Advice on basic equipment needed ....
 

I am planning a several week trip through Europe and need a bit of advice about what kind of equipment I should take along. At the moment, I have a relatively good compact digital camera, but I would like to get a nice compact SLR with one or two lenses and maybe a flash, but I'm not sure about the flash yet ...

Anybody got any ideas??

There are good choices from each of the five remaining major DSLR brands – Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, and Sony.

I am sure a Canon owner will be along to suggest a Rebel this-or-that outfit, a Pentax owner to suggest a K200d, etc.

You really can’t go wrong with any of them but I sincerely believe that in the entry-level DSLR game that Nikon has the best overall image quality of the lot, as opposed to digital compacts where Nikon is an also-ran.

I would recommend the D60 with the 18-55 VR II and 55-200 kit lenses. The image quality from the D60 is superb, the two lenses though not the most stout of Nikkors is excellent and both the camera and lenses are compact and light. The flash on the D60 is also good enough [out to about 20-25 feet] that you could likely eschew carrying a shoe-mount flash in order to save weight and bulk. The two-lens kit is about $850 but B&H has currently an instant $150 rebate so you only pay about $700.

Some will say don't buy the D40/D60 because you can't use Nikon's older lenses, you have to use AF-S lenses. This is true but you don't sound to me like you have a stash of older Nikon lenses. Just about every lens Nikon has made for the last five years, and every lens they make from this point on will be AF-S, or D40/D60 compatible.

The other option, and the one I personally would go with would be the D60 kit with just the older version of the 18-55, which B&H is selling currently for about $550. I would then sell or give away the 18-55 kit lens and I would buy the Nikkor 16-85 AF-S VR-II, which runs about $600. It is a excellent lens optically and gives you a very workable one-lens solution, which saves even more bulk and weight.

The 16-85 is equivalent to a 24-130 in 35mm terms, which should be enough for most people. When I travel I find that a wider-angle lens is of more use than is a long telephoto. This may or may not be true for you but IMHO the difference between 16mm and 18mm [24mm and 28 mm in 35mm terms] is more significant than is the difference on the telephoto end of the lens. Sometimes you just can't back up anymore but you can always crop in order to enlarge.

Well, that's my advice. Others will surely disagree or have their own, differing suggestions.

An entry-level dSLR with two lenses, one around 18-55, then other 55-200 or 250, will be fine. At this time, the lenses should be image stabilization (Canon calls IS, Nikon calls it VR, etc), or the camera body should have stabilization (like Sony's).

If you're planning to go further in the hobby - getting more lenses, lots of accessories, etc - then don't look further than Nikon and Canon. But if you think two lenses (and probably a flash) is it, then it doesn't really matter which brand. They all take pretty good pictures. But go to a store and actually put one in your hand and try the controls.

I don't usually carry an external flash when traveling. All of the entry-level dSLRs have onboard flash, which may be used. But if you plan to take a lot of portraits on the trip, rather than just scenery, then an external flash will be preferred.

IMHO, buying a Nikon D40 or D60 locks you out of getting some really superbly priced used lenses. They are fine cameras, but I feel that the removal of the in-body focus motor will substantially limit your future lens choices. I personally bought a D80 for just a bit more than a D60 because of this, and I have more than made up the difference by getting several used lenses that would not autofocus on a D40 or D60. For example: Nikon's 28-200mm AF-D can be picked up for $200 or so 2nd hand. And the 50mm f1.8, which can be picked up for $100 and makes a great portrait lens and available light lens - and it might be the sharpest lens Nikon makes. Neither of these lenses will auto-focus on a D40 or D60, but work great on a D80 or D50 (as well as Nikon's higher end pro cameras).

Just a few points:

[1] Many [most] of Nikon's older extended range AF zooms suck - big time. Being able to use most of Nikon's older non-f/2.8 AF zooms is no advantage IMHO, particularly on digital bodies with a high pixel count/density.

[2] Nikon currently produces about 30 AF-S lenses that will auto focus on the D40/D60 which cover a range from 16mm to 600mm. I have no doubt that the OP will have no trouble finding what he needs from this list, in terms of range, price, and quality.

[3] Nikon has recently introduced a 35mm f/1.8 AF-S for under $200 which is effectively a 50mm lens on APS-C cameras like the D40/D60.

