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.
342941
I came to this camera from a D90. Ive only had a few moments to work with it, but the pictures I have so far blow the D90 away in terms of overall IQ.This camera will also expose flaws in your shooting technique which is a possible explanation for many of the complaints.Now, as far as the "comparison" to the D700 goes, you just simply can not compare the two as they are two entirely different imaging systems.
356702
I Have upgraded from D300. I find the D=600 to be a good camera with full frame capability which is what I wanted to get. I would recommend it.
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.
1624326
I just sold my D600. I had the Nikon shutter fixed, which worked fine, so that wasn't the reason. I just enjoy shooting with the Fuji more and I love the lenses. The X-T1 does what I need it to, but don't make the switch if you do much video. Fuji just doesn't make the grade there. It's the same with long telephoto and TTL flash. If you can live with those limitations, the X-T1 is a gem.
1645974
J. Perez --There is a lot of fanboyism going on at the beginning of this thread... and it's passed off as fact to be worse.If you're looking at these two cameras consider your needs. You already have nice canon glass so you may be better served going with the 5d II. What do you shoot? If it's sports I would definitely say lean to the D700 or look at the 7d (or 1d III as you mentioned). I personally think the 5D II has the best IQ of the bunch, but that is an opinion.Really, the two cameras mentioned here are a different beast. It's like comparing mac laptops to windows desktops. First decide if you use your camera more for sports or portraits then decide if you want the canon or nikon. J. Perez --There is a lot of fanboyism going on at the beginning of this thread... and it's passed off as fact to be worse.If you're looking at these two cameras consider your needs. You already have nice canon glass so you may be better served going with the 5d II. What do you shoot? If it's sports I would definitely say lean to the D700 or look at the 7d (or 1d III as you mentioned). I personally think the 5D II has the best IQ of the bunch, but that is an opinion.Really, the two cameras mentioned here are a different beast. It's like comparing mac laptops to... » Read More J. Perez --There is a lot of fanboyism going on at the beginning of this thread... and it's passed off as fact to be worse.If you're looking at these two cameras consider your needs. You already have nice canon glass so you may be better served going with the 5d II. What do you shoot? If it's sports I would definitely say lean to the D700 or look at the 7d (or 1d III as you mentioned). I personally think the 5D II has the best IQ of the bunch, but that is an opinion.Really, the two cameras mentioned here are a different beast. It's like comparing mac laptops to windows desktops. First decide if you use your camera more for sports or portraits then decide if you want the canon or nikon. « Show Less
660621
The D4 is a very good camera. The D4s is slightly better at high ISOs. Its seem to track focus on moving subjects a bit faster. Go to DXO website and they do a great comparison on cameras and you can compare the two cameras. The picture quality is the same I think over all again with some improvement at high ISOs. I do not know what you shoot or how you photograph so it is very hard to give advice on upgrading. If I had to do it again, I think I would stay with the D4 and which I still use right along with the D4s and wait for the next big change in camera bodies.
774987
Hi Mr. Hewitt (I wonder if we have any relation?) Anyway, for a true beginner (as in you've never used anything but a point-and-shoot) I'd recommend you get a Nikon D40 and an 18-200 VR. Keep the 18-55 kit lens, you'll find it lighter when your just taking snapshots of the family or whatever. The D40 is an excellent starter camera, it has almost all the tweaks of this much more expensive camera without the weight and cost. The D300 has many advantages over it, but I really feel you'll learn a lot faster with a simpler camera, and step up to this when your ready. I actually started out with a D40 a bit over a year ago, it made starting out quite fun. The 18-200VR will follow you as a great lens on the D300 too, and you can use any newer AF-S lenses on it. If you have older AF-D Nikon lenses lying around that you want to use, a D80 is also a good place to start. It's easier to make the custom tweaks you'll learn about in your photography classes on the D80, but it still has Auto modes as well to get you started. Checkout www.kenrockwell.com, especially his recommended camera page. He's a bit more eloquent than I am. And I wouldn't be so fast to recommend the D60 to anyone, it's just the D40x's guts (plus active D-Lighting, but without the other enhancements of the D300/D3) with a different name stamped on it. I wouldn't recommend the D40x or D60 to anyone, they exist to fill a price point to compete with Canon. If your eyeballing either, jump to the D80 and don't look back.
