| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/06/2003 02:06:05 PM · #1 |
OK, so I've been bitten by this pitcher takin' thing. I've been taking quite a few shots at the local rugby club lately and getting quite a passion for sports photography. I am however, feeling very limited by not having long lenses and not being able to get the shots I really want. I am therefor thinking of moving up to a DSLR.
I don't have a huge amount of funds and have pretty much made my mind up on a Nikon D100.
So, here's the silly question. Buying the body alone will stretch my credit card without adding a lens. Can you use cheap OEM manual focus/zoom lenses on this camera?
I know that the lens is a very important part of the set-up. However, being able to use a cheap OEM manual lens will at least get me out shooting and developing some skills until I can afford to step up.
Any advice welcome.
P.S. some of my recent shots can be seen here, you will see what I mean about the limitations of the lens - any comments greatly apprecaited.
Cheers
Roy |
|
|
|
05/06/2003 02:16:59 PM · #2 |
Have you looked into the Canon EOS 10D? It's less expensive than the Nikon and having had two Nikons (5700s) that broke within a couple of months, I'm not very pleased with Nikon. I also found their tech support rather unhelpful. I just got the Canon a week ago and love it.
-Pamela |
|
|
|
05/06/2003 02:19:38 PM · #3 |
You could save a few hundred pounds getting a Canon 10D. At least in the US it is about $700 cheaper than the Nikon.
But it sounds like you would be really over stretching to get a DSLR.
The bodies are really the cheapest part of the whole system. You'll
probably quickly need new bags, new memory cards, a decent monopod,
more insurance, more batteries, lens filters.
Then the lenses - particularly if you actually want to get decent
sports shots, you'll need a long telephoto (expensive) to get close to
the action and fast (double that expensive) to stop the action from
being all blurry.
A cheapo 28-300mm lens might seem worth it, but ,particularly if you
are shooting in bad light (UK) you'll just get blurry close-ups,
especially if you don't have a decent monopod/ support. The lens
won't be able to stop down much beyond f5.6 or so and you'll struggle
to really get fast enough shutter speeds (made worse by the zoom)
Other options might be a film SLR - get to know how it works, get the decent lenses and buy a digital body that works with those lenses later,
or a fixed lens digital camera with a longer zoom than the coolpix.
Also, if you aren't planning on printing the shots, you could always
shoot at the highest resolution and crop them down to get tighter action
shots.
Message edited by author 2003-05-06 14:20:42. |
|
|
|
05/06/2003 02:35:18 PM · #4 |
You're opening a can of worms when you move to DSLR :)
Nikons are good -- you can use old manual focus lenses with them (check the specs, i tihnk some are not compatible but some are), but for sport shooting manual focus is usually not good enough, fast autofocus is.
I don't know the speed of autofocus on D100. I know 10D has fairly fast focus, but if you want TRUE sport shooter, 1D is the only way to go.
If you're stretched for money after the body then i think you're not ready for DSLR. Let's see how much i have spent so far:
$1650 Canon 10D, with sales tax (ordered it locally and got it the same day, didn't want to wait)
$550 70-200 mm F4 L lens -- adaquate for sunny day outdoor sports, NOT adequate for indoor shots. But the F2.8 version is $1200...
$70 50 mm F1.8 II lens, really nice prime lens. And if you're getting the 10D and just want a lens to shoot and play with, this is the one to get. unfortunately with the crop factor it's more like a 80 mm lens instead of standard, which is too bad.
WAITING from Fedex -> 20-35 mm lens for the wide range, cost is about $360.
Yep. Broke.. and haven't bought any FILTERS yet (a good B+W polarizer filter for the 20-35 mm lens (77 mm filter thread) is about $140)
Originally posted by lamedos:
OK, so I've been bitten by this pitcher takin' thing. I've been taking quite a few shots at the local rugby club lately and getting quite a passion for sports photography. I am however, feeling very limited by not having long lenses and not being able to get the shots I really want. I am therefor thinking of moving up to a DSLR.
I don't have a huge amount of funds and have pretty much made my mind up on a Nikon D100.
So, here's the silly question. Buying the body alone will stretch my credit card without adding a lens. Can you use cheap OEM manual focus/zoom lenses on this camera?
I know that the lens is a very important part of the set-up. However, being able to use a cheap OEM manual lens will at least get me out shooting and developing some skills until I can afford to step up.
