[StarScream]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

@gd1418: There is absolutely no problem in going for the non body motor Nikon bodies as Nikon have, since last few years, and will include the AF motor on the lens in all their new lenses. Also if you have a lot of AF or AF-D lenses or will buy them in the future, only then going for a body AF motor makes sense.

Isn't backward compatibility the raison d'etre of the Nikon system? Otherwise why bother with Nikon at all, just go for Canon. For years the advantage of the Nikon system has been massive number of second-hand glass you can choose from.

I would never buy a Nikon body that doesn't have the ability to use old AF lenses with an aperture ring. In fact, in an ideal world with an ideal budget one should buy a body that focuses with AF-D lenses and also meters with old AI-s manual focus lenses, so that all lenses made since 1977 work on it.

Only top-end bodies can do that - D3, D700, D300. Spending that much may be difficult for beginners but please at least spring for a body that has the screw drive AF system in it - D70/80/90. In the long run it will be cheaper as you can buy lenses for a lot less from the second-hand market, without compromising on functionality. Case in point, I bought a mint 80-200/2.8 AF-D off eBay for 40% less than what a new one would cost and 1/3rd of what the AFS 70-200 VR would cost me.

The new AFS only bodies are very limiting in this regard. When one does a TCO analysis for the Nikon system, spending a little more upfront works out cheaper in the long run.

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by StarScream

Isn't backward compatibility the raison d'etre of the Nikon system? Otherwise why bother with Nikon at all, just go for Canon. For years the advantage of the Nikon system has been massive number of second-hand glass you can choose from.

Well not necessarily. Newer Nikon glass is as good or better than what canon or for that matter any one else has to offer. I would definitely bother with Nikon even if I do not own any of the older Nikon glass. For one their kit lenses are better value than the Canon counterparts. Lets not talk about the 14-24 2.8 and the 200-400 VR both relatively new Nikon glass.

Originally Posted by StarScream

I would never buy a Nikon body that doesn't have the ability to use old AF lenses with an aperture ring. In fact, in an ideal world with an ideal budget one should buy a body that focuses with AF-D lenses and also meters with old AI-s manual focus lenses, so that all lenses made since 1977 work on it.

Neither would I but its not what we are recommending to the OP who has asked for a choice between D5000 and the 500D. His budget nor is his world is an ideal one.

Originally Posted by StarScream

Only top-end bodies can do that - D3, D700, D300. Spending that much may be difficult for beginners but please at least spring for a body that has the screw drive AF system in it - D70/80/90. In the long run it will be cheaper as you can buy lenses for a lot less from the second-hand market, without compromising on functionality. Case in point, I bought a mint 80-200/2.8 AF-D off eBay for 40% less than what a new one would cost and 1/3rd of what the AFS 70-200 VR would cost me.

I myself own the 180 2.8, 85 1.8, 50 1.4, 35-70 2.8 and also the Tokina 12-24 f4 all screw driven AF lenses, and I can vouch for their superb image quality. But for some one who is asking for recommendations to get a cheap DSLR where he is unlikely to go beyond the kit lens and the 55-200 or at best the 70-300 I dont think its too wise to recommend a body that has a built in AF motor for future upgrades that he may never make. Even if he does go for an upgarde Nikon and the other 3rd party lens makers have everything coverd for him even then. Just my 2 cents.

[Torqueguru]

@clevermax
Well, as far as workflow is concerned, CS4 is simply awesome. Makes life a whole lot easier than CS2. It does utilize GPU acceration, so a pretty decent graphics processor will come in handy. My workstation is a core i7 920 that runs at 4.4 GHz, and the graphics core is at 2.2 GHz, all supported by 12 GB RAM, thus CS4(64 bit) runs very smooth. What is the configuration of your machine? A decent dual core/quad core CPU of about 2.5 GHz upwards with a video memory of atleast 512 MB with the GPU speed at atleast 500MHz and system memory of around 4GB, will surely run CS4 pretty well, for the non-3d stuff that you need it for. CS4 is a blessing for matte painting, texturing, 3d compositing and basic sketching, masking etc. Some of its features are invaluable in these areas. But to be honest, if you are just going to do basic color correction and stuff like that, then you are better off with good old CS2!
Regards,
TG.

[clevermax]

Thanks a lot Hoopoe and TG for your inputs.

