[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

I still do, and not in a hurry to change. Taking pictures is not about 'technological advances'. That serves only to talk about high tech, and not about capturing moments. Ever thought about how many cameras Ansel Adams, for example, changed to 'leverage technological advances'? One reckons with, and compensates for, the shortcomings *before* one composes and clicks.

Well, that depends on the type of photos you take. All things being equal, the newer cameras do have significantly better image quality. And if you need to take low light shots, then the recent cameras blow away the D40s.

I used a D90 for a long time, I see the differences with a D7100 every day. I shoot wildlife/nature, so my needs might be a bit different.

Originally Posted by Sawyer

Incremental or not depends on a point of view, nature of use and user capability.
Someone that does not need the extra speed, does not want to print mural size prints, and does not need to crop his work may well not want to change. 6MP is plenty if you know what you are doing.

If I was buying to get into the hobby today, I would buy a used one, one or two generations older, to be able to start with better lenses for the same budget. If I wanted to replace, I would ask myself the above questions.

Depends on the genre. E.g. 6 MP sucks for wildlife or sports in today's world. Disposable income has increased, the talent base has become broader, given similar skills a 6MP will be far inferior to a 16 or 24MP camera. And it is proven that a higher MP camera increases lens sharpness significantly. Compare in DXOmarks.

And a good fast lens usually costs more than a camera (crop sensor, not speaking about full frames). With limited budget, it is cheaper to upgrade bodies than lenses, especially given the improvements in low light capabilities and dynamic ranges. How much does a 24-70 f/2.8 cost? How much does a 200-400 f/4 cost? And how much incremental value would a typical user get from a 24-70 f/2.8 vs. a 'cheap' 18-105?

I am a Nikon shooter, so might be biased. But a D3300 or D5300 has a fantastic sensor, the best in the world for a crop sensor. It will blow away a D40, unless conditions are perfect. And if conditions are perfect, you can do justice with a point and shoot or a small sensor mirrorless, you don't need a DSLR.

Let's not talk about Ansel Adams etc. If one has that kind of talent then one can do many things. It is the not so talented, but enthusiast folks who need to make the most out of their limited budgets.

Thought experiment: what do you think Ansel Adams would have done with a D800E?

Ok, a last tongue in cheek comment: when one buys new gear, one is sometimes motivated to put time and effort and go to the next level of competence. That makes it worth upgrading, doesn't it? :-)

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by rameshnanda

I am on a lookout for an used DSLR for my friend. We are more inclined towards Nikon D40. Is there a source where we can find decent used cameras? We checked in OLX and it didn't work. What price would be a good price for an used D40?

I have a D70, which I want to sell as I have D300 and now D3300. Please PM me if interested.

The D70 is much better than D40 as it has a motor in the body, which allows you to use relatively less expensive; but equally good; D lenses.

[AWD]

Using new Nikon D5300 with 18-140mm kit lens. Very good results & the wifi share feature feature is pretty nifty. Also impressed with the performance of the lens.

[Dieseldunk]

Is the d5200 with 18-55mm vr lens worth the deal of 52k

[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

... It is the not so talented, but enthusiast folks who need to make the most out of their limited budgets. ...

Oh OK, so one can take it that technology is a replacement for talent / competence/ education / ...? Or, by extension of that logic, machines can replace man even in things that involve sentience? Cool!

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

... Thought experiment: what do you think Ansel Adams would have done with a D800E? ...

Since he was trying to capture a moment, a feeling, and wasn't trying to make a poster or mural - probably the same with a D40 or even a P&S. He was into capturing information, not creating content - there is a difference. Technology enables the latter, not the former. In the pictures thread here, there are a few classic examples of that!

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

... That makes it worth upgrading, doesn't it?

Heh heh Good justification!


Sent from my iPad using Team-BHP App

[condor]

Originally Posted by Dieseldunk

Is the d5200 with 18-55mm vr lens worth the deal of 52k

52k looks to be high. Check prices on flipkart / amazon. Off-line retailers are also quoting in the same range as the on-lines shops.

Or - you may have mixed up the model + lens combo.

Edit: 39k on FK now. Best I have seen is 37k, with the mem card & bag.

[condor]

Picked up a Nikon 50mm 1.8G. Here's a pic taken with my D70s:

F6.3
ISO 200

[ajay_satpute]

Originally Posted by Dieseldunk

Is the d5200 with 18-55mm vr lens worth the deal of 52k

52k is pretty high for D5200+Kit. I had bought my D5200 with 18-55 + 50mm 1.8 at 49k total. I had bought it from an authorised Nikon dealer in Pune.

