[Aroy]

Originally Posted by ajay_satpute

I assume this was directed towards me. Thanks a lot for the info. After giving a lot of thought, I have decided that I will go with the least expensive body and spend more on lenses.

I will update the thread as soon as I finalize the deal.

Cheers !

Please note that with D3200/5200 you can use either manual focus lenses or the lenses with in built motors for autophocus, (G type and not cheaper D type), though in general G lenses are better.

[gd1418]

They are and are silent & super-fast too, but make a deep hole in the pocket as well..

Originally Posted by Aroy

though in general G lenses are better.

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by gd1418

They are and are silent & super-fast too, but make a deep hole in the pocket as well..

I haven't found that any new D lens is cheap, except one prime. G lenses make economic sense compared to Ds as well, so the argument for having a motor in the camera body doesn't hold good. Unless one has a collection of old D series lenses that need to be used on a new body. And the focus drive via the shaft that D series use is clunky compared to how the G series focus. The more expensive Nikon bodies have other useful features, but the in body motor isn't one of these - unless, as I said already, one has a bunch of legacy lenses one wants to use.

[infotech58]

My suggestion:

• Very good decision of not going with kit lens.
• Even though D90 is older, it is still better than D3200; D3200 has a more sensitive sensor and higher mega pixals but that shall not matter unless you do a lot of low light shooting and cropping.
• D90 is a pro-sumer body and D3200 is a consumer level. Once you get used to ergonimics of D90, you'd never go back to something like D60/3200.
• D90 has built in auto focus motor. You'd realize the value of it later.
• Nikon 50mm f1.8 is good. You can also try to get Tamron 17-50 f2.8 if your budget permits.
• Instead of 55-200, try getting a 55-300 (the latest version).

I have used D90 for over four years and it is a very very capable camera coupled with right lenses.

Originally Posted by ajay_satpute

Hello members

I have finalized the following 3 models as my first DSLR and their cost break-ups based on the best price I am getting in Pune:

Attachment 1119879

Few questions to the experts:

1) I am not too keen on going for the kit lens 18-55, as I think this lens is pretty darn basic in all aspects, irrespective of company. Still, do you think I should?

2) Has anyone used the Canon EF75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM lens? I read a few reviews of the lens and it was clearly mentioned that this lens is strictly built to cost (~13k INR). Whats your take?

3) Similarly, how is the Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED lens?

I want to go with a fast prime and a medium telephoto to start with. Besides the above mentioned lenses, are there any good options in Sigma/Tamron/Tokina?

Thanks in advance.

[gd1418]

Maybe you didn't research thoroughly. Given below is a list for comparison. The prices are all MRP as posted on the Nikon India site.

D/G Lens

AF VR Zoom-NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED - MRP Rs. 96950/-

AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 G ED - MRP Rs. 179950/-

AF Zoom-NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED - MRP Rs. 33950/-

AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED - MRP Rs. 44950/-

AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED - MRP Rs. 67450/-

AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED - MRP Rs. 86950/-
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED - MRP Rs. 171950/-

AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D - MRP Rs. 17950/-

AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G - MRP Rs. 31950/-

AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D - MRP Rs. 41545/-

AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G - MRP Rs. 54450/-

** You might argue that 80-200 & 70-200 can't be compared. That is why I have given the price for 70-200 f.4 & 2.8 both to illustrate the price difference. For me anyday a 80-200 f.2.8D will prove that much of a difference in low-light as compared to the 70-200 f/4G.

The difference is considerable and sometimes one buys the D lenses for economic reasons. I have a Micro-Nikkor 105 f/2.8D since the G version was expensive.

Originally Posted by Sawyer

I haven't found that any new D lens is cheap, except one prime. G lenses make economic sense compared to Ds as well, so the argument for having a motor in the camera body doesn't hold good.

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by gd1418

Maybe you didn't research thoroughly. Given below is a list for comparison. The prices are all MRP as posted on the Nikon India site.

Yes, but this I think is comparing FX format lenses. G series DX lenses need to be used to make comparisons, because for someone buying a motorless body, FX lenses are not needed.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

Yes, but this I think is comparing FX format lenses. G series DX lenses need to be used to make comparisons, because for someone buying a motorless body, FX lenses are not needed.

Most of the tele lenses are FX format, there are very few DX lenses in this range. If you need a fast tele zoom or prime it is in general an FX lens.

Where DX lenses make financial sense is in the inexpensive zooms and wide angles.

