Nikon Photographers sound off

[KONE KILLER]

All right, I am gonna blow my work bonus on a new DSLR. I am getting with the times... Gonna become a chip licker...
A bit of my background... I used to shoot 35mm all the time with a Minolta X370. It is basic, but took great pictures, and I invested a bit in lenses for it as well. I shoot a bit with our Sony Cyber Shot that is a few years old and garbage... Takes ok pics, but it has never really worked well...
Well, figure I better start coming to terms, and put all my pictures on them tiny little cards...

Here is what I am thinking about going with....

The Nikon D40... One of the still super popular, but older generation dslr's. We have a friend that shoots semi pro, and says she would never trade her d40 for a new fancy high dollar Nikon. They are pretty basic and have a low mega pix count from what I have read, which doesnt really bother me. Also, what is the diff between the regualr D40 and the D40X?!?!?

The Nikon D3100....Newer basic model... Lots of bells n whistles, but some are not as great as they should be (i.e. lens noise if filming video) I have read...

Price wise, you can find the kits all over online for about the same price... Kinda odd... 10 year old dslr is selling for the same price as a newer model....

My main uses are going to be shooting pics of my new baby coming up, a bunch of outdoor stuff and try to sell online, and maybe shoot inexpensive senior pictures or ingagement photos for people. I remember how expensive it would of been to do those if I didnt do them myself, so I figure I might do that as a minor source of income while being a stay at home dad during the days.

So help a guy decide.... What do you guys think? Experiences with one or the other. Or both.
I am set on the Nikons. I have several friends that have D40's and use them at different levels, and have never had a hiccup.
While I have several friends with Cannons and Panasonics that have had nothing but problems...

Thanks a bunch,
Ty

Read More

 

[sprocket3]

I have 3 now and love them. I got a D300 with 18-200 lens a few years ago and it's like cheating. People think all the photos I take are pro jobs.

I'll pm you as well.

 

[Redcap]

I have a D200 (and a bunch of lenses) that I use frequently.

 

[Botte Hork]

Unless you like blowing money away, don't buy the latest & greatest. The camera that was a wonderful must-have last year really doesn't need an upgrade this year. You'll likely won't see the difference in practical situations unless you start to compare directly and do a lot of pixel peeping.

I still miss having sold my Texas Leica (Fuji 670 GWII), but digital is easier.

 

[Nwcid]

I have had a D90 for about 4 years now and been real happy. I have the "stock" 18-105mm lens and a mid model (~$700) 70-300mm and been real happy. I take mine everywhere and use it for all kinds of stuff.

With the "stock" lens;







Here are a couple with the mid lens;







Here is some video I recently shot with it, <broken link removed> All the night video is mine.

 

[ATCclears]

I'd recommend you chose between the D3200, the D5100, and the D7000. It depends on what you want to shoot and your budget. All of these are DX models. You could then choose lenses after that based on what you like to photograph.

I'm still sitting on a 2006-model of the D60 but may jump to a full-frame D600. The only reason I haven't done so is that I still shoot film with my Hasselblad (which results in a very high-resolution image), and recently my optional $ have been going to prep-related stuff.

Peter

 

[coop44]

I still shoot film too, with a Nikon F3hp and a Voigtlander bessa r rangefinder. Actually been asked if my nikon was a new model, and if my Voigtlander was a Leica.

been thinking about digital but just can't justify the cost.

only new baby I have is a weinerdog. and glad for it.

 

[Botte Hork]

Peter, what about a digital back for your Hassy? I picked up a pretty nice Phase One set with an older back about 1.5 years ago and have been very content with it. Got a good deal on it. I should go out to shoot some more. With the backs evolving, the second hand market is fairly active, although a back will set you back more than a new D600.

But for more active or outdoorsy stuff I'd stay with a little more mobile system. Still have a beaten up early generation Nikon DSLR. It just doesn't see much action.

 

[ATCclears]

Peter, what about a digital back for your Hassy? I picked up a pretty nice Phase One set with an older back about 1.5 years ago and have been very content with it. Got a good deal on it. I should go out to shoot some more. With the backs evolving, the second hand market is fairly active, although a back will set you back more than a new D600.

But for more active or outdoorsy stuff I'd stay with a little more mobile system. Still have a beaten up early generation Nikon DSLR. It just doesn't see much action.

I considered a digital back for the Hasselblad, but the cost/quality ratio just isn't there for me.

Peter

 

[zers]

The difference between the d40 and d40x is the x uses the d60 sensor which is 10.1 megapixel. The only other real difference is the flash sync speed on the regular d40 is better.

I sold my d40x for a d90, because of better low light (and indoor as a result) performance, and compatibility with more (older) lenses.

For your uses I'd say almost any camera of that era will do you fine, just get a couple nice pieces of glass ( my favorite is my 35mm f 1.8, excellent image quality and performance for the price)

 

[orygun]

We have a D5000 that takes good photos, but I believe it is handicapped by the lenses it comes with. It could have much better glass. I just haven't stepped up to that plate yet.
I also was a slooooooowwwww convert and had been using a Mamiya/Sekor 500 DTL for years, then a Nikon N65 before switching to the digital format. One of the main reasons I switched was the ability to print or delete anything I wanted. The other was the availability, or lack there of, a nearby photo lab.