Some DSLR Questions, Looking to buy...

[BE4TNUT]

Ok, this is my situation... I used to take photography classes in highschool (4+ years ago) and had a lot of fun using the SLR (mainly B&W). The reason I stopped was I no longer had access to a dark room for developing and printing. I have noticed the Digital SLR's are coming down in price and are now in my price range and I would like to pick one up and get back into photography for a hobby. My questions are regarding which camera, lens(es) and any useful filters that I may want to consider. First off I like taking a wide variety of shots such as of the sky, landscapes, sun rises/sets, people, animals, action shots and macro shots to. I would like to get what is needed for all of this with the least amount of lenses but dont know all to much about the lenses for the DSLR's... I have been poking around this site and various other websites for more information. I am a bit rusty in the photography area though.

Camera:
Ok first off I can't seem to decide between the Nikon D50 and the D70. To my knowledge the biggest differences between the 2 are that the D70 isn't quite as user friendly but you have more control over settings, tends to underexpose pictures compared to the D50 so its easier to edit afterwards, capable of faster shutter speeds and little faster fps when shooting burst shots. Do you have any suggestions since I would consider myself a beginner with slight experience?

Lens:
Ok now about the lens situation, for me the fewer the lenses the better. I figure the more time I am changing lenses the less time I am shooting, and run the risk of getting dust in the camera. I would like something that is very versatile and macro capabilities (or at least very close-up pictures withe a lot of detail and I will be happy). I have heard a lot of good things about the Nikor 18-200 VR lens but I called a local camera shop and they weren't pleasant at all to talk with and they didn't like the fact that I had questions, they told me that lens on either of the camera I am considering would be complete overkill for the camera and not needed and that I would be much better off choosing another route (at which they had no suggestions for another route to take). So what are your thoughts on it? What lens(es) would you suggest?

Filters:
Lastly, filters. I will get a basic UV filter to protest any lens I am using but are there any other filters I shoul dconsider? Or maybe a good filter kit? If I recall correctly to get good shots of the sky with clouds a polarizer filter would be needed, am I correct?

Now with all that said I just want to thank everyone ahead of time.

Thanks,
BEATNUT

[DFish]

I just purchased the D70 and so far I've been pretty happy with it, but I'm still learning. I have heard that the D50 has slightly better image quality, but yes, like you said the D70 does have more settings and options.

For your filters, yes, buy a UV filter. If you are shooting waterfalls and want that cotton candy effect, you'll need a Polarizer and Neutral Density Filter. You can find filters on ebay very cheap.

I haven't used the 18-200, but yup I would definetly reccomend it, very versatile. I may consider purchasing it in the future. I have two lenses that I use: an 18-55mm Nikkor, and a 70-300mm Nikkor, both have worked well for me.

Hope this helps.

[toriaj]

I bought the D50 and I am extremely satisfied. I have the 18-55mm kit lens, which is okay. I do want a longer lens as well, and I'm looking at around 300mm although I haven't chosen one yet.

I think you'll be happy with either the D50 or the D70, and I suggest you find a different store! I got the same kind of treatment when I went to Inkley's. Then I went to Pictureline and it was much better.

[BE4TNUT]

Yeah I won't go through them. I am going to go to another one I know in person and see what they have for prices, I may end up going through B&H online but im not exactly sure yet we will see. Right now I want to get my information together, figure out exactly what I want and go from there.

BEATNUT

[D70FAN]

Ok, this is my situation... I used to take photography classes in highschool (4+ years ago) and had a lot of fun using the SLR (mainly B&W). The reason I stopped was I no longer had access to a dark room for developing and printing. I have noticed the Digital SLR's are coming down in price and are now in my price range and I would like to pick one up and get back into photography for a hobby. My questions are regarding which camera, lens(es) and any useful filters that I may want to consider. First off I like taking a wide variety of shots such as of the sky, landscapes, sun rises/sets, people, animals, action shots and macro shots to. I would like to get what is needed for all of this with the least amount of lenses but dont know all to much about the lenses for the DSLR's... I have been poking around this site and various other websites for more information. I am a bit rusty in the photography area though.

Camera:
Ok first off I can't seem to decide between the Nikon D50 and the D70. To my knowledge the biggest differences between the 2 are that the D70 isn't quite as user friendly but you have more control over settings, tends to underexpose pictures compared to the D50 so its easier to edit afterwards, capable of faster shutter speeds and little faster fps when shooting burst shots. Do you have any suggestions since I would consider myself a beginner with slight experience?

