Help me decide ....please!!!

[Sleepy]

I've been saving hard for my first DSLR.

I have decided on a NIKON. (I have used SLR Nikons and have always been happy with them)

I thought the D60 would be a good entry level camera and, as mentioned here, is somewhat of a "Discovery 3" of cameras.

A wise person advised me that I wouldn't regret stepping up one level. They suggested the D80 (very few of them around new now) so I also had a look at the D90 - which was lovely too.

The next armchair expert tells me, "don't buy a D90 - get the D300 - you wont regret it." :o

Next I'll be mortgaging the house and getting a D3X.................:angel::confused:

I am putting aside all the money I used to spend on smoking so I really don't mind spending a few grand however I also don't want to overdo it.

Will the D90 satisfy a hobby amateur or should I keep saving the extra for the D300?

Advice please:angel:

[dullbird]

depending on how much you want to get into it a D90 would suit you fine...I think you will find there are a few D80 users on here myself included..the D90 is a upgraded version of this with full frame and video.

the D300 is a much much more superior camera if you can afford it great if you have no idea how to go about using all its multiple functions and dont have the time to go and learn it all, what's the point!

In saying that if buying a more expensive top of the range camera is one of two things more of an achievement in regards to your giving up smoking and a higher goal to set your self to make sure you really do give up the definitely go for the D300


Dont you just love the answers that don't actually give you a "buy that one" :lol2:

[dullbird]

Actually thinking of it

Buy a D90 and spend what you would of spent on a D300 and buy a really really good lense!! THEN if you really get into your photography you can upgrade to the 300 and take your really really good lense with you!

There you go is that a better answer;)

[bblaze]

went through this delemar myself about 9 months ago, I ended up going with the nikon d40
Very entry level, only 6 something mega pixels, lots of features I dont use. Can still print a picture upto a4 size with no dramas
more mega pixel will give you larger print and the better camera will have more features and control
BUT
do you really need them
Happy with my d40
cheers
blaze

[Sleepy]

the D300 is a much much more superior camera if you can afford it great if you have no idea how to go about using all its multiple functions and dont have the time to go and learn it all, what's the point!

In saying that if buying a more expensive top of the range camera is one of two things more of an achievement in regards to your giving up smoking and a higher goal to set your self to make sure you really do give up the definitely go for the D300



Actually thinking of it

Buy a D90 and spend what you would of spent on a D300 and buy a really really good lense!! T

Yes I must admit the higher goal does make the non-smoking easier. Nonetheless I think you have nailed it DB - spend the money on some decent lenses - by the time I get the hang of the D90 there will be a D400 to upgrade to :lol2:

So next question. What lens? I imagine I'll mostly be doing landscapes, shots of Land Rovers, indoor/outdoor family shots.

[slt]

D60 and D300 are about to get replaced with newer models (and should be available for a bargain once those are released, so depends what your time frame is). D90 is nice of course, and it's a good 'serious' starter camera, with the latest gimmicks, such as video. Unless you already have lenses, you might want it with the 18-105 AF-S DX as a kit.

slt

[DeanoH]

This could be a huge can of worms you've opened here.

There is no doubt a Nikon D 'anything' is a great camera. SWMBO handed off her old Nikoon CoolPix 5700 (non DSLR) to me when she got her D80 which by the way she is very happy with. But ask yourself what sort of photographs do you want to take and what do you want to do with them when you've taken them. This more than anything will determine if you need a camera of this type.

There's a lot of hype about DSLR's and I'm game to put in two bobs worth.

Does the camera fit well into your hand(s), are the buttons simple to find and understand and are they easy to use, does it use a proprietary memory card (ie Sony memory stick, great camera lousy media,or have Sony finally dumped it?), does it use proprietary battery(s) and not say , rechargeable AA's and is this important to you. And probably one of the most ignored criteria, is the menu system intuitive and easy to work through. This is one area that I find Nikon fails miserably. It's no use having a great camera like the Dxx if its just too bloody hard to use to it's best. Do you want and need all the facilities it offers, or does it just make it harder to use. I find my old Kodak 3MP camera an absolute dream to use as its got a useable menu system. All this before you even think about MegaPixels.