[4] Pretty much every lens Nikon will make in the future will be AF-S.

[5] The D90 [while a great camera] is both significantly heavier and bulkier and much more expensive than is the D60 which would seem to violate two of the things the OP wanted most.

May I play the role of the Pentax owner here? ;)

Get a Canon or a Nikon. The lens selection is better, particularly on the secondary market. I love my camera but I wish that I had the flexibility of the second-hand market for lenses that the two big boys enjoy.

The older Pentax SMC-FA auto focus lenses for the PZ/SF series work on the newer digital bodies.

The older Pentax SMC manual focus lenses will fit as well.

Remember also that Tokina is now making Pentax's lenses so you shouldn't see any drop-off in quality from what you would expect with a Pentax AF lens by going with a less expensive Tokina.

It's not that you can't use manual and AF lenses on D40/D40x/D60. You have to do manual focus, which most of us still know how to do. The 1.5x crop factor made many focal length ranges undesirable too. Then there are the newer features such as VR.

I understand what you mean. Just pickup a Canon FD 35-105mm one touch for $10 in Tokyo. Not that I will run to it instead of using my D40+18-55mm.

Yeah, but there still aren't nearly as many lenses out there for the Pentax bodies as there are for the others. Like I said, I love mine and like the options I have on it, but for people buying in to a system new right now I'd suggest the two big boys.

Well, true.

As a Pentax K10D owner the older SMC manual focus lenses really don't work with the Pentax new K's The only aperture setting is wide open. I personally have Sigma Lenses. I love my K10D and the in body shake reduction is great (works with any lenses) With that said, I've recommened the Nikon D40's to a few new to DSLR who were on a budget. It's hard to beat the quality of Nikon lenses.

1. Please give us some more info. How techy are you? How long have you been doing this for? Is this your first SLR? How important is compactness and weight? How much are you willing to spend? Are you going to want to add on to this with more lenses and accessories? What are you going to use it for, landscape or city, people or buildings, indoors or outdoors? What's your current compact camera? Are you going to print those photos, yourself or with a service?

I know that's a lot of questions but you could just as well ask us which kind of car you should buy to drive in Europe. The fact that you use the cam in Europe has no influence on what kind of cam we can recommend, so basically any info you get out of this request is (at least methodologically) worthless. Sorry, guys!

2. Read www.dpreview.com . The best source on cameras on the net afaik. THe forums are extremely helpful. Do a search for travel+ dslr.

3. Wonder if you really need a DSLR with two lenses or whether an Ultrazoom like the Olympus and such wouldn't do it. Or maybe even a G10 or Panasonic TZ5 or TZ7.

Good luck,

Till

When I purchased my camera about 10 months ago I spent a lot of time looing at Nikon and Canon. In the end I went for A Canon 400D (Rebel in the US). I was just happier with the image and AF. Also at the pice point £450ish the Nikon I was looking at didn't have AEB.

I have alwasy used Nikon before going digital and dont regret then change but to be honest 99% of couldn't tell the difference. I would go for a good shop that will let you change the standard lense from say a 18-55 to a 18-250. Yes it will cost more but cope with 99% of your needs.

I won't get into the whole Nikon vs. Canon thing as that discussion is a non-starter IMHO. As I said - you can get excellent results with cameras from any of the DSLR makers.

But I will offer this opinion: The forums on DPReview are about the least helpful resource I could possibly imagine.

The "discussions" on those forums are worse than are arguments between democrats and republicans.

The forums are nothing but a bunch of fan bois driven pissing contests and what is more often than not - uninformed and incorrect information - given by a bunch of idiots who have too much money and free time on their hands so they spend $5K on a 200mm f/2.0 lens in order to shoot nothing more than resolution test charts and the squirrels in their back yards.

In my experience it seems that about two-thirds of the posts [regardless of which forum] are from people b'ing about what equipment their favored company doesn't produce or b'ing about the short comings of the stuff said companies do make though likely-as-not they - the posters - don't even actually own the equipment they are complaining about but are basing their opinions on other "reviews" or on their brother-in-law's "experience".

Just my opinion.

