Which Nikon D-SLR

Posted by jimmychef (518 days ago)

i am looking to buy a Nikon as they have always been my prefered brand but would like some advice on which model.
ihave used the coolpix 8800 and think this is a fantastic camera but wondered if i should also consider the D70 or D80. these seem a little more profesional without being for pro's but are they that different. i also like the D200 but think this is possibly overkill.
i have been using the 8800 and a classic FG SLR so i am camera literate but im getting lost in the specs a bit.
can anybody offer some clarity.

(I am based in Hong Kong)

Find what you are after in our Vietnam A-Z Directory

Posted by St Kilda Beach (515 days ago)

If you want 35mm film performance, I suggest you purchase a DSLR that has a native 35mm CMOS sensor surface area. My pick would be a Canon EOS 5 or whatever the Nikon 14mp version is. The Canon is about $3000US. IMHO, the Canons are a lot more intuitive and have a much less frustrating Guided User Interface. Performance difference will be splitting hairs, Canons massive range of lens options is what made me a happy customer. Especially that I often buy used EF lenses online at a fraction of the price of new, the EOS 5 is compatable with 15 years worth of quality full frame EF glass.

(I am based in Hong Kong)

Posted by MisterD (513 days ago)

Nikon don't make a full-frame DSLR so if you want Nikon you won't be able to follow Mr. Beach's suggestion above.

It's hard for someone else to decide what camera you should buy as it's not really about simply being more 'pro' or less pro. What features are important to you depend on what kind of photography you do. If you shoot sports then high fps may be important, if you do a lot of landscape work for print then resolution will be important to you but fps will be irrelevant, if you're a photojournalist then weather sealing and sturdy construction will be more important etc. etc.

Decide what is important to you, do a bit of research on the internet (e.g. Dpreview) and then go to a decent camera shop and see how they feel.

Remember also that one of the advantages of a DSLR is the range of interchangeable lenses available so getting a cheaper body with less features may allow you to buy an extra lens which may be more useful to you.

(I am based in Hong Kong)

Posted by MisterD (513 days ago)

Nikon don't make a full-frame DSLR so if you want Nikon you won't be able to follow Mr. Beach's suggestion above.

It's hard for someone else to decide what camera you should buy as it's not really about simply being more 'pro' or less pro. What features are important to you depend on what kind of photography you do. If you shoot sports then high fps may be important, if you do a lot of landscape work for print then resolution will be important to you but fps will be irrelevant, if you're a photojournalist then weather sealing and sturdy construction will be more important etc. etc.

Decide what is important to you, do a bit of research on the internet (e.g. Dpreview) and then go to a decent camera shop and see how they feel.

Remember also that one of the advantages of a DSLR is the range of interchangeable lenses available so getting a cheaper body with less features may allow you to buy an extra lens which may be more useful to you.

(I am based in Hong Kong)

Posted by the_poor_man (510 days ago)

Although Nikon has been your "preferred brand", at this point, if I were to choose a new system I'd look seriously into the Pentax or the Sony.

Steer way clear of the Nikon D40 whatever you do. D80 is a good camera, but keep in mind with the Pentax and the Sony you get in-body stabilization.

But for best image quality, Canon is still ahead of the pack with CMOS.

I'm a Sony (Minolta) user myself, and I love the Alpha, and the fantastic Sony/Minolta lenses and wireless flash system... lets just hope there's a new semi-pro body released at Photokina in about a week... wait and see.

(I am based in Hong Kong)

Posted by Lost_in_HK (492 days ago)

If you are looking for a DSLR, Canon is the leading brand. They offer the most choices with 3 different sensor format sizes to suit whatever is your need and the largest lens collection out there. They are a highly innovative company and produce outstanding products at the prof end. Nikon used to be the number 1 game in consumer film SLRs, but with digital they are no longer the top dog.

