Considering the D50

[theishkid]

Hello all... first post here... I am considering purchasing the nikon D50 dslr. This will be my first slr camera as I have had many point and shoots in the past. My main focus for the camera will be macro shots of my corals from my reef tank. I was reading in a few other post and they kept talking about how important the flash is for fish, but I'm curious, with almost 600 watts of metal halide and power compact lighting will the flash really be that important? Or is that for freshwater lower lighting tanks?

One of my biggest concerns with the purchase of this camera is that I do not have the money to be buying thousands of dollars worth of lenses. Now I know you get what you pay for, but are there some links to cheaper solutions for lenses? I was looking at some of the Sigma lenses and they seemed way too much for me. I think I have heard of the Nikkor lenses but I haven't heard enough about them. Also how good of a "macro" shot am I going to get with the kit lens?

I am also curious how well this camera reacts at night. One of the things I want to do is a lot of the nighttime action shots where you leave the shutter open. I would also like to try my hand at some weather related shots such as lighting. Does anyone have any examples or pointers.

Please ony give me information on the d50, I am not interested in the d70. Everywhere else I go they forget about my questions and go straight to the "this is why you should get the d70 instead". Thanks in advance. Brad

[Obliviou$]

You don't need flash if the light is sufficient. I wouldn't know if it is.
As for a macro lense, it's hard to go wrong.
I'm using the Sigma 105mm, and It kicks ass! Love it.

Other cheap solutions would be the Tamron 90mm.
The optics of the Sigma and the Nikkor version of the 105mm are just about identical.
So is the Tamron.

About night photography, you need a tripod and your set.

[theishkid]

wow... those really aren't all that cheap at all. Maybe I was looking at the wrong thing. What I'm wondering... is there any solution for around $100 to get good macro shots?

[paradise]

theishkid, are you from Nano-reef? WE had that discussion there, with the exact same questions.

No, you cant get Macro quality shots you see some people taking, with a cheap lens. That is why people pay for them. You get EXACTLY what you pay for with lenses. It's the whole reason for DSLR popularity.

If you dont want to get into flashes, you then need to invest in tripod, as you wont get a great crisp shot holding the cam in your hand, without flash. Between the two, I would go for flash.

Also, I dont understand the whole "I dont want D70" statement. What about it makes you say that? There is nothing in D50 that makes it an obvious choice over D70 (and not D70s, but reg. good old D70 which you can buy much cheaper now). Plus the fact that it has commander mode, whether you need it right away or not, is what makes it a NON-question. And if everyone is telling you reasons to go for D70, there must be something to it, they all can not be wrong :)

In my opinion, if you are not willing to Invest in DSLR, and I am talking a few hundred $$ on lenses and flashes, and choosing the camera that people in the know are trying to help you with, you should be looking at a better quality Point and Shoot camera.

[theishkid]

No I'm not from nano reef, I only go to reef central. Looking around more I have seen some pretty good macro shots with some lenses in the 100 - 150 dollar range. I'm not looking for studio photography pictures here. In fact 90 % of them will be scaled down for the web or will be printed on something other than photo paper such as canvas. (I am a art/design student)

I've got the tripod covered. However I'm still a little curious as why you would think I need a flash? I have a 75 gallon tank with 600 watts of metal halide and power compact lighting. What in the world is a flash gonna do? It is really really bright in there as it is.

My point behind the I don't want a D70 comment is for price concerns. I simply cannot afford (even now with the lower price) to spend more than a thousand dollars for the camera. If I could I would have bought the canon 20D as that camera is amazing. What I have noticed from searching for cameras is the same thing I noticed when searching for lights for my reef tank. You ask people if 150watt metal halides is enough for your tank and they all start in with why you "must have" 250 watt halides instead. With cameras you ask people to give information on a specific camera in your price range and they all start out with why you should spend more on a different camera. I used to be ticked at how this concept work, however I have come to realize that everyone is just simply trying to look out for my best interest.
Still though, the way I see it, the D50 even though it's no d70 is still better than some of the top notch cameras that were around one, two, and three years ago. Maybe it is not the best today... but I saw people a few years ago putting up top notch photos with there cameras so why can't this one put up that same quality?
Again I must say that I simply cannot afford a thousand dollar camera, especially when this is my first slr camera and I can get the d50 for about 750 or less right now. Plus I could always spend that extra money on a nice new lens.

I'm willing to invest in an slr system, however I am not a professional. I just want a little more control than is offered from the slr-like cameras. I have not totally made up my mind yet on which camera I am after. In fact I am also looking at a fuji 5200. It's just that nobody has posted any pictures with that camera and there are no reviews for it. I just figure that even with a simple kit lens that the d50 would blow that one away. The main question is whether or not the d50 is worth the extra 300 dollars...