[govigov]

Originally Posted by lovecars21

I have a Nikon D3100 with 18-55mm lens. I am planning to go on a vacation to the mountains and would need a zoom lens. Which lens should i go for? My budget is within 20k.


Sent from my iPhone using Team-BHP

IMO, If you are going to the mountains, you would need wide angle, not tele zoom. Then again, it depends on what you are trying to shoot. Most of the time in the mountains, you would need a wide angle to get most of the sights in.

YMMV.

Regards,
govigov

[Mr_Bean]

Originally Posted by Dieseldunk

Is the d5200 with 18-55mm vr lens worth the deal of 52k

Are you referring to d5300 by any chance? You will get a d5300 for that price from Nikon Showroom.

I purchased my d5200 with 18-55mm lens from Flipkart for 34,000/- INR. But there has been a lot of debate on the warranty part when purchased from these online sites.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

Oh OK, so one can take it that technology is a replacement for talent / competence/ education

Since he was trying to capture a moment, a feeling, and wasn't trying to make a poster or mural - probably the same with a D40 or even a P&S.

Adams was a darkroom master. And he knew his environment inside out, so could predict when he might get spectacular lighting situations - and where. He was also aware that in the future digital technology could print his original negatives in spectacular ways. Given his attention to detail towards all aspects of his work, I doubt he would not use the best and the greatest, if that could improve his work.

You might want to read this quote:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread7015.htm

Originally Posted by govigov

IMO, If you are going to the mountains, you would need wide angle, not tele zoom. Then again, it depends on what you are trying to shoot. Most of the time in the mountains, you would need a wide angle to get most of the sights in.

A wide angle as well as a zoom. Some interesting mountainscape shots come at 70mm+ focal lengths. Depends on the scene.

See a couple of photos taken using a 70-300mm. Cross-posted from an old thread:





(note: these photos were purposely underexposed)

[govigov]

Nilay, I agree that the a tele-zoom is also useful. My point is based on the below:

If you were planning a trip to the mountains and you were given only 1 additional choice of lens apart from the kit lens (which is the current situation), would you rather take a 11-16 or a 70-300. I know i would take the 11-16. The 70-300 would be a third choice.

The choice would also be dependent on the composition that you are looking for.

I had bought a 55-250 long time back to complement the 18-55 for a trip to the western ghats, and most of the time had the 18-55 at 18mm rather than the 55-250 bought specifically for this trip. Learned from my mistake and then bought the 11-16 which is currently my choice of landscape lens.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by govigov

I had bought a 55-250 long time back to complement the 18-55 for a trip to the western ghats, and most of the time had the 18-55 at 18mm rather than the 55-250 bought specifically for this trip. Learned from my mistake and then bought the 11-16 which is currently my choice of landscape lens.

Exactly.

But to add to it, maybe not need a 70-300 but a 200mm range is very useful. Both from landscapes as well as candid portraits. After my kit lens, I upgraded to 70-200 and 10-22 on Canon, and now I never feel the need for 18-55 mm range. Again depends of what you shoot.

Some find the 24-105 range very useful. It depends on what you need.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by govigov

Nilay, I agree that the a tele-zoom is also useful. My point is based on the below:

If you were planning a trip to the mountains and you were given only 1 additional choice of lens apart from the kit lens (which is the current situation), would you rather take a 11-16 or a 70-300. I know i would take the 11-16. The 70-300 would be a third choice.

The choice would also be dependent on the composition that you are looking for. .

I would take all three - well, if I had to take 2, I would leave out the 18-55

Originally Posted by ampere

Exactly.

But to add to it, maybe not need a 70-300 but a 200mm range is very useful. Both from landscapes as well as candid portraits. After my kit lens, I upgraded to 70-200 and 10-22 on Canon, and now I never feel the need for 18-55 mm range. Again depends of what you shoot.

Some find the 24-105 range very useful. It depends on what you need.

But then again, the 24-70 f/2.8 + a FF camera - which is equivalent to 16-48mm + a DX camera - is a popular combo with pros and those who can afford it.

Btw, I have been thinking about the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for a long time now.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

But then again, the 24-70 f/2.8 + a FF camera - which is equivalent to 16-48mm + a DX camera - is a popular combo with pros and those who can afford it.

On a full frame very true. On a crop sensor, budget and priorities take over.

Btw, I have been thinking about the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for a long time now.

I thought about it and later went with Canon.