In short, do you really want and need a complex machine when a simple one will do ?


Deano.

[dullbird]

Dont listen to him GO THE DSLR!! :lol2:

YOU WONT REGRET IT.........I didn't ;)

[Sleepy]

Ahh yes I like worms - Used to breed them you know - Had about 12,000 African wrigglers - But that's another story.:angel:

Yes a DSLR is a bit of a MLC toy. I loved photography as a teenager and spent lots of time and money on the hobby. But in those days I carried around a light meter and had to shoot judiciously because of the extreme cost of developing transparencies.

Life goes on, you get married, have kids, buy Land Rovers, and have leave this hobby behind. I have a nice Canon happy snap (A40?) and it takes a nice enough shot. But since DB has started up this Camera Corner thread I realise how fun a hobby it is. There are some very talented people who post here. Their inspiration has whetted my creative whistle.

Sooo, yes I could probably make do with my happy snappy and I really am not sure what I will use the DSLR for but it will certainly be another excuse to jump in the Land Rover and go for a drive and have fun!

[slt]

Dont listen to him GO THE DSLR!! :lol2:

YOU WONT REGRET IT.........I didn't ;)

+1

DSLRs allow for way more creativity. P&S cameras are limited by their sensor size, they are 'noisy' and you will have limited control over 'depth of field'. You're also stuck with the lens (a lens that's a jack of all trades but master of none). If you want to take snapshots get a P&S (where I'd recommend Canon and Panasonic models rather than Nikon). If you want to be creative, get a DSLR and a decent lens to start with.

[Sleepy]

D60 and D300 are about to get replaced with newer models (and should be available for a bargain once those are released, so depends what your time frame is). D90 is nice of course, and it's a good 'serious' starter camera, with the latest gimmicks, such as video. Unless you already have lenses, you might want it with the 18-105 AF-S DX as a kit.

slt

Why did you change your recommendation slt?
18-105 AF-S DX or 24-120mm VR ?

[slt]

Why did you change your recommendation slt?
18-105 AF-S DX or 24-120mm VR ?

Had my FX shoes one for a moment. The 24-120 is a FX (full frame) lens. The 18-105 is DX for the smaller sensor of the Dxx and Dxxx range (minus D700 ... my baby ;)). The 18-105 will cover most of what you would probably want to do initially, gives you more range than say the 18-55, and is optically better than the even longer 18-135. 18-200 gets expensive (and heavy). So that's why I'd go with the 18-105.

slt
(so little time photography)

PS. and no, I don't sell them, just use them ;)

[slt]

... and one more thing. I've only referred to he cameras you mentioned (D60, D90, D300). You may want to also look at the D5000, which was recently released to replace the D70. It's very close to the capability of the D90 (sort of in-between it and the D60/D3000, which is about to be released). It's a bit smaller too ... too small for me, I like a little bit of chunkyness in my cameras :D

[dullbird]

i think the 5000 has a flip out screen thingy to but I'm guessing not a full frame sensor

[slt]

i think the 5000 has a flip out screen thingy to but I'm guessing not a full frame sensor

correct, flipout screen, video, but only the smaller DX sensor

[RR5L]

Ive just upgraded from my canon compact digital to the Nikon D90 and I couldn't be more happier with my selection. The only feature i found on the D5000 that I would of loved in the D90 was that flip out screen. Though it was brilliant to be able to turn it around and fold it back in when not in use protecting the screen. But that wasnt enough to sway me, the small price difference helped me decide to go for the D90. Its first outting was a local footy match where a few mates were playing and I was very happy with the results for a real beginer of DSLR cameras.

[rmp]

Nobody can advise you without knowing what you want to do with the camera. Will you be shooting sports, portraits, inside or outdoors, is weight/size a problem, what's your overall budget which needs to include accessories such as a bag, memory cards, batteries, lenses, cleaning gear. It's like having a $30k budget for a 4WD and buying one for $29k then not having any money for mods.

