Nikon D50

[donnab2005]

I have been looking at this camera for a long time now. I really want a digital SLR camera. I like to be able to change the lens. I want a camera with a nice flash and also a quick shutter. Does anyone have have this camera. Can you tell me your likes or dislikes about it. I really appreciate any help. The D50 is kind of pricey and I want to research it before buying it.

 

[Favorite Auntie]

I would be interested in hearing about this camera too. I am considering investing in it. I use my camera for basically snap shots to scrapbook. I am just sick of the poor quality I get from indoor pictures from the Sony DSC P10 and I want a digicam that will take good pictures inside AND outside.... ANYONE????

 

[Ratpack]

I have the D50 and love it. I upgraded to this camera from a Cybershot P92. I too wanted more lens capabilities. So far I have no complaints about the camera at all, but I have only had it for 2 months. I am still learning but it appears to have all kinds of capabilities. I can tell you this, if there is enough light, you can snap shots off as fast as you can push the shutter button. The flash does slow things down a bit but I think perhaps the speed light flash that you can buy for it would help if you need. If you want, PM me your email and I can send you some photos I have taken. I am no professional but you can get an idea of the quality of the camera. And changing lenses is a snap. I have the 18-55 and the 70-300.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

I have one too and I LOVE it, I had a Nikon 8800 and the shutter lag was driving me nuts. This camera is in a whole different league. If your a Nikon fan the big choice is between the D-70 and the D-50 and you can find arguments on that all over the internet. The D-70 does have a few more features but some say the image quality is actually better with the D-50. I certainly haven't found anything that I wish the D-50 had.

 

[christinadei]

I'm getting my bonus at work and want to buy a new DSLR camera with it. I want to spend under $1,000 on it. I'm leaning toward the Nikon D50. It is rated very good up to 1600 iso. The rebel is only up to 200 iso nad the minolta up to 400. Any thoughts? I'm so excited, I want to just buy one now off ebay. I'm finding very good deals (or so I think). Around $700 after shipping for the camera, a lens, carrying case and SD card. Or around $900-1000 for 3 lenses, filters, tripods, hard and soft cases, etc. What do you guys reccommend? I really am new to this. I've had one 2 minolta 35mm SLRs and loved the quality of the pictures, but I'm just an ametur (sp?) and only use the automatic settings. Oh, the other thing I liked about the D50 is it said it has excellent low light ablities and a great AF. The main thing I hate about my kodak easyshare is that I can't take a night picture worth a darn. So this would be great if it would take great night pictures. Also, do you recommend the bundle, with extra lenses? I had them with my 35mm and used them on occasion, but not too often. I think it will be cheaper to buy them at once in a bundle though, instead of buying them one at a time later.

Please help me decide, I"m so overwhelmed right now!

 

[christinadei]

Bumping. Anyone else? I'm seriously considering buying this camera and would like some reviews.

 

[lap3]

Another proud owner of the D50 here as well! I've only had it for a couple of weeks but we like it already. I've got some sample photos if you want to see them. Otherwise, click on this link to see my post on it. I say bite the bullet and get one. You'll be amazed at how easy it is to use and how great the pictures come out...

 

[Muushka]

Bumping. Anyone else? I'm seriously considering buying this camera and would like some reviews.

Have you read the reviews on different photo sites like Steves and DP Review ?

 

[missminniemouse]

I just bought the Konica/Minolta Maxxum 5D for my DH for Christmas. I made this choice because all the AF lenses we already have will work with the 5D as well...saves major $$$ from having to buy all new lenses. The 5D has gotten good reviews, so I decided to go for it. Our local photo processing store manager also fell in love with this camera and he's been a professional for many years, so I'll take his advice any day.

 

[christinadei]

Well, I had a minolta and sold it and the lenses because at the time, they minolta DSLRs were very expensive and showing no signs of coming down. I deeply regret it now. So I figure, I have nothing to lose now, I want the best I can get for my buck. And the thing I like about the minolta is it has auto-stabolizer. But other features seem better to me on the Nikon, like it's got lower noise up to 1600 iso as opposed to the minolta 's 400. Plus it's smaller and cheaper. But thanks for the thoughts because my mind still isn't made up.

 

[christinadei]

Okay, I did it! I bought it and I shoudl get it next week. I can't wait!!!!! I"m so excited.

 

[lap3]

Congratulations! You're gonna love it!!!

 

[garris3404]

Which lens or lenses would you recommend for the Nikon D50? The Nikon kit lenses (18-55 and 55-200) or a single lens such as the Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens?

 

[Ratpack]

If I had to choose just one, then I would go with the 18-200. Covers the most range. I myself have the 18-55, 55-200 & 70-300.

 

[Geoff_M]

All things being equal, I'd recommend the Nikkor 18-70 DX lens. It give you a little more reach (with a 35mm equiv. of 105mm vs. 83mm for the 18-55) and is ~2/3 of a stop faster. The f5.6 @ 55mm will also cause you some AF headaches in less than well lit scenes with the 18-55. The 18-55 is also reportedly the slowest focusing AF-S lens Nikon has produced. On the otherhand, the 18-70 is a fanstastic "walking around" lens.

As for the Tamron, I think it will be one incredible trick if Tamron can hold their optical quality together across the range of 18-200. Also, remember that f5.6 is the slowest glass that camera makers say is reliable for AF. The maximum aperture is an important lens stat that so many people overlook today.

