D50 Test Drive: Day One
Thanks to fellow local flickrite Paul, I was able to take a test drive of his Nikon D50 setup starting today. So I did what I usually do on Sundays: I went into the city to snap photos. (There are some now up on the flickr device.) Here are my first-day thoughts:
- It's conspicuous. Something I'd grown accustomed to with the A80 and the S2 IS (even though it's relatively bulky) was being able to take shots without really being noticed. That's simply not possible with the D50, because like any DSLR it's big.
- High speed ISO is no problem. Hallelujah! 400, 800, 1600 no sweat. I even inadvertently took a few shots out in daylight at 1600... came out fine (grainy, of course.)
- DSLR photography is way different than regular ol' digital photography. I know that the end results can be similar if not identical, but it's a very different and more formal feeling I had out and about today. I thought more about composition, and of course shutter and aperture, before shooting.
- I miss the long zoom. I had a rough time getting accustomed to the D50's lens, which is the kit lens: 18-55mm. It's a fine lens don't get me wrong, but when you're used to 12x zoom... my oh my. I guess I'll feel the same about the A80's lens. Definitely would need to get a long zoom lens, or something that can handle something in the ballpark of the S2's 36-432mm (equivalent - good golly!)
- The photos were beautiful. Out of the 200+ I shot today, lots were just blown out and crappy. But the depth of field, oh my. I've really missed taking shots like this.
- Controls are a little awkward, but not bad. I found adjusting the aperture to be a little more difficult than it ought to be, but then it's no match for cameras where it's buried in menus - that just blows.
- My eye hurt. After a while I had a hard time keeping one eye closed whilst using the viewfinder. I sometimes shoot with both eyes open, but not normally.
All in all, I'm feeling spoiled right now. Going back to a non-DSLR for what might be a little while (lenses cost money) is going to be a trade off, but, not the worst thing ever.
One fun thing happened today while I was shooting near the Wrigley Building. I was composing a shot when two girls, probably 15 or so, walked by.
"Hey, are you a photographer?!"
"Yes," I said, still looking through the viewfinder.
"Do you do that for a living?"
"Not yet!"
"Keep at it, you'll get there!"
I thought that was sweet.
Comments
So if the cost of extra lenses is the only thing keeping you from going with a DSLR, then consider it a challenge to expand your skills. Then once you get the money for more lenses, you'll have a better idea of what other lens you want.
But the picture quality and DOF is amazing, isn't it? I miss that, but wonder if I'd carry it around enough to justify the cost. So I'm milking all the life out of my dying Canon G2 that will be 5 years old very soon.
The cost of extra lenses isn't the only thing keeping me back; right now it's also the cost of the body... and deciding which system to buy into. Given my S2 fiasco I'm really gunshy on Canon, and so I'm evaluating Nikon and Pentax (Pentax's bodies are cheap and good.) It seems like it's all going to come down to comfort with the body and lens availability. I like the K110D a lot, but the D50 is quite nice too.
Decisions, decisions....
As for me, I'm saving up for the $999 (CDN) 18-200mm VR, so maybe I'm not the best person to talk about frugality when it comes to lenses.
Most of the photography magazines agree that zooms are getting better, so the whole zoom versus prime thing isn't as big of a deciding factor as it used to be, especially if you're willing to shell out the big bucks for good glass. A $300 prime will give you similar quality to a $300 zoom, and the advantage of the zoom is that you won't have to worry about switching lenses. I choose primes because they're kind of retro and I like that.