One general point that usually holds true and may well in your case -- spend money on the lenses not the body.

[slt]

Nobody can advise you without knowing what you want to do with the camera. Will you be shooting sports, portraits, inside or outdoors, is weight/size a problem, what's your overall budget which needs to include accessories such as a bag, memory cards, batteries, lenses, cleaning gear. It's like having a $30k budget for a 4WD and buying one for $29k then not having any money for mods.

One general point that usually holds true and may well in your case -- spend money on the lenses not the body.

If you re-read his original post, you'll find Paul was asking for advise between choosing a Nikon D90 or D300. So I think he already has a brand and particular price range in mind. Further down he also mentions what kind of photos he's likely to take. Given the above, my advise would still be the D90 (or D5000) and the lens I mentioned (to start with).

Also, as far as budget is concerned, the camera and lens will be 90+% of the cost. Battery comes with the camera, and a good capacity memory card plus bag can be had for less than a hundred bucks. So the $29/30k ratio would actually apply in this case. He may find he'll want other lenses in the future to expand the capability of his gear, but sticking with 4WD analogy, that's like getting a camper trailer down the line.

[Sleepy]

Nobody can advise you without knowing what you want to do with the camera. Will you be shooting sports, portraits, inside or outdoors, is weight/size a problem, what's your overall budget which needs to include accessories such as a bag, memory cards, batteries, lenses, cleaning gear. It's like having a $30k budget for a 4WD and buying one for $29k then not having any money for mods.

One general point that usually holds true and may well in your case -- spend money on the lenses not the body.

I dunno, I reckon the advice given has been great. Yes I am 98% sure on the brand. Narrowed down to the D90/D300 (OK I'll have another look at the D5000) - perhaps should have renamed the thread.? As for what I will use it for - well I am an amateur so pretty much "all of the above".
Good comments by DB and SLT and yourself - buy a good lens. :ohyes:
I've aLso learnt that the D300 is nearing the end of it's run so maybe some price cutting ahead?:angel:

The 4wd analogy is a good one - but like all of my hobbies (fishing, 4wding, camping, music, model building. ) I understand it may (will?!?) cost a lot more :ohyes:

Bag and bits will be "roughly" the same for all - (That's my on road coasts ;))

As for my budget, I have given the "durries" away and currently generating about $60 - $70 dollars a week. (3 to 4 grand a year??) I am in no particular hurry.:cool: Buying a camera is one insentive to keep at it.

Its the interent so I appreciate any (and all) info I can get. I also have some advisors that I know - one who shoots for a motorcycle magazine - he wants me to get a D700!:Thump:

[abaddonxi]

I think Derek posted a link to here earlier -
Recommended Cameras (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm)
Great site, basically says spend money on lenses, buy a D40.:p

[rmp]

Whoops, missed the bit about the type of shots taken.

But the accessories do add up. I recommend a second battery, and at least two memory cards so if you're out on a shoot you're never caught short.

Add up this lot:

- decent camera bag big enough for future kit
- second battery
- two decent memory cards
- tripod (for the landscapes)
- polarizing filter
- cleaning kit
- possibly image management software as well

and it'll be more than a casual purchase. That is what I would see as a reasonable starter kit to get the most out of a DSLR. Then of course you can just keep spending, but my point is leave a reasonable bit of room in the budget for the extras.

As a general rule I reckon even basic DSLR bodies produce wonderful shots with quality lenses. The main reason, for me anyway, to spend extra on a body is for action shots -- frame rate and buffer. Oh and weatherproofing.

[Grumpy]

When I bought my D80 it came with two promotional Nikon zoom lenses.[light weight.]
I conned one of the sales people to come out side with me and I shot a few photos with the light weights and also with the Japanease made 18-200mm zoom. Took the card home and processed them. The good lens was a fair bit heavier and definately shot better photos. Also, I now had only one lens to worry about. The camera mob credited the cheaper lenses.
The trouble is I now want a higher magnification again. But, how do you get past the Dept. of War / Financial controller?
Might just have to win Lotto - to that cause, pigs might fly too!

