe is that 16MP is equivalent to 35mm film, should I wait til then or is 8MP good enough? Is this better than the Nikkon D50? This will be my first SLR, but I'm interested in semi-serious photography. Which camera, this or Nikon D50 would be more suitable? My... » Read More Is this better than the Nikkon D50? This will be my first SLR, but I'm interested in semi-serious photography. Which camera, this or Nikon D50 would be more suitable? My a priori believe is that 16MP is equivalent to 35mm film, should I wait til then or is 8MP good enough? « Show Less
392881
Hi there,I just purchased the DR XT/Black. Not recieved it yet. I'm wondering how well the indoor & night pictures turn out?
392882
I think you should be comparing this camera to Nikon's D70s, not the D50. I just bought the D70s after much comparison shopping with the Canon XT. I don't think you can go wrong either way. The deciding factor for me was the superior lens in the Nikon kit vs. the Canon which everyone agrees is practically a throw-away. So if you do decide on the Canon, at least buy the body only and upgrade your lens.
392883
Hi, Douglas! I saw what you discussed about the lances and the whole camera and I want to ask you if you have any experiance with Nikon Coolpix 5700 (I have that one) and how is it against Canon DigitalRebel XT? Is it much more I'll "earn" if I switch to Canon? Thank you in advance!Ivan Hristov, Houston, TX
392884
OK, well here are my thoughts on the kit lens. It is lighter, so for backpacking orhiking it could be a really good thing. As you say, it is only an extra $75 or so,so there isn't much wrong with having it along with a truly fine lens, unless $75makes or breaks your budget. Get the kit lens AND as many other lenses asyou can justify.
356707
The D5000 is a very good camera. If you want a full frame the D600 is great. What you gain, in my opinion, is better high ISO performance. The picture quality is mainly up to uou no matter what camera upu use. If I were you, I wouldn't spend much time researching and agonizing over it. If you want higher ISO performance, the D600 is a good choice. Just buy it. Then, go out and take lots of pictures. Have fun!
1910673
I've got a 18-55 that came with my D40 and I bought the 55-100VR. I don't really miss VR on the shorter lens. I love my D40 bur an itching to step up, so a body only option is welcome. Why is it camera companies assume people are always buying their first camera instead of stepping up? I'd look at the 3200 but it lacks support for the wireless remote, which I have found invaluable for getting into family shots or for long exposures. Cable release just doesn't cut it.
356708
I am very happy with my D600. So many people do not recommend it simply because there are SO many people out there who are serious about their cameras and photography in terms of sheer numbers and the folks with negative thoughts are the generally the ones who post opinions. Two thoughts, if I had had the money, I probably would have gone for the D800 despite the added size and weight, and if you have a collection of DX lenses, you may want to upgrade to a camera you can use them on rather than the D600 which really needs full format FX lenses. Remember that good lenses are generally more important than the actual camera body for great photography. Finally, both the D600 and D800 are very complex cameras. You will grow very old before you have even begun to have used all of the features! :-)
709667
Hi!I did some shots with both lenses to compare, and I noticed that the 50mm has more beautiful background with a better "bokeh", but in a crop sensor camera like D3000, the angle of view is very narrow. The 35mm also has a great background too, with nice "bokeh", just a little bit less then the 50mm, but the 35mm as more angle of view, thus you eventually don't need to stay too far from the subject to take a full body shot. I think both of them are great, image quality and sharpness. I think that if you don't have none of them, try to start with the traditional 50mm, then go for the 35mm. Or buy both of them. It's your choice!Hope I made myself clear.Higor Hi!I did some shots with both lenses to compare, and I noticed that the 50mm has more beautiful background with a better "bokeh", but in a crop sensor camera like D3000, the angle of view is very narrow. The 35mm also has a great background too, with nice "bokeh", just a little bit less then the 50mm, but the 35mm as more angle of view, thus you eventually don't need to stay too far from the subject to take a full body shot. I think both of them are great, image quality and sharpness. I think that if you don't have none of them, try to start with the traditional... » Read More Hi!I did some shots with both lenses to compare, and I noticed that the 50mm has more beautiful background with a better "bokeh", but in a crop sensor camera like D3000, the angle of view is very narrow. The 35mm also has a great background too, with nice "bokeh", just a little bit less then the 50mm, but the 35mm as more angle of view, thus you eventually don't need to stay too far from the subject to take a full body shot. I think both of them are great, image quality and sharpness. I think that if you don't have none of them, try to start with the traditional 50mm, then go for the 35mm. Or buy both of them. It's your choice!Hope I made myself clear.Higor « Show Less
1866178
D40; better built. takes very good pictures. canon is too plasticky; higher-end canons are very good; but in this price range, Nikon is better; but this is a personal opinion.
75253
http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40slr/discuss/72157602509321717/?search=sigma+vs.+nikoni know it's been a while but that may give some insight.i have the sigma version and it's great value for the price paid.
1672484
I'd recommend you get the D3100. It is a marvelous DSLR with great image quality and versatility at a bargain price. The D3200 has a better sensor but the kit lens can not take advantage of that sensor. So unless you are prepared to spend a lot of money on glass (way more $ than the cost of the camera), you will not see any image quality improvement with the D3200. You can get the D3100 with the kit lens and the marvelous Nikkor 35 mm f/1.8 prime for the same price as the D3200 with only the kit lens.
1679834
http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40slr/discuss/72157602509321717/?search=sigma+vs.+nikon i know it's been a while but that may give some insight. i have the sigma version and it's great value for the price paid.