Lens:
Ok now about the lens situation, for me the fewer the lenses the better. I figure the more time I am changing lenses the less time I am shooting, and run the risk of getting dust in the camera. I would like something that is very versatile and macro capabilities (or at least very close-up pictures withe a lot of detail and I will be happy). I have heard a lot of good things about the Nikor 18-200 VR lens but I called a local camera shop and they weren't pleasant at all to talk with and they didn't like the fact that I had questions, they told me that lens on either of the camera I am considering would be complete overkill for the camera and not needed and that I would be much better off choosing another route (at which they had no suggestions for another route to take). So what are your thoughts on it? What lens(es) would you suggest?

Filters:
Lastly, filters. I will get a basic UV filter to protest any lens I am using but are there any other filters I shoul dconsider? Or maybe a good filter kit? If I recall correctly to get good shots of the sky with clouds a polarizer filter would be needed, am I correct?

Now with all that said I just want to thank everyone ahead of time.

Thanks,
BEATNUT

Starter kit: D70s ($684) Sigma 18-125 DC ($230), Nikon Capture 4.4 $99. Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro ($184). Learn to shoot and post process in RAW (NEF).

The D50 offers marginally better high ISO image quality but the D70s has all the bells and whistles.

[coldrain]

The D70s is NOT better with editting afterwards... why would you think that?
It has a few more features, which you may or may not find important. And it has the irritatingly slow USB 1.1, shame on you Nikon! The D50 has fast USB 2.0.

Unless you know of a feature that the D70s has that you need to have, go for the D50, since it is lighter and that is often a plus.

[K1W1]

My standard answer to this question is as follows.
There is very little real world difference between the two cameras. If you don't know why you want one over the other then the differences are not important to you. In this case buy the camera body that feels best in your hands. The better the camera feels to you the more you will use it and the more you will enjoy using it.
You are in the fortunate position that whichever body you choose you will be happy with the results.

[erichlund]

Camera:
Ok first off I can't seem to decide between the Nikon D50 and the D70. To my knowledge the biggest differences between the 2 are that the D70 isn't quite as user friendly but you have more control over settings, tends to underexpose pictures compared to the D50 so its easier to edit afterwards, capable of faster shutter speeds and little faster fps when shooting burst shots. Do you have any suggestions since I would consider myself a beginner with slight experience?

Either camera will serve you well. I had a D70 and it was an outstanding camera. If you shoot a lot in low light, the D50 has a bit of an advantage.

Lens:
Ok now about the lens situation, for me the fewer the lenses the better. I figure the more time I am changing lenses the less time I am shooting, and run the risk of getting dust in the camera. I would like something that is very versatile and macro capabilities (or at least very close-up pictures withe a lot of detail and I will be happy). I have heard a lot of good things about the Nikor 18-200 VR lens but I called a local camera shop and they weren't pleasant at all to talk with and they didn't like the fact that I had questions, they told me that lens on either of the camera I am considering would be complete overkill for the camera and not needed and that I would be much better off choosing another route (at which they had no suggestions for another route to take). So what are your thoughts on it? What lens(es) would you suggest?

The 18-200 is a very nice and versatile lens. The reason the store idiots are telling you it is overkill is because they cannot get it. This is a very high demand lens, and you have to get it where you can find it.

Some people prefer to break up this range, going with the shorter 18-55, the 18-70 or Sigma 18-125, and then getting a 70-300 for the longer work. The best 70-300 right now is the Sigma APO version.

You may want a fast normal lens for low light. I have the 35mm f2 and the 50mm f1.8. The first is very good all around, but not real cheap (about $350). The second is cheap (about $100), and sharp, but color and contrast are not as good as the 35mm. The 35mm is the normal lens on an APS-C sensor.


Filters:
Lastly, filters. I will get a basic UV filter to protest any lens I am using but are there any other filters I shoul dconsider? Or maybe a good filter kit? If I recall correctly to get good shots of the sky with clouds a polarizer filter would be needed, am I correct?

Now with all that said I just want to thank everyone ahead of time.

Thanks,
BEATNUT
I'm not big on using a UV filter, but I won't tell you not to use one. You definitely want a polarizer for each lens filter ring size you have. For instance, you you got the 18-200mm and the 35mm, you would need a 72mm filter for the 18-200mm and a 52mm polarizer for the 35mm.

[JREMKE]

You may want to consider a refub D50 and save yourself a lot of money.

JRE

[BE4TNUT]

You may want to consider a refub D50 and save yourself a lot of money.

JRE

This is also something that I am considering. Are there any downsides to having just the 18-200 lens compared to having 2 lenses of the equivalent?

Thanks,
BEATNUT

[erichlund]

This is also something that I am considering. Are there any downsides to having just the 18-200 lens compared to having 2 lenses of the equivalent?

Thanks,
BEATNUT
The wider the zoom range, the more you will have to deal with distortion issues in post processing. I haven't directly compared the 18-70 lens to the 18-200, but I suspect it has more barrel distortion at the wide end.