Any advice welcome.
P.S. some of my recent shots can be seen here, you will see what I mean about the limitations of the lens - any comments greatly apprecaited.
Cheers
Roy |
Message edited by author 2003-05-06 14:35:42. |
|
|
|
05/06/2003 02:37:03 PM · #5 |
Oh, one thing GOOD about the 10D that might not be as good on the D100 --
at LOW light, you can compensate by using ISO800 and still get very decent photos after some noise processing later. This means the 70-200mm L F4 lens is USABLE at low light, but the autofocus is not quite as good as the 70-200 L F2.8 or the IS version. |
|
|
|
05/06/2003 02:37:03 PM · #6 |
Thanks guys!
As for the Canon, I'm not totaly sold on the Nikon, I just have one at the moment, like it a lot, am familair with the menu system etc, and thought it might cut my learning curve down a touch - I'll look into the Canon though.
As to other kit, I already have enough memory cards and have done quite a bit of vieo work in the past so have good tripods, large and very durable bags etc. A DSLR would be pushing it a touch, but hey, you only live once. It's just that adding 1000 gbp for a decent lens would push it too far OTT.
Some of the images on the link I put up are already cropped to "zoom in" on the action but are still very unsatisfactory. The ones where I was able get quite close such as the lineouts, I am fairly happy with as a beginner.
So, can I take it that OEM manual lenses will actually fit (even if it is a big compromise), on either the Nikon or Canon? I know there are limitations on the f/stop etc, but I have to do this a bit at a time. |
|
|
|
05/06/2003 02:44:44 PM · #7 |
btw, if you are wanting to shoot field sports, a 200mm lens, on a DSLR (giving the 1.6x multiplier/ crop) isn't really much better than using something like your Nikon 5000.
You really need to get up in to the 400mm or beyond range to get good close-up shots most of the time. |
|
|
|
05/06/2003 03:33:19 PM · #8 |
Gordon- Where do you shop for cameras? The d100 is $700 more than the 10d in the US? My math must be off then.
As for manual lenses. Yes the will work, but you lose any communication between the body and lens. That goes for focusing(obviously), as well as all auto-exposure controls I believe. Unless, (as far as Nikon), it's an MF AI lens. Which I would think for sports would be a bit of a hassle, not only trying to manually focus, but keep your exposure correct through changing light in an outdoor situation.
I also don't think you would need a 400+mm lens for sports. Depending on how far away you are. Looking at his pics he seems to be right there on the sidelines. Which a 200mm lens + crop factore would be more than adequate. Not to mention the sheer cost of a longer lens.
Message edited by author 2003-05-06 15:43:55. |
|
|
|
05/06/2003 03:36:26 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by matt betea:
Gordon- Where do you shop for cameras? The d100 is $700 more than the 10d in the US? My math must be off then.
As for manual lenses. Yes the will work, but you lose any communication between the body and lens. That goes for focusing(obviously), as well as all auto-exposure controls I believe. Unless, (as far as Nikon), it's an MF AI lens. Which I would think for sports would be a bit of a hassle, not only trying to manually focus, but keep your exposure correct through changing light in an outdoor situation. |
You're right, the D100 has come down a lot in price. Looks like it is just a few hundred dollars more than the canon now. Haven't bothered looking at camera prices for 6 months or so, my mistake. |
|
|
|
05/06/2003 05:23:50 PM · #10 |
Lamedos...and everyone interested in DSLR's... Nikon is an excellent company, and yes I know there is high competition between Nikon and canon... here's the thing, with Canon you CAN NOT use any old manual focus lenses with Nikon YOU CAN! Any Nikon mount lens will work on any camera... however, and don't quote me on this the D100 may not read light correctly with one of the manual focus lenses... my suggestion is... and seriously if you have ANY Nikon lenses to go with a USED Nikon D1. This is 10 times better for sports then a D100, it has a lot of better qualities... and it works with all the lenses. I believe you can buy the D1 for about $1000 used on Ebay... this is a much better investment because they stay around the same price and if you don't add much wear you may be able to sell for around the same price if you decide you don't want it anymore. AP photographers as well as many others use the D1, it is a professional camera where as you will rarely see the D100 out on the fields, or at any big sporting event. This is all IMHO... so get what you want out of it... but i fyou have manual lenses or your willing to do manual (much cheaper) the D1 is what you want!
|
|
|
|
05/06/2003 05:49:28 PM · #11 |
I shoot with a D100 and I am bias, but don't forget the D100 vs the D1 in resolution. The D100 is 6.1 megapix. The D1 is 2.74 megapix. I couldn't be more happy with the camera the the list price in the US is down to $1699 which is to compete with Canon.
