Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Nikon Digital SLR guidance

Reply
Thread Tools

Nikon Digital SLR guidance

 
 
Neil Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2011
Hi,

I am a very very amateurish photographer. Before the digital cameras, I
invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006 camera. In the
digital camera arena, the most advanced version of the camera that I
have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix FZ28/FZ100 type).
However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do not want to break the
bank either. The best Nikor lens I have is the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and
the other lenses are about average. It is sad to see the lenses
accumulating dust. Which DSLR would give some life to these lenses
and some fun for me (again without breaking the bank)?

Thank you in advance for any advice and help.

--
NJ

http://investeur.co/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joe Makowiec
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2011
On 26 Jul 2011 in rec.photo.digital, Neil Jones wrote:

> I am a very very amateurish photographer. Before the digital
> cameras, I invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006
> camera. In the digital camera arena, the most advanced version of
> the camera that I have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix
> FZ28/FZ100 type). However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do
> not want to break the bank either. The best Nikor lens I have is
> the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and the other lenses are about average. It
> is sad to see the lenses accumulating dust. Which DSLR would
> give some life to these lenses and some fun for me (again without
> breaking the bank)?


These lens compatibility charts should tell you whether your lenses
will work on which dSLRs:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html

The AF ED certainly will. If you don't want to break the bank, you
probably want to eliminate the full-frame (FX) sensor cameras - D3S,
D3X, D700 - from consideration. Of the rest, body-only prices range
from US$500 to US$1,700. Nikon's dSLR page allows you to compare them:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produc...ras/index.page

I just bought a D7000, although it replaced an earlier Nikon digital,
and I had some specific wants. So far, I've been pleased.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2011
On Jul 26, 2:35*pm, Neil Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I am a very very amateurish photographer. *Before the digital cameras, I
> invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006 camera. *In the
> digital camera arena, the most advanced version of the camera that I
> have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix FZ28/FZ100 type).
> However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do not want to break the
> bank either. *The best Nikor lens I have is the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and
> the other lenses are about average. *It is sad to see the lenses
> accumulating dust. *Which DSLR would give some life to these lenses
> and some fun for me (again without breaking the bank)?


The short rule is, any Nikon lens that will mount on the
6006 will mount and work usefully (but not necessarilly
with all the frills) on any Nikon DSLR body. However,
there are some bodies that will not AF with older AF lenses
(the D40 and friends AF with AF-S lenses only), and some
bodies that will not meter with non-chipped lenses (which
is not that big a deal in most cases, I used one for a few
years myself).

Depending on what kind of photography you do, and personal
preference, the lack of AF is somewhere between fatal and
irrelevant . Up to you!

That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
70-200 anyway).

I found the 80-200 length VERY useful on an APS-C (DX in
Nikon terms) body (Fuji S2, and then Nikon D200). (You
understand that the field of view depends on the sensor
size, right? So 200mm on a DX body gives the same field of
view as 300mm on an FX body?) You'll probably find
yourself having to replace your widest lens to be happy,
and maybe your walkaround lens as well.

From what you say about price, I'm assuming the FX bodies,
D700 and D3s and D3x, are out of the question. It does
sound like a D90, maybe used or refurb, might be a good fit
for you.

Good luck!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neil Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2011
On 7/26/2011 11:43 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2:35 pm, Neil Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I am a very very amateurish photographer. Before the digital cameras, I
>> invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006 camera. In the
>> digital camera arena, the most advanced version of the camera that I
>> have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix FZ28/FZ100 type).
>> However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do not want to break the
>> bank either. The best Nikor lens I have is the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and
>> the other lenses are about average. It is sad to see the lenses
>> accumulating dust. Which DSLR would give some life to these lenses
>> and some fun for me (again without breaking the bank)?

>
> The short rule is, any Nikon lens that will mount on the
> 6006 will mount and work usefully (but not necessarilly
> with all the frills) on any Nikon DSLR body. However,
> there are some bodies that will not AF with older AF lenses
> (the D40 and friends AF with AF-S lenses only), and some
> bodies that will not meter with non-chipped lenses (which
> is not that big a deal in most cases, I used one for a few
> years myself).
>
> Depending on what kind of photography you do, and personal
> preference, the lack of AF is somewhere between fatal and
> irrelevant . Up to you!
>
> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
> reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
> 70-200 anyway).
>
> I found the 80-200 length VERY useful on an APS-C (DX in
> Nikon terms) body (Fuji S2, and then Nikon D200). (You
> understand that the field of view depends on the sensor
> size, right? So 200mm on a DX body gives the same field of
> view as 300mm on an FX body?) You'll probably find
> yourself having to replace your widest lens to be happy,
> and maybe your walkaround lens as well.
>
> From what you say about price, I'm assuming the FX bodies,
> D700 and D3s and D3x, are out of the question. It does
> sound like a D90, maybe used or refurb, might be a good fit
> for you.
>
> Good luck!