[D70FAN]

The D70s is NOT better with editting afterwards... why would you think that?

I'm thinking that this response is related to an earlier post, and not mine. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.



It has a few more features, which you may or may not find important. And it has the irritatingly slow USB 1.1, shame on you Nikon! The D50 has fast USB 2.0.

I suppose that USB1.1 would be irritating, but I use this new-fangled thing called a USB2.0HS memory card reader. I recommend it highly. Damn fast.


Unless you know of a feature that the D70s has that you need to have, go for the D50, since it is lighter and that is often a plus.

The remote speedlight Commander function on the D70(s) is pretty nice and will allow the use of an SB600 as both an on-camera shoe-mounted flash or wireless remote. With the D50 you have to buy the on camera transmitter separately or use an SB800 as the controller AND an SB600 as the remote.

Having 1/4000 to 1/8000 shutter speed range is handy. As is the lighted info LCD. I also really like being able to manually set ISO in 1/3 stop increments.

The dual quick-setting command dials, on the D70s are very handy, and the snap-on LCD cover is also a nice touch (and has saved my D70 LCD twice) There is a handy connection for corded remote (MC-DC1) on the D70s also.

If you want to use DOF preview (admittedly, I rarely use this function) the D70s has it, the D50 doesn't. Additionally the D70s has a little faster continuous shooting speed and a larger buffer.

For future reference, there is a massive 60 gram weight difference (2.1 ounces) that I actually like.

It's a lot of nice professional touches that make the D70s worth the extra $175, and they are differences not appreciated or even realized by owners of other dSLR's including the D50.

[rawpaw18]

and they are differences not appreciated or even realized by owners of other dSLR's including the D50.

Ouch, that hurt.:D

When I bought mine I never even touched a D70, for that very reason.
If I know me, it would have been hard to settle on the D50 after handling the more expensive one.

[K1W1]

It's a lot of nice professional touches that make the D70s worth the extra $175, and they are differences not appreciated or even realized by owners of other dSLR's including the D50.

Which sort of comes back to the point I made earlier.
If you don't know what the differences are or how to use them then there is no point in buying a D70 over a D50.

[coldrain]

The high ISO performance of the D50 far outweighs the 1/3rd ISO steps of the D70(s). Also, how many photos have you made with a shutterspeed of 4000 or above, actually? I have a lighted LCD on my 350D and to tell you the truth, I have not used it once. And yes, I do shoot at night too.

[coldrain]

The wider the zoom range, the more you will have to deal with distortion issues in post processing. I haven't directly compared the 18-70 lens to the 18-200, but I suspect it has more barrel distortion at the wide end.
Both the 18-70 and 18-200 have very bad barrel distortion at the wide end... in that they are not different at all. The 18-200 has quite bad pin cushion distortion at mid range already though.

[Prospero]

The high ISO performance of the D50 far outweighs the 1/3rd ISO steps of the D70(s). Also, how many photos have you made with a shutterspeed of 4000 or above, actually? I have a lighted LCD on my 350D and to tell you the truth, I have not used it once. And yes, I do shoot at night too.

When I look at your latest night shots over in the Canon forum, I somehow get the suspicion that when you are shooting at night you are so far gone that you no longer know how to use that lighted LCD anyway ;). Just kidding... I enjoyed these pictures, there were some really creative compositions.

Now, about the shutterspeed: at very bright days the D50 may be somewhat limiting, because the lowest ISO available is 200 and at this ISO a shutterspeed of 4000 may in some cases not be fast enough. I won't miss it myself, but say if you take portrai shots on a very bright day and want a very shallow DOF, the D50 will overexpose. So if you know you will shoot such pictures in that given situation a lot, the D70 may be a better choice.

[britkev]

at very bright days the D50 may be somewhat limiting, because the lowest ISO available is 200 and at this ISO a shutterspeed of 4000 may in some cases not be fast enough. I won't miss it myself, but say if you take portrai shots on a very bright day and want a very shallow DOF, the D50 will overexpose. So if you know you will shoot such pictures in that given situation a lot, the D70 may be a better choice.

ISO 200, f/22 at 1/4000 is only limiting if you are trying to take pictures of sunspots ;) - I do take your point about depth of field... but if that's your only justification you can buy a nice range of ND filters for $175 ;)

[Prospero]

ISO 200, f/22 at 1/4000 is only limiting if you are trying to take pictures of sunspots ;) - I do take your point about depth of field... but if that's your only justification you can buy a nice range of ND filters for $175 ;)

Yes, you're right of course, but all in all I think that the D70 just offers a bit more flexibility as it is, in case you would need it. Of course that is not the only point to justify a D70 over a D50. For instance the wireless flash system of the D70.