Regarding motorized bodies. If you want an inexpensive telephoto lens then the way to go is pre-owned, and most of the value for money older lenses are either manual or driven by body motor.

[dkaile]

Some economical option to get a good Macro and a Wide Angle compatible with Nikon D5200?

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by dkaile

Some economical option to get a good Macro and a Wide Angle compatible with Nikon D5200?

Have no idea of wide angle, but for macro get a manual pre owned macro from KEH, US. My son got one delivered to his friend in US. It is excellent lense and cost less than $150.
55mm F2.8
http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manu...10200058N?r=FE
or more expensive 105mm F2.8
http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manu...10200791N?r=FE
105mm F4
http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manu...09003260N?r=FE

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by Aroy

Most of the tele lenses are FX format, there are very few DX lenses in this range. If you need a fast tele zoom or prime it is in general an FX lens.

Where DX lenses make financial sense is in the inexpensive zooms and wide angles.

Regarding motorized bodies. If you want an inexpensive telephoto lens then the way to go is pre-owned, and most of the value for money older lenses are either manual or driven by body motor.

AFAIK, DX lenses also make financial sense for most of the primes too. For DSLR users that are happy to stay with the DX format, there are many good reasons for choosing a d7100/7000 over the 3 and 5 series body. But I suggest that for this category of users, the built in motor on the 7 bodies isn't as large a factor in deciding which body, as the many other differences are. If one can live with the feature set of the cheaper bodies, the fact that they don't have motors isn't a big deal. That's all I am saying.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

AFAIK, DX lenses also make financial sense for most of the primes too. For DSLR users that are happy to stay with the DX format, there are many good reasons for choosing a d7100/7000 over the 3 and 5 series body. But I suggest that for this category of users, the built in motor on the 7 bodies isn't as large a factor in deciding which body, as the many other differences are. If one can live with the feature set of the cheaper bodies, the fact that they don't have motors isn't a big deal. That's all I am saying.

Actually for a beginner a D3200 makes more sense, as the sensors are similar the photo quality is similar with D7100 being marginally better.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/865|0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28appareil2%29/801|0/%28brand2%29/Nikon

What you get for more money is better rear LCD, more AF points and longer battery life, and a better build. For a beginner who is unsure of how much the DSLR will be used, a lower cost option is a better proposition. As the user gets more proficient and uses the camera more the difference in price can be invested in lenses and other accessories. An upgrade is always possible later.

http://www.2cameraguys.com/Nikon-D32...ikon-D7100.htm
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/ni.../ODEyMzQzMTU_A
http://www.cameracomparisonreview.co...l#.Uf5Ou23kxrU

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by Aroy

What you get for more money is better rear LCD, more AF points and longer battery life, and a better build. For a beginner who is unsure of how much the DSLR will be used, a lower cost option is a better proposition.

For beginners, that is true enough - indeed, even a 3100 that is now a great deal is more than adequate. Given the lightweight construction of all the 3 and 5 series bodies, cheapest is the best way to go.

There are other useful things about the d7000/7100 though - the AF points are a lot easier to identify in the better VF, and there is much less need to wade through menus - quicker to do things via the additional buttons provided. If one is ok staying with the DX format, the 7 series are worth the extra price. And of course the high build quality. But that is difficult call for a new convert to make.

An equally difficult decision is whether to invest in the cheaper DX glass - no quality losses, but it can't be used if one wants to move to full frame FX.

Decisions, complications. Ignorance can be blissful!

[Aroy]

I have noted that 99% of users never migrate to FX, and less than 10% of DX users have more than one lens. Most of the users will try out various options and modes initially, and then use the camera as a glorified P&S.

For these users the most VFM camera from Nikon is the D3200 with the kit lens. Considering that the going price for this combination is below 30k
http://www.pricedealsindia.com/camer...dia-dpi544.php

which is less than a good FX WA lens, it is an ideal system to start with

[ajay_satpute]

Gosh ! I never thought one request post from mine would generate two pages of discussion. Love this community.

So as it stands now, I am almost sold on D5200. Unfortunately due to family problems, I could not step out for the whole weekend. I am trying to get prices from various online stores and they are as follows:



The prices vary so much between various sellers. I also want to check out few retailers by visiting their stores in flesh before finalizing. All of us have mixed experiences of all online stores, some good, some bad. What I want to know is if I should strictly avoid any particular online store.

Thanks a lot to everyone for their helpful posts and guidance.

[Sawyer]

In the last twelve months I have bought 3 cameras and a bunch of other gear from Camshot. Prices are as low as anywhere else I have seen, and I have had no issues post purchase of any kind.