@TG: My laptop is a Core2Duo having 4 GB RAM. I am not sure how good is its Graphics capabilities but GTA-SA game (yea it is old) runs pretty well for instance. The WEI score is a let down, it is 3.7 or so, the lowest in the lot being the graphics performance score. Others are 5 or above.

OS is Vista Home - 32 bit. CS2 runs very smoothly in my machine, and so far I am very happy with its performance.

As far as my usage is concerned, it is only for photo editing, but it wont be limited to basic color correction alone. Moreover, I usually post process in 16-bit Tiff and then save the Jpeg and sometimes the PSD too.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

Well not necessarily. Newer Nikon glass is as good or better than what canon or for that matter any one else has to offer. I would definitely bother with Nikon even if I do not own any of the older Nikon glass. For one their kit lenses are better value than the Canon counterparts. Lets not talk about the 14-24 2.8 and the 200-400 VR both relatively new Nikon glass.

Spark, I was giving my opinion and not necessarily asking for it. Nikon glass has always been of a certain standard and is as good or bad as Canon. Are either of those as good as Leica glass? No.

Neither would I but its not what we are recommending to the OP who has asked for a choice between D5000 and the 500D. His budget nor is his world is an ideal one.

And my point was, because the new Nikon AFS only bodies are severely limited in their functionality, Canon is a better choice as an entry-level body because it can use every lens in their line-up, without handicap.

I myself own the 180 2.8, 85 1.8, 50 1.4, 35-70 2.8 and also the Tokina 12-24 f4 all screw driven AF lenses, and I can vouch for their superb image quality. But for some one who is asking for recommendations to get a cheap DSLR where he is unlikely to go beyond the kit lens and the 55-200 or at best the 70-300 I dont think its too wise to recommend a body that has a built in AF motor for future upgrades that he may never make. Even if he does go for an upgarde Nikon and the other 3rd party lens makers have everything coverd for him even then. Just my 2 cents.

It is wrong to assume that a person who is starting out and getting a cheap DSLR will tomorrow not develop greater interest in photography and seek better equipment. My advice is aimed at avoiding heartache later, when one discovers the limitations of equipment.
I've been a Nikon user for many years and my first purchase, with a limited budget, had similar crippled features that I wish someone had warned me about.
I stuck with Nikon because of the time and effort invested in knowing the system. But that did p!ss me off.

[clevermax]

So, finally I installed Photoshop CS4. Initial experience is that it is not that bad as I expected, in fact it is not slower than CS2. The UI has great improvement and some of the most common workflows are much easier to perform. I like the space saving menu-on-title, tabbed document views etc. Got to explore it in detail.

So this was the code name for CS4!

[maven]

Did some shopping on Monday. Added a Tripod and a Canon remote shutter release (had been looking for a press and lock type instead of the mostly available press and hold).
The tripod is metal and a little on the heavier side. I wanted it to be so, paranoid of the thing toppling over once camera is mounted. The tripod costed 2400.
Also aAsked for 70-200mm f/2.8, have a got a quote of 1.34 L

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by StarScream

Spark, I was giving my opinion and not necessarily asking for it. Nikon glass has always been of a certain standard and is as good or bad as Canon. Are either of those as good as Leica glass? No.

Well if the hallowed Leica and Zeiss are really that much better than Nikon and Canon what happened to their market share? Can you look at a picture and tell me or any one that this photograph was shot with a Leica or a Zeiss and no equivalent Canon or a Nikon could shoot the same same I will accept your statement without any contest. But that's not the point we are not discussing some Leica cameras here along with their superb lenses. And let me tell you not all Leica glass is as good as you claim it to be. Now its more about the romance and the nostalgia of shooting with a Leica that's part of the Leica charm or all the top photo professionals would still be shooting Lieca if it was so good.

Originally Posted by StarScream

It is wrong to assume that a person who is starting out and getting a cheap DSLR will tomorrow not develop greater interest in photography and seek better equipment. My advice is aimed at avoiding heartache later, when one discovers the limitations of equipment.
I've been a Nikon user for many years and my first purchase, with a limited budget, had similar crippled features that I wish someone had warned me about.
I stuck with Nikon because of the time and effort invested in knowing the system. But that did p!ss me off.

I don't think its wrong to assume this if the OP has clearly stated his target cameras and he just wants to have a feel of the DSLR experience. I wouldn't recommend a camera costing more than twice the budget just to ensure that his investment is future proof for back ward compatibility. And its unfortunate that you did not have the right advice when you were starting out but IMHO if the OP has any intention of upgrading he will be well served even with the path he has chosen

Originally Posted by StarScream

And my point was, because the new Nikon AFS only bodies are severely limited in their functionality, Canon is a better choice as an entry-level body because it can use every lens in their line-up, without handicap

Well the newer Canon's can't use their old FD mount lenses and some of them were real gems. I would like to know what focal length of the OP will not be covered by the new AF-S lenses. Let us limit our self to the budgetry constraints of the OP and not talk of exotics like the 85 1.4, 28 1.4 and the likes.

[Samurai]

StarScream/Sparkled, these days dSLR bodies lose their value faster than VIP banians. That means one can upgrade/exchange the body without much worries if one feels the need. Why fight about it?

[sandeep.mishra]

Hi All... I have a Nikon D40X. The camera came with 18-35 Lense as standard and I opted for a 7300 as additional for a good Zoom experience.

The 18-35 Lense is gross inadequate especially when taking a close short say at home where light may not be adequate.

I therefore need your expert view for some Multipurpose Lense that I can go for short to medium range shots! Please also specify where to buy them from in Delhi. I see quite a lot of Nikon boards in CP but they dont look like the professional retailers.

[SPARKled]

@Samurai: Hey No!! We are not fighting just a difference of opinion about the suggestions made to the OP about his choice of kit. Anyway I have said what I wanted to say and no about this from my end.

@StarScream : Hope I have not offended you in any way. By the way I would like to know more about your photo kit and your favorite subjects to shoot.

@sandeep.mishra: I am not very clear of your requirements. I assume that you have the 18-55 kit lens and the 70-300 VR lens. I think you are more than covered for everything from wide angle to telephoto. Dont worry about the gap between 55 to 70 as you can easily cover this distance with your feet. If low light performance is whats lacking, then I will recommend the 35 1.8 to you or even the 50 1.4.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

@Samurai: Hey No!! We are not fighting just a difference of opinion about the suggestions made to the OP about his choice of kit. Anyway I have said what I wanted to say and no about this from my end.

Looks like you are very passionate about your photography. Do visit our Auto-image, non-auto image and Theme photography threads under shifting gears.

[gd1418]

Did you by any chance mean the 18~135 and the 70~300? If so, then you are reasonably covered..

AFAIK, the D40x came with a 18-55 as kit.

Originally Posted by sandeep.mishra

Hi All... I have a Nikon D40X. The camera came with 18-35 Lense as standard and I opted for a 7300 as additional for a good Zoom experience.

The 18-35 Lense is gross inadequate especially when taking a close short say at home where light may not be adequate.

I therefore need your expert view for some Multipurpose Lense that I can go for short to medium range shots! Please also specify where to buy them from in Delhi. I see quite a lot of Nikon boards in CP but they dont look like the professional retailers.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

Well if the hallowed Leica and Zeiss are really that much better than Nikon and Canon what happened to their market share? Can you look at a picture and tell me or any one that this photograph was shot with a Leica or a Zeiss and no equivalent Canon or a Nikon could shoot the same same I will accept your statement without any contest. But that's not the point we are not discussing some Leica cameras here along with their superb lenses. And let me tell you not all Leica glass is as good as you claim it to be. Now its more about the romance and the nostalgia of shooting with a Leica that's part of the Leica charm or all the top photo professionals would still be shooting Lieca if it was so good.

Yes, Leica is that good - there is an indescribable quality to the image that I have not seen any Nikon or Canon glass reproduce. Actually let me correct that - one Nikon lens comes close and even that is a Tessar design, the 45mm f2.8 P.

Market share is not the best way of looking at it. The closest car analogy I can think of is Porsche versus Toyota. Only a Porsche can give you the feel of a Porsche. No fast car from Toyota can hope to match the legendary 911. But in market share Toyota rules because for daily use people don't use a 911.
Leica (I don't know much about Zeiss) lost their way in the transition from film to digital but they are back and how with the M9. Just see the rave reviews that camera is getting.

I'll name just one top photographer who still shoots with a Leica - Annie Leibovitz. For a lot of her more intimate images, Leica is it. She also uses Canon.


