Got a Nikon? Share your thoughts and photos here or ask a question! (III)

Did some pixel peeping with my Samyang (Bower) 14mm f/2.8. Used live view for focusing, was quite handy. Need to get used to manual focus.

@f/2.8 with a 100% crop. No PP besides resizing

Pagman wrote in post #16376551
Any one know much about the D90 - strengths weaknesses etc, and how they compare IQ noise to more moden equipment?
P.

We had D90 for some time alongside D300 and two D700s, and it kept up pretty well with that company.

Image quality is on a par with D300, but focus system is not so good. Video was one of Nikon's first attempts at video in a DSLR (might even have been the first - cloudy memory), and was a bit limited and flawed.

Nice camera, decent-ish size, but I think it would have to be really cheap to be worth buying nowadays as the D3xxx and D5xxx range offer better facilities (and more megapickles) provided you can live with their smaller physical size.

Rob

Pagman wrote in post #16376551
Any one know much about the D90 - strengths weaknesses etc, and how they compare IQ noise to more moden equipment?


P.

D70s for the budget conscience.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/12477​70

brettjrob wrote in post #16375912
The discrepancy between the 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200 f/4 VR is larger on the used market than new, though. We're talking, from what I've seen, about $900 vs. $1200 on average. And if anything, tests seem to favor the Canon as being slightly superior optically.

Incredibly annoying for those of us wanting to jump to Nikon but on a fairly limited budget.

Of course, I suppose part of the explanation is how new the Nikon is (how did they go this long without *any* 70-200 f/4 options?!?!). From a long-term investment perspective, that's just even more discouraging for someone looking to switch/buy now, because its value is liable to drop significantly once the novelty wears off.

Yeah, since the f4 is still rather new even the second hand market is rather expensive. I would still try to get it at $1K even.

El Duderino wrote in post #16376760
Did some pixel peeping with my Samyang (Bower) 14mm f/2.8. Used live view for focusing, was quite handy. Need to get used to manual focus.

@f/2.8 with a 100% crop. No PP besides resizing

Looks very sharp! Every bit as sharp as my 14-24mm! How do the corners stand up?

dgrPhotos wrote in post #16377586
Yeah, since the f4 is still rather new even the second hand market is rather expensive. I would still try to get it at $1K even.

It will probably be a while before it drops to $1K on the used market. Most copies I have seen are well north of that but like you say, it is pretty new. Maybe in a year or two.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #16374680
I've been thinking for a while about switching from Canon to Nikon, but the thing that holds me back is how much it would cost me to get the long lenses on the Nikon side.

Choice 1: Keep my 7D and add a 5D3 through CLP. Sell my 10-22 and 17-55 and replace with FF equivalents, perhaps 17-40 and 24-70? Keep my 70-200 F4 and 100-400. Pretty straightforward, except that as an amateur, I really don't fancy lugging around 2 bodies.

Choice 2 (which is what I would love to explore): Sell my 7D and get a D800 for about the same price as a 5D3 through CLP. Advantage is that with the DX mode, this is a one camera solution for me, as I like to go wide as well as long with birds. I would sell my 10-22 and 17-55 and replace with the Nikon FF equivalents to the Canon choice above. Cost-wise it is about the same as the Canon roughly. The problem comes when I sell my 70-200 F4 and 100-400 and try to replace with the Nikon equivalents. The 70-200 F4 VR is considerably more expensive used than the 70-200F4 IS - I picked up my Canon lens for $900 and I can't find any of the Nikon lenses for less than about $1200-1250. Probably because it is new? Also, the 80-400G is well over 2 grand used, while I picked up my mint used 100-400 for $1250. I'm looking at well over 1 grand extra to be equivalently equipped on the Nikon side.

Is the 70-200 F4 VR worth the $1200+ asking price used? Is it likely to go down, given that the 70-200 F4 IS which is probably just as good optically is a good $300 cheaper? Also, is the 80-400G that much better than the 100-400L to command a thousand dollar premium?

I'll give you option #3
Keep your 7D and buy the new Sony FF Mirroless ◾36.4MP Full Frame Exmor CMOS Sensor (a7r), or 24MP (a7)
Whats neat about this Camera that was just announced yesterday is, you can use Nikon or Canon Lenses... This Camera is geared for Portrait and Landscape shooters. It will not be a good camera for action / sport shooters. With this camera , you can retain your present lenses and use them..

Haha Bianchi, I was reading all the Sony threads and thinking the same thing. One of the great things about the Canon ecosystem is how affordable high-quality used glass is - it is the main reason why I have not acted on my Nikon thoughts. I will definitely be monitoring how the A7r early adopters fare over the next few months.

Yeah, and spend $300-400 on a high-quality EOS adapter with full electronics if you go the Sony route. Kind of defeats the purpose for me.

Current options on full-frame, as I see it:

CANON - cheap glass, but must accept pitiful sensor performance at low ISO and a complete lack of good ultra-wide zooms.

NIKON - good glass available at all FLs and great sensor, but terrible lens pricing (in some cases).

SONY A7/A7R - great sensor and theoretically any glass works, but the cost for adapters kills the deal unless you have at least $3000+ invested in Canon glass that you're completely happy with.

Sigh. Sometimes I wish I'd just stayed in APS-C land with the glass I was happy with and never taken the red pill.

brettjrob wrote in post #16378672
Yeah, and spend $300-400 on a high-quality EOS adapter with full electronics if you go the Sony route. Kind of defeats the purpose for me.

Current options on full-frame, as I see it:

CANON - cheap glass, but must accept pitiful sensor performance at low ISO and a complete lack of good ultra-wide zooms.

NIKON - good glass available at all FLs and great sensor, but terrible lens pricing (in some cases).

SONY A7/A7R - great sensor and theoretically any glass works, but the cost for adapters kills the deal unless you have at least $3000+ invested in Canon glass that you're completely happy with.

Sigh. Sometimes I wish I'd just stayed in APS-C land with the glass I was happy with and never taken the red pill.

Good summary. Yeah, one has to wonder what the adapters do to IQ. Roger Cicala's article cones to mind.

And yes, staying in crop land is one option, that's where I am. I love my 10-22 and 17-55, would be very sad to let them go if I go FF. Maybe I should wait for the 7D2!

Ive just settled on a D90 with about 45K on it, at a good price (i hope) of £240 body(boxed) and now im looking for a good cheap second hand 55-300VR, i know i have been considering an entry level aka d3100-d5200 but something about the D90 stands out and appeals to me, i was suggested this camera some time ago by a respected member on here, so i guess i do listen to advice, anyway ive sold the 30d/nifty 250 and im realy looking forward to different improvemts over my previous set up with the D90/55-300VR especialy focus and better dr.

P.

Which lens is better for pure focusing and IQ (Not including VR)

Nikon 55-300VR
Nikon 70-300D ED

I understnd the 70-300D ED has no internal focus motor and relies on the camera, and the 55-300VR uses a plastic version of a motor, so if using on a D90 which one would give the best results?


P.

Wheres all the nikon users when i need them


P.

Rogu66erk wrote in post #16379262
I thought the old one had been flushed.

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

What do you meen?

P.

Just brought a brand new boxed Nikon 70-300VR for £89

P.