File :-(, x, )
OP
I have just $500 and I want to start photography. The last months I shot with my old Nikon F-401s and now I want to get a digital one. What camera should I buy?
>> Anonymous
panasonic lumix dmc-fz 18
>> Anonymous
>>257944
What's the problem with DMC-FZ28? Too NEW for you?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>257995
In order of least to most good:
d40, d60, d80, d90, d300, d700, d3
Get whichever you can afford. If you get less than a D80, you'll likely have some lens compatibility issues with the lenses from your F401.

(If you have non-autofocus lenses from your F401, you'll need to get at least a D200 or D300 if you want full compatibility)
>> Anonymous
>>257995
D50. The guy telling you to stick with Nikon is right, only for the reason you're used to their controls and probably have at least one of their lenses available.
>> Anonymous
>>257998
D300 versus D700 is debatable: viewfinder coverage versus viewfinder size.
>> OP
>>257999

I just got one shitty AF Nikkor 35-105mm and a Sigma UC Zoom 28-70mm. Will it work with a D40 body?
>> Anonymous
>>257998
Oh, and AC, what are you doing suggesting the D40/60 over the D50?
>> Anonymous
>>258005
They'll work, but won't autofocus. The D50 is an older model, pretty much identical to the D40 except it'll autofocus with all autofocus lenses.

Nikon decided to be an ass and take autofocus off for the next model (D40, yes it goes backwards) so they could sell more new lenses to people like you with old ones.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>258002
>D300 versus D700 is debatable: viewfinder coverage versus viewfinder size.
Er. There's more different between the D300 and D700 than the viewfinder, you realize...

>>258006
>Oh, and AC, what are you doing suggesting the D40/60 over the D50?
Debated that, but I decided to leave it off for the same reason I left off the D1, D2, D2x, D100, D70, D70s, and D40x. Can't get it new, and it's debatable whether it's better or worse than the D40.

(D40 has newer software, and after using my D50 for a while I can say that a bigger LCD really is a nice feature. Probably some other little improvements, too, that I'm too lazy to go look up. Really the only disadvantage is the lack of an in-body motor, and I'm still holding out hope that Nikon will update its primes in the not-too-distant future. If not, Sigma and friends seem to be stepping up to bat)
>> Anonymous
>>258021
>Er. There's more different between the D300 and D700 than the viewfinder, you realize...

Nothing important.

>Debated that, but I decided to leave it off for the same reason I left off the D1, D2, D2x, D100, D70, D70s, and D40x. Can't get it new, and it's debatable whether it's better or worse than the D40.

Except for weird, oddball special applications (e.g. either the D70 or D70s has some crazy flash sync speed, someone might specifically want an all-DX pro body but not the D300 for some reason, etc.) none of those have advantages over their successors.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>258040
>Nothing important.
Are you unaware that the D700 has a full-frame sensor, or are you claiming that having more than double the surface area on the sensor (at the same resolution, which implies double the surface area on each photosite) is not an important difference?

>none of those have advantages over their successors.
D200's better in some significant ways than the D90, and vice versa. Not, strictly speaking, its successor, but it's still true.

But yeah, I left 'em off because it made my life a bit easier.
>> Anonymous
>>258050
>or are you claiming that having more than double the surface area on the sensor (at the same resolution, which implies double the surface area on each photosite) is not an important difference?

This. Slightly better image quality (or the D300's higher FPS, or any other minute differences) are much less important to a camera than the viewfinder. Which is arguable, depending on your priorities.
>> Anonymous
>>258052
Or let me put it this way: Clack versus Leica M3, which one's a better camera?

Format size, again except for special things (e.g. people big on ultrawides, people shooting in insanely low light, people who want really, really shallow depth of field) isn't a big pro or con past a certain point in the final results.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>258053
I can certainly see your argument, but I don't agree with it. Part of that, of course, is that I like shooting in insanely low light and maddeningly narrow DoF.

And the Clack vs. Leica argument is a little disingenuous, given that the D700 and D300 are more or less identical in all other ways.

Look at it this way: Assuming you really frame your pictures precisely out to the *very edges* of the viewfinder every single time, all you have to do to make the final image match what you saw in the viewfinder is crop 5% of your pixels. And I think we can *all* agree that the difference between 12.1 megapixels and 11.495 megapixels is negligible.

And the D700's viewfinder is still larger, which I'd personally prefer over the 100% coverage if I had to choose one.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>258057

i prefer my D300's more accurate (albeit smaller) viewfinder to my F100's (about the same size and coverage as the D700) larger and less accurate viewfinder.

of course, i would trade all of them for the D3's or F5 (or F6..)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>258160
I honestly don't think much about my viewfinder when I'm actually using it. I'm just framing up my pictures and hitting the button. If I hadn't known it from reading it online and hadn't held them both up to separate eyes, I never would've noticed that my 400D viewfinder was smaller and dimmer than my 40D's viewfinder. The only time I worry about the extra 5% my viewfinder isn't showing me is maybe the half percent of the time when I really do want to frame right to the edges.

But that's just me.