Don't know this is true in the US, but there have been some real fire sales on Olympus dSLR's in my neck of the woods (Finland, that is). Olympus E-420 kit with 14-42 mm and 40-140 mm lenses (the crop factor is 2x) are being sold at €399, which includes 22 % VAT. The pre-tax price for the kit is therefore just over €325, which I think is pretty great.

If I was shopping for a first dSLR and this kit were available for around $400 or so, I'd look at it very carefully...

Cheers,
T.

PS. I am a Nikon man myself and have invested so much in Nikon lenses, I am pretty much stuck. Not that I am not happy.

I agree, it is an argument that would never end, like BMW vs Merc etc. It is down to personal preference and for me at the time Canon won due to AEB and probably a better sales person.

I had to spend 3 days on a raft trip with a girl who sold Sony camera's I think or maybe Samsung anyway she just went on about XYZ, all the sales stuff she was tought out of college. At the end of the day her pics were crap so that made me happy.

The other option is to go traditional. You can buy a high quality film SLR from Nikon or Canon and a great assortment of used lenses for quite a bit less than a DSLR body and lenses. Put the difference into film and processing, which really isn't that expensive.

In my case I bought Nikon's top of the range film SLR (the F6) and compared to Canon's top DSLR at the time the difference in body costs was $7500. I can buy a lot of film for $7500, and the F6 isn't obsolete in 18 months.

Either way you go, film or digital, KEH.com is the place to buy. I generally never buy better than bargain grade equipment and it always looks just lightly used. Their ratings are very conservative, and excellent service.

film and processing costs add up fast, plus there's the space required to carry the film. thousands of digital photos can fit into a pocket, with no concern over keeping it cool or being subjected to airport x-rays.

the problem with that comparison is that you are comparing a five year old used film camera (which was nearly $3000 when new) with a new top of the line dslr that produces images that are substantially better than what the f6 can ever hope to produce.

a more realistic comparison for the f6 would be with a nikon d90 or d300, as well as the older d200 which can still be found new for under $1000.

yes, keh is a great place to buy stuff.

and if you include sigma, tamron and tokina, there's about 70-80 lenses from which to choose.

that pretty much sums it up, and don't forget the paid shills who do a 'test' only to find what they set out to 'prove.' however, it can be quite entertaining at times, and every so often, there actually is some useful information.

I bought the F6 new, and at the time the best DSLR out there was the Canon 1DsMKII, which was $10K, and I paid $2500 for the F6. A friend of mine is also a photographer and he has the 1DsMKII as well as a 5D MKII. I've shot with both extensively, and given that they both are full frame cameras they certainly do not produce images "substantially better". Different, yes, substantially better, no. My camera has proven to be much more rugged, as we've gone hiking together in the rockies, and his has failed while mine kept working. It was pouring rain, and the Canon didn't like that, while mine kept going.

I have two 16x20's on my office wall, one digital printed on an Epson inkjet, the other from film that I printed in my darkroom on Ilfochrome. My colleagues know nothing about photography, but so far they have all preferred the film print, even though the subject matter is very similar.

In black and white the difference is much more pronounced, digital simply cannot produce prints with the subtilty of tone that a traditional print can, and from a large format negative it's not a contest, people pick the film every time.

Digital has a place, but its too expensive for me. My cameras are still precision optical mechanical instruments, instead of disposable consumer electronics.

From my perspective, film is too expensive. I can shoot over 7000 frames on a three week trip. Carrying 200 rolls of film would be cumbersome to say the least and the price would be absolutely prohibitive.

And I don't quite get the statement that digital cameras are disposable consumer electronics. I've had my dSLR body for nearly 5 years and it is still going quite strong.

But film has its place, as well. A local camera shop is in the process of going out of business and they have some Nikon F4 bodies for €150... I just may pick one up.

Cheers,
T.

In the sense that yes it works, but the sensor can't produce images up to the standard of today's DSLR's. I can drop the latest film into a 5 or 50 year old camera and have the latest technology available.

I bill the client for film and processing, whereas I can't bill the client for the substantial amount of post processing that is necessary with digital capture. Plus, I hate the time spent doing the boring work (sharpening, colour correction) in Photoshop, but I can send film to the lab and have it back in 2 hours.

