Entry level SLR?

Energize said:
You mean the 3100 right?

Surely removing the af motor greatly increases costs because instead of paying a bit mote for the body you're now paying 50 quid more for every lens you buy? I'd rather buy a body with the motor if it will save hundreds of pounds in lenses.
Click to expand...

The D3200 came out a couple of months ago, but everything up to the D90/D7000 doesn't have an inbuilt AF motor.

Nope. Basically having the motor in the body means that you end up having to have a motor that can focus every lens, which means that it's both really loud and fairly slow, and that you can't override the autofocus as there's a disconnect between the lens and the af system. It's not a very expensive component to put into a lens as they know exactly what the motor is moving, and has the advantages of speed, full time focus override and low noise when focusing..
 
AFS lenses don't have a speed advantage, at least not compared to a D700 internal focusing motor where I would say it was the exact opposite. D7000 was pretty fast as well if I remember correctly.
 
What about buying a used Nikon D90 for ~£350 and then the 50mm AF lens? Possibly cheaper than buying a new D3100 and AFS lens. It's actually closer to £100 more expensive for the AFS lenses, not £50!
 
Last edited:
^^^
It's a nice cam, and would normally recommend it, but the 5100 will have noticeably better IQ at high ISO.
If this is something your going to be doing regular and long term, then I would consider a D7000 if you have the funds, it's a beautiful body you can grow into, rather than upgrade and lose money later down the road.

You can get a good price from places like ******* etc. just be sure the retailer you choose includes import duty in their prices.
 
The 5100 is considerably more expensive though taking into account the Nikon lenses. From what I've seen on ebay now these are what I'd consider.

Refurbished 550D = £288
Refurbished 600D = £372
Used D90 = £368

The respective 50mm f1.8 lenses cost the same new (£80).

Overall I'm edging towards the 550D because it's what I was originally planning to spend, giving me more money to spend on lenses in the future.

Unless anyone can recommend any other second hand bodies? I don't have the time to get an average of what they are selling for in auction style.

The expense of the Nikon's af lenses makes the entry level Nikon bodies untenable for me.


Ksanti said:
It's not a very expensive component to put into a lens as they know exactly what the motor is moving, and has the advantages of speed, full time focus override and low noise when focusing..
Click to expand...

Then why are the lenses so much more expensive?
 
Last edited:
Ksanti said:
The D3200 came out a couple of months ago, but everything up to the D90/D7000 doesn't have an inbuilt AF motor.

Nope. Basically having the motor in the body means that you end up having to have a motor that can focus every lens, which means that it's both really loud and fairly slow, and that you can't override the autofocus as there's a disconnect between the lens and the af system. It's not a very expensive component to put into a lens as they know exactly what the motor is moving, and has the advantages of speed, full time focus override and low noise when focusing..
Click to expand...

the D7000 has an inbuilt AF motor
 
D5100 is better in low light, which in this case can pretty much be a deal breaker. D90 is a great camera but the D5100 is probably a better choice this time around.
 
Energize said:
Then why are the lenses so much more expensive?
Click to expand...

They're different lenses. The 50 1.8G, even before the inclusion of an AF motor, is much better lens than the 50 1.8D due to new optics and a better build, and I'm pretty sure the same goes for the 85 1.8G.

Like I said before, you need to get away from considering lenses only on their length and aperture and thinking that should define their price - the 50 1.8G is considered by many to be superior to the Nikon 50 1.4G and D because of its optical properties
 
^^^
Same with the 85 1.8G, some are saying it's actually a little sharper than the 85 1.4G.
Op look at the price of the 85 1.4G.

These 1.8G lenses are consumer lenses, yes they are not as cheap as the Nikon D or Canon equivalents, but then they are in a different league in terms of quality, they are still getting VERY good value for money unlike the 85 1.4.
 
Last edited:
Ksanti said:
They're different lenses. The 50 1.8G, even before the inclusion of an AF motor, is much better lens than the 50 1.8D due to new optics and a better build, and I'm pretty sure the same goes for the 85 1.8G.
Click to expand...

Oh, seems strange though for Nikon to create such a barrier to their entry level market by only offering their more premium lenses with af, that's surely just going to make consumers like myself go with Canon?

Anyway, which body is going to offer better low light performance, the 550D, 600D or D90?
 
Last edited:
^^^
Indeed, at least for the people who want the cheapest primes they can get away with.
However like with the 50 & 85mm's, there are plenty of people who would happily pay £100 more per lens for the fact it's considerable better in just about every way that matters.

These £400 consumer lenses are producing image quality akin to £1200 lenses...
 
The motor in a standard AF-S lens costs about 3-5 quid, thrice difference is de simple to better optical quality. The new Nikon 1.8G lenses are offering image quality that meets or exceeds what is found in lenses costing 5-10 as much, they are relative bargains.
 
 
Last edited:
Thanks, that's simple to understand, since the D90's score is considerably better than Canons it sways me to it, but it's difficult deciding because it's video capabilities are poor (half the resolution, low frame rate, no af and massive video file size), in fact 24fps is probably going to be unacceptable, I'm not so bothered if it's only 720p if it's 60fps, and that's something that's important to me with these sports activities.
 
Last edited:
So your not just taking pictures then, but doing video as well?
You understand you will need to manual focus constantly with the 4 cameras that have been mentioned so far don't you?
That might be pretty challenging at F1.8, you would probably also need some kind of steady cam or monopod for half decent results.
Generally SLR's can be setup to be good for video and suck for pictures, or be mediocre at video, but be ideal for still's.
If your actually serious about this video malarcky, take a look at Sony, as they have real video Autofocus.
 
Yeah video as well, but the video isn't as important as the stills as me, most of the time it will be for more casual video and I could live with mf if I used a narrower aperture, which I probably could do often give the increased sensor size, resolution and better ISO performance than my current camera, but 24fps in the mjpeg format (when will that decrepit format die?) would not be acceptable I think. I'll check out the Sony's anyway to see if they offer anything to my liking too then.
 
Last edited:
A Sony really wouldn't be a bad idea all round; the SLT system is excellent for high speed usage and the cameras are genuinely fantastic pieces of kit. It's a shame the lens line up is not as great/more expensive than the Canon/Nikon alternatives, although there are some bargains to be had by throwing on some old Minolta lenses.

The Minolta 50mm 1.7 is an absolute gem, the colour from it is just beautiful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom