motor

TopGearNL · 07-09-2006, 05:46 PM

Ok thanks for that, that will make a major difference in my buy

ae86_16v · 07-09-2006, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by RC45

Originally Posted by ae86_16v

But it is to the point of blindingly bias. I am a huge Nikon fan and hope they will continue making great products, but I will not be on Nikon's nuts if they make a bad lens or camera.

To him, everything Nikon makes is god send.

See - this is the type of nonsense I read all over the Interweb.

The Guy uses Nikon and prefers it - that makes him blindly biased?

No - OTHER people just don't like the fact he calls people with more money than talent uselss hacks.

That is why people don't like him - because he says a guy on abudget with a crappy camera and talent is BETTER than some rich arsehole with $50,000 of cameras for a hobby.

The guy is simply saying "talent and ability forst, equipment second".

This thread is a PERFECT example of what he is tlking about.

Here is a guy on a tight budget who wants to talke decent pictures, and he is MORE worried about "the equipment" than practice, talent and ability.

FFS man, just buy a camera that fis your budget and and leaves some money spare, then get out there and take lots of pictures - experiment and practice.

I have taken pictures with a D70 and a $800 lense that suck and pictures with my Kodak point and shoot that are awesome.

You [TopgeraNL] may as well buy a decent condition used body from a local camera store and then get a decent lense for your money spent.

It's after all still going to come down to the light, subject matter, ability to interpret the controls on the camera, a stead hand (or tripod) and a good eye to take a great picture.

This argument is the same as the "ferrai vs Mazda Miata" one.

There are Ferrari owners who think everything else is shit, yet they couldn't lap a race track in their F-Car to save their lives, and then their are folsk in a Mazda Miata who would lap a guy in a 360CS..

Every now and again, however, you get a Ferrari owner who enjoys learning the lines in a Mazda Miata - and understands what it takes to be good... Ken Rockwell is such a man in photography terms.

Don't hate him because he makes sense..

Which I agree w/ him more than anything else that the person behind the lens is more important than the equipment. I like you have seen pictures that blow me away from Camera phones. Where as I have also seen some with Canon 30Ds that doesn't stir any emotions at all.

For example I will para-phrase him: "The 18-200VR is the best lens in the world except for the Distortion." That is like saying "Otherwise than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

How could distortion not matter? I don't care if it is a 18-500mm if the lens sucks it sucks.

Like I said, I read his reviews and everything that Nikon makes is the best! Which is simply not true.

If you looked at my first reponses, I told TopGear that it doesn't matter which camera he picks because both are excellent offerings. In the US the Rebel XT 350D w/ rebates has dropped down to slightly over $500. Bang for the buck, the XT is a better deal than the $599 D50 w/ Kit Lens.

Like I recommended earlier, he should just get the D50 w/ 18-70mm and a 70-300G lens.

Although don't knock the 18-55mm. It is still a very good kit lens, it is just a tad slow.

Also, I would like to point out, Ken Rockwell recommends the 18-55mm over the 18-70mm.

Here's a few more sites:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/index.asp
http://www.bythom.com/
http://www.dpreview.com/

TopGearNL · 07-09-2006, 06:30 PM

/\/\ The Canon is more expensive over here in any way then the Nikon.

I have already chosen the camera I am going to buy following all of your comments and reading various reviews. Thanks for all the links which led to most of them

I am going to take the Nikon D50. I already knew that even before I saw this on the net, that the D50 is currently on offer in a local camera store for 469 Euro's including lens!!

See \/\/ !
http://www.fotoklein.nl/pdf/krantweek27.pdf

Everywhere else on the net it isn't cheaper then 500 Euro's for just the body without lens!

So you understand that Ill be hauling my ass tomorrow since the offer isn't for ever, Ill probably will buy it and then save up for a lens that is better (thanks wae86_16v and MartijnGizmo!)

RC, I am a beginner at this I know, and I agree that it depends more on the person then the equipment for the outcome of the pic. But I have a bit of experience with many normal digital camera's and phones.

Update very soon, with a purchase I hope

ae86_16v · 07-09-2006, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by TopGearNL

/\/\ The Canon is more expensive over here in any way then the Nikon.

I have already chosen the camera I am going to buy following all of your comments and reading various reviews. Thanks for all the links which led to most of them

I am going to take the Nikon D50. I already knew that even before I saw this on the net, the D50 is currently on offer in a local camera store for 469 Euro's including lens!!

[Truncated]

. . .

Good decision. I know for a fact that you'll enjoy using the D50.

Don't worry about the 18-55mm holding you back. It still takes excellent pictures. The only thing that sucks about the 18-55mm is the obvious, it doesn't have enough reach.

Like I recommended earlier, the 70-300G is a really cheap lens, but it is a good bang for the buck. Here in the US it is usually only around $150 or so. It is a slow lens too, but if you are at the track during the day, it should've be too much of a problem.

TopGearNL · 07-09-2006, 06:48 PM

So 18-55mm lens isn't bad for panning shots either, but the 70-300 would be a better lens for the job?

Which brand would you recommend, Nikkor, Tokina etc etc ?

ae86_16v · 07-09-2006, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by TopGearNL

So 18-55mm lens isn't bad for panning shots either, but the 70-300 would be a better lens for the job?

Which brand would you recommend, Nikkor, Tokina etc etc ?