274308
Thanks for the reply. According to CNET, the shutter speeds are comparable. In addition, the cameras weigh about the same (I think one weights about 5.6 oz and the other 5.8 oz) so there is a few tenths of an ounce difference. Since I'm mostly a 4x6 or occasional 5x7 type of person, is there a difference to me at that print size between the two cameras? The price gap between the cameras is closing, so really the main feature difference for me is the optical viewfinder. And, I'm wondering if the "step ups" in the SD870 are worth it. Thanks again. Thanks for the reply. According to CNET, the shutter speeds are comparable. In addition, the cameras weigh about the same (I think one weights about 5.6 oz and the other 5.8 oz) so there is a few tenths of an ounce difference. Since I'm mostly a 4x6 or occasional 5x7 type of person, is there a difference to me at that print size between the two cameras? The price gap between the cameras is closing, so really the main feature difference for me is the optical viewfinder. And, I'm wondering if the "step ups" in the SD870 are worth it. Thanks again.
1044998
I just went through the same decision process, in fact I literally bought the D60+ lens kit and returned it (package unopened) for the D80 (body only) + the fabulous 18-200 VR lens. Why? 1) I wanted the additional metering controls vs. the D60 and in fact used all of them on my recent trip to the Hoh rain forest. 2) Keeping to my budget, I opted to spend the money on the 18-200mm VR, and yes, I used its FULL RANGE without having to change lenses. A great way to go when outdoors and taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves (e.g. deer twins walking right towards us while on the trail!). 3) Quickly realizing the super-zoom wasn't going to get me a FAST lens, I was able to pick up the 50mm f/1.4 right before my travels (which would NOT have AF working with the D40 or D60). If I had the $$$ I might have opted for a D300 and picked up the D40/60 for a lightweight second body, but as the only Digital SLR that I'll be using for the next couple of years, and the small price difference, I am extremely happy with my purchase.
1803406
I had a D40 before the D60, the D60 is MUCH better, just my personal thoughts 1-Dust, if you live in a dusty environment is a BIG ONE 2-Active D-light, Say good bye to underexposed photos, the camera produces very consistent results, not so with the D40 3-Expeed produced lower noise at higher ISO 4-THE VR Lens is SOOO much worth it, my pictures are always sharp I considered the D80, but... 1-No Active D-light "a big one" 2-more focus points yes, but you can do anything with 3 if you use them well 3-the D80 has a motor, but Nikon will be updating most of this primes to AFS this year, I tried the camera motor its slowwww 4-I was planing to get the D80+50mm 1.4 lens for low light, got the sigma 30mm 1.4 its a much better lens to keep on the camera IMHO 5-Expeed processing on the D60 seems to produce more saturated/vivid pictures vs.. D80 I shoot RAW/convert with capture NX, tried all the options, capture NX is slow and ugly, but it gives you the BEST picture period.
1624331
I made the switch from a Nikon D610 and have never looked back. I love the smaller size of the XT1 because I take my camera everywhere. I use to take my Nikon everywhere too, but it wasn't at all convenient or discrete. Bottom line: you must consider what you shoot and how you shoot. Don't get caught up with sensor size, because both will result in great images. Also be sure that the current line of Fuji lenses will meet your needs as well.
666911
which canon model are you comparing the d3200 to? t2i? t3i? t4i? for the most part nikon and canon beginner dslr cameras are equivalent, the brand/model won't matter much. they have thier strengths and weaknesses, but overall they're pretty much the same. your best bet is try to go hold a few different models/brands in your hands, see which ones resonate with you. and good glass (lenses) is far more important than the camera body itself, as it has the biggest impact on image quality. so if possible underspend on the camera body and overspend on glass. a good 50mm f1.8 prime lens is a great compliment to the provided kit lenses.
8518
I now have the MarkIV and love it. There's nothing to compare to it to anywhere. I was goofing off with it today at ISO 10,000. Yes, the only drawback is not using the 10-22 wide angle and a few efs lenses.Wouldn't mind having the FF 5DMKII also! I was just looking at some ISO comparisons. Almost as good as the MKIV. DPreview has some comparisons. If you want full frame go with the 5D, if you want fast FPS and more length to your lenses go with the MKIV. They are both excellent. The MKIV is a heavier camera.
39229
If your are deciding between a 35mm and this lens.. I would ask.. What do you plan to shoot? If you need a wide lens for landscapes I suggest the 18 - 50... If you are looking for a portrait or low fstop fixed lense for close ups I say go with the 1.8 35mm. If your asking Nikon versus sigma.. I would say you get what you pay for. As far as the sigma performance... I use the lense quite often. I shoot in low light bars and venues and the lens is covered in beer..The lens is great for low light shooting at 18mm. I usually switch to a 50mm if I need a closer shot.
660620
The difference for me was the group focus feature, it seemed to lock in focus quicker and track subjects better. Low light is just awesome I have always hesitated cranking up the ISO too high because of the noise potential. It is simply amazing how you can take clean shots in low light situations like bars, parties, sports arenas. If most of your shooting involve low light venues you will see a difference. Wether this is enough to drive an upgrade is up to you. Regarding general picture quality I can't say there is a significant difference other than low light situation I mentioned. I own a d800 as well and use it when picture quality is absolutely critical. These are the 2 cameras in my bag and handles every situation I am faced with. If pic quality is what you seek you can grab a used d800 for under 2k. You will not be disappointed. Just my opinion.