Out of curosity, how many of the 7000 images are good? Do you shoot that much because it's necessary, or because you can?

I've never shot that many on a 3 week trip, but have a good percentage of "keepers". I find my percentage goes up with the format: I shoot more in 35mm, but have fewer "outstanding" shots, but in 8"x10" just about every one is good shot because its a much more contemplative approach to taking a photo. When it takes 30 min to set up the camera, you make sure its worth taking before you bother setting up the camera.

i don't know where you are shopping, but the canon 1ds (all versions) listed for $8k and the 1ds iii is currently about $6.5-7k street price, usa currency. $2500 sounds about right for an f6, however.

and you don't need to get a 1ds ii to outperform an f6 (or any 35mm film camera for that matter). a nikon d200 (at the time) would have sufficed and a d300 very definitely will.

no offense, but something is wrong. a canon 1ds mark ii and certainly a 5d mark ii enter into medium format film territory. they both produce images that are much better than from any 35mm film camera.

here's a comparison with a nikkormat ft3 35mm camera & velvia iso 50 film, a hasselbald 503cw camera & velvia 50 iso film, and a 12 megapixel full frame canon 5d digital slr (about half as many megapixels as the 5d ii):

http://www.ales.litomisky.com/projec...anon%205D).htm
"The best quality both in print and on the screen viewed at 100% are clearly from the Canon 5D, followed by the Hasselblad, and lastly - after a significant gap – by the 35 mm film camera."

another comparison (and note that the canon d60 was a 6 megapixel camera):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...shootout.shtml
"Then in mid-2002 I upgraded to the Canon EOS D60. This cameras clearly surpassed 35mm film quality in every respect and so I retired my film-based Canon EOS 1V. But I still continued to do my landscape work with medium format and film."

i've had better results from a lowly 6 megapixel nikon dslr than i ever got with 35mm film, especially at medium to high iso. with a 12 megapixel dslr, it is simply no longer a contest.

that has more to do with the build quality of a given body than it does for film versus digital. the 5d mark ii is not well sealed while the f6 is.

there are far too many variables for that comparison to be meaningful.

and they'd pick a large format print over one made from 35mm film too. that has more to do with the vast difference in format size than film being better.

dslrs are hardly what i'd call disposable consumer electronics and they're just as much precision as any film camera, if not more so. digital is also significantly cheaper and more convenient than film for anyone who shoots more than a few rolls a year.

that's true, but even a digital camera from a few years ago is already beyond what the same format film can produce.

you can 'send out' the digital images by taking the flash card to a camera store and having the images printed. also, the amount of work in processing digital images isn't typically that much and a lot of it can be automated.

nothing prevents someone from taking 30 minutes (or more) to set up for a digital shot either. that's a question of technique, not film versus digital.

I'm in Canada, and our $ was worth quite a bit less than the US at the time.


The weakness with all of those comparisons is that the film is scanned, and there is quite a bit of image degradation in the scanning process. I've done similar comparisons myself by comparing prints, and not come to the same conclusions. The Portaria's and Kodak's new Ektar 100 scan quite a bit better than other films.

I know Michael Reichmann, and I've been to his gallery and seen quite a bit of his work. Is it good? Absolutely. Did it blow me away compared to prints I can make from film? No. Was there an obvious quality advantage? Again, no. Actually, I thought the blacks were muddy and it was lacking both contrast and D max, and this was stuff off of a Phase One medium format back that cost roughly $40K. With that sort of investment I was expecting something amazing, and it wasn't any better or worse than a competent photographer could have produced using film. Maybe there is an sharpness or detail advantage under a magnifying glass, but standing 10 feet away in a gallery that is lost.

If you're a pixel peeper digital does do better, but I look at the overall image. Does any one discredit Robert Capa's Falling Soldier because its soft, grainy, has blocked up highlights and a bit of motion blur? Of course not, its still a moving image, and I think that counts for more than absolute image quality. Most of the memorable pictures from the Vietnam war are quite poor technically, but that doesn't lessen their impact. Grain can be good! Why else would photoshop have an add on to to make things look like they were shot on Tri-X? Call me crazy, but I think its easier to shoot it on Tri-X if you want the results to look like Tri-X.

