[Aroy]

Originally Posted by R2D2

Some of the answers regarding 3rd party batteries have me puzzled. So, reliability, compatibility, warranty & safety have no value for camera owners when it (an OEM battery) is available for a tiny fraction of the cost of a camera body? The only thing that drives a purchase is a lower price?

PS - No offence meant to anybody.

Even OEM batteries are made by third party. What differentiates them is the QC at the OEM end. If the QC for third party battery is at par with OEM, I see no harm in using the. Unfortunately many Chinese third party products that are dirt cheap are so because of lax manufacturing tolerances and very little QC. So if you are lucky you have a great product, if not, life sucks.

[fine69]

I had recently bought a third-party battery for my Canon 550D and its performance was similar to that of the OEM battery. Both used to last about 2 days (with 8-10 hours of intermittent shooting per day).

I bought it off amazon, a brand called Photron. It was the only one that had good reviews and I'm happy with its performance.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by Aroy

Even OEM batteries are made by third party. What differentiates them is the QC at the OEM end. If the QC for third party battery is at par with OEM, I see no harm in using the. Unfortunately many Chinese third party products that are dirt cheap are so because of lax manufacturing tolerances and very little QC. So if you are lucky you have a great product, if not, life sucks.

OEM batteries may be made by 3rd party vendors as you correctly point out it is the quality control (and I might add consistency in performance) that differentiates OEM from 3rd party. It applies to lenses too.

The main thing I refer to is reliability and capacity which from what I have read across the 'net (no personal experience with 3rd party stuff, I don't touch them). These batteries deliver/work well for a while and then there is a steep decline in performance. So what you save initially has to be pumped into buying a new set. Point I am making is, why not get it right the 1st time?

My Nikon cameras are 2-3 years old now and the OEM batteries continue to perform without any deterioration. Never had to even consider a replacement till date.

Originally Posted by fine69

I had recently bought a third-party battery for my Canon 550D and its performance was similar to that of the OEM battery. Both used to last about 2 days (with 8-10 hours of intermittent shooting per day).

I bought it off amazon, a brand called Photron. It was the only one that had good reviews and I'm happy with its performance.

It'll be good to see how long it continues to perform at the same level. YMMV of course.

[rajatmakar]

Originally Posted by fine69

I had recently bought a third-party battery for my Canon 550D and its performance was similar to that of the OEM battery. Both used to last about 2 days (with 8-10 hours of intermittent shooting per day).

I bought it off amazon, a brand called Photron. It was the only one that had good reviews and I'm happy with its performance.

What is the advantage of buying these 3rd party batteries? Cost or Performance?
I am asking because I find that the price difference between OEM & Photron battery for Nikon D5300 series is hardly 10%

Regards,
Rajat

[condor]

Originally Posted by rajatmakar

What is the advantage of buying these 3rd party batteries? Cost or Performance?

Depends. Could be either, though cost would often be the first advantage that one searches for.

In my recent purchase, I found a higher rated battery at a better price. The battery also had good feedback rating.

Originally Posted by rajatmakar

I am asking because I find that the price difference between OEM & Photron battery for Nikon D5300 series is hardly 10%

[M35]

The new Nikkor 200-500 f5.6 looks promising. Looks sharper, better contrast and colours than its rival trio 150-600s, as I can make out as of now. Eagerly waiting for it’s review on www.photographylife.com


Source and more pictures here. He has compared it with all the other three 150-600 third party lenses.

[fine69]

Originally Posted by rajatmakar

What is the advantage of buying these 3rd party batteries? Cost or Performance?
I am asking because I find that the price difference between OEM & Photron battery for Nikon D5300 series is hardly 10%

If there's a 10% difference between OEM and third-party battery then buy the OEM one without any second thoughts. Of course, unless the third-party is Wasabi like brand (at least for GoPro) with excellent reviews.

In my case the OEM battery was available for 6k+ while Photron was for 1.2k. With this kind of difference, price became the only deal maker for me.

[M35]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Waiting for Brad Hill to compare with the Sigma 150-500mm S. He is a renowned Canadian wildlife photographer and loves the Sigma.

Brad Hill's first impression on the new Nikkor 200-500 f5.6.
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#200-500FIRST

[sivadas]

Want help from experts. I am having a Nikon D3000 camera with the kit lens (18-55). Thought of getting a cost effective Prime lens to get sharper/better pictures. After some research, found out that I should get a F/1.8G lens (1.8D is cheaper but auto focus will not work with my DX body, don't wan't to depend on manual focus as I am not an expert). My dilemma really is if I need to get a 35mm (which is DX lens) or a 50mm one (which is FX). I understand that 50mm will become 75-80mm practically as it is DX-FX combination. Can I really expect better photos than my kit lens (portraits, landscapes)? Or should I look at some other lens as an upgrade?

[architect]

Originally Posted by sivadas

My dilemma really is if I need to get a 35mm (which is DX lens) or a 50mm one (which is FX). I understand that 50mm will become 75-80mm practically as it is DX-FX combination. Can I really expect better photos than my kit lens (portraits, landscapes)? Or should I look at some other lens as an upgrade?

In my opinion, as a multi-purpose lens, the 35 mm is better on a crop sensor. The 50 mm is too narrow a field of view (on a crop sensor) and the 35 mm gives you the option of shooting people, architecture, landscapes (a little bit of everything really!). As far as serious portraits are concerned, at least my experience is that the 50 mm also distorts faces (and makes the women look particularly wider which is not nice) so the best bet is to buy an 85 mm prime for it.

