Nikon Digital Camera's

[prov1900]

I am looking into buying a Nikon Digital SLR like the D50 or D70s. Anyone have experience with these. I have a Nikon 35mm SLR now and want to stay with Nikon for the interchangeability/compatability of the lenses. I hear that there is no problem with the compatability of the lenses, is that true? I take pics of my family and outdoor photos. I dont have a lot of know how with cameras but want something not complicated to use, but also want to learn to become better, therefore I want something that will grow with me. 5K for a camera is out of line, but am willing to go up to 1200 for a set up with a couple of lenses. Is there a glaring difference between the D50 and the D70s. I see they both have 6.1 megapixels. Right now, I have a "regular" digital camera with 5.0 megapixels.

[Steve Foss]

Hey prov:

Glad to see you're upgrading. It's a great step to take, allowing so much more flexibility. Your logic is sound as far as remaining with the brand.

Tom Wilson, buzzsaw and hobbydog are a few frequent posters here who have a lot of Nikon experience. Tom has used the entry level Nikon DSLRs extensively, and has some pro bodies, as well. I reckon some of those three guys will chime in with the ins and outs of Nikon, which I don't have a lot of experience with.

[buzzsaw]

I had the D50 for four months and loved it, I recently sold it and picked up the D200 only because I wanted a faster shutter speed (I was getting up to 2.5 frames per second and now get 5 fps) as well as getting more megapixels to esentually give me more zoom if you will by allowing me to crop my pics more IF neccesary. The D50 took fantastic low noise pics all day at ISO 800 and that was a nice strength as well. I thgink the D50 came out after the D70 and D70s and may have some newer upgrades to it (not 100% positive on this statement) either choice is a very good choice and you'll love them both!

[prov1900]

Thanks for the quick reply. I am going to go purchase one today. That D200 would be sweet though.

[buzzsaw]

It's a machine my friend, a powerful machine! You get just about everything that the D2X offers for $1,700 vs that $4,900 tag. I see more people going to the D200 when they do all the comparisons and figure out that that extra $3,000 can be put into there lens funds. I'm not quite sure why Nikon did this as it's gotta be causing some serious buyers remorse to some people.

One more thought as you are going digital...

You may learn more in a couple of months than some do in years by reading websites filled with valuable information and practicing by taking ALOT of pictures and that is a bit threatening. Digital levels the playing field and if you have good(can afford)gear and are willing to spend the time in the field it won't be long where the only difference are personal preference and taste or style. This can be a threat for someone who has put years and $$ into it this hobby.

[Tom Wilson]

Prov,

It sounds like you're already on your way to the store, but I'll throw in my two cents worth. I had two D70 camera's. The D50 camera while being a very good camera did have some differences such as slightly inferior quality, in comparison (even though they are both plastic body cameras); there were also more "one-who-thinks-I-am-silly proof" settings placed into the D50, that unless you knew what you were doing, took the place of knowledge and know how. That camera has the same potential of the D70s however, if you learn how to use it properly. I would recommend the D70 over the D50, but not the D70s. From what I understood when it first came out, there were software conflicts with the raw files. I am guessing that these issues are resolved by now however. For the money, the entry level D50 is absolutely a fine camera, and you will be very happy with it if that is your choice. My only advice, shoot raw, and treat it like your old film camera. Learn to do this and the "digital curve" will be short and simple. By the way, your old lenses should work just fine, if they are autofocus lenses. I believe there are even a couple of older manual lenses that will work, but you would need to check your manual for the new camera for that knowledge. Good luck, can't wait to see some photos.

Tom W

[Tom Wilson]

Mike,

Congrats on your D200, from what I read it's an excellent camera, and for those who can't (or don't want to) afford a pro body, then it is the obvious choice. There are a huge many differences between the $1,700 and the $4,900 camera, but unless you are in need of those differences, then the D200 is a no brainer. One of the problems with all of the reviews, and the sudden rush of information stating that the D200 is a mini D2X, is the amount of people now interested in photography that think buying a bigger camera will somehow make them better photographer's. I will tell you though being an owner of a D2X, and having recently played with a D200, there is absolutely no remorse in the decision I made to go with the D2X. The differences are unbelievable, and having the equivalent of my F5 in a digital body, is absolutely unbelievable. Again, Congrats on your purchase, and as you continue to improve on your processing skills, this camera will definitely meet your needs.