Obviously digital works for you, and that's great. I just trying (and probably not well) to point out that its not the only way to capture images, and the quality from film can be excellent. Given the crap that's on photo sharing sites like flickr and such, it seems that most people really don't care about quality, just convenience.

For me, one of my most important subjects has a particular shade of red that I've found Kodachrome is the only capture medium (film or digital) that can get it right. That's part of the reason I stick with film, plus I'm not on a constant backup and data preservation treadmill.

I never have to worry about CD'd becoming unreadable or upgrading my computer and software, or changing formats. I've dealt with format migration of going from 8" floppys to 5.25" to 3.5" floppies to zip drives, jazz drives, and now CD's and DVD's and I'm tired of having to migrate all that data just to ensure that it will remain readable.

I'm trying to simplify my life, so I just file my slides in archival steel boxes and my kids can look at them in 50 years by holding them to the light. I get a lot of pleasure in knowing that I don't need a piece of software to look at my images. Plus the impact of an 8"x10" transparancy on a light table isn't to be underestimated:)

Many, yes, certainly but not all. I got a quite good 28-200mm AF-D lens for $150, and an even better 18-35mm 18-35mm AF-D lens for $250 used. I would contend that these two lenses combined outperform the 18-135mm and 18-200mm current lenses, in particular, at the wide end the 18-35mm is FAR superior in terms of distortion, than any of the newer wide range AF-S zooms lenses are. And an un-sung SUPERB cheapo Nikkor zoom is the 28-70mm f3.5~4.5 AF-D lens, a tiny, sharp, contrasty, low distortion, completely flare free lens that can easily be gotten for under $100. And one can get an older 80-200mm f2.8 Nikkor Zoom for under $600 that is optically the equal of the 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR lens that sells for $1700. VR and AF-S is nice, but they are not worth spending 3X as much for basically the same optics. This also ignores a whole lot of nice lenses from Tokina and Tamron that don't have AF-S support. Like the great Tokina 12-24 and 11-16mm superwides, and Tamron's great Macro lenses.

And how many of them are primes that are currently available for under $400?
ZERO. Meanwhile, I use a 50mm f1.8, a 24mm f2.8, and a 180mm f2.8 lens, all of which are among Nikon's finest performing lenses, all of which can be found inexpensively, and none of which will autofocus on a D40 or D60.

So right now, Nikon has introduced, but will not ship for another 2 months, exactly ONE high quality but inexpensive prime that works on the D40 and D60. And I am sure that all of the future AF-S lenses that Nikon will be producing will be nowhere NEAR as great values as the zooms and primes that I listed are on the used market. But a D40 or D60 precludes anyone from using them if they want autofocus - and believe me, manually focusing an autofocus lens on an autofocus body is no picnic for someone who has never used a manual focus DSLR before - which, I sensed the OP to be.

And the cost of the D90 is why I recommended a D80. Those bodies cost around $550 new nowadays. A used D50 would also be great, and those can be gotten for $250 in near mint condition.

BTW, I am the happy owner of a D80 (bought used for $425 with battery grip), and I just picked up a nice D50 with a Katz Eye screen on ebay for under $225 as a backup body.

Out of the 7000, perhaps 100-200 are good (which, of course, is a relative term). On these trips, I mainly shoot animals in the wild, which for me requires a lot of shots to get right. A better photographer might get by with far less.

I can imagine a pro in certain situations getting excellent results with film. For a hobbyist (such as myself, and, as I understood, the OP), I feel digital is definitely the way to go.

Cheers,
T.

Interesting, I haven't pulled out my 4x5s in twenty years.

Yes, we still have two full sets of Canon film SLRs and three sets of Nikon dSLRs along with 4x5s and numerous digital P&S. My kids still insisting to keep the film cameras around to get that film look.

Although the film cameras are getting less and less use nowadays. I think as our dSLRs' lens collection grow, the film cameras will stay more and more in their bags.

Some people are selling the 18-55mm+55-200mm kit lenses for $300. I pickup a 55-200mm VR in mint condition for $170.

A new D40+18-55mm just went for $355 on eBay. So I don't understand why you are buying $150 of this and $250 of that that a basic kit will cover.