473015
I do not think that you will be disappointed with either camera as Canon and Nikon both make great cameras. I actually compare the DR XT to the D70s for features. The best thing to do is go to a camera store and handle each camera. Check out the menu settings, how easy it is to change settings while you're shooting, etc. I purchased the XT last August and couldn't be happier with it. It is a great camera. The 8MP sensor in this camera should be good enough unless you want to shoot extremely large pictures. An 8MP sensor can produce images as good or better as 35mm film. I have printed flawless 8x10 images and I have plenty of resolution to play with for larger pictures. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
101690
I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit?This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s) you'll be using and what other lenses you own and I'll give you more detail I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit?This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s)... » Read More I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit?This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s) you'll be using and what other lenses you own and I'll give you more detail « Show Less
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.
2078344
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise. Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
920085
Hi John, I love this lens, FOR WHAT I DO. As Nikon Brad says, it ain't subtle on the street and it's narrow for landscape. Your reply to him, though, kind of changes the emphasis of what you are looking for because you say your aim is to go for the D810 in time. Would you not be better at this stage to go for lenses compatible with that full frame body when you can afford it???????? If you use this Sigma lens on a D810 you will force the body to downgrade, effectively, to a smaller format the same as you are using now, thereby defeating the purpose of your upgraded body. Sorry to raise more questions than answers but you could spend a fortune on glass that then will not work to best advantage with your dream body so you will have to change your lenses as well (and the crop sensor lenses don't hold their second hand value like the full frame ones do, generally). Coming back to what you like to photograph, on the street big is not necessarily beautiful where kit is concerned. A D810 body with almost any of the quality shorter zooms on it, like the Nikon f2.8, is a pretty big piece of kit when you compare it to your 7100 plus a suitable DX format lens. This is one of the very reasons the 7100 body sells so well! Great quality and not too big/heavy, At the opposite end of the focal length range the crop sensor works well for you too as it effectively increases the zoom effect of any lens you marry it with, turning a 70-200 into a 110-300 approximately. Approximately! You can do the math more precisely if you like!And your F2.8 is still an f2.8. And your body is using the centre of the lens which is likely the best part. Win, win. Best of all - - - - no loan for a new body!!! Good luck, JohnEddy. I wish you well with your picture making. Will
2123334
If you don't mind doing everything in manual and you don't mind soft and fuzzy pics then, yes Otherwise, save your money and buy the Nikkor 16=35mm. Great lens and worth every penny. Buy once, cry once!
940337
S120 ;) (sorry don't know anything about the Nikons so I really have nothing objective here, but, I love this camera, love it). This camera is worth it's weight in my pocket for what it does when I need it to. Unreal quality and speed, and the video is on par with my 6D if not better in the same conditions.
1365221
Nikon vs. Canon is a preference thing mostly. I was raised on Nikon (and Leica) so have lenses, and it just feels right. You may have a different background, or opinion, so get to a camera store and play with some. Also, Canon is better at video. I do stills mostly so do not care as much and prefer the way Nikon shoots stills, but that is important.
666909
Great advice in previous post: ..."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...."However, a 50mm f1.8 prime on the d3200 is equivalent on an older 35mm film camera, to a 75mm lens which is a short tele-photo lens. On 35 mm cameras of old the 50mm was the "normal lens." On the digital Nikon (X1.5 aspect) a 35mm f1.8 would be more of a normal lens and equivalent to a 52.5mm lens for "normal use, when not using the zoom VR lens that comes with the D3200. Great advice in previous post: ..."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...."However, a 50mm f1.8 prime on the d3200 is equivalent on an older 35mm film camera, to a 75mm lens which is a short tele-photo lens. On 35 mm cameras of old the 50mm was the "normal lens." On the digital Nikon (X1.5 aspect) a 35mm f1.8 would be more of a normal lens and equivalent to a 52.5mm lens for "normal use, when not using the... » Read More Great advice in previous post: ..."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...."However, a 50mm f1.8 prime on the d3200 is equivalent on an older 35mm film camera, to a 75mm lens which is a short tele-photo lens. On 35 mm cameras of old the 50mm was the "normal lens." On the digital Nikon (X1.5 aspect) a 35mm f1.8 would be more of a normal lens and equivalent to a 52.5mm lens for "normal use, when not using the zoom VR lens that comes with the D3200. « Show Less