Tony :wheelchair:

[TDV6]

I have a wish list for the Nikon D5000 (it has the same sensor as the D90) and a Tamron 18-270 zoom lens.

See comparison at DP Review between D60/D90/D5000

Nikon D5000 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/)

Tamron Lens

Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/)

One can only hope, but the chancellor mentioned Rims/Tyres - No you'r not getting that as well.

Ryall

[greg-g]

OK I'll add my bit, totally unbiased, but I do have a D90 that I'm very happy with.
A D5000 is excellent, has a tilting viewfinder that could be very useful, and apparently has a very quiet shutter that could be very useful if shooting in a quiet environment. The negative is that for autofocus you must have AF-S lens with an inbuilt focus motor.
The D90 is very similar to the D5000, has a better viewfinder, but also has an inbuilt focusing motor that allows you to use older AF lens that are cheaper, and often come up on Ebay.
Personally I would forget the D300 except that it is more rugged, more weather resistant , and considerably larger and heavier.
The ultimate realistic option today is the full frame D700 that I would love to have, but it's again bigger, heavier, and requires full frame lenses.
As a matter of interest I have a 18-200 zoom purchased new that will work with all DX cameras, An AF-S f1.4 50mm lens that's great for low light conditions, and will work on all DX and FX cameras, plus a 105mm macro, and a 80-400 zoom that will only work on cameras with an internal focus motor. (Not on the D5000). The last 3 lens were purchased on Ebay, and have been a great success.
Best of luck
Greg

[John W]

I have just forked out for a new D300. The other choice would have been the D90. Was tempted with the D90 but decided in the end on the D300 being more rugged. The D5000 reviews seem to have it as a bit lightweight and I wonder how long it will take for the hinged screen to get damaged. If the D90 had the magnesium body I would have been quite happy with the features. I need one for work so thanks MR Rood stimulus will get additional depreciation allowance to make the difference not worth worrying about and hope it last 20 years like my old F 801. Like others would love the D700 but the extra money weight and size does not seem worth it.

[Sleepy]

Thanks for all your feedback - I have settled on the D90.

Any comments on the probelms with buying one offshore (ebay?) - seems I could save 25 to 35% but concerned about Warranty issues. :confused:

Is it worth spending the extra $500 on a Australian version?:

[rmp]

I recommend these guys:

Camerasdirect.com.au - Digital Camera Store (http://www.camerasdirect.com.au)

Grey market imports, but great service and they do honour their warranty. My Canon 40D started failing when it was 9 months old and they had it fixed by Canon, at their cost, no questions asked. You may find cheaper prices on eBay, but you may find the aftersales service lacking. I find CD's prices can be beaten, but not by enough to make me take a risk on an unknown company.

[inside]

Thanks for all your feedback - I have settled on the D90.
I just ordered a new Pentax K-7. Weather sealed magnesium body goodness for people who like to shoot in all weather conditions. Make sure you don't get your D90 wet!

[dullbird]

I just ordered a new Pentax K-7. Weather sealed magnesium body goodness for people who like to shoot in all weather conditions. Make sure you don't get your D90 wet!

I wouldn't be game enough to get any camera wet....especially if I paid a couple of grand for the body magnesium body or not I wouldn't want to expose the lens to the elements without any protection...either

if you want to give it a bit of protection though sleepy, it wont make it shower proof but will help with the dust etc gets some body armour

[inside]

I wouldn't be game enough to get any camera wet....especially if I paid a couple of grand for the body magnesium body or not I wouldn't want to expose the lens to the elements without any protection...either
Pentax make weather sealed lenses as well of which one I bought. Sure you're not going to go diving with it but some rain a little snow, even a bit of mud from some passing Land Rovers it should be OK. Pentax call it "splash and dust resistant". It is definitely something you want to think about when buying a camera if you plan on taking it to some places that it may get a little wet.