I don't think its wrong to assume this if the OP has clearly stated his target cameras and he just wants to have a feel of the DSLR experience. I wouldn't recommend a camera costing more than twice the budget just to ensure that his investment is future proof for back ward compatibility.

I disagree. Detail in next answer.

Well the newer Canon's can't use their old FD mount lenses and some of them were real gems. I would like to know what focal length of the OP will not be covered by the new AF-S lenses. Let us limit our self to the budgetry constraints of the OP and not talk of exotics like the 85 1.4, 28 1.4 and the likes.

umm slight difference here. When Canon introduced the EOS line they abandoned the FD amount. Their direction was clear - EOS was the future. That is not true for Nikon. They maintained the F-mount and the archaic screw drive AF system even at the cost of losing market share to Canon in the 90s. The rationale was backward compatibility. Now they are abandoning their own philosophy?

I will reiterate, for a beginner Canon is a better choice because Canon's entire `AF' line of lenses is at their disposal. That is not true with Nikon unless you buy a body like the D90 or upwards.

I'm impressed with your knowledge of Nikon glass. To answer your question as to which focal lengths won't be covered - perhaps none but at what cost? If I own a D5000 and want a fast tele what option do I have other than the 70-200/2.8 VR? If I want an 80-400 zoom I have no choice in the AFS range. In DX the 12-24/4 Tokina that you own will not AF on the 5000, you'll have to buy the Nikon version which costs almost double. And yes, let's not talk about exotics like the 28/1.4, 85/1.4 (heck even the 85/1.8), 105/135 DC, which won't AF on the 5000.

The selling point of Nikon was their range of lenses. It ain't anymore with the AFS-only bodies. Canon now has the lead there.

Originally Posted by Samurai

StarScream/Sparkled, these days dSLR bodies lose their value faster than VIP banians. That means one can upgrade/exchange the body without much worries if one feels the need. Why fight about it?

Hey Samurai, no fight just an academic discussion

Originally Posted by SPARKled

@StarScream : Hope I have not offended you in any way. By the way I would like to know more about your photo kit and your favorite subjects to shoot.

No, not at all. This forum is all about differences of opinion - just look at `is the ANHC overpriced thread'!

My photo kit - gawd that's a long story. What I own currently, starting with the centerpiece: Leica M3 with 50mm/1.4 Summilux, Nikon D70s, Tokina 12-24/4 and Nikon: 45mm/2.8P, 24-85/3.5-4.5 AFS, 80-200/2.8 AFD, 18-200 AFS VR, SB-600 Speedlight. What I have owned in the past Nikon F50, F90x, 85/1.8 AFD, 70-300 AFD ED, 35-80 AFD, FM3A, 28/2.8 AIS CRC, 70-210/4 AIS (the 45P was the kit lens with the FM3A).
What I've shot with: Canon EOS 1n, 70-210/2.8L, 17-35/2.8L.

I shoot mostly family and travel pictures now. I used to assist a fashion photographer. I no longer shoot professionally.

@sandeep.mishra: I am not very clear of your requirements. I assume that you have the 18-55 kit lens and the 70-300 VR lens. I think you are more than covered for everything from wide angle to telephoto. Dont worry about the gap between 55 to 70 as you can easily cover this distance with your feet. If low light performance is whats lacking, then I will recommend the 35 1.8 to you or even the 50 1.4.

Sandeep for once I agree with Spark. A normal zoom with more range won't help with low-light performance. The 35/1.8 DX is probably your best bet. The 50/1.4 AFS is expensive. You can also choose the cheapest option - the 50/1.8 AFD - but then you won't get AF with it on a D40x

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by StarScream

umm slight difference here. When Canon introduced the EOS line they abandoned the FD amount. Their direction was clear - EOS was the future. That is not true for Nikon. They maintained the F-mount and the archaic screw drive AF system even at the cost of losing market share to Canon in the 90s. The rationale was backward compatibility. Now they are abandoning their own philosophy?
I will reiterate, for a beginner Canon is a better choice because Canon's entire `AF' line of lenses is at their disposal. That is not true with Nikon unless you buy a body like the D90 or upwards.
I'm impressed with your knowledge of Nikon glass. To answer your question as to which focal lengths won't be covered - perhaps none but at what cost? If I own a D5000 and want a fast tele what option do I have other than the 70-200/2.8 VR? If I want an 80-400 zoom I have no choice in the AFS range. In DX the 12-24/4 Tokina that you own will not AF on the 5000, you'll have to buy the Nikon version which costs almost double. And yes, let's not talk about exotics like the 28/1.4, 85/1.4 (heck even the 85/1.8), 105/135 DC, which won't AF on the 5000.
The selling point of Nikon was their range of lenses. It ain't anymore with the AFS bodies. Canon now has the lead there.