Here is an example of the quality of pic with the D100 and the 80-200 Nikon Lens with EDF Glass:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=20204
Message edited by author 2003-05-06 17:50:48. |
|
|
|
05/06/2003 05:49:52 PM · #12 |
I too started looking at DSLR's with the same money constraints. I already have some Canon lenses so I am leaning toward the 10D (now only to convince my wife to spend that kind of money. My lenses are not manufactured by Canon and nobody suggested buying a Canon lens or some otgher manufactures such as Quanteray. What are peoples opinions on third party lenses and what are the good affordable ones.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2003 06:46:09 PM · #13 |
You don’t need a bunch of fancy lenses to get great shots. The 50mm f/1.8 II should be fine until you can save up for some “better” lenses. The 50 is a bit limited as far as the focal length goes but it will get you shooting. A lot of the sigma lenses aren’t bad at all, especially the EX lenses. For viewing on computer screens and printing at 4x6 you would be hard pressed to see the difference between them and the more expensive Canon lenses with a few exceptions. Also you could look int a used body like a D60 or D30.
Greg
|
|
|
|
05/06/2003 06:56:26 PM · #14 |
:-) Except with Canon you get IS for that focal length, in fact, you get Image Stabilization for most of the telephoto L lenses.
L = Nikonian's ED lenses.
Here's the thing about Nikon -- they are loyal to their user base, they will never do what Canon did with FD lenses, which when they created the EOS system, they abandoned the FD lenses. Nikon won't do that.
However, Canon are far more aggressive in using the latest technology, the first to adopt Image Stabilization, etc. Not sure what Nikon has in sleeve to compete against Canon, especially at the high end as the Nikon D1H and D1X's are dinosaurs in digital terms. The Kodak 14n full frame DSLR that was LATE in delivery was a joke when it came out versus the Canon 1Ds. Maybe after they worked out all the bugs it'll be a viable product...
Oh, yeah, rumor, and only a rumor, has it that Canon will debut a EOS 3D that is very similar to the EOS 3 film model this September that will cost between the 10D and the 1D. It will have more megapixels than the 10D though, and the size of the sensor will either be 1.3x or full frame. Nikon hasn't come out with anything in the last two major photography shows (PMA and Photokina)
Originally posted by Kneeforu:
I shoot with a D100 and I am bias, but don't forget the D100 vs the D1 in resolution. The D100 is 6.1 megapix. The D1 is 2.74 megapix. I couldn't be more happy with the camera the the list price in the US is down to $1699 which is to compete with Canon.
Here is an example of the quality of pic with the D100 and the 80-200 Nikon Lens with EDF Glass:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=20204 |
|
|
|
|
05/06/2003 07:00:46 PM · #15 |
Actually you CAN use FD lenses but you lose autofocus (duh) and exposure control (i.e. it can't control the aperature as the settings is on the FD lens) There is a mount for it, but no one uses it becuase without autoexposure it's pointless.
BTW, more and more sports photographers are shooting Canon, you see the WHITE lenses in basketball courts everywhere now, also a ton of photographers in the Iraq War used Canon glass as well, including the famous incident where one photog was shot using a 300mm L lens on top of the Palestine hotel. The reason? Image Stabilization, hand held, where Canon has a huge edge over Nikon.
Both companies make great cameras. Take your pick.