[tdiBrad]

Pentax make weather sealed lenses as well of which one I bought. Sure you're not going to go diving with it but some rain a little snow, even a bit of mud from some passing Land Rovers it should be OK. Pentax call it "splash and dust resistant". It is definitely something you want to think about when buying a camera if you plan on taking it to some places that it may get a little wet.

Environmental sealing is an excellent feature on a DSLR camera. Of course, both lens and camera (and battery grip, if attached) need to be sealed, else you will be taking some risks that the lens or grip will let in water/dust/sand/mold.

My Olympus E1 has been on some adventures including:
- lots of rain
-some now and sleet
-a couple drops into snow
-dust, dust and more dust
-uncountable splashes by fresh water, muddy water, salt water
-multiple times has been dropped in the surf
-once was dropped in the surf and misplaced for about 10 seconds until the waves receded enough to get my hands on it

After all this it's still going strong after many years (as are the lenses) so there is certainly a strong argument for environmental sealing, even if it's just to keep the dust and mold at bay.

In saying that, bodies can be replaced every few years, but quality lenses are long lasting purchases, but if I had the choice I would try and go for a camera with environmental sealing, and choose lenses that offered the same degree of sealing.

edit: I forgot to mention, I also dropped the body with 50-200 lens attached, right onto the front tip of the focus ring ... the lens was wearing a UV filter at the time, which took a nice little knock, but otherwise the lens survived and still working fine.

Brad

[Chucaro]

I have the D200 with seals and magnesium body. The quality is fantastic and the D300 is even better,
I use it on the foreshore with the legs of the tripod up to 500mm deep and the camera never give me any problem
I got it as a grey import from HERE (http://www.d-d-photographics.com/) and saved back then heaps of money.

Cheers

[John W]

I took delivery of my D300 yesterday. Did the whole package with lens flash polarising filter battery memory etc. Took 19 days from Digital Rev. While I saved a little ($100) over camersdirect I think that I would use camerasdirect if I was to do it over again. My friends have had camera in the hand the next day and are very happy with their service.

[Sleepy]

Thanks for all your advice!

I ordered the D90 today! - Picking it up Wednesday:banana:

Chose the 18 to 105VR lens which should be a good starting point.

I'm heading up to Blackwood for Joker's Land Rover get together on Sat. So expect an overdose of Land Rover shots as I play with my new toy. :D:angel:

As much as I liked it, I just couldn't stretch to the D300 . I think I have found a nice compromise.

Any advice on other starting off bits-n-pieces would be appreciated.

(Thinking of getting a Polarising Filter - mainly for protection. :cool:)



(Hey DB don't you like my RaNdOm CasE tITleS!! :lol2:)

[dullbird]

Thanks for all your advice!

I ordered the D90 today! - Picking it up Wednesday:banana:

Chose the 18 to 105VR lens which should be a good starting point.

I'm heading up to Blackwood for Joker's Land Rover get together on Sat. So expect an overdose of Land Rover shots as I play with my new toy. :D:angel:

As much as I liked it, I just couldn't stretch to the D300 . I think I have found a nice compromise.

Any advice on other starting off bits-n-pieces would be appreciated.


(Thinking of getting a Polarising Filter - mainly for protection. :cool:)



(Hey DB don't you like my RaNdOm CasE tITleS!! :lol2:)

Get a polariser but don't get it for the lens protection....just get a normal clear glass filter for the lens protection...the polariser will stop it down a lot and you might find you will struggle in low light even more.

make sure you buy a lense cleaning kit...to start with and a ND filter (for protection)....

obliviously a good bag to put it in I would say that is your starting point..if you have enough money for the polariser get that as well as it will help when taking pics of the cars etc by reducing reflection.

[Sleepy]

Yes I used to use a polarising filter on my old film SLR - I suppose low light was more an issue of which film you had :lol2: - Got lots to learn about DSLRs:ohyes: They don't seem all that dear so will grab a clear one too, tks.

OK, what's an ND filter?