[paradise]

Well Price is not really an issue, you can get the D70 online for almost (within 50-75$) the same price as the D50, and on ebay, you can buy a D70 from a Reputable dealer that you know will be good for even less than that.

D70 body $749 at B&H (the most reputable dealer online BAR NONE)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=315793&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

As far as flash goes, maybe for your situation with 600w of MH it will be enough w/out it, but there are other uses for Commander mode. If you ever decide to take "studio" shots of family, having flashes on the sides controlled by the camera from the front will be a HUGE difference. There are other uses. It's also worth the difference in price just to be on the safe side.

Re: lenses, there are no $150 macro lenses. There are low end DSLR lenses (the stuff that they try to sell in packages, or to consumers) that will give you adequate photographs, but the quality of glass is the #1 item to spend money on, anyone here w/a DSLR will tell you. There is a reason a used 100mm 2.8 macro lens costs only 50$ less than a new one. It's an awesome lens, and it does not lose value. Try that with $150 lenses, and you will find yourself later giving it away for $40-50. Glass is more important than ANYTHING else.

BUT, if you are on the budget, there are GOOD cheap lenses, like the $100 50mm 1.8 (about $100) that can get you by on the budget with aquatic photography. Just remember, start saving up for better stuff, you WILL want it.

And D70 is not "more than you need". Trust me :)

[theishkid]

I figure it's going to be just like reef keeping. There is always something bigger and better that you want. The problem with the d70 is that it's 750 body only at b&h while the d50 with a lens is 699 at newegg. Or if I don't want to order online I was told by a manager at a local circuit city they would give it to me at that price. Plus I'm reading the review on dpreview and seeing as how i'm new to dslr's... I just wouldn't be able to justify spending the extra money on the d70. Maybe for my second camera in a few years after I have a little more knowledge I'll be able to get some of those extra features. Hopefully by then I'll have a few extra nicer lenses too.

[paradise]

You are talking about $50, right???? I guess that you really have decided already, no matter what. I really hope someone else makes a comment in this thread, because I dont have anything else to add. Sorry. :)

[Obliviou$]

I doubt they make good macro lenses under the price of the 105mm. It's a Sigma EX lense, EX are Sigmas quality label.

Quite honest, your sick of hearing this, but I'll say it anyways.
Why rush into a D50 when you can get a D70 for approx. the same price. I've tried a D50, it's plasticy...Main turnoff, feels like plastic.

[PhotoByMark]

Sounds like $$$$ are a big deal in your situation.

If you want to start off right away shooting macro shots then I think the D50 or the D70 is probably not the best choice for you right now. Why not, try to get a decent P&S with good macro capabilities in the $300-$500 range and save your money up for a DSLR at a later date? Or hunt around for a USED D70?

[theishkid]

No honestly I have not decided yet. It may sound like I have but I really haven't.

What do you mean I am talking about $50 dollars. NO I am talking about a couple hundred dollars. You said you could get the BODY of the D70 for 750... then you have to add the cost of a lens so you're probably looking at 1000 dollars. You can get the D50 with a lens for $699 at newegg. That's going to be a $250 to $300 difference in price.

I know it sounds like I may be for the D50 and I'm really not, I'm just looking for a GOOD reason why that one isn't the one for me or why something else would be better. I mean no offense I'm sure it feeling like plastic would bug somebody who has been at this for a while, but I have felt the canon 300 and the olympus 300 and even the canon 20D. I'm sure there's a big difference in how they were made but they all felt good in my hands. There definitly would not be enough to justify spending extra money (especially for someone who has never had an slr) on a d70.

You all are right about the macros... after researching more on the lenses I would not be able to get good macros with a cheaper lens, but there are other things I need to use my camera for and macros are just a small part of it so that can wait.

I guess the reason I have for sort of sounding like I am for the D50 and nothing else is that after reading the dpreview.com review and a few others I just can't see justifying spending more money for the D70. Phil did a really deep review and there really wasn't anything he said that would suggest the D70 being that much better in image quality than the D50. In fact with the newer sensor of the D50 there was actually less noise in higher ISO than there was with the D70.

[PhotoByMark]

Sounds like you have a plan. Buy the D50 now and down the road get some lenses.

Then in a year get a new or used body D70s, D100, D200, D2x or ..... (And use your D50 as the backup camera)

So what are waiting for. Order it Tonight! :-) And get to some shooting.