Originally posted by RiderGal:
Lamedos...and everyone interested in DSLR's... Nikon is an excellent company, and yes I know there is high competition between Nikon and canon... here's the thing, with Canon you CAN NOT use any old manual focus lenses with Nikon YOU CAN! Any Nikon mount lens will work on any camera... however, and don't quote me on this the D100 may not read light correctly with one of the manual focus lenses... my suggestion is... and seriously if you have ANY Nikon lenses to go with a USED Nikon D1. This is 10 times better for sports then a D100, it has a lot of better qualities... and it works with all the lenses. I believe you can buy the D1 for about $1000 used on Ebay... this is a much better investment because they stay around the same price and if you don't add much wear you may be able to sell for around the same price if you decide you don't want it anymore. AP photographers as well as many others use the D1, it is a professional camera where as you will rarely see the D100 out on the fields, or at any big sporting event. This is all IMHO... so get what you want out of it... but i fyou have manual lenses or your willing to do manual (much cheaper) the D1 is what you want! |
|
|
|
|
05/06/2003 07:09:17 PM · #16 |
Thats true paganini, more and more sports photographers are shooting Canon, but they aren't buying the lower priced ones, so thats what I was trying to post for Lamedos. BTW... For all of you interested, Nikon did trademark register names D2H and D2X and are expected to put out some new DSLR's for the end of the year. Anyway... I'm Nikon loyal and they take care of me! hehehe... I love them a lot!
|
|
|
|
05/06/2003 09:00:55 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by paganini:
:-) Except with Canon you get IS for that focal length, in fact, you get Image Stabilization for most of the telephoto L lenses.
L = Nikonian's ED lenses.
Here's the thing about Nikon -- they are loyal to their user base, they will never do what Canon did with FD lenses, which when they created the EOS system, they abandoned the FD lenses. Nikon won't do that.
However, Canon are far more aggressive in using the latest technology, the first to adopt Image Stabilization, etc. Not sure what Nikon has in sleeve to compete against Canon, especially at the high end as the Nikon D1H and D1X's are dinosaurs in digital terms. The Kodak 14n full frame DSLR that was LATE in delivery was a joke when it came out versus the Canon 1Ds. Maybe after they worked out all the bugs it'll be a viable product...
Oh, yeah, rumor, and only a rumor, has it that Canon will debut a EOS 3D that is very similar to the EOS 3 film model this September that will cost between the 10D and the 1D. It will have more megapixels than the 10D though, and the size of the sensor will either be 1.3x or full frame. Nikon hasn't come out with anything in the last two major photography shows (PMA and Photokina)
Originally posted by Kneeforu:
I shoot with a D100 and I am bias, but don't forget the D100 vs the D1 in resolution. The D100 is 6.1 megapix. The D1 is 2.74 megapix. I couldn't be more happy with the camera the the list price in the US is down to $1699 which is to compete with Canon.
Here is an example of the quality of pic with the D100 and the 80-200 Nikon Lens with EDF Glass:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=20204 |
|
You are sure offering a great deal of opinion and speculation in your guidance. Perhaps, it would be more helpful to provide a few facts instead? Canon likely offers the superior product at this time in the new 10D. But, why compare it to the 1D when the question was based upon cost efficiency? The Kodak and the high end 1D are both way out there in price compared to someone who is struggling at the entry level D-SLR range. Personally, I do not see it as relevant.
With regards to the image stabilization issue, my triptych was shot with a Nikon 80-400mm VR lens at 400mm handheld (effectively 600mm in 35mm terms), that is a very capable stabilized lens. They offer others too.
I reviewed all of the latest new D-SLRs that were introduced at this year's PMA show and posted assessments from Las Vegas. These reviews can be found for Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Pentax. All of the new products were impressive.
I have yet to hear anyone really hit on a major issue in D-SLR technology. It is all about FAT! Cameras today are really little computers. As such, they make use of many of the traditional file structures, routines and applications that are found in computers. One important feature is the File Allocation Table or FAT. Some cameras have the older FAT-16 structure and some of the newer models offer the FAT-32 structure. So what? Well, FAT-16 will restrict the maximum hard drive / compact flash file size. Whereas, FAT-32 offers far greater storage capacity. This is a big issue as 4GB drives and compact flash cards were introduced at the PMA this year. Food for thought....
|
|
|
|
05/06/2003 10:37:22 PM · #18 |
Nikon does offer VR (same as IS) for 100-400mm lenses, but I am not aware of any others that have VR from Nikon. That's what i mean by the edge. Canon had image stabilization lenses way before Nikon.
As far as the 'body', it's hard to tell who would win the "war" -- but one reason why Canon is very quick in reducing the cost of DSLR is that they have their own semiconductor division whose sole responsibility is to develop CCD and CMOS sensors. Nikon do not and have to rely on other manufacturers.