Better photos: definitely. The prime will not only give shallower DoF when you need it but also has better colour rendition and resolution than the kit lenses.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by sivadas

Want help from experts. I am having a Nikon D3000 camera with the kit lens (18-55). Thought of getting a cost effective Prime lens to get sharper/better pictures. After some research, found out that I should get a F/1.8G lens (1.8D is cheaper but auto focus will not work with my DX body, don't wan't to depend on manual focus as I am not an expert). My dilemma really is if I need to get a 35mm (which is DX lens) or a 50mm one (which is FX). I understand that 50mm will become 75-80mm practically as it is DX-FX combination. Can I really expect better photos than my kit lens (portraits, landscapes)? Or should I look at some other lens as an upgrade?

For DX sensor, the 35mm F1.8 DX is the best bet. I have one and use it extensively with my D3300.

If the 18-55 came with your D3000, then the prime will be a large IQ upgrade, as I believe the latest 18-55 VR-II is much better than the original ones.

Do also think of upgrading your body. D3300 will the least expensive option, and you will get larger sensor, sharper images, much better high ISO images, faster video and faster burst rate. I have no idea how much the D3000 with the kit lens will sell for, but the D3300 with kit lens and bag + card is hovering around 26K, a bargain if you ask me.

[sivadas]

Thanks much for your inputs architect and Ajoy. I see the advantage 35mm can give over 50mm. But if I am upgrading my camera body to an FX one in future, 35mm DX lens will become useless. Isn't it? Which one do you think will be better for landscape shots?

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by sivadas

Thanks much for your inputs architect and Ajoy. I see the advantage 35mm can give over 50mm. But if I am upgrading my camera body to an FX one in future, 35mm DX lens will become useless. Isn't it? Which one do you think will be better for landscape shots?

The 35mm F1.8 DX is an inexpensive lens. If you keep a watch you will get it for around 6k when e-tailers have some scheme. So there is no harm getting it till you upgrade.

If you are upgrading to FX body, then give a serious thought to the 50mm F1.8D or the 50mm F1.4D, which will AF on FX bodies.

For landscape shots
. You generally shoot at F8 or more
. You have plenty of time to focus, so MF with live view is preferred
. You can get excellent MF lenses of 24mm, 28mm and 35mm focal length and F4 maximum aperture if you search the net
. Look for reviews of older lenses and choose the ones that have excellent edge-edge sharpness. Vignetting can be easily corrected in the computer, but complex distortion not.

[sivadas]

Originally Posted by Aroy

The 35mm F1.8 DX is an inexpensive lens. If you keep a watch you will get it for around 6k when e-tailers have some scheme. So there is no harm getting it till you upgrade.

If you are upgrading to FX body, then give a serious thought to the 50mm F1.8D or the 50mm F1.4D, which will AF on FX bodies.

For landscape shots
. You generally shoot at F8 or more
. You have plenty of time to focus, so MF with live view is preferred
. You can get excellent MF lenses of 24mm, 28mm and 35mm focal length and F4 maximum aperture if you search the net
. Look for reviews of older lenses and choose the ones that have excellent edge-edge sharpness. Vignetting can be easily corrected in the computer, but complex distortion not.

Sure, I will keept that in mind. But my question was between 35mm and 50mm prime lenses, which one will be better for landscape shots. In fact, I would be visiting Rajastan during 3rd week of October. Assume 35mm should give better span/coverage with a wider view angle.

[architect]

Originally Posted by sivadas

Sure, I will keept that in mind. But my question was between 35mm and 50mm prime lenses, which one will be better for landscape shots. In fact, I would be visiting Rajastan during 3rd week of October. Assume 35mm should give better span/coverage with a wider view angle.

It is generally assumed that a wider lens is better for landscapes, but like in everything creative, you can shoot landscapes with 200 mm lenses as well! It depends on your vision and composition of the shot.

However, I would say the 35 mm will be better with its wider FoV. If you intend to shoot a panorama, even then 35 mm will let you shoot the same in less number of frames.

As far as upgrading to FX is concerned, I am of the opinion that you seriously think of your photography and decide whether you want to get into FX territory where bodies and lenses are both expensive. Unless you are shooting landscapes which you intend to print in huge sizes or want the razor-thin DoF for portraits, it might make sense to stick to crop sensor bodies. There are bodies in Nikon of the D7xxx series which are really good.

Ultimately, vision is most important, I feel. I recently shot a wedding (for a friend, strictly as a favour) on a crop sensor body (2009 vintage Canon EOS 500D body) with Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f/4, both non IS lenses. It was a daytime wedding and my photographs were liked by people more than the 'stock' thin DoF 'beautiful' photos by the 'professional' who was walking about with two FX bodies. Not blowing my trumpet but just giving an example that a bare bones body with decent lenses can give good results.

On the other hand, if you do intend to shoot FX, then you slowly and surely work your way towards it like I am doing. When I started serious photography I had two EF-S (crop mount on Canon) and one EF (FX mount for Canon) lens. I have slowly sold and traded till now I have only one EF-S lens for my crop body: the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. The other two lenses are FX ready. When I make the upgrade, I will only have one lens stuck to my crop body which will (most probably) remain my back-up camera.

Note: I am technologically challenged. But I enjoy taking photographs.