Team-BHP - The Digital Camera Thread: Questions, discussions, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by reignofchaos (Post 784735)

Looking for a real sharp prime for around 400-450$. Its a toss up between the 100mm f/2.8 macro USM and 85mm f/1.8 USM. I already have a 50 f/1.4 so I'm mostly leaning towards the 100mm macro. Suggestions welcome on the pros and cons of either.

rudraji has the 100 2.8 macro and most of the product shots that you get to see from him are with that lens.

what else you need?

Hi Guys,

I own a Nikon D40 with the standard 18-55 kit lens. I've spent the last few months finding my way around the camera and have just started to make proper use of it.

I've identified two main weaknesses that I need to address in the kit:
1. No Image Stabilisation in the stock lens - I do a bit of low light photography and do miss this. The 18-55 Nikon lens with VR is 9k in grey at JJ Mehta.
2. Zoom: I do need to invest in a decent zoom lens. For this as well, VR would be necessary. I've identified the Nikon 55-200 AF-S VR. It's available for 11k.

One option I have is to invest in the lenses and keep my existing camera (19k). The other is to upgrade the entire kit. For this I'm looking at the Olympus E-510 (38k with b&w including two lenses - 14-42 and 40-150). Netting of what I might get for my existing camera, the investment would be about 5k more for a higher pixelage camera with b&w, less if I can get it in grey.

Which option of the two would make more sense? I haven't used anything outside the Nikon/Canon universe earlier so don't know about lens/accessories availability and maintenance options.

I'm in no particular hurry and can wait a few weeks before making the purchase. I'll be travelling to Thailand in June. Would it make sense to make the purchases there?

Sorry for the long post. Hope someone who has a bit more experience with cameras can guide me.

Thanks
Jaibir

Since I own two Olympus DSLR bodies (E500,E3), I can give you the pro and cons.

Pros:

Very compact body and lenses, easy to carry around (E3 is an exception)
Body based IS, so lenses get IS, and it works very well too.
First to offer liveview in entry level.
Anti-dust sensor, the most effective one out there.
Pretty cheap as long as you don't want very tele or very wide.
Very good lenses, there are hardly any bad lenses in Olympus lineup.

Con:

Not good at high ISOs, you better stick below ISO800 unless it is E3.
Almost no resale value in India since very few own Olympus.
Difficult to get lenses of choice for the same reason above. I get my lenses from abroad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaibir (Post 790545)

Hi Guys,
I've identified two main weaknesses that I need to address in the kit:
1. No Image Stabilisation in the stock lens - I do a bit of low light photography and do miss this.

VR lens may give 1 stop advantage. From my little experience, I found that for lowlight f2.8 is minimum. You need something with a higher aperture than kit lens. Also D40 has superb high iso performance. I suggest you pick up a 50mm prime (f/1.8) bump up the iso and you'll be happy with lowlight performance. It should be available for < $150. There is no point in changing your complete system for this.

I am not sure of tele lens. Nikon users would surely help.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvish (Post 790655)

I suggest you pick up a 50mm prime (f/1.8) bump up the iso and you'll be happy with lowlight performance. It should be available for < $150.

The problem is that the D40 requires an autofocus motor in the lens (AF - S, AF - I lenses in the Nikon range). This isnt available in the 50 mm prime. With that, I would be stuck on manual focus.

I would need to upgrade my camera body at some point to access a wider variety of lenses even if I do stick with Nikon in any case.

Am doing some more research into the whole canon vs nikon vs pentax vs olympus question (dont really consider sony here - personal bias). Once I pick one and start building up a lens collection, it becomes harder to change.

Thanks for your feedback on Olympus Samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samurai (Post 790646)

Difficult to get lenses of choice for the same reason above. I get my lenses from abroad.

These bit worries me. Most of my work related travel tends to be to the UK, which is an expensive place to shop for such stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaibir (Post 791983)

The problem is that the D40 requires an autofocus motor in the lens (AF - S, AF - I lenses in the Nikon range). This isnt available in the 50 mm prime. With that, I would be stuck on manual focus.

My friend is using his D40 with manual focus f/1.8 50 mm lens. It seems to be ok unless you are very particular of autofocusing with the lens. Its a great buy for 4.7k!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaibir (Post 791983)

Am doing some more research into the whole canon vs nikon vs pentax vs olympus question (dont really consider sony here - personal bias). Once I pick one and start building up a lens collection, it becomes harder to change.

hi, just wanted to know why you are not considering the sony. if there is anything worth knowing that goes against, would sure like to have the info as i was planning to get myself the sony a700 and an array of cheap manual focus second hand lenses along with the sony 18-200/250. though things got pushed to the back burner for a while, i'd still like to know the opinions all here have about this particular slr.

this is a remake of the minolta maxxum 7d, a highly desirable camera, to me at least :-) have used older generation minolta film slrs, i am absolutely in love with the quality they provide, haven't been able to lay my hands on any from their digital line though and sadly the company doesn't exist anymore.

i had started my search with the canon 30d and 70-200 f/4 l, graduated to the 40d with lens constant, then suddenly found nikon d200 with the 18-200 vr lens irresistible and just by the time started enquiring with dealers for the d200, the sony came into picture. a lot of reading on the net has tilted the scales towards the a700, the best features being the dynamic range and vr in body.

the main reason being the availability and usefulness of a lot of old minolta lenses, being the manual focus type helps me here. with the vr in the body itself, any lens one puts becomes vr and one can avoid the premium to be paid on other lens assemblies as such. i was in fact bidding on a 22 years old minolta zoom on ebay when priorities took an about turn and plans got shelved for some more time, not that i mind, i'll get to buy a matured product when i do buy it.

now if there are really any issues with this particular body that needs to be known, please update.
cheers!