Kodak's 14n was a dissappointment -- you can read reviews across the web, from biased Canon reviewers such as Dpreview.com (yes it is biased toward Canon) to Nikon users' own review. It was LATE on delivery by 5 months (and can you still get one RIGHT NOW? i am not sure you can, the availability is pretty low) and what came out was really a BETA firmware release, rather than a usable product.
That being said. ... the Fuji S2 Pro has really nice skin tones :) A friend of mine has one, her Fuji really do rock. We're talking about natural skin tones right out of the camera without having to adjust much. That was impressive.
Also, Nikon DO have the BETTER wide angle lenses. No question on that. But they are losing ground in sports/action/news media photography because of the shortage of IS lenses compared with Canon -- for example, no VR lenses at 600 mm for those big game hunters (wildlife) or celebrity stalkers :) I believe all of the L lenses from Canon from 300mm and up are IS also.
Anyway, with either system you really can't lose :P
|
|
|
|
05/06/2003 10:45:11 PM · #19 |
Actually -- the biggest issue is not FAT, but rather the design of CMOS sensors so that you can have high transfer rates (high frame rates), AND, high yields for large full frame sensors. Until they get the yield up, we won't see full frame DSLR's under $1000. That's more of a process technology thing, but should happen in 3 years. When you have a 36x24mm size chip, it's going to be difficult to cut cost unless the yield is really high on the wafer. (Yield = number of chips that came out of the wafer that are GOOD versus the total number of chips on the wafer. I am not even sure if the 11 megapixel sensor from Canon is even at 50% yield, if it becomes 90% yield the price will drop significantly)
|
|
|
|
05/06/2003 10:58:19 PM · #20 |
I get the feeling the posts are going off on quite a wild tangent from the original poster.
I think if you really want to usefully shoot sports, with a DSLR, you'll need to spend at least another 1000 UKP or so, after you buy the body. You can maybe get away with spending about 500 UKP for something short term, but frankly I believe you'd be wasting your money. It isn't worth buying an expensive DSLR and only putting a 50mm lens on it. You'll end up with worse sports shots than you currently showed in your galleries.
This is particularly true in an environment where the costs of DLSRs are rapidly falling. I could expect they may end up at an entry level SLR price point of $999, probably by the end of the year. about 999 UKP too)
If you buy now and cant afford lenses, you'll have a camera that is pretty useless for your stated aim of sports photography, and by the time you could afford the lenses to use it well, you could buy a higher spec'ed / cheaper equivalent DSLR body.
You could alternatively get an entry level film SLR body for a few hundred pounds, or a second hand decent film body for the same sort of price. You'd then still have a thousand pounds or so to buy a decent lens or two.
DSLRs are expensive. They are going to get a whole lot cheaper in the next 18 months to two years. (witness the Canon D60 to Canon 10D - almost exactly the same specifications, slight upgrade, $700 cheaper in about 6 months) Buying in to this market, without the money to actually use it now doesn't seem to be the sensible option.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 12:29:21 AM · #21 |
I see quite a huge amount of propaganda being rehashed from dpreview here. My impression was that the original poster wants to get a DSLR but is on a tight budget. Somehow it turned into some crazy pointless rant IMO. From my experience, used bodies can be a good way to save money but used lenses can be an even better way. Bodies can have hidden problems so it would probably be a good idea to buy from someone like B&H used department. They give a 90 day warranty on used photo equipment. Also Sigma lenses are pretty darn good, especially the EX ones. You can pick them up used for very reasonable prices. If you later in your photographic life feel that you have outgrown the Sigma lenses you can always buy the Canon versions when money isn’t so tight. I have seen quite a few wonderful pictures taken with lenses like the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX on a D30 body. You can also pick up the Sigma’s for Nikon bodies. IMHO it is better to have an older DSLR than a prosumer digicam for most applications. Having used several different DSLR’s I really don’t want to go back to the digicams, even though they are smaller and lighter.
Greg
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 01:08:31 AM · #22 |
Part of choosing DSLR is to choose the right lens system. i don't think discussing the lens system itself is not relevant to what he wanted.
The problem is, the poster wanted to get a DSLR without any more funds for lenses. The only solution to this is to just buy lenses + a film body, as the body will depreciate much faster than the lenses are.