Got a simple bag - nothing too fancy but can carry and extra lense and a few bits as I get them.
I liked the back-pack bags -nearly bought one - but talked myself out of it. Figured if I need a back pack I will also need other stuff like water and food - that you wouldn't want to put in with your camera gear:o

[dullbird]

Yes I used to use a polarising filter on my old film SLR - I suppose low light was more an issue of which film you had :lol2: - Got lots to learn about DSLRs:ohyes: They don't seem all that dear so will grab a clear one too, tks.


OK, what's an ND filter?

Got a simple bag - nothing too fancy but can carry and extra lense and a few bits as I get them.
I liked the back-pack bags -nearly bought one - but talked myself out of it. Figured if I need a back pack I will also need other stuff like water and food - that you wouldn't want to put in with your camera gear:o

Neutral density filter......basically glass:lol2:

[Chucaro]

Welcome to the Nikon club ;)
for protection a Hoya UV filter is enough.
Enjoy it and shop for a top quality tripod next.

[Sleepy]

Welcome to the Nikon club ;)
for protection a Hoya UV filter is enough.
Enjoy it and shop for a top quality tripod next.

Thanks guys - yes I have an old tripod - it will do for now.:)

[dullbird]

Welcome to the Nikon club ;)
for protection a
Hoya UV filter is enough.
Enjoy it and shop for a top quality tripod next.


Sorry sleepy this is exactly what I meant to say not ND i would put up the emoticon with the hammer but I can't be arsed:D

[dullbird]

Don't die when you see the price of polarising filters :(

Last polarising filter I bought was back in the early 80's :o Cost $20........


Now they are $100+........I nearly fainted :D:D:D

you should not be paying those prices unless your up in the 70mm sizes....which with a kit lense you wouldn't be. Unless you brought an adapter to fit a bigger filter

I paid around 50bux for my smaller ones the bigger ones well yeah they are around 98dollar mark or at least they were when I brought the middle of last year

[Offender90]

For lens protection use a UV filter. Keep in mind that any filter will reduce your glass quality as it introduces an additional surface for the light to refract through / reflect off. UV filters were used extensively on film to prevent UV light exposing the film, but are not needed on digital cameras, as majority of sensors will have an in-built UV / IR filter (unless you're into astrophotography).

If you decide to buy a polarising filter, make sure it is a circular polariser (CP), rather than a linear one, as these can confuse the auto-focus system on digital cameras.

A CP is great for cutting down glare / reflection, whether on water (think nice deep green / blue ocean colour rather than overexposed washed out white), landscape photography or anything with a sky in it (think a bright blue sky with contrasting white coulds rather than greyish sky with little distinction between the two), what else, its a must have for taking photos through plate glass as it cuts out off-the-glass reflection etc etc (you often see tourists snapping photos (with flash!) through glass at zoos, observatory towers and the like - all they get is a massive flash reflection)

A ND filter is a neutral density filter, and it essentially reduces the amount of light entering the lens equally thouhgout the colour range. Generally used to create motion blur in well lit settings (think white waterfalls etc) Also comes in graduated (ND) flavour, where bottom half is clear glass and top half gradually increases in ND - often used for landscape/outdoor shots to get a more even exposure accross the frame by reducing the influence of skylight (top half).

Filter wise, I'd get UV filters for protection and a circular polariser, because of its wide applicability. Other things I'd invest in is a gear bag, a good tripod and posibly a sensor cleaner.

Enjoy your purchase!

[Sleepy]

Great advice guys thanks - I might hold off on the Polarising filter for now and go with the UV.

Looking forward to experimenting.:)

[slt]

There is a line of thought (to which I subscribe) that goes something like this:

Why would you wanna put a (relatively) cheap shard of glass (eg. a UV filter) in front of an expensive optical intrument (ie. lens)?

