File :-(, x, )
annoyingmous
Greetings and salutations /p/.
To make this thread slightly more interesting than the other hardware threads, please spice it up with graphiti pics you have. I have been facinated by this form of art since watching the movie 'blood in, blood out'. The attached picture is most obviously not of a technically sophisticated graphiti, but it is still one of my favorites, the motive really screams at me.

And now for my question: What is the best way to use my 1000$ or so? I want to get a DSLR, and I want it to be a Nikon. I am slowly dropping the idea of getting the best body I can buy for the money with a single lens (The d80 with just the 50mm/f1.8 or kit lens; maybe maybe the D200 if the wife looks the other way). But I am also reading good things about the Nikon 18-200mm "miracle" lens which will force me to buy a much cheaper body - maybe the d40x - or the much older D100.
Whats the way to go? are lenses really more important than bodies? would the 18-200 really cover my needs? is there a single (cheap) lens that can go on a more expancive body and keep me satisfied for a long time?
I feel that I have to applogize for starting another hardware thread, but well 1000USD are a lot of money for me atm and so it became personal.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKONCamera ModelE5700Camera SoftwareE5700v1.1Focal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2004:04:11 17:13:25RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time10/1053 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length8.90 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
Any particular reason you've decided on Nikon? If you go with Canon, you can easily get an XTi with 18-55 kit lens and 50mm f/1.8 for under $1000.

If you go with the d40x, you're pretty much limited to f/2.8 and slower lenses if you want to autofocus, which kinda sucks.

Of course, you're good to go if you get a D50 or higher. Might make sense to look into used D50s just for that reason. I wonder when Nikon's gonna get around to sticking motors in the rest of its lens lineup...

Ohwell, enough Canon fanboyism. Yes, glass is more important than the camera body you stick it on, with the caveat (on the Nikon side) that there's some compatibility issues between the various lines of lenses and bodies (e.g., the aforementioned inability to autofocus with anything other than AF-S lenses). Getting a cheap body and good glass is a better idea than a good body and cheap glass, in general.
>> Anonymous
D40, good camera
About the lens: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm
>> Sebastian Murphy
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'd get the D40 with lens kit and add the 55-200VR lens to it and some filters. That'll come out to a little more than $900. With the left overs you can consider buying a tripod or a camera bag or a strobe to go with your DSLR.

I know you said you wanted a single lens system but the two lens system is much cheaper and if you really only want to take one lens, take whichever lens is your style for the day.

That's what I'm shooting now and it's really easy and fun to shoot with. Since you're starting out from scratch, I don't think it's a big deal that you don't have an in body motor.

Lenses are much more important than the body in photography and pretty much any modern DSLR body(don't get the D100 it's outdated) will take excellent pictures, but if the lens isn't what you want or need then it'll be hard for you to take stunning pictures.

Sorry I have no graffiti pictures, but hopefully I can placate you with a picture I took the other day at a local park. (this is with the D40 for comparison)

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>> annoyingmous
     File :-(, x)
Building to the right is completely painted. I tried to shift the focus from it by centering the camera elsewhere, so that it doesn't become obvious. Instead I think that i got a boring picture where you have to point it out for people that the building there is actually painted.
>58579 I like the colors!
- I am not sure why it is that I am thinking about a Nikon. Probably because I am in love with the Nikon F5 (film camera).
- Silly me, I didn't think about the "little" problem of the D40x - no autofocus drive is a major disadvantage. Nikon must have done it on purpose - just to justify the price difference from better models. The 50mm/f1.8 is so cheap (100$ or so) and SOO good, that I shouldn't miss on that. I am looking at cheaper alternatives to the Nikon 18-200mm (from Sigma and Tamron) but most of the user-reviews that I read on the net say that they suck. but well what can you expect from a 28-300 lens that is offered for 250$?
You guys suggested I consider the D40 and D50 but well they are "just" 6MP cameras. I know its probably enough, since I am using a 5MP camera at the moment and am pleased with it, but I have a mental block there. cant spend all that money on a 6MP body when kids walk around with 5MP mobile phones... besides, when using a 50mm lens, you have to crop some of your pictures and having a couple more mega pixels would be nice.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKONCamera ModelE5700Camera SoftwareE5700v1.1Focal Length (35mm Equiv)161 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2004:04:09 12:07:35RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time5/2111 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length41.10 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height682
>> Anonymous
Megapixels mean nothing. See why on ken rockwell's website. In fact, the D40x is seen by many as inferior to the D40 because the D40x has more noise at higher ISOs because it has to pack more pixels onto a same sized CCD. 6mp is fine, just look at the picture i took.