I would buy either a Canon or Nikon as both have extensive system of lens which is really just as important as the body. Sony is realy aimed at consumer end of the market so less option to upgrade should you wish to do so. Pentax is becoming a player again but Canon and Nikon have much more established user base so these people can help with your issues. This is really important as digital is a completely new set of rules from film days. Use DPREVIEW.COM as a source.

Figure out what you will be shooting and get the right tool for the job. For example if you shoot a lot of sports then you will need fast, accurate autofocus and a good shooting rate before you run out of memory. If you shoot a lot of low light images like at bars/discos/churches, then you will need a camera which gives good image quality at high ISO. If you shoot birds, then you will need longer lens, etc.

Do some online research and then go to the store to try out. Ergonomics and feel are just as important as other factors. eg if the camera is too small in your hands you will not be comfortable using it.

In terms of image quality - as this is the most important factor to me, nothing beats the low noise capability of the Canon cameras.

(I am based in Hong Kong)

Posted by the_poor_man (490 days ago)

I think the main question here is where does the value lie for your particular budget.

It is not true that Sony doesn't provide a compelling upgrade path, with Zeiss and G lenses, and the built-in Minolta wireless flash system (The Nikon flash system is great, but Canon does not even have wireless flash built-in).

But as I said, the advantage that Sony and Pentax have is in-camera image stabilization, which means you don't HAVE to shoot at high ISO to get great shots in low light.

It is very clear, and I doubt it can be argued that a one-time budget of HK$15000 will get you a much more complete system from either Sony or Pentax than from either Canon ir Nikon. If, however, you have a running budget of at least HK$15000 per year, and you can wait a few years to have a more complete system, Canon and Nikon are great.

(I am based in Hong Kong)

Posted by the_poor_man (489 days ago)

One added comment is that Lost_in_HK seems to gloss over the fact that Sony is FULLY compatible with the numerous Minolta lenses out there, both new (made by Sony, Sigma, Tamron) and used...

Minolta was the #3 SLR brand before financial pressure (and a poorly handled lawsuit from Honeywell) forced them to merge with Konica, then sell the Camera division to Sony. It's also of note that many MANY Minolta lenses are considered as good or better optically than the Canikon equivalents.

And remember, what's the most popular is not always the best. Do your homework before you decide. You might not like Canon and Nikon's high price for stabilized glass or poor performance for cheap glass. You might not like Sony's lackluster high ISO performance (I admit that's Sony's weakest point, currently). On ther other hand, you might really benefit from Sony and Pentax's in-camera anti-shake, or Nikon's superior flash system. You might not like Pentax's APS-C only lens selection (which means they're unlikely to ever release a full-frame body). You might not like Canon's crappy flash performance. You might have friends with Canon or Nikon (or Sony/Minolta) lenses they can lend you.

So the point is, don't ever listen to anyone who blindly says "Canon/Nikon and avoid all others" without taking into consideration the pros and cons of every system out there.

They are all good systems. Who knows... you might decide you like the Fujis (they use Nikon mount) or the Sigmas (proprietary Sigma mount) or the Olympuses and Leicas (which use a "universal" 4/3 mount).

The Canons are known to have very poor body ergonomics. The Minoltas/Sony's are known to have great body ergonomics.

Everyone's choice should be an individual choice.

My strongest opinion, however, is to go with anything EXCEPT Canon (especially the 400D), due to the poor flash system/lack of wireless flash, the poor ergonomics, and the really crappy performance of the Canon "kit" lens (18-55) that most beginners are likely to buy. Just pick up the Canon 400D and the Sony a100, which are priced similarly, and FEEL the difference in quality, which is immediately apparent. There is also a clear difference in image quality if you use the respective "kit" lenses, which is less immediately apparent.

Right now on the news stand (in Page One), there's actually a GREAT issue of Digital Photo magazine which compares every system. Read it. Or just go to a good camera shop and try them all out.

(I am based in Hong Kong)