UV filters achieve bugger all optically (if atmospheric haze is an issue then use a polariser when required), and as for lens protection ... that's what that little plastic cap is for (... and so is the lens hood, whilst shooting) :)

There is a theory that UV filters were 'invented' by photo retailers to boost their margins, ie. something they can flog to unsuspecting consumers. 30 bucks here on a camera bag, 20 bucks there on an UV filter ... makes all the difference for their bottom line when they're not making much more on the cameras themselves. :wasntme:

My advise Paul, don't waste your money (and the performance of your pretty good lens) on a UV filter. No way you'd find me putting $30 shards in front of my $2000+ lenses ;)

slt
flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gunther2/)

And for some good reading on Nikon matters see Thom Hogan (http://www.bythom.com/). He mightn't take the best photos, but he bloody well knows his gear!

[abaddonxi]

Not much of a fan of UV filter protection either after a filter shattered in transit and the shards were trapped between the lens and the lens cap.

Also losing enthusiasm for the hard polariser look.

[dullbird]

There is a line of thought (to which I subscribe) that goes something like this:

Why would you wanna put a (relatively) cheap shard of glass (eg. a UV filter) in front of an expensive optical intrument (ie. lens)?

UV filters achieve bugger all optically (if atmospheric haze is an issue then use a polariser when required), and as for lens protection ... that's what that little plastic cap is for (... and so is the lens hood, whilst shooting) :)

There is a theory that UV filters were 'invented' by photo retailers to boost their margins, ie. something they can flog to unsuspecting consumers. 30 bucks here on a camera bag, 20 bucks there on an UV filter ... makes all the difference for their bottom line when they're not making much more on the cameras themselves. :wasntme:


My advise Paul, don't waste your money (and the performance of your pretty good lens) on a UV filter. No way you'd find me putting $30 shards in front of my $2000+ lenses ;)

slt
flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gunther2/)

And for some good reading on Nikon matters see Thom Hogan (http://www.bythom.com/). He mightn't take the best photos, but he bloody well knows his gear!

my UV does effect the performance of my lens And I would far rather scratch the glass on a uv any day that cost 30bux than scratch the glass on my $2000+ lens Just my opinion but I would not take the chance I cant afford to buy lens like that all the time....i'm still trying to save for my second one

[Sleepy]

Picked it up today:banana::banana::banana:
Geez I've got a lot to learn :lol2:
Well I've got it working on auto - now to work out all those menu's :angel:
Thanks again all - very happy with my purchase.



Now back to that bloody manual..................:D:p

[mfc]

if you have concerns re the quality of uv .or protecti9ve filters you can try pro filters or a nikon one..... the world dosent start and end with hoya
try schneider,lee, b@w ,'nikon ,pentax, leica
i dought the diference of even a consumer level filter is visible in a print on 35mm equivelant work.
if the image degeneration caused by an extra peice of glass concerns you think about using prime optics> for those who have unprotected glass consider please how delecate the coating on there front element is.......damaged coating is worse than a scratch, that u can remove from the image

put one on and never take it off is my opinion
have fun with the cam and grab another 2 batterys u will(i do) get around 800 raw images out of 3 bats on mine

to qoute my 3rd semester lecturer
" the quality of the photographer is related to the size of his bin"

[Sleepy]

I was wondering about the battery life - yes another one (or two) would be handy.

Can you buy a 12volt charger for the car?

Here's my first effort.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/10/381.jpg

[mfc]

once u get to know what setings u use and what isnt nesesary ull find that u can shut most of them down,this will dramaticaly increse ur battery life. also as nm said chargers are cheep, also third party batterys,just check the nikon forums for what is being used. from memory 2 batts for my pentax cost around 40 bucks and are near as good as the ome one

[DeanoH]

Congrats on the D90.

One of the problems SWMBO has had with her Nikons is fine dust getting into the camera. Very difficult to combat when outback touring as its impractical to keep the camera locked up in a carry bag. Defeats the purpose of having the thing in the first place. By the time you get it out the birds flown off.
What Kaye did was nick one of my soft padded fishing reel bags with a draw string closure to hold her D80. Its cheap light and convenient and affords a fair bit of dust and knock protection. Its also quick to remove and you can shove it in your pocket.

Deano