Tom W

[buzzsaw]

How's the horse business coming along? You had mentioned that was the reason you spend the "big bucks" on the D2X. It must be a pretty lucrative market to be able to go out and spend 10,000 grand on body and glass.

Also, Did I see your were doing "home inkjet printing"? Is that what most people do when they are charging for photo's? Educate me as I don't know.

Any chance you change what size people can view your pictures in a larger format than the current 380 X 280 thumbnail? It just seems kinda small to be able to see what your "possibly" purchasing. I think most places just put a copyright label across the picture.

[Steve Foss]

Quote:

---

Also, Did I see your were doing "home inkjet printing"? Is that what most people do when they are charging for photo's? Educate me as I don't know.

---

Hey Buzz: Not sure how much of this is directed specifically to Tom, but I'll just mention my experiences and let him answer too. I print at home, up to 8x10, with a 13x19 inkjet on my next-to-buy list. The "home" inkjet quality and longevity now matches and in some cases exceeds what you can get through a photo lab.

That being said, it's still cheaper for lots of users to find a digital lab whose work they like and send off CDs for processing into prints. I do it at home because I want total control of how my images look. Conceiving, capturing, toning and otherwise post-processing an image without being able to control its exact color tone on printing isn't something I want. But that's just me.

Excellent inkjet printers from Epson, Canon, HP and others start at about $200 for 8x10, and run up to $700 to $1,000 for 13x19. Of course, you can buy truly large inkjet printers for BIG stuff, but you're well into the thousands for that. When you factor in the costs of long-life inks and archival photo paers, it costs me about the same to produce an 8x10 as it would if I sent out for one.

[MarchelRipley1]

Quote:

---

One more thought as you are going digital...

You may learn more in a couple of months than some do in years by reading websites filled with valuable information and practicing by taking ALOT of pictures and that is a bit threatening. Digital levels the playing field and if you have good(can afford)gear and are willing to spend the time in the field it won't be long where the only difference are personal preference and taste or style. This can be a threat for someone who has put years and $$ into it this hobby.

---

Isn't that the truth. I know a few more people that would agree with the above statement. The information available today is fantastic and very helpful, I frequent certain sites and continue to learn from others.

[Tom Wilson]

Mike,

"print at home" is a little misleading, as eluded to by Steve. The paper, ink, and time it takes me to print a photo for someone is almost as expensive as sending them off to a pro photo lab, which I do for all of the larger prints. Dependent on the income received this year, a large format printer might be in the works. As far as the size of the thumbnail, yes it is small, but I wouldn't have an inferior photo (sharpness, or otherwise) placed on my HSOforum. If it's shown on the HSOforum, it is of the utmost quality and is sellable as such. I had larger photos available on my previous HSOforum, and I found that people were stealing them off of the site, and they really didn't care if there was a watermark across the image, as long as they could tell it was there little suzie riding the horse. I am curbing that this year with the smaller thumbnail. It is large enough to identify the rider and see whether or not they like the image, the images quality is my reputation at stake, and they will only recieve a high quality sharp image.

Tom W

[Steve Foss]

When I got back into photography and decided to try to make a living at it, it was digital that allowed me to make that move. While the bodies cost more than film bodies, the lenses basically are the same, and once you buy what you need, the expense if largely on the front end. I just wouldn't have had the money to advance as quickly with film as with digital (not that I'm all that advanced compared with other longtime pros). It's that simple. And because you can evaluate your composition/lighting/POF/DOF, etc. immediately with digital, you can refine your abilities that much more quickly.

I'd also say that, even more now with automatic cameras and digital cameras that allow decent exposures on automatic settings, it's vital to understand the basics of photography. I know several people who are excellent at composition, shoot in automatic mode, and wouldn't know how to increase or decrease their depth of field or achieve a blur motion through a slower shutter speed to save their lives.

