I'm making some equipment upgrades and I wanted some opinions before I pull the trigger on them. First and foremost I'll be buying a flash. Nikon SB600. From the reviews I've read it's a great flash and I don't need anything too technical just yet, but the TLL and bounce capability are great functions. Is there a problem buying a lightly used flash? Should I just buy a new one? How can I tell if a bulb is burnt out or in bad shape? Second, I'm selling my year old D3000 body (let me know if you're interested) and getting a D90. I like the idea of a bigger sensor, built in auto focus motor, and overall just a better camera. Here's another question: do I buy a used one with around 10-20,000 accusations (or less if I can find one) or look for a good deal on a brand new one? All of my purchases have been brand new so I don't know too much about the used market. Lastly, I need a longer zoom lens for the race track without dropping $1G on a piece of glass. Thoughts on the 70-300mm Nikkor vs the new 55-300 AF-S VR Nikkor? Assuming I go the D90 route, the 70-300 will auto-focus on the D90, but without any form of vibration reduction. A brand new 55-300mm AF-S VR can be had for a great price, so should I just by that one? Metal mount too on the new one. I need all of the above (sans the big zoom probably) by this time next month as I'm shooting a major event for a charity organization, but I'll probably start checking stuff off my list at the end of this week. Any thoughts, comments, opinions, reviews are very much appreciated Peter P.S. My D3000 is available for a great price for F-Chatters including shipping. PM me if interested.
I'm in the market for a new camera too, and while I have become a big proponent of buying used, prices for the D90 over here are ~600 new and ~530 used. I wouldn't buy a used one at these prices! I recently bought a used AF 70-210mm, for 75, and the image quality is stunning. As usual with the older lenses, built like a tank too. Before you drop a lot of money for a new lens, you might consider one like these.
I bought my SB 600 second hand and haven't had any issues with it. As always it's pot luck when you go this route, maybe try and find one locally you can try out. No idea how you check the life of the bulb. D90 is a great camera for the price, as Florian says it may depend on the difference in price between new and used. The sensor is the same size as the one in the D3000, however (both are DX). Personally I'd go for the 70-300. I'm not sure of the price difference, but there is a newer AF-S version that would work with your current D3000
The D90 is 12.3 MP and the D3000 is only 10.2 MP. I'm starting to make some bigger prints so even a slightly larger sensor will be better. The 70-300 is what I'm leaning towards. There are VR and non-VR 70-300's though. Is it hard to keep a steady shot at the 300mm end without VR at say a race track or sporting event? There is a major price difference between the two.
The difference between sensor size and MP is like apples and oranges. The sensor size is the same, the MP is just what you get out of it. Many times the image quality is worse when you get more MP in the same sensor since you are cramming more into the sensor, also can severely hurt high ISO noise. BTW I never buy new, not a thing in my camera bag was bought new, not even the bag.
LOL! Dude, MP doesn't determine sensor size. Both have the same size sensor, one just gets more MP out of that size.
Ooohh! HAHA! I always thought that the D90 had a bigger sensor and since it had more MP figured that was why. Haha rookie mistake. Thanks for clearing that up
With all due respect, you're doing this EXACTLY backwards. I would take an 5mp camera with a $1200 piece of glass over a 20MP camera with a $200 zoom any day of the week. I know it sound counter-intuitive but remember, race cars didn't start going fast until they put better brakes on them. The lens is about 10X more important than the sensor. It is the single most important part of the camera. Keep the same beater body forever and buy real glass. Think of it this way. Would you rather race a car with a 500hp engine and crappy brakes and suspension or a 400hp car with killer brakes and great suspension? Megapixels are not important and have not been since we got to about 5. Besides, bodies come and go. Real glass is forever. Spend the money on glass and you'll be glad you did.
I understand how it works. But in order to get some nicer lenses it's easier to get a body with a built-in focusing motor. That way I don't have to spend $2k on an AF-S lens.
I've got the D700 with the newer pro glass from 14mm to 300. But I still grab the D70s with 24-120 VR for mundane work. Re the sensor, until you've experienced something like the D3 or D700, you realize it's neither size of the sensor or number of pixels but its really the nature of the pixels, sensitivity, gamma, range which makes a difference when printed. That plus ease of use is what's getting the Canon converts. Oh, useable pictures at iso 25000 with virtually no light is unreal. Also, VR is a fantastic help when you hands are shaky. Nikon makes great toys, some of the lenses I bought in the 60s are still highly revered like the 105 2.5. Kick myself for selling the 500mm f5 cat lens I bought with my F in 1965. edit - just thinking you should be spending time at NikonCafe.com
I was a Nikon to Canon convert because of the lenses, it's hard to find good Nikon lenses cheap. That said I'd drop my 5D right now for a d700 if it had a video mode, it's a much much much more complete product, 3 fps is absurd on the 5d.
I switched for the technology. I shot Nikon for like 20 years but Nikon rode the film pony a bit too long. When I switched my SLR to digital the Nikon line was just embarrassing. Canon was waaay out in the lead at that point in time. I assume Nikon caught up by now but I was not willing to wait 3 years or so. I gave my glass way (well all but 1 macro lens I could not part with) and nearly cried doing it. "Back in the day" I shot a lot of sports (NFL mostly but some other stuff) and all the sports guys shot Canon so it made accepting the transition easier. My only other pet peeve with Nikon is that (unless they have changed) their cheap glass was absolutely wrenched and not worthy of the Nikon name. It was a shame that a $150 Tokina would spank a $400 Nikon handily.
Exactly why I dumped Nikon. Unless you wanted to shell out $1k minimum the glass is atrocious. Also I picked up a full frame 5D for $950, about 1/2 the price of Nikon's cheapest full frame, though it is a better camera feature wise they screwed themselves with such a late and expensive entry to FF.
They've more than caught up, they're unquestionably outperforming when it comes to IQ and noise. If I had nothing or could sell everything without losing a boat load, I'd switch to Nikon. Will see what happens with this highly rumored new line of flagship Canons. If they actually release a large sensor (35mm at about 18MP or medium format at about 40MP) with great high sensitivity performance and DR, perhaps that will spell good things for my demographic (the prosumer line). Don't feel bad, marketeers want the average consumer to believe just that.
The best thing would have been putting FF in the 7D, that would make the perfect camera in my opinion, I've been thinking about getting one but doubt I could make the change back to crop.
It would slaughter what remains of the 1DSIII market. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a FF with dual digic 4 and 7D autofocus, but probably not until their new flagship is released.
Good point, though I would have thought for sure the 1Ds4 would be out by now, the 1d4 has been out for over a year.
Many sources say there will be no 1Ds4. Basically that their new flagship will have a different naming convention, and the successor to the 5D2 will have similar features as would a 1Ds4 less the pro body (35mm, dual proc, good AF). But yah, all speculation, probably.
I'm just worried about the price at that point. I have a feeling it will be out of reach of any hobbyists which would be a real shame.
Haha it's all good But let's try to get back on track, shall we? When using a telephoto for the racetrack, is a VR lens a lot better than a non-VR lens for tracking the moving cars?? Big big price difference between the two. Has anyone tried using both?
I tried, but the camera would only accept one lens at a time Kidding aside, I just bought a used Fuji S5 which I got for a great price. It's basically a Nikon D200 with a special sensor in it where one half of the 12 million pixels has a reduced and the other have an increased sensitivity to light, the combination of both leading to images which only have 6MP, but a vastly extended dynamic range. I can't wait for it to arrive, and if I don't like it, I can still sell it for more than I paid for it!