Originally posted by dadas115:
I see quite a huge amount of propaganda being rehashed from dpreview here. My impression was that the original poster wants to get a DSLR but is on a tight budget. Somehow it turned into some crazy pointless rant IMO. From my experience, used bodies can be a good way to save money but used lenses can be an even better way. Bodies can have hidden problems so it would probably be a good idea to buy from someone like B&H used department. They give a 90 day warranty on used photo equipment. Also Sigma lenses are pretty darn good, especially the EX ones. You can pick them up used for very reasonable prices. If you later in your photographic life feel that you have outgrown the Sigma lenses you can always buy the Canon versions when money isn’t so tight. I have seen quite a few wonderful pictures taken with lenses like the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX on a D30 body. You can also pick up the Sigma’s for Nikon bodies. IMHO it is better to have an older DSLR than a prosumer digicam for most applications. Having used several different DSLR’s I really don’t want to go back to the digicams, even though they are smaller and lighter.
Greg |
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 01:15:33 AM · #23 |
I don't think any of us really know what Canon, Nikon or anyone else will do in the future. Lots of speculation about what might be available doesn't help anyone IMHO. I think this hurts more than helps actually. You can take great pictures of just about anything with existing products from either Canon or Nikon. The two existing systems from Canon and Nikon are closer than a lot of us Canon users would like to believe as far as quality and flexibility goes. Why spread all that worthless gossip around??
Greg
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 01:26:13 AM · #24 |
Part of his decision is whether he'd want to buy one RIGHT NOW or to wait. I'm pointing the simple fact that the prices of DSLR will drop in 2 years, probably below $1k as the price trend has shown. So whether the wait is worth the extra $700 for Nikon or $500 for the Canon 10D is his choice.
And we haven't even talked about flashes yet :) (and that I'll tip my hat to Nikon) A lot of people buy into Nikon or Canon without knowing what each strength is. Sure in the future it may change, but there is a definite differnece in glass offerings between Nikon and Canon currently, which is what should motivate people in choosing the system, not solely on the body itself. Glass you keep, bodies you trade :)
Originally posted by dadas115:
I don't think any of us really know what Canon, Nikon or anyone else will do in the future. Lots of speculation about what might be available doesn't help anyone IMHO. I think this hurts more than helps actually. You can take great pictures of just about anything with existing products from either Canon or Nikon. The two existing systems from Canon and Nikon are closer than a lot of us Canon users would like to believe as far as quality and flexibility goes. Why spread all that worthless gossip around??
Greg |
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 02:21:38 PM · #25 |
Thanks guys!!
A lot of information and views there.
First off, yup, I've thought about the film route (for about 1/2 a second). I first had a bash at photography as a teenager with a cheap Olympus SLR. I liked taking pictures but hated having to wait to have the film or slides developed only to find one or two decent shots. Had a go at developing my own B&W prints, enjoyed it once for the experience and then got fed up.
It wasn't until I brought my Nikon about a year ago for a family holiday, was stunned by the quality, realised the potential and played in photshop a bit that I got hooked again. I will NEVER go back to film.
Now, I am not exactly the best photographer around nor will I ever be, but I do enjoy it and want to do the best I can and improve within my limitations. My limitations at the momemt extend to a lot of frustration that I simply cannot take the photos I imagine due the lens on my camera.
I think I might have thrown a bit of a curve ball when I mentioned sports photography - that's just a current example. Wildlife would be another, I have often been out with my camera and spotted somethihg I would like to capture but would only end up with a very small image in the centre of the frame, a woodpecker on a tree for example, or a water vole on the opposite river bank.
As far as waiting goes, when do you stop waiting? I have recently brought a new computer, I have been putting it off for a long time because I know that in six months I will be able to buy a similar if not better spec PC for half the price. However, how much processing power do I really need? This PC does everything and more that I want from it. Yes, I could wait two years and get a cheaper camera, but at that point I could wait another two years and get the newest wizziest camera cheaper too. You have to put a steak in the ground sometime. The Nikon, Canon or other similar camera will far exceed the skill that I can bring to it.
Anyhow, I guess that I have to re-think my budget a touch. I do have the means to purchase a very good camera and lens, just don't want to get into that much debt.
Assuming that I do go for the Nikon D100 (or similar)what lens would you recomend that I purchase as a minimum? Given that a fairly large telphoto will be first on my shopping list. Don't lets get carried away here with the latest greatest f/0.00002 lab grown crystal lenses - I'm just after something that is usable given my current skill level.
All help and advice so far is very gratefully recieved.
Cheers
Roy |
|