I am also looking for a cheap 80-200mm f/2.8. But there are only two versions of two ring design, one AF-S and one AF. And both are not cheap. Many writers suggested against the AF version although I have not tried it myself. VR does exactly what people who looks for f/2.8 needs to do, extend the low light range. So if one will paying for a $800-$900 non-VR, is $1300 a far stretch? These are the questions I ask of myself and so far I could not reconcile either way.

The D70/D70s is even better. At 6MP and 1.5MP/CM2, it must be as great as the newer D40 for low light. It can also do wireless flash where the D50 cannot. You can get a D70 body for around $300 and the D70s slightly more.

When I bought the D200, I pass on the D80 mainly because it used SD instead of CF and lacking the 10 pin connector.

most slr buyers (film or digital) only buy one lens, maybe two lenses, total. they get the kit lens and possibly a second kit lens and that's it.

the d40/d60 are targeted at such a user. they are not targeted at the more advanced user who already has or expects to buy various lenses, particularly used ones. plus, the d40/d60 lack a number of features that an advanced user would probably want. they're entry level cameras.

once the scanner has enough resolution to resolve individual film grains (which high end scanners can easily do), there is no degradation from scanning. and even with not so high end scanners, the difference is negligible.

grain is noise. whether it is 'good' or not is subjective and it can be added back if desired. it's much better to start with an accurate and noise-free representation of the subject and later add whatever effect one wants, whether it is grain or something else entirely. and unlike film, the level can be adjusted afterwards; with film, one can't redo the development to change the grain.

people are simply accustomed to the characteristics of film. it's a lot like people preferring vinyl records or tube amps because of the 'warm sound,' which is just another word for 'distortion.'

there are plenty of crappy film images cluttering up people's closets in the proverbial shoebox. just because it's easy to post lousy photos on flickr does not mean digital itself is a lousy medium.

and as you said above, quality is not what really matters; it's the subject and composition.

i'm curious how you determined that, since digital can have a wider and more accurate colour gamut than film. and what about the rest of the spectrum, other than the one shade of red?

and while kodachrome was a great film, there's only one remaining lab in the world that processes it. even kodak no longer handles it. there will come a time when they decide it is no longer cost effective, probably when kodak ceases to manufacture the film itself.

film requires more effort to preserve than digital, plus it is impossible to make a backup of film that is identical to the original.

instead, you have to worry about fire, floods, mold, fungus, fading, tearing, scratches, etc. you have only one original copy of film images and if they're destroyed or damaged in any way, you lose everything.

8x10 format film is certainly nice but that's hardly a fair comparison with a 35mm format slr, film or digital. and in 50 years, there will be noticeable degradation of the film images, whereas there will be none with digital.

the fact remains that any modern dslr made in the last five or so years produces images that are better than from any 35mm film camera (significantly so in some cases), in addition to having more features, such as more sophisticated autofocus, live view, etc.

Other than the focusing motor, which feature is lacking in the D40/D60?

Actually, I prefer SD, but at the cost of flash cards nowadays, it's a trivial issue (a class 6 8GB costs under $20). The D80 is better than the D70, and the D50 is as well. The D50's sensor is 2 years newer than the D70 sensor, and the D80 sensor is 3 years newer. And I own both.

And the lenses I bought are made in Japan high quality Nikkors, not cheap kit lenses, but having bought them 2nd hand, I paid the same type of prices I'd have paid for less well built kit lenses. And the prime lenses I bought are simply MUCH better than all but the most expensive (well over $1000) pro zoom lenses. But those primes do not autofocus on a D40 or D60. The lenses I bought are quite a bit better than the basic kit lenses - especially in terms of freedom from distortion at the wide end, and in terms of maximum apertures. As well as build quality.

And incidentally, VR doesn't work for stopping motion blur for sports work. Most users of the 80-200mm f2.8 are buying the lens for shooting sports or other action. VR is worthless for that - but it is useful for many other hand held applications - such as shooting fashion or events like weddings. And the difference is not $900 vs $1300, it's $600 vs $1700.

The lack of a focusing motor is a HUGE issue - it basically precludes using reasonably priced primes, with exactly one exception, the 35mm f1.8 that Nikon just introduced.

Another major issue is the Autofocus performance of an 11 point system on the D80/D90/D200, vs the much simpler AF system of the D40/D60.

Also, the sophistication of the ability to use external flash is much greater on a D80.

Most other differences are rather minor. But, frankly, I'll never consider a body without it's own focus motor, because it precludes most of the best value prime lenses, as well as most of the better value Nikkor zooms on the 2nd hand market. I bought a used D50 as a backup body, rather than a D40 or D60 because of the focus motor.

the ones that immediately come to mind are it won't meter with manual focus lenses, its autofocus only has 3 points (versus 11-51 on other bodies), mirror lock-up, no wireless flash commander mode, no gps input and more reliance on menus to configure it.

it also lacks more esoteric features such as 14 bit a/d converter, an intervalometer, individual lens calibration and an artificial horizon.

on the other hand, the d40/d60 can mount old non-ai lenses without risk of damage, whereas no other recent nikon body can do that. because of that risk, many people avoid non-ai lenses (or have them modified so they can be used), and they can be found for very little money.

What I meant was that most people don't care about the quality, as long as it's easy. How else could 110 and Kodak disk have had commercial success?


I mainly do railroad photography, and nothing else makes Canadian Pacific red look right. Since its outdoors, other films or digital can get everything else pretty close, but that's not critical. As long as the trees are green, the eye is happy. However, the red seems to be tricky to render so that you can look at an image and say its right. With Fuji, it tends to go to orange, same with digital. If I correct it, the other colours go off. The now discontinued Ektachrome EPN was a close second because it doesn't have the hyper saturation that most films have. Velvia is terrible, it makes everything look like Disneyland. I probably could get everything right if I spent a lot of time in Photoshop with masking and layers, but why bother when I can do it the easy way?

Kodachrome has one other unique advantage, and that's the rem-jet backing that no other film has had. It absorbs stray light and makes for a cleaner image. In railfan circles, there is a well known phenomon called "FHB" or Fuji headlight blob, which is a secondary ghosting or halo image of the headlights caused by light scatter within the emulsion. The coating on Kodachrome absorbs this, and its never a problem.


How so? I file the negs in archival sleeves, index it and forget about it. It really couldn't be much easier. I never have to worry about upgrading to "shoebox 2.0". Perhaps try Googling "digital dark age" to see why I'm concerned about all electronic data.


Never lost anything yet in 25 years. I live in a dry climate so mould isn't an issue, and I usually shoot several in camera "dupes". One to file, another to make prints from. I have had hard drive crashes and lost data though.


That's certainly not true. I've made Cibachromes from 5"x7" Kodachrome originals shot between 1945 and 1953 and the colours are as bright as when they were shot. Ektachromes faded badly, but not Kodachrome. Modern E6 films are estimated to be good for at least 100 years, and of course colour fading isn't an issue with B&W. I wish I could still buy Kodachrome sheet film...

I don't want all the so called "features"! I'd be very happy if there was a digital version of a Canon F1 or Nikon F3/F4: Tough, reliable, simple and totally controllable by me without drilling through layers of menus. Most of the time I don't even need a light meter, I can estimate within 1/3 of a stop in daylight.

I bought the F6 as a backup for the F4, and its autofocus and metering is the same as the D2x. AF is better than the F4, no question, but the F4's meter is more accurate. Since I shoot trains I really don't need AF, since I know where they are going to be! I don't like being battery dependant either, espcialy in winter when the batteries and LCD screens freeze. When its cold is when the large format comes out, as they are totally mechanical and have never stopped in cold weather.

Obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree. Film works for me, and it works well. It gives images that are pleasing and my clients are satisfied. What more could I ask for?

which is not something many users care about. most people buy one or two zooms and that's the end of their lens collection.

you're not in its target market. neither am i. but for a lot of people, it's a fantastic camera.

I had the first generation 80-200 /2.8 AF. Nice lens, very sharp, but really slow AF. It generally worked better as a manual focus lens.

I agree, but so is the D80, and nowadays at a pretty small cost adder. And it provides a HUGE growth upside that the D40 and D60 don't. I believe that the D50 is actually quite similar to a D40, except that it's bigger/sturdier/heavier and has an internal focus motor. They both have 6MP sensors that are surprisingly good in low light at higher ISOs.