Which small Nikon?

[Joan]

Hi Nikon Shooters,

I'm going to give Nikon land a whirl since Bob has kindly sold me his 18-200 VR. Now I just need to find a body to go along with the lens! Would like your advice on which of the small Nikon bodies to buy.

From all that I've read, it seems like the old D50 might be a better choice than the newer D40/D60 bunch as the latter cameras don't autofocus with the non-AF-S prime lenses. I'd like to just have a very minimal kit with the 18-200 and a couple of small primes for low light and macro.

What do you think, would I be better off with the D40X or D60 and living with manual focus or dropping back to the D50? Cameta Camera has some new and refurb D50's right now, so that's why I'm pondering.


Thanks for any advice,
Joan

 

[Greg Seitz]

Hi Nikon Shooters,

I'm going to give Nikon land a whirl since Bob has kindly sold me his 18-200 VR. Now I just need to find a body to go along with the lens! Would like your advice on which of the small Nikon bodies to buy.

From all that I've read, it seems like the old D50 might be a better choice than the newer D40/D60 bunch as the latter cameras don't autofocus with the non-AF-S prime lenses. I'd like to just have a very minimal kit with the 18-200 and a couple of small primes for low light and macro.

What do you think, would I be better off with the D40X or D60 and living with manual focus or dropping back to the D50? Cameta Camera has some new and refurb D50's right now, so that's why I'm pondering.


Thanks for any advice,
Joan

Hi Joan,

I have the D60 (had the D40x, but was able to do a pretty much straight trade to the D60 so figured why not). You've noted the major difference between it and the D50 being the ability to focus not AFS lenses which means you'll be manual focusing most of the non primes with one very big exception.

The exception being the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which is a bit on the large size but a spectacular lens with the D40x/D60. It's got Sigmas version of AFS so it auto focuses just fine. It's very sharp wide open in the center and becomes even sharper when stopped down just a bit. I also like the bokeh it produces. When I'm not in a manual focus mood, this is the lens that is on the camera much of the time.

For walking around you've already got the 18-200 which is a very nice lens. Also when you want something on the lighter side the kit 18-55 VR lens that comes with the D60 kit is pretty decent and gives you image stabilization that certainly can help when shooting static subjects. You may find you keep that on there much of the time if you want an incredibly light and small setup.

For macro, if you want auto focus the new 60mm AFS prime is a nice lens. In many cases you'll be using manual focus anyways so it's a bit less important to have AF on a macro lens.

On the manual focus side the D60 makes it easiest of the D40/D40x/D50 since it has a digital rangefinder mode that even one ups the one on the D3 since it tells you not only which way to focus (far to near, or near to far) but how close you are to hitting focus. It also seems to have less slop once it indicates you've hit focus so it tends to be easier to nail the shot.

As far as high quality cheap zooms I highly recommend the new Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. They've just released an update that includes a built in motor so it will auto focus on the D40/D60.

I think in practice there are enough options now to make the D60 a very attractive camera (you can pick up the D60 with kit lens for $649 at amazon which is a pretty nice price). Also keep in mind Nikon will almost certainly be updating their primes to be AFS down the road.

You'll also find the D40/D60 are quite a bit smaller than the D50 if that's a factor. Either way I don't think you can go wrong as all of them are fine cameras.

Oh, one last thing, the D50/D40 are substantially more sensitive to IR than the D40x/D60 which can work for or against you. You'll definitely see cases where you'll get reddish synthetic fabrics that are black to our eyes similar but on a much smaller case to what happens with the Leica M8 without IR filters on the lenses. Skin tones are also much harder to nail due to this as well. This factor was enough of an annoyance to me that I got rid of the original D40 I had and upgraded to a D40x which has a completely different sensor (and happens to be 10mpix vs 6mpix as well).

Hope this helps.

Greg

 

[Joan]

Greg, THANK YOU! This is SO helpful! Truly appreciate the time you spent to write this all out for me. Gives me a bit more to think about. I somehow missed or forgot reading about the IR issues with the D40/50 so that is something I wasn't factoring in at all.

It does sound like the D60 is worth the extra dollars, even if just to have the rangefinder mode. I was thinking about the Voigtlander Ultron and/or Nokton lenses as possibilities if I went for manual focus lenses. I would really like something wide, too, and that seems to be the hardest one to come up with in an affordable lens.

Greatly appreciate your help, thanks again!

 

[jonoslack]

HI Joan
Well, I'm going to be bloody minded here.
I was actually looking at small slr's today, if you really want Nikon then it's worth going slightly larger to the D80 and getting the much MUCH better viewfinder. (I think it also supports D lenses (which the D60 doesn't) but I don't think it works with the zeiss lenses.

Basically, if you want a small digital slr with a couple of primes, you'd be better to cut your losses now and go for one of the pentax bodies (they have some nice primes).

In my humble opinion, Nikon's mid range zooms are neither fast enough, good enough or small enough . . . .

If you want small - then you could also look at an Olympus E420 with the two tiny (and I mean tiny) zooms 14-42 (28-80) and 40-150 (80-300) - you just won't believe how small that 40-150 is! What's more, although a little slow, they are excellent - if you want a image stabilisation, then the E510 is a nice camera with excellent built in IS, there is a replacement coming soon, so you can get some fantastic deals at the moment.