 

[Scottwdw]

All things being equal, I'd recommend the Nikkor 18-70 DX lens. It give you a little more reach (with a 35mm equiv. of 105mm vs. 83mm for the 18-55) and is ~2/3 of a stop faster. The f5.6 @ 55mm will also cause you some AF headaches in less than well lit scenes with the 18-55. The 18-55 is also reportedly the slowest focusing AF-S lens Nikon has produced. On the otherhand, the 18-70 is a fanstastic "walking around" lens.

I have to ditto the 18-70mm DX lens by Nikon. I've read nothing but good things about this lens. I'll be picking one up as soon as the budget allows. I have an older Nikkor 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6D AF lens which you can get for less than $100 used which is super fast in focusing and very sharp at F8/F11 (a bit soft wide open). Make sure it's the "D" lens.

Nikkor 18-70 DX Review

Nikkor 80-200 D AF Review

 

[garris3404]

Thanks for the input. I'm going to wait until the Nikon AF 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AFS DX VR lens is available. I'll wait for the reviews before buying.

 

[Geoff_M]

Instead of trying of an "all-in-one" lens, I'd seriously recommend you consider getting:
The 18-70 DX
80-200 f2.8

I do 95% of all of my shooting with these two lenses. The 80-200 f2.8 is 2-stops faster than the 18-200 at full-zoom and the ability to use faster shutter speeds over the 18-200 will negate most, or all, of the VR benefit. VR also only helps with stationary subjects. If your subjects are moving, VR won't help when you have to use slower shutter speeds. So what's one stop of light worth? Look at the 300mm Nikkor... An f4 version is about $1,100, whereas the f2.8 will run you about $4,400. Look at a news or sporting event, the pros prefer the f2.8 overwhelmingly even though it's a lot more expensive (and pro-photography ain't that high paying of a gig) and a lot heavier. There's a reason they are willing to cough up the extra nut for only one stop of light... it can make a difference between getting the shot or not. For a similar comparison, look at the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 vs. the 17-55 f2.8... I can assure you the $1,100 difference isn't for the 1mm difference in coverage. Not only is the 80-200 a faster lens, it is also a notoriously sharp lens.

If you can swing a couple hundred more for your budget, and don't mind the extra weight (80-200 also has a high quality all-metal build), I think you'll be happier photographically with the above combo. This isn't to say you will be unhappy with the 18-200, just that I'm confident that the combo above will give you a lot more "bang for the buck".

 

[MICKEY88]

Look at a news or sporting event, the pros prefer the f2.8 overwhelmingly even though it's a lot more expensive (and pro-photography ain't that high paying of a gig) and a lot heavier. There's a reason they are willing to cough up the extra nut for only one stop of light... it can make a difference between getting the shot or not. .

unless things have changed since I stopped doing sports photography, a lot of these photographers aren't paying for the lenses, full time sports photographers, could sign up for programs that Nikon And Minolta have for professionals, the program allows you to borrow lenses..
this is a great advertising program for the manufacturers, the more of their lenses on the sidelines, the more they can advertise that pros use their equipment..

 

[Geoff_M]

unless things have changed since I stopped doing sports photography, a lot of these photographers aren't paying for the lenses, full time sports photographers, could sign up for programs that Nikon And Minolta have for professionals, the program allows you to borrow lenses..

I think a lot has changed....

For starters, it depends on if you're a staffer or a "stringer" (freelancing for a publication). If you're a stringer, all your equipment is on your dime. If you're a staffer then you probably are given an equipment budget or use stuff from the publication's equipment pool. However, things in the news business (especially, the "dead tree" media world) are pretty grim right now. As circulation continues to drop almost across the board shooters are being laid off and there's a lot of pressure to cut costs and utilitze lower cost stringers. But you still don't see staffers/stringers lining up on sidelines with 300 f4's vs. 300 f2.8.

Yes, several top camera makers do have professional programs that can offer loaner equipment as well as faster equipment repairs. Nikon has NPS (Nikon Professional Services) and Canon has a CPS program. NPS and CPS also will come into town for major sporting events or news events and offer special loaner equipment as well as simple repairs/cleaning on-site. My dad used to work for Nikon and occassionally worked the on-site NPS operations at events like Indy 500's, Kentucky Derbys, NASA launches, etc. Today, I'm an NPS member.

However, NPS and CPS generally restricts loaner equipment to the replacement of personal equipment that is in for repair or special situations for irregularly occuring events. If I were to call NPS and say "Hey, I'm going to start shooting the Detroit Tigers next season and wonder if I can borrow a 500 f4 (about a $7,000 lens) for from April to September?" the answer would be "No." Their philosophy is "If you need one that often, you probably should buy one." However, if I were to call them and say "I'll be working the Turn 1 drop gate at the Indy 500 this year and could really use a 500 f4 for Memorial Day weekend?" I'd probably get a "yes" depending on availability. Both CPS and NPS have limited loaner pools. They don't outfit the guys you see on the sidelines at NFL, NCAA, MLB, NHL, NBA, etc. games.

You are correct that Nikon and Canon view pros on sidelines are marketing tools. Canon even went so far as to use a photo of a group of photographers shooting at the Athens Olympics that showed the number of shooters using their stuff in one of their ads. But Nikon's and Canon's strategy is to use the special perks of their NPS/CPS programs as one means to keep their shooters happy. However, that strategy doesn't not extend to showering them with essentially "free" equipment.

The main point I'm trying to get across is: Buy the best glass you can afford. Photography is a "weakest link" system. Put a soft lens on a top-end camera... and you get soft images. Look beyond zoom range, consider more than just the price, etc.