Anyone who is starting out in photography simply must learn the interlocking factors of iso, aperature and shutter speed, the capabilities of each of their lenses and their digital cameras' sensors, and develop the ability to understand lighting.

Regardless of the equipment, the basics are unchanged. People who understand the basics and work to perfect their eye can produce phenomenal work with average equipment.

[Steve Foss]

Quote:

---

I had larger photos available on my previous

HSOforum

, and I found that people were stealing them off of the site, and they really didn't care if there was a watermark across the image, as long as they could tell it was there little suzie riding the horse. I am curbing that this year with the smaller thumbnail.

---

Tom, you should check with your Web designer. I don't know the details of how to do it, but I believe there's a way to lock images in place so people can't drag them over to their desktops. My Web page designer is my computer graphic designer spouse, Lisa, and she's not sure how to do it yet, but we're pursing that.

[Tom Wilson]

Steve,

I think this is exactly the deal. Buzz's statement above about people being threatened by the influx of knowledge, goes right in hand with this. The problem, is that there are so many people out there now with an artistic eye, that wind up with a few photos without knowing how or why they ended up with them. It isn't threatening really, but it is allowing the amatuers to play in a market that has long been dominated, by only the best of the best. I personally, have been at this for over ten years, but I still don't play in the market with the big boys, because I don't let a few good photos go to my head. Everyday I learn something new about photography, and I make a little money on the side with it, by performing a service for those in need. Maybe one day I'll get there, but it definitely isn't threatening.

Tom W

[Tom Wilson]

I actually had them to the point that if you right clicked on the image it told you that it wasn't allowed, but I actually saw people with the watermarked photos, so I am just not willing to play that game.

Tom W

[Steve Foss]

I'll run through how it's gone for me that last few years as I'm working at this career change. Everybody's experience is different, but here's mine.

My goal would be to make a complete living at photography. But I've left it pretty late (I redirected at 40 years old), and there are so many digital types entering the game that what was always a competitive field is even more competitive.

I had one big advantage. Being editor of the Ely Timberjay, which is a color newspaper, for the last three years, I've been able to showcase my work. Even though newspaper resolution isn't that great, I design almost all the pages my work appears on, so I can show it off to what I think is best advantage, and I don't have to worry about a clumsy photo editor brutalizing my crops. That expsosure has brought many people to me who enjoy my work, people who would not have known about the work except for the paper. I have one other advantage. I can write, and many photographers cannot. In some cases, this makes the work more attractive to editors.

I've talked with shooters who have been in the game for decades, and their advice is that a photographer generally needs to do three things to make a good living: Sell prints, get money for magazine publication and offer photo tours or slide shows or some other hands/on gig.

I do much of the shooting of all types for the Timberjay and my nature work appears regularly in a couple regional publications, and that's all. I'm on the wants/request list with a few other photo editors, and have asked to be put on those lists for some of the glossy bird mags as I build my stock portfolio. It's hard to find a market for some images. Most glossy mags want glamour shots, and some of the most compelling images I have (wolves on deer kill, eagles competing on deer kill) don't have a market, because they're gritty reality, and it cost me a lot of money to set up that shoot.

Prints are selling slowly off the Web site, but they are selling a little bit. It's one thing for people to ooh and ahh and say how moved they are by my images. But it's a bigger step to whip out the checkbook or credit card, and most people who collect photos already have their walls full.

I've started to offer small-group photo excursions in the wilderness and national forest around Ely. I have two sets of clients booked so far, both married couples coming from England.

I've also taken several photo commissions that have proved profitable.

And that's it. When you average it out, it's very little money, not even enough, really, to upgrade and get more of those wonderful Canon L series lenses than I have so far. As a member of Canon Professional Services I have a great free equipment loan service at my fingertips, but I still don't know that I'll ever be able to quit the full-time jobs I've had to have to pay the bills.

It may happen someday. It may not. I have no reason to be impatient. While I have had a camera in my hands off and on for 25 years, I've only spent the last three years trying to make something of it, and longtime pros will tell you that's no time at all, and I've just begun to pay my dues. I only hope that, if I'm able to carve out a niche, it'll happen before I'm too old to enjoy it.