As for that 50mm prime lens, well it's not that hard to manual focus, and really you can do it so fast it's probably not discernably slower than the autofocus, especially after a bit of practice.

The reason the motor is not included in body is because that let nikon make the D40 incredibly small. This is why the D40 also has a smaller battery (I would have trouble wearing it down in a day anyway).

Get the D40 if you're gonna go with nikon, the money is better put towards other things than the body which is plenty good as is.
>> Anonymous
Sorry, for the "picture I took" refer to>>58652
>> Anonymous
>>58679
With any DSLR, you really want to invest in lenses, as the camera bodies are expendable in the sense that the latest and greatest will be outclassed in a matter of months. The lenses can stay with you as you upgrade bodies.

Anyway, don't worry about the 6mp of the D40 or D50; they're much better than any camera phone.
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>58652
This is what I did, got the d40 with those two lenses, and it's a wonderful combination. I actually keep the 55-200 on most of the time, it's a great lens. The image quality is beautiful with either lens, it's a good point that it has less noise than the d40x because of thelower megapixels. If I ever reach a point where I need pro glass, I'll be upgrading the body anyways, but those two lenses give me a hell of a lot to work with. All I need is something for macro, and I'll be set for a long time.
>> Anonymous
I like everything about Nikon DSLRs, except one thing that means I'll never buy one unless they fix this: the RAW files are losslessly compressed. If I wanted my image flailed and damaged before it even left the camera, I'd shoot JPEG.
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>58740
Sorry, newb question, but if the compression is lossless, how does that damage it?
>> Anonymous
>>58741
Damn, I wrote that wrong.

Lossy compression, not lossless. Sorry.
>> Anonymous
>>58741

Have you seen those really bad jpegs, where everything is really blocky/pixellated?

Lossy compression.
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>58743see>>58742
He mistakenly wrote lossless, which is what I was asking about. I understand lossy.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html
More on NEF lossiness.
>> Anonymous
>>58748

Gah, must learn to read names more, I thought>>58742was you.
>> annoyingmous
     File :-(, x)
d40 with the Nikon 70-200VR is again the same problem of losing auto-focus. As far as I can tell, the 70-200mmVR lens is of the type AF-S which is not supported on the Nikon d40 body.

About camera bodies and lenses, I have to disagree. First of all, lens keep getting upgraded, especially when talking about glass made specifically for digital cameras (they focus on a smaller area - built for a digital chip instead of 35mm film). Vibration reduction technology keeps getting better as well. on top of that, at some point it will be cheap enough to produce full-sized CMOS chips for digital cameras, and then all of the DX lenses in my (hypothetical-wish-that-I-had-it) closet will become unuseable. So thats what I think about lens that will last forever.
on the other hand, the camera bodies they make today, lets say from the Nikon D200 and up, are bodies that could be kept forever or at least for many years. I doubt it that many photographers feel that their Nikon D2X is holding them back and limiting their creativity (same goes for Canon top models)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKONCamera ModelE5700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Album 2.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)46 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2004:04:13 18:18:08RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time10/1989 secF-Numberf/5.9Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length11.60 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height600
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
AF-S does autofocus. They're the ones with the motor in the body.
>> Anonymous
>>58780
>the same problem of losing auto-focus

Why are people so hung up on this? If someone shoots some shots with an old K1000 or something, people are like, "ohmygod classic Pentax cool!" And if a camera made today happens to lack autofocus on just some of the lenses, people are like, "ohmygod I have to actually make decisions about how I focus and use some skill!"

Autofocus is useful is some situations: shooting rapidly moving objects, shooting objects at an extreme distance, and so on. But in 90% of shooting situations for the typical photographer (this is obviously different for some types, for instance, sports photographers) manual focus is better. If it screws up, it's on the photographer, not on the machine. That means that with practice the photographer can make sure it almost never screws up, either just by not working or by focusing on the wrong thing. I know someone who shoots with a 5D who loses about 30% of his shots because the autofocus mechanism is dumb as shit. To me, that's unacceptable.

(This from the same guy above who finds lossy RAW files unacceptable.)
>> Anonymous
(Con't)
As far as lenses and everything goes, the problem with your theory is:

1. The initial investment in glass outweighs the initial investment in almost any camera, except perhaps a very high end one. Any camera of decent quality can make a good photograph, but try getting certain shots with your kit lens, just try.

2. Camera technology is advancing faster than lens technology.

3. >at some point it will be cheap enough to produce full-sized CMOS chips for digital cameras

But is that what people really need or want? There is no reason why, except for the huge old stock of 35mm film lenses, why digital sensors should be "full frame." Either take advantage of the opportunity and make -larger- sensors, for even higher image quality and less noise, or -smaller- sensors, for increased compactness of the lens. In fact, I think the best option would be if a camera was introduced that had interchangeable sensor chips, like different backs: it would ship standard with your choice (for varying prices, of course) of a very small sensor, an APS-C-ish sized sensor, a full-frame sensor for those with a big investment in old glass, and a larger sensor. For different applications, one could order the sensor in another size and swap it in.

4. A bit of a continuation- for almost any photographic application, more compact lenses are more useful than the little bit of extra image quality and little bit less noise that a full frame versus APS-C sensor offers.
>> ac
>>58817
I have lost a shit-ton more shots to not being able to manual focus quick enough than to manual focus fail. If your friend is really losing 30% of his shots, he needs badly to learn how to use autofocus. Also, old manual cameras have viewfinders designed for MF while modern ones don't
>> Anonymous
>>58822
He's a professional, working, photo-school-educated photographer. Maybe he just has a bum 5D or something, but still, autofocus screws up, even on the best cameras.

Add to that lag time as the camera focuses (as opposed to pre-focusing manually) and you're possibly missing things.

I don't know what you're doing, but I only screw up manual focus when I'm being sloppy or when I drastically have to change the focus: say, if I'm shooting somehing a meter or two in front of me and I have to shoot something off in the distance a bit. Autofocus would have the same problem in the latter case.

People managed for years with only manual focus for almost all of photography's history, and people shooting with old film cameras, the two digital rangefinder models, and the Leica DMR still do. It's not that hard.

>old manual cameras have viewfinders designed for MF while modern ones don't
I understand it's possible to replace the viewfinder if one's viewfinder is problematic.

The main problem I see with modern equipment and manually focusing is that the asshats designing lenses have made it impossible on many to zoom in, focus, and zoom out.

I'm not denying AF is useful. But MF absolutely proof to anything but photographer error, and faster if done intelligently, especially in complex focusing situations that will take the AF some time to figure out. That is, if it focuses on the right thing in the end anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>58835
MF is only good for static targets or moving targets contained along a track (like a F1 race, etc).

People managed with MF for years, but now thanks to AF they can shoot moving targets while still using shallow DoF's with much higher success rates.

Fire is unnecessary, we survived thousands of years eating raw meat!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>58835
Yeah, if the autofocus is just flat out not focusing on the thing he's telling it to, that's a problem with either the lens, the body, or both having messed up autofocus hardware.

If it's just that he leaves the focus point on auto and it picks the wrong place to focus, that's his own damn fault.

What I meant by the viewfinder comment was that viewfinders on modern SLRs designed for autofocus don't have the manual focus aids of old MF cameras, like split rangefinder screen in the middle. So you really just have to eyeball the focusing and hope your eyeball's accurate enough. And, added bonus, most of the viewfinders in modern SLRs just plain don't show any focus difference lower than about f/2.5. Which means when I'm shooting at f/2.0 or f/1.8 (as I do a *lot*, since I loves me up some small DoF and available-light photography), manual focus just plain isn't an option. And the only time that the autofocus ever has an issue is if it's really dark out, I.e., when I'd most need to use an extra-wide aperture.

As you said, the lack of focus aids can be solved at least on higher-end bodies, but I've got a Rebel XTi so it's not an option for me.

And really, autofocus on my Canon works really well. I point at the spot I want to focus on, half-press the shutter, recompose, click. Vs. manual focusing on my old Minolta, which was more like point at thing I want to focus on, stare intently for 15 seconds, wiggling the focus adjustment ring back and forth until I'm satisfied that it's properly focused, take picture, realize I didn't recompose so the thing I was focusing on is dead-center like a n00b, sigh at the waste of a slice of film, try again.

I don't know what autofocus system you've used, but on Canons, even with the cheap non-USM lenses, the autofocus is *much* faster than I could ever do manually.