Yes you do have options for the 80-400. The Sigma 150-500 OS is as good or better than the slow Nikon 80-400. In fact the focusing with the HSM motor makes the 80-400 a no go now. Even Tokina now has the 12-24 with the lens motor for AF with newer bodies. The 70-200 by Sigma and Tamron are pretty good and they compare well with the Nikon 80 - 200 as well as the 70-200 VR. Not to mention all the third party lenses are cheaper than their nikon counter parts. Nikon will slowly but surely update all their lenses soon with G and AF-S designations without any doubt.

Looking at the new market share reports Nikon are clawing back to the place they gave up to Canon a few years back and by the looks of it, yes they are abandoning their back ward compatibility philosophy too. But I am sure they will provide it with their top bodies even in the future. In fact this was seen even during their film body days when they removed AI and AI-S metering capability with their entry level SLRs and now they are going further with the introduction of the G lenses instead of the D lenses. The screw driven AF may be old and arcahaic but don't discount it as something primitive or un-sophisticated. Except for the noise it generates during AF action it is as accurate and in same cases faster to focus than eqivalent AFS or USM lenses. Take the Nikon 85 1.4 vs Canon 85 1.2 for example. The focusing speed when used with a high torque motor body like the F6,F5,D2X etc will shame many an AF-S lens in speed of focusing. Actually it was not really the F mount, all the new AF-S lenses are still the F mount, that made Nikon lose their market share. Lack of VR/IS on long lenses, bad high ISO performance and my god, the worst, the D2H (What was Nikon thinking) for the sports high speed shooting journalists with 4 mp when canon had a superb 1D at their disposal with a multitude of USM lenses.

Originally Posted by StarScream

No, not at all. This forum is all about differences of opinion - just look at `is the ANHC overpriced thread'!
My photo kit - gawd that's a long story. What I own currently, starting with the centerpiece: Leica M3 with 50mm/1.4 Summilux, Nikon D70s, Tokina 12-24/4 and Nikon: 45mm/2.8P, 24-85/3.5-4.5 AFS, 80-200/2.8 AFD, 18-200 AFS VR, SB-600 Speedlight. What I have owned in the past Nikon F50, F90x, 85/1.8 AFD, 70-300 AFD ED, 35-80 AFD, FM3A, 28/2.8 AIS CRC, 70-210/4 AIS (the 45P was the kit lens with the FM3A).
What I've shot with: Canon EOS 1n, 70-210/2.8L, 17-35/2.8L.
I shoot mostly family and travel pictures now. I used to assist a fashion photographer. I no longer shoot professionally.

That's a pretty good kit you have. That 28 2.8 is one I am going to have in my hands soon. So do you scan your images taken with the Leica or just use slides or print them? Boy you have a classic in your hands and I hope you never intend to dispose it off.
About Leica, well I still think Leica in today's age is over rated. The Toyota vs the 911 analogy does not really hold ground here as the 911 is a far superior car to anything Toyota has been able to dish out save for the new electronics bits which are not really the indicator of a superior car. But Japanese glass today is as good as German glass and their cameras don't really compare except for the aesthetic and the fun element. Annie Leiboivitz as you rightly shoots canon for her bread and butter, had she shot Leica any more than she does now, she would have be bankrupt sooner.

The M9 looks interesting but hope they don't botch it up like the M8 magenta debacle. But man, did you see the price of the M lenses and the body. Phew

I am not belittling the Leicas and I have seen some impressive Leica results but when I think of practicality, a Nikon, Pentax, Canon could have done as well with the right lens. Lets not get deeper into this as the Leica/Zeiss vs the rest debate has been going on for ever now.

@sandeep.mishra: the Sigma 30 1.4 is another lens that comes to mind immediately as fast low light prime.