Thank you! The advice is very practical for me.

I think a used D90 would be good camera to own for the moment.

Thank you once again.

--
NJ http://investeur.co/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Moro Grubb of Little Delving
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2011
On Jul 26, 2:43*pm, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2:35*pm, Neil Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > I am a very very amateurish photographer. *Before the digital cameras, I
> > invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006 camera. *In the
> > digital camera arena, the most advanced version of the camera that I
> > have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix FZ28/FZ100 type).
> > However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do not want to break the
> > bank either. *The best Nikor lens I have is the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and
> > the other lenses are about average. *It is sad to see the lenses
> > accumulating dust. *Which DSLR would give some life to these lenses
> > and some fun for me (again without breaking the bank)?

>
> The short rule is, any Nikon lens that will mount on the
> 6006 will mount and work usefully (but not necessarilly
> with all the frills) on any Nikon DSLR body. *However,
> there are some bodies that will not AF with older AF lenses
> (the D40 and friends AF with AF-S lenses only), and some
> bodies that will not meter with non-chipped lenses (which
> is not that big a deal in most cases, I used one for a few
> years myself).
>
> Depending on what kind of photography you do, and personal
> preference, the lack of AF is somewhere between fatal and
> irrelevant . *Up to you!
>
> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
> reports. *Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
> 70-200 anyway).
>
> I found the 80-200 length VERY useful on an APS-C (DX in
> Nikon terms) body (Fuji S2, and then Nikon D200). *(You
> understand that the field of view depends on the sensor
> size, right? *So 200mm on a DX body gives the same field of
> view as 300mm on an FX body?) *You'll probably find
> yourself having to replace your widest lens to be happy,
> and maybe your walkaround lens as well.
>
> From what you say about price, I'm assuming the FX bodies,
> D700 and D3s and D3x, are out of the question. It does
> sound like a D90, maybe used or refurb, might be a good fit
> for you.
>
> Good luck!


If your budget is really tight, you could probably pick up a used D50,
D70 or D80 for a song these days...

/M
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2011
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
>reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
>70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
>doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
>70-200 anyway).



I agree with all of the above. Plus, if the 80-200mm f/2.8 is the
last AF-S version, it focuses just as fast as the later 70-200mm.

Nikon Europe apparently has hundreds of these 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S
lenses in stock but for some reason won't release them to dealers. We
have a list price, we know they have them, but we cannot order them.
No-one knows (or will tell us) why not. Very disappointing, because
they are excellent lenses, and particularly good value for money.

The two touch 'screwdriver drive' version is also optically excellent
and is very fast to focus on late 35mm SLRs and pro/prosumer DSLRs
despite not having the Silent Wave motor. Its only real weakness is
its rather unsharp performance at the 200mm focal length when focused
at or near its minimum focusing distance, but experienced users know
they can correct that by using a +1 close-up lens.


 
Reply With Quote
 
me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2011
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:35:22 +0200, Neil Jones <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I am a very very amateurish photographer. Before the digital cameras, I
>invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006 camera. In the
>digital camera arena, the most advanced version of the camera that I
>have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix FZ28/FZ100 type).
>However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do not want to break the
>bank either. The best Nikor lens I have is the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and
>the other lenses are about average. It is sad to see the lenses
>accumulating dust. Which DSLR would give some life to these lenses
>and some fun for me (again without breaking the bank)?
>
>Thank you in advance for any advice and help.


I've just seen your post looking like your coming to the D90. It might
help if you talk about the type of photography you do. For instance I
make great use of the autoiso modes in my D200/D300 and this is just
one area the next level down in cameras is hampered. Specifically I
set a min shutter speed to fix on and shoot aperture-priority mode and
let the iso float to accommodate up to a user set limit.
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2011
On 7/28/2011 1:56 PM, Moro Grubb of Little Delving wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2:43 pm, David Dyer-Bennet<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 2:35 pm, Neil Jones<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> I am a very very amateurish photographer. Before the digital cameras, I
>>> invested in some Nikon Lenses for the Nikon AF 6006 camera. In the
>>> digital camera arena, the most advanced version of the camera that I
>>> have dealt with are the telezoom cameras (Lumix FZ28/FZ100 type).
>>> However, sometimes I do want to own a DSLR but do not want to break the
>>> bank either. The best Nikor lens I have is the AF ED 80-200 F/2.8 and
>>> the other lenses are about average. It is sad to see the lenses
>>> accumulating dust. Which DSLR would give some life to these lenses
>>> and some fun for me (again without breaking the bank)?

