Metal Guitarist Forums banner
1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Read Only
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In the last two years, I've owned 4 different DSLR cameras, hunting for the one that I like the best and does what I need for the best value.

I've had:

- Canon Rebel XT
- Upgraded to Rebel XTi
- Upgraded to Rebel XSi

Then I took the big plunge, and right now I have a Nikon D90, which is hands down the best camera I've ever owned. I like the Nikon interface better, and it's not a really fair comparison to vie the D90 against the Canons I've had since the D90 is just ridiculously high-end for a consumer camera.

This is what I have now, but I have much better glass: This.

Therein lies the problem. I'm going to sell off the D90 because it's WAY too much camera for me. My "photography" consists of taking a walk in the woods and, 90% of the time, firing off shots of trees as I stroll around with the camera on full auto. The more I think about it, the Rebel XT would probably have been the best bet for me to just hang on to, because even though it's older and sort of outdated now, it took fantastic pictures.

Since I'm a complete sucker for anything tech, I naturally didn't just buy the D90, I also bought about $1500 in lenses. Toss in spare batteries, remotes, external flashes and the slew of other crap that I have in my giant camera bag right now, I'm into the D90 setup for around $2700, give or take a hundred. A guy like me, who takes auto-shots of trees doesn't need $2700 worth of DSLR gear. :lol:

So in an unprecedented act of fiscal responsibility, I'm meeting a guy from Craigslist tomorrow and getting $2300 for the whole shebang (I'll probably let him talk me down to $2100, and would really take 2k flat for it, but anyway). I'm keeping one lens, my 55-200, because it's awesome and perfect for 99% of the time usage, unless I'm inside and need the 18-55 focal length.

So since I'm keeping a Nikon lens (and you never get fuck-all for resale on them anyway), I'm going to downgrade my ridiculous D90 to another Nikon. I'm looking at the D3000:

D3000 from Nikon

Which I can get for under $400, body only, and use my existing lens, or like $450 with another 18-55 (which is probably what I'll do).

Any of you camera-types see any flaw in my grand design?
 

·
MG.ORG Irregular
Joined
·
9,747 Posts
:lol: what :lol: anyway stick with Nikon since you have lenses which consist of more than the kit shit
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
3 Posts
I'd keep the D90. Who cares if it's more than you need? If you're enjoying it, and you didn't bankrupt yourself to get it, then keep it!
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
If I unload it, I'm up $1500 for the gear fund, and will have the D3000. ;)

For all intents and purposes, it'd be like swapping my current DSLR for a DSLR that does the same thing and a shiny new Strat. :idea:
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
3 Posts
If I unload it, I'm up $1500 for the gear fund, and will have the D3000. ;)

For all intents and purposes, it'd be like swapping my current DSLR for a DSLR that does the same thing and a shiny new Strat. :idea:
...or Drew's sister????
 

·
Dream Crusher
Joined
·
21,053 Posts
...or an SLSMG?
 

·
Is Actually Recording
Joined
·
32,765 Posts
So in an unprecedented act of fiscal responsibility...
:lol:

Matt, notice how he didn't say a banged up old silver Strat. :lol:
 

·
badman
Joined
·
378 Posts
Go for it, I've heard the D3000 is a good camera...I'd definitely get one with the 18-55 VR IS lens if it's only $50 more.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Go for it, I've heard the D3000 is a good camera...I'd definitely get one with the 18-55 VR IS lens if it's only $50 more.
Yup. The first IS lens I picked up made all of my standard lenses collect dust. It really makes a monster difference, especially in low lighting.

I ordered the D3000. :yesway:
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Also: I used Diner's Club points to buy it. :yesway:

(Every 10k DC points = $100 gift cerfiticate to Amazon.com, and since DC is my corporate card, I have a LOT of fuckin' points. :lol:)
 

·
Canis lupis robertus
Joined
·
5,706 Posts
Sounds like a great plan to me. Yeah, the D90, while a great camera, really does sound like way more than you need. If you were really into maybe extensive landscape photography, nature macros, long range wildlife, or even studio work, just one of those things, I'd say keep it. But for futzing around, nah.

Really, I think Jeff has the right idea. Me, I need a big camera, and I'm going to upgrade this summer likely. But for just walking around, a smaller camera, with a lighter, easier to carry body, maybe a super zoom or a small lens, definitely something with a smaller sensor (since smaller sensor equals great focal length for relative to lens size) is better.

Is the D3000 full size sensor? I'm really enamored of those micro 4/3rds myself. Basically same performance as the full size sensors, but allowing for smaller lenses. :yesway:
 

·
badman
Joined
·
378 Posts
^ the D3000 has a smaller 1.5x crop sensor, which is the same as most of Nikon's other consumer level DSLRs. Only the D700 and the D3 line have full size sensors.
 

·
Canis lupis robertus
Joined
·
5,706 Posts
^ the D3000 has a smaller 1.5x crop sensor, which is the same as most of Nikon's other consumer level DSLRs. Only the D700 and the D3 line have full size sensors.
Those full size sensors rule for low light/high ISO shots.

But the 4/3rds are essentially comparable. Not quite as good, but far lighter lens-wise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,593 Posts
I've been considering picking one of these up too.

I bought my now ex girlfriend a Nikon D50 (discontinued now) and that thing was fucking retardedly awesome. It took the best pictures I have ever seen. I have pictures of my cats that look like you can reach in and pet them :lol:

On a side note, I don't think I'm ever buying anything nearly that expensive for a woman ever again :lol: Worst $1500 I ever spent on that damn camera. Hope she broke it the day after she moved out :lol:
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Sounds like a great plan to me. Yeah, the D90, while a great camera, really does sound like way more than you need. If you were really into maybe extensive landscape photography, nature macros, long range wildlife, or even studio work, just one of those things, I'd say keep it. But for futzing around, nah.

Really, I think Jeff has the right idea. Me, I need a big camera, and I'm going to upgrade this summer likely. But for just walking around, a smaller camera, with a lighter, easier to carry body, maybe a super zoom or a small lens, definitely something with a smaller sensor (since smaller sensor equals great focal length for relative to lens size) is better.

Is the D3000 full size sensor? I'm really enamored of those micro 4/3rds myself. Basically same performance as the full size sensors, but allowing for smaller lenses. :yesway:
I have a pretty ace P&S (Canon SD1100IS). My old Rebel XT took excellent macro shots, and the D90 (obviously) slayed with my Macro lens as well. But I don't print them, sell them, or really do anything with them - I just like walking around shooting, and having the extra abilities of a full DSLR as opposed to a P&S. Basically I'm selling off my D90 kit, keeping my favorite two lenses, and snagging a lower end model (though a $600 camera is hardly "low end") for free with points. :yesway:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,673 Posts
Lens is always going to be more important than the body, now that the bodies have gotten to such a high level even on the consumer end. Drop the D90, invest more in fast ED glass. My brother in law on my advice runs a $400 Rebel XS, with about $3000 in L lenses, and he couldn't be happier. He's a landscape/portrait guy, as well as shooting his kids' sporting events, and has already paid off his first L lens via selling prints to other parents. He sees no need for a higher end body, because the XS freezes everything as needed, focus is perfect, etc.

Maybe it's my old-school photog arrogance, but I have to laugh at people who think they need a really expensive body (not aiming this at you, Chris or anyone else here, just what I saw in my days selling the things). In my day I shot moto-cross with an FM2n in manual focus/manual exposure (that's all it had) with an MD-12 motor drive, and the pics turned out great, consistently.

All this automation bullshit has done is further disconnect people from the art. Now of course you can shoot all these dSLR's in manual, but the temptation to do all automatic is too much, and people rarely learn why a camera does what it does.
 

·
Is Actually Recording
Joined
·
32,765 Posts
All this automation bullshit has done is further disconnect people from the art. Now of course you can shoot all these dSLR's in manual, but the temptation to do all automatic is too much, and people rarely learn why a camera does what it does.
I have a Canon Powershot S5 (non-DSLR, but about one step down the chain) that I bought as my first "decent" camera to learn on, and while I'll occasionally shoot in auto mode, I'll at least generally use the "aperture" and "shutter speed" modes where you're manually entering values for those parameters, but the camera is adjusting the rest based on the light conditions. It's still cheating, but I'm gradually learning.

I'm also gassing like hell for a DSLR. There's just something more "liquid" about the shots I've seen from DSLRs than even my relatively good consumer camera.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Maybe it's my old-school photog arrogance, but I have to laugh at people who think they need a really expensive body (not aiming this at you, Chris or anyone else here, just what I saw in my days selling the things). In my day I shot moto-cross with an FM2n in manual focus/manual exposure (that's all it had) with an MD-12 motor drive, and the pics turned out great, consistently.
Did you have to walk uphill both ways as well, ya old codger? :wub: You are, of course, absolutely right.

All this automation bullshit has done is further disconnect people from the art. Now of course you can shoot all these dSLR's in manual, but the temptation to do all automatic is too much, and people rarely learn why a camera does what it does.
I like the option of being able to shoot manual, and I'm almost the person you're describing. I'm definitely the guy that doesn't need the D90. The reasons that I like DSLRs are, in a nutshell, lenses, filters, and the ability to shoot RAW, along with being able to go full auto if I'm just fucking around.

Generally if I'm out shooting, I always have the manual and a couple of books on using the camera with me, along with a little notepad so that I can write down the picture # and some quick notes about what I did with the shot. I know the details are all in the picture metadata anyway, but if I take 2 cards worth of pics, it's nice to be able to go back and pick a few favorites from my notes and be able to quickly see "This is where I used a long exposure, low iso, this F-stop" etc.

Filters, to me, are a huge draw for DSLR shooting. Everything I take with the polarizer on tends to automatically look pretty sweet unless I completely fuck the shot up. I never take it off, unless I'm shooting at night.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top