Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Photography Nikon D40/D40x/D60/D5000 V5, Best entry level DSLR from Nikon

views
     
pleasuresaurus
post Jun 12 2009, 05:20 PM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


Sell the 18-135mm off to a noob la, buy 18-105VR. Awesomeness in a box....actually, is it really dust aa? Or could be dead pixels?
pleasuresaurus
post Jun 29 2009, 05:30 PM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


QUOTE(aaron1kee @ Jun 29 2009, 11:09 AM)
Go for D90 if you have the budget. No regrets.  smile.gif
*
I sokong! biggrin.gif
pleasuresaurus
post Jun 29 2009, 07:30 PM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


QUOTE(aaron1kee @ Jun 29 2009, 06:02 PM)
You using D90 too?
*
Using it and loving it biggrin.gif

pleasuresaurus
post Jun 29 2009, 08:29 PM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


QUOTE(alpha_company @ Jun 29 2009, 07:52 PM)
where did u buy it?
*
Purchased the D90 body from Click & Snap in Penang, although i probably could've gotten it cheaper elsewhere. Sorry aa guys, tiba-tiba got D90 racuning in D40/D40x/D60/D5000 thread biggrin.gif
I was a D40 user myself, before upgrade complete.
pleasuresaurus
post Jun 30 2009, 09:09 AM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


QUOTE(alpha_company @ Jun 30 2009, 08:24 AM)
well.. yeah myb im wrong about that..dont know about that but saw comparisons and the 40D pics is a bit wider..

at the same distance, the kit 40D 18-55 IS also proves to get much wider pics than 18-105VR because shorter mfd.

nice if i could have 1685VR..
*
Aik? 18mm for both bodies and Canon gets a wider shot? Doesn't make sense la bro, 40D crop factor 1.6x and D90 1.5x, shouldn't D90 be tad bit wider?

1685VR vignetting, CA, plus pricey...
pleasuresaurus
post Jun 30 2009, 10:05 AM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


The Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR is an awesome lens no doubt. Optics, speed, performance, build. U should get it if u got the chance. Definitely not for poor mortals like me who can't afford the price tag cry.gif .
pleasuresaurus
post Jun 30 2009, 10:47 AM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


I got my hands on a Siggy 50-150 2.8 awhile ago, pretty good so far. Doesn't have the same range as 70-200, no VR, but pic quality is good and it weighs less than half of the 70-200. Costs less than half too biggrin.gif
pleasuresaurus
post Jun 30 2009, 12:37 PM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


QUOTE(aaron1kee @ Jun 30 2009, 12:11 PM)
How does the 70-210 fare in your opinion? I have one but seldom use it.
*
Thats a pretty old skool lens bro, u inherited it from parents or elder siblings?
pleasuresaurus
post Jun 30 2009, 05:25 PM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere



wtf?! blink.gif how come got D3000 one suddenly?!

This post has been edited by pleasuresaurus: Jun 30 2009, 05:26 PM
pleasuresaurus
post Jul 1 2009, 09:49 AM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


QUOTE(alpha_company @ Jul 1 2009, 01:39 AM)
yeah..feel kinda left out with the 3 point af.. canon 1000D and a200/a300 has much more af points...kalau d60 have like 7-11 af points..i guess i wont be changing body la..
*
Have to make do la like that means. The 1000D is such a good starter camera, luckily it didnt come out before the D40. Otherwise I'd be a Canonian already hahaha...Btw D60 built in flash can be used as commander ka?
pleasuresaurus
post Jul 1 2009, 05:30 PM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


QUOTE(aaron1kee @ Jul 1 2009, 05:21 PM)
I would rather splash a few hundred bucks to get D90. D5000 is mostly aim at consumer level market.
*
Amen to that, bro.

The D90 overall package is just better by far.
pleasuresaurus
post Jul 1 2009, 07:54 PM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


QUOTE(Firdaus92 @ Jul 1 2009, 06:46 PM)
Hey guys. Last Sunday, I went to my teacher's wedding. Got this one bro use D200 + SB900. Damn jealous lorh sweat.gif Me only with kit lens and zoom lens and I got no flash yet! doh.gif Not enough money yet to buy but ok la the pictures that I have taken. Is RM550 for an used SB600?Still ok the condition.  blush.gif
*
Ala bro, don't let that get u down. Its always never about the thing, but how u use it brows.gif. FWIW the D60 sports a similar CCD sensor as the D200, and its a helluva lot lighter, which is always a plus!