>>
>> The short rule is, any Nikon lens that will mount on the
>> 6006 will mount and work usefully (but not necessarilly
>> with all the frills) on any Nikon DSLR body. However,
>> there are some bodies that will not AF with older AF lenses
>> (the D40 and friends AF with AF-S lenses only), and some
>> bodies that will not meter with non-chipped lenses (which
>> is not that big a deal in most cases, I used one for a few
>> years myself).
>>
>> Depending on what kind of photography you do, and personal
>> preference, the lack of AF is somewhere between fatal and
>> irrelevant . Up to you!
>>
>> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
>> reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
>> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
>> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
>> 70-200 anyway).
>>
>> I found the 80-200 length VERY useful on an APS-C (DX in
>> Nikon terms) body (Fuji S2, and then Nikon D200). (You
>> understand that the field of view depends on the sensor
>> size, right? So 200mm on a DX body gives the same field of
>> view as 300mm on an FX body?) You'll probably find
>> yourself having to replace your widest lens to be happy,
>> and maybe your walkaround lens as well.
>>
>> From what you say about price, I'm assuming the FX bodies,
>> D700 and D3s and D3x, are out of the question. It does
>> sound like a D90, maybe used or refurb, might be a good fit
>> for you.
>>
>> Good luck!

>
> If your budget is really tight, you could probably pick up a used D50,
> D70 or D80 for a song these days...
>


With my singing ability I could get more than one if I refrain from
singing.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2011
On 7/28/2011 2:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
>> reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
>> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
>> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
>> 70-200 anyway).

>
>
> I agree with all of the above. Plus, if the 80-200mm f/2.8 is the
> last AF-S version, it focuses just as fast as the later 70-200mm.


I don't rely on "all reports" in commenting on a lens. I try it for
myself. I use my 70-200 almost as a general purpose lens. My daughter
had the 80-200. She found the focus too slow and traded it towards the
70-200.


Whether you need VR is a matter of what you photograph. With my D300 I
use high ISO or on a tripod. In either case I turn off VR. Turning off
VR gives a faster release time.

<snip>


Use of a close up optic degrades the quality of the fine Nikon optics.
If I want closer focus I use extension tubes.

YMMV

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2011
In article <4e31b63e$0$12493$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> That 80-200/2.8 is a first-rate lens according to all
> >> reports. Optically equal to my much-more-expensive
> >> 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR, though it will focus slower, and
> >> doesn't have VR (I'm not much impressed with VR in the
> >> 70-200 anyway).

> >
> > I agree with all of the above. Plus, if the 80-200mm f/2.8 is the
> > last AF-S version, it focuses just as fast as the later 70-200mm.

>
> I don't rely on "all reports" in commenting on a lens. I try it for
> myself. I use my 70-200 almost as a general purpose lens. My daughter
> had the 80-200. She found the focus too slow and traded it towards the
> 70-200.


which 80-200? there were several versions, ranging from slow focus to
very fast (just as fast as the 70-200). it also can depend on the
camera.

> Whether you need VR is a matter of what you photograph. With my D300 I
> use high ISO or on a tripod. In either case I turn off VR. Turning off
> VR gives a faster release time.


nope. there is no additional delay once vr is engaged. also, vr helps
stabilize tripods, especially if it's windy.

> Use of a close up optic degrades the quality of the fine Nikon optics.


only if it's a poor quality closeup lens.

> If I want closer focus I use extension tubes.


that also degrades things, since the lens was probably not designed for
an extension (some lenses might be though).
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
January 2007 - The Nikon D80 digital slr is still Nikon's most popular camera george@dpmac.com Digital Photography 1 01-08-2007 10:06 AM
Film SLR Flash unit on a Digital SLR - Possible? alex Digital Photography 12 06-24-2006 09:51 PM
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n and DCS Pro SLR/c digital SLRs have been discontinued... Newsgroups Digital Photography 2 06-01-2005 03:08 PM
Digital Photography RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr vs rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? Lionel Digital Photography 16 09-17-2004 12:48 PM
Prosumer Digital SLR from Nikon ??? Raj Digital Photography 2 09-09-2003 10:59 PM



Advertisments