[buzzsaw]

Good stuff, Tom what happened to your HSOforum link?

[Tom Wilson]

Waiting to hear from Rick.

Tom W

[buzzsaw]

I see, I see.

[jonny_redhorse]

intersting reading.....You have all worked very hard to where you've ended up...one only would like a return on one's investment..nothing wrong with that for sure.......I'm gettin "up there" in age......58....3/4ths of my lifes behind me ,1/4th to go...no spring chicken here for sure....I'm just glad to take my camera ,walk out into the wooded trails out in my area and enjoy the smells ,sights and sounds that I very well might not be able to enjoy in a few years..my vision of photography is purely for pleasure......and a little notoriety along the way....no visions of grandeure for me......I just like the pure pleasure of taking a good photograph.no strings or alterior motives attached.....just the fact that I can only get better,not worse ,in my pursuit of that perfect " photograph"....photography has taught me alot ...forced me to think about things that I perhaps may have never thought about or took the time to do so.......photography ,to me,is like a good psychiatrist...... ....(one way of putting it I guess.lol!)... jonny

[buzzsaw]

Quote:

---

photography ,to me,is like a good psychiatrist..

---

Johnny, it's so funny that you wrote that!! My wife and friends keep asking me why I do this so much and I tell them "it's therapy" a chance to get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life and take a walk or just sit down in one of my favorite spots as time goes by peacefully. I am lucky enough to be able to afford nice equipment without having to worry about making a penny off of it to justify it to anybody.... that would kill the "therapy" part of the equation for me. I think most of us enjoy this purely for relaxation and the love of the outdoors, while a few others like to critique as if they have something to prove and thats fine too. Just my .02 worth.

[Steve Foss]

Shooting started out that way for me, too, and still is that way when I think about it and slow down. Sometimes I just need a good slap upside the head, you know? There are two ways I know I've gotta quit being so serious and make photography into therapy again: When my images aren't looking very inspiring, and when I deserve the slams I get in online forums.

[hobbydog]

Back to the original Q Not that this isn't a fun discussion.

I have to D70 and rate it highly. If you have some experience with photography you will find this a very easy camera to use. I have had mine for over 2 years now and not a problem and it has been in the duckblind, BWCA, and in the boat while fishing....it has seen it's share of use and abuse. The D50 is good as well, it takes a better out of the camera pic, little or no Post Processing. With digital, PP is a must as it really makes the darkroom easy and accessible. Good luck, you won't regret going DSLR.

As for the rest of the thread....What Jonny said really resonates with me. I have a great day job and love going to work....and work way too much. Hunting, fishing and picture taken is my escape. Capturing a great action shot, or a beautiful landscape does it for me. It is the hunt for that shot and the capture that keeps me coming back. I like to share them with others as well. What makes it tough for those trying to sell is there are a lot of us that will give it away for free.....as long as it is not going to be used commercially.

[buzzsaw]

Quote:

---

but I still don't play in the market with the big boys, because I don't let a few good photos go to my head. Everyday I learn something new about photography, and I make a little money on the side with it, by performing a service for those in need. Maybe one day I'll get there, but it definitely isn't threatening.

---

Thats just great material!

Quote:

---

I like to share them with others as well. What makes it tough for those trying to sell is there are a lot of us that will give it away for free.....as long as it is not going to be used commercially

---

Yeah thats a good point as well, if you don't need the money why not? back to the no pressure therapy photography.

Tom, I almost forgot to ask, are all of the pictures or atleast most of them on your HSOforum shot in RAW or Jpeg?

[Tom Wilson]

Buzz,

One more thought, I built the site to be viewed at 800x600. The numbers from the computer industry (supplied to me by someone who knows) still show that over 60% of the computer users in America are still looking at 15 inch monitors, and they still use dial up. I changed my 15 inch work monitor to 800x600 tonight and the pictures are just perfect (roughly the same size that we post here on FM). People that have monitors of larger sizes will have to adjust in order to look through their show photos. If you think they're small on your 19--you should see them on a 21 inch monitor. The main reason again though, is theft.

Tom W