When I bought my D50 a couple of months back I never thought I would ever need an external flash, but as my interest in photography grew, I found out that using a flash can make pictures a lot better. Now I am going to buy the SB600, and realised that using it off-camera can be of great help when taking indoors macro shots with my 17-70. I think that if I would use the SB600 on the hotshoe there will still be a shadow of the lens. Of course there are ways to go around this, for instance buying a wire or the commander, but it certainly would have been nice if I had it all integrated on my camera body.

However, I'll never regret that I went for the D50 rather than the D70. First of all, when I bought the camera the price was all I wanted to pay for a camera body. Back then the difference in price was still a lot more. Then, the only limitation when you compare these two cameras that I care about myself is the thing I just mentioned. Furthermore, I love the way the D50 fits into my hand, the size is just about right and the difference in price helped me to afford a nice lens system.

[K1W1]

Now, about the shutterspeed: at very bright days the D50 may be somewhat limiting, because the lowest ISO available is 200 and at this ISO a shutterspeed of 4000 may in some cases not be fast enough. I won't miss it myself, but say if you take portrai shots on a very bright day and want a very shallow DOF, the D50 will overexpose. So if you know you will shoot such pictures in that given situation a lot, the D70 may be a better choice.

I think I would disagree on that one.
I accidentally once took a shot on a brilliantly clear day at high altitude of a well lit scene at ISO1600, f11. Even at that the shutter speed was only 1/2500 and after quick trip through Noise Ninja the photo turned out great.
I'm not sure in what circumstances you would ever get to 1/4000 shutter speed other than pointing directly at the sun.

[britkev]

Not really arguing with you - I'm in much the same boat as you. I had been lusting after the D70 for a couple of years but could never quite cost justify it, knowing that I would need to spend more than just the kit price to get a usable outfit to replace my Coolpix 8700.

The D50 made the price of admission acceptable to me ( and the wife :rolleyes: )... at the time I bought (just three months ago) the price differential was more significant, and I would have had to choose between D70s with kit lens, or the D50 with the lenses listed below. I'm not in the least bit disappointed with my choice, and can now spend the next couple of years gradually improving my glass collection, then start saving for whatever has replaced the D70 or D200 in about three years time...

I also couldn't help reflecting on how spoiled we are these days: my first SLR was a Zenit E, almost thirty years ago: film, of course, which meant choosing between ISO100 or ISO 400 and sticking with that choice for the next 36 shots, and despite it's fastest shutter speed of 1/500th I can't ever remember not being able to take a shot because it was too bright ;)

[Prospero]

I think I would disagree on that one.
I accidentally once took a shot on a brilliantly clear day at high altitude of a well lit scene at ISO1600, f11. Even at that the shutter speed was only 1/2500 and after quick trip through Noise Ninja the photo turned out great.
I'm not sure in what circumstances you would ever get to 1/4000 shutter speed other than pointing directly at the sun.

Yes, you're right in saying that you will come into a circumstance where the D50 is not capable of taking the shot. Indeed, I think you can get a great shot with the D50 even in the brightest situations (photography of sunspots exluded). However, perhaps not always with a very shallow depth of field. Had the situation you just described been just 1 stop brighter, you would have overexposed the image if you really wanted f/2.8.

Of course it can be argued how often you will come into such a situation. I know that I am never going to miss the shutterspeed of 8000. After all, only at 17mm I can shoot at f/2.8 and who on earth would take portraits requiring lots of bokeh at that focal length :).

Britkev, I agree that we are a bit spoiled these days. I only got into photography two years ago, though, so I guess I was spoiled from the begining :rolleyes:. I have never had a camera shooting film (except for these throw away cameras), but if my D50 had been using film I would definitly be broke by now; I would have used over 40 rolls since the beginning of April :eek:.

[Camille]

Hi all -
Just got my D50 3 days ago after long and arduous researching. It seems that after reading all of this thread it comes down to the usual, I like what I have, which makes sense. Since there is so little difference between the D70 and the D50. For me it came down to the fact that I already have SD cards. I know, that is a lame excuse for buying one over the other, but there was not one review that made me feel I needed the D70 and a number of them said that basically the D50 was a better camera. Note the PC Mag award for this camera for 2005.
I tried for the last 5 years to make a non SLR work for me and it never really did. I have nice lenses left over from my N80 and the one I have placed on this camera is the 28-105 AF D (with macro) and it takes outstanding pictures right out of the box. I think it will be my lense of choice though I also have the little 18-55DX that came with the camera and an old and not too high quality 70-200 that seems ok with a monopod.
I tried the D70 but I have small hands so it was a bit of a push and just felt too big. Even the D50 with its lense and battery is a real camera, no stickin it in a pocket or even in my rather large purse.
Well, enough of my blather. Just another 2 cents worth, for whatever it is worth. Will put a couple of pictures on this site later today.
Camille