There is also the 25 (50)mm pancake lens, (9mm deep), a 35mm macro (70mm) which is a little slow, but really really sharp and tiny - both these lenses are sterling quality and very cheap.

I have owned the 18-200, and it's a good enough lens, but mine had a lot of barrel distortion at the wide end, and wasn't very sharp at the long end, added to which it wasn't very small!

I'm not trying to put you off or anything . . . . er, well, actually, I AM trying to put you off!

If you need low light - fine, Nikon or Canon may be better, but 4/3 has (IMHO) come of age, there are more lenses coming all the time (there's a Leica 25mm f1.4 available for it).

 

[Joan]

Hi Jono,
Thanks for your thoughts, appreciate them!

Oh, yes ... I am aware of the Oly possibilities. I do already own the 14-42, the 40-150 and the 35mm macro. So, the E420 or 520 are certainly not off my radar, just on hold for a bit. Just wanted to try Nikon out to see if I like it better or not. The D80 is also a possibility, although a little bigger than I'd prefer. I do like the viewfinder!!

Truly, if I could afford them, I'd buy the PanaLeica 14-150 and the 25 f1.4. and put 'em on either a E420 or the L10. BUT, I can't afford them any time soon, so looking at Nikon because have read so many good things about the 18-200VR, won't know if it's for me until I go out and use it. I'd like to see the files I get as opposed to the E410's that I've already amassed. I have a sneaking suspicion that just *maybe* that here in contrasty Florida sunshine, the Nikon might be better. I could be dead wrong.

 

[woodyspedden]

Hi Jono,
Thanks for your thoughts, appreciate them!

Oh, yes ... I am aware of the Oly possibilities. I do already own the 14-42, the 40-150 and the 35mm macro. So, the E420 or 520 are certainly not off my radar, just on hold for a bit. Just wanted to try Nikon out to see if I like it better or not. The D80 is also a possibility, although a little bigger than I'd prefer. I do like the viewfinder!!

Truly, if I could afford them, I'd buy the PanaLeica 14-150 and the 25 f1.4. and put 'em on either a E420 or the L10. BUT, I can't afford them any time soon, so looking at Nikon because have read so many good things about the 18-200VR, won't know if it's for me until I go out and use it. I'd like to see the files I get as opposed to the E410's that I've already amassed. I have a sneaking suspicion that just *maybe* that here in contrasty Florida sunshine, the Nikon might be better. I could be dead wrong.

Joan

The nikon 18-200 is a very usable lens. The problems most complain about (and which I have confirmed on my own copy) is distortion at the wide end and noticeable CA at wide apertures. Having said that as a travel companion to the D300 it is hard to beat.

Woody

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono,
Thanks for your thoughts, appreciate them!

Oh, yes ... I am aware of the Oly possibilities. I do already own the 14-42, the 40-150 and the 35mm macro. So, the E420 or 520 are certainly not off my radar, just on hold for a bit. Just wanted to try Nikon out to see if I like it better or not. The D80 is also a possibility, although a little bigger than I'd prefer. I do like the viewfinder!!

Truly, if I could afford them, I'd buy the PanaLeica 14-150 and the 25 f1.4. and put 'em on either a E420 or the L10. BUT, I can't afford them any time soon, so looking at Nikon because have read so many good things about the 18-200VR, won't know if it's for me until I go out and use it. I'd like to see the files I get as opposed to the E410's that I've already amassed. I have a sneaking suspicion that just *maybe* that here in contrasty Florida sunshine, the Nikon might be better. I could be dead wrong.

Hmm, Well, having owned the 18-200, and many of the 4/3 lenses, I'd say that it simply isn't a patch on most of them, and it's much bigger without focusing as close or being any sharper!

Don't get me wrong, I'm neither anti-nikon generally, nor am I anti that lens specifically. I think the thing that I've really come to understand is that Olympus in particular have done a fabulous job with the 4/3 lenses - Maybe your experience will be different from mine, if I had what you have, then I'd get a 520 (or a cheap 510) for the IS, and the Olympus pancake lens (forget the expensive leica lenses, they're expensive, AND they only just qualify as Leica!).

You'll note that the Dpreview lens reviews give the humble 14-42 a better rating, and specifically better image quality than the 18-200 nikkor (and it's 1/4 price as well as being 1/4 the size!)

 

[jonoslack]

Joan

The nikon 18-200 is a very usable lens. The problems most complain about (and which I have confirmed on my own copy) is distortion at the wide end and noticeable CA at wide apertures. Having said that as a travel companion to the D300 it is hard to beat.

Woody

HI Woody
Have you compared it with the small 4/3 lenses that Joan already has? I found it rather a revelation!

 

[Greg Seitz]

Greg, THANK YOU! This is SO helpful! Truly appreciate the time you spent to write this all out for me. Gives me a bit more to think about. I somehow missed or forgot reading about the IR issues with the D40/50 so that is something I wasn't factoring in at all.