550 seems reasonably cheap, did u get to test the unit? But that's the thing la, u add another RM250 and can get a brand new SB600 - no worries and hassles anymore.
pleasuresaurus
post Jul 2 2009, 09:06 AM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


QUOTE(aaron1kee @ Jul 1 2009, 08:19 PM)
'it's never about the thing'
This is very subjective and optional. For me, gears are necessary to take nice pictures.
*
Fair enough, but in terms of specs the D60 is capable of quite a bit. Bout the only thing that's lacking is light, so have to make do la. We work within the constraints we are given. But to feel inferior simply because the other guys has a what, D200 with an SB900 on it? Rubbish.
pleasuresaurus
post Jul 2 2009, 03:48 PM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


If its one thing i wish Nikon came up with, its cheap awesome flash like the F58. The Cobra is one awesome flash gun, and at RM1k its just one of those lil things that make me question my allegiance to the darkside
pleasuresaurus
post Jul 2 2009, 05:23 PM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


But thing is, sensor all made by Sony.....
pleasuresaurus
post Jul 2 2009, 08:30 PM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


QUOTE(zio @ Jul 2 2009, 06:49 PM)
Frankly speaking. Whichever is cheaper. And make it comprehensive.

Draw a list of all the lens you think you will purchase in the future, whether its dream or wish lens, both sides should have similar range. Then compare the price for both system.

*
zio is spot on with this. one thing i realized is that as a photog i was ignorant about what kind of gear i needed - be it lenses, strobes, bags, remotes, whatever. i used to follow thom hogan's blog for a while, and one of the things i read which is quite important is to understand what ur doing and what u need to get it done. after some thought, i realized that in order to get my job done, i needed a range of fast lenses and at least one light source. i needed cheap and good, so figured this:

- 1 flash (SB600)
- 1 UWA (sigma 10-20)
- 1 short zoom (tammy 17-50)
- 1 fast tele (sigma 50-150)

I started with sumthing like this first, to have an idea of what i was going to need in the immediate future. everything else is just icing. figuring in a couple more flashes into it, now that im picking up strobing. just my 2 cents.


pleasuresaurus
post Jul 3 2009, 12:02 AM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


QUOTE(rickylaw86 @ Jul 2 2009, 11:21 PM)
But the difference is in the lenses  blush.gif
*
If that were true, I'd have left the darkside and become Jedi. Sony/Minolta's 135mm f/2.8 STF is to die for.
pleasuresaurus
post Jul 3 2009, 12:44 AM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


QUOTE(rickylaw86 @ Jul 3 2009, 12:29 AM)
Haha, well technically not a Sony made lens right? Well correct me if I was misinformed, there's an adapter to mount Nikon lenses on Canon body but no adapter to mount Canon lenses on Nikon body, which tells you no matter wat body you have, the lenses are what makes the real difference.
*
True,but this is more of an issue of back focus. Its not feasible to mount a Canon lens on a Nikon body due to the fact that Nikon bodies require longer back focal length, which a Canon lens cannot provide. Man, if i can afford it I'd run multiple systems. Just love that smooth trans focuz drool.gif .


Added on July 3, 2009, 12:46 am
QUOTE(alpha_company @ Jul 3 2009, 12:32 AM)
thanks for the advice.. especially for the unbiased advice.  thumbup.gif
@thanks to pleasuresaurus too  biggrin.gif
*
most welcome

This post has been edited by pleasuresaurus: Jul 3 2009, 12:46 AM
pleasuresaurus
post Jul 11 2009, 11:38 AM

spin spin sugar
*******
Senior Member
2,586 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: got la sumwhere


I've been out for a week and already a lot of new camera restructuring. Good stuff here!

Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0289sec    0.64    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 13th December 2025 - 02:49 AM