Well, if you could get close enough w/ the 18-55mm. Look at the panning shot thread to get more of an idea. I am sure the 70-300mm will give you the reach to sit at the side of track, where as the 18-55mm won't reach.

http://www.motorworld.net/forum/show...=37557&start=0

I shoot mainly landscape and such so the 18mm wide end is needed for what I do.

As far as brand is concern, I do not have much experience in this as far as what is good and what is not. Right now, I only have the Nikkor 18-70mm mounted on my D50 and looking to pick up a 70-300mm before my next trip. Or if I could afford it, maybe even the 18-200VR

.

But I agree w/ Ken Rockwell on this point, you get what you pay for. So there might be some deals out there if you go w/ a Sigma lens but do not expect it to perform against a more expensive Nikkor. With that said, I would have no problem buying a good Sigma or Tamron lens verses a lower grade Nikkor.

Ken & Thom reviews lenses from other brands as well as Nikkors, so definitely take a look at that.

RC45 · 07-10-2006, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by ae86_16v

For example I will para-phrase him: "The 18-200VR is the best lens in the world except for the Distortion." That is like saying "Otherwise than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

How could distortion not matter? I don't care if it is a 18-500mm if the lens sucks it sucks.

Like I said, I read his reviews and everything that Nikon makes is the best! Which is simply not true.

Well of course you have to filter out his ego and brand loyalty - but I was more interested in his philosophy than his brand and model opinions

ae86_16v · 07-10-2006, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by RC45

Originally Posted by ae86_16v

For example I will para-phrase him: "The 18-200VR is the best lens in the world except for the Distortion." That is like saying "Otherwise than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

How could distortion not matter? I don't care if it is a 18-500mm if the lens sucks it sucks.

Like I said, I read his reviews and everything that Nikon makes is the best! Which is simply not true.

Well of course you have to filter out his ego and brand loyalty - but I was more interested in his philosophy than his brand and model opinions

Agreed. That was something that I didn't even get to yet. He has an ego the size of Texas and California combined. (By the way, I still want a 18-200mm even w/ the distortion

.)

And off the topic but Oakland Airport is not that bad:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/travel/oakland-airport.htm

Actually I am flying out of there tomorrow maybe I should take some pictures

.

MartijnGizmo · 07-10-2006, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by TopGearNL

I am going to take the Nikon D50. I already knew that even before I saw this on the net, that the D50 is currently on offer in a local camera store for 469 Euro's including lens!!

See \/\/ !
http://www.fotoklein.nl/pdf/krantweek27.pdf

Everywhere else on the net it isn't cheaper then 500 Euro's for just the body without lens!

So you understand that Ill be hauling my ass tomorrow since the offer isn't for ever, Ill probably will buy it and then save up for a lens that is better (thanks wae86_16v and MartijnGizmo!)

I believe that offer is with the old 28-80, a bunch of junk and you'll have no wide-angle at all.

TopGearNL · 07-10-2006, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by MartijnGizmo

Originally Posted by TopGearNL

I am going to take the Nikon D50. I already knew that even before I saw this on the net, that the D50 is currently on offer in a local camera store for 469 Euro's including lens!!

See \/\/ !
http://www.fotoklein.nl/pdf/krantweek27.pdf

Everywhere else on the net it isn't cheaper then 500 Euro's for just the body without lens!

So you understand that Ill be hauling my ass tomorrow since the offer isn't for ever, Ill probably will buy it and then save up for a lens that is better (thanks wae86_16v and MartijnGizmo!)

I believe that offer is with the old 28-80, a bunch of junk and you'll have no wide-angle at all.

Shop was closed unfortanately today, going back tomorrow. I understand MartijnGizmo, I only noticed in a later stadium that it also came with that lens. But 469 isn't a bad price for the Nikon D50, even for the body its acceptable I thought

That the 28-80 lens is a bunch of junk probably means that I will buy an extra lens. Wae86_16v said that (ken rockwell) the 18-55 is a better lens then the 18-70, http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm and you (martijngizmo) say the opposite?? Who is right? Because this is an important decision

sameerrao · 07-10-2006, 03:38 PM

The 18-70 is a better lens than the 18-55 for the following reasons:
- More usable zoom - the 55mm range is a bit too short. In fact I think the 70mm is a bit short as well.
- Better low-light performance at max zoom range - F5.6@55mm for the 18-55 vs F4.5@70mm for the 18-70mm.
- Separate focus ring in the 18-70mm lens vs a crappy ring on the outer edge of the lens on the 18-55

Don't buy the 18-55 if you can afford the 18-70

MartijnGizmo · 07-10-2006, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by TopGearNL

Wae86_16v said that (ken rockwell) the 18-55 is a better lens then the 18-70, http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm and you (martijngizmo) say the opposite?? Who is right? Because this is an important decision

Uh, yeah, either believe Ken Rockwell or look at real tests.....

18-55: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3556/index.htm

18-70: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3545/index.htm

TopGearNL · 07-10-2006, 04:27 PM

I probably will buy the 18-55, not because I think its a better lens but thinking of my budget. Been watching other topics and pics and think Ill add my lenses with a 70-300 lens for panning shots. Is this a good idea?

sameerrao · 07-10-2006, 05:44 PM

Go for it .... Too much analysis leads to paralysis ....

TopGearNL · 07-10-2006, 05:49 PM

Do you use the 18-70 lens Sameerrao, and if yes, how are the panning shots, I can't seem to find anything on the net about this? Because if they are fine, and the zoom is allright Im better of getting that lense straigtaway!