It does sound like the D60 is worth the extra dollars, even if just to have the rangefinder mode. I was thinking about the Voigtlander Ultron and/or Nokton lenses as possibilities if I went for manual focus lenses. I would really like something wide, too, and that seems to be the hardest one to come up with in an affordable lens.

Greatly appreciate your help, thanks again!

Hi Joan,

Glad to help. Just to whet your appetite, here's a shot with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 shot on the D60 handheld at 1/60, f/1.4, ISO 560. This lens has the magic. First the full scene followed by a 100% crop:

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Joan,

Glad to help. Just to whet your appetite, here's a shot with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 shot on the D60 handheld at 1/60, f/1.4, ISO 560. This lens has the magic. First the full scene followed by a 100% crop:

Hi Greg
Nice photos - I agree it's a lovely lens (it's lovely on 4/3 as well - 60mm of course).

 

[Greg Seitz]

Hi Greg
Nice photos - I agree it's a lovely lens (it's lovely on 4/3 as well - 60mm of course).

Thanks Jono. I think they also announced a full frame 50 1.4. If it's anything like the 30, I'll probably pick one up and get rid of my nikon 50 1.4 which is not really all that usable until f/2. Or maybe I'll pick up the Voigtlander 58 that you're enticing everyone with.


Greg

 

[etrigan63]

I am joining Jono in the CV 58mm camp. Will post some shots as soon as I get it.

 

[Joan]

Hmm, Well, having owned the 18-200, and many of the 4/3 lenses, I'd say that it simply isn't a patch on most of them, and it's much bigger without focusing as close or being any sharper!

Don't get me wrong, I'm neither anti-nikon generally, nor am I anti that lens specifically. I think the thing that I've really come to understand is that Olympus in particular have done a fabulous job with the 4/3 lenses - Maybe your experience will be different from mine, if I had what you have, then I'd get a 520 (or a cheap 510) for the IS, and the Olympus pancake lens (forget the expensive leica lenses, they're expensive, AND they only just qualify as Leica!).

You'll note that the Dpreview lens reviews give the humble 14-42 a better rating, and specifically better image quality than the 18-200 nikkor (and it's 1/4 price as well as being 1/4 the size!)

Jono,

I do agree that the little Oly kit lenses are very good for their size and price. You may be right that I should stick with what I have, guess I'll find that out once I put the 18-200 to the test. I'm aware of the compromises of any single lens covering this wide a range. If I have fun using it and don't have to swap lenses as much, it'll be a treat for travel and general use.

 

[dfarkas]

Joan,

You may want to consider the D80. It will accept non AF-S lenses, has much better IQ than the D50, more manual control and custom settings than the D60 and is still small and light. The D80 also has a pentaprism viewfinder, which is much larger and brighter than anything less than the the D300.

Only negatives are no self-cleaning sensor and no live-view.

David

 

[Joan]

Joan

The nikon 18-200 is a very usable lens. The problems most complain about (and which I have confirmed on my own copy) is distortion at the wide end and noticeable CA at wide apertures. Having said that as a travel companion to the D300 it is hard to beat.

Woody

Hi Woody,
Yes, I've seen the distortion at the wide end. Kinda scary, LOL. But, mostly correctable, wouldn't you say? I'll cope, I think. It needs just to be a fun lens to roam around with, that's what I'm looking for.

 

[Joan]

Hi Joan,

Glad to help. Just to whet your appetite, here's a shot with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 shot on the D60 handheld at 1/60, f/1.4, ISO 560. This lens has the magic. First the full scene followed by a 100% crop:

This looks very nice, Greg, thanks for showing. I will definitely keep the Sigma on my list.

 

[Joan]

I am joining Jono in the CV 58mm camp. Will post some shots as soon as I get it.

Look forward to that, Carlos. Jono is trying to talk me out of Nikon on this thread, but his examples with the CV 58 have him contradicting himself.

 

[Joan]

Joan,

You may want to consider the D80. It will accept non AF-S lenses, has much better IQ than the D50, more manual control and custom settings than the D60 and is still small and light. The D80 also has a pentaprism viewfinder, which is much larger and brighter than anything less than the the D300.

Only negatives are no self-cleaning sensor and no live-view.

David

Thanks, David, I am keeping the D80 in mind, too. If I find a really good price on one, I might go for it despite the somewhat larger size. Or I might go totally budget minded with a D40 for now and wait for the supposed D90 later on. Decisions, decisions...

 

[jonoslack]

Look forward to that, Carlos. Jono is trying to talk me out of Nikon on this thread, but his examples with the CV 58 have him contradicting himself.

:ROTFL:
Absolutely not if you were suggesting getting a D3 and a CV 58 . . . . or even a D300 and a couple of ZF primes . . . just not trying to replace those nice small 4/3 zooms wi . . . . . I've said it!

Let's face it, everything takes great pictures nowadays, and you'll take better pictures if you're happy with what you have (I know that's true with me).

David's right though, if you MUST then get a D80.

 

[Joan]

Jono. Find me a D80 body for about $500 and I'll take your advice for sure! :ROTFL: I keep watching them on eBay, but the foolish people bid them up too high! :angry: