-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
D50 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter markho
- Start date
greypoint
Well-known member
I've got one coming tomorrow [my D70 is away for repair] - I'll let you know how it compares to a D70, which I've found to be the best budget DSLR for birding, when I've had a go with it. Looking at the spec the things it lacks in comparison to the more expensive D70s are probably not things you'd miss for bird photography. Slightly slower on fps but for amateur photographers not too significantly - does'nt bother me.
Looks to be a bargain!
Looks to be a bargain!
yossi
Well-known member
I had the D50 for a few days for testing. I've used my best lenses with it and had no disappointments. Besides some cosmetic differences and some functions removed from the camera body and put in the menus there's not much a difference from the D70. The AA filter is stronger and the moiré artifacts that can be obtained with the D70 are less visible. It's a fine beginner's camera. If there's an option, I'd recommend replacing the kit lens with the D70/70s kit lens (18-70) which is optically better, built more solid and has a longer reach.
No complaints here
I have been using mine for the last month. I too was looking for an entry level camera to get started with DSLR photography. I dont have anything to compare it to, but can only say that I am happy. I have long way to go with my bird photography, but the images I am already getting with the D50 amaze me.
As the first response stated, read as many reviews as you can.
Scott
I have been using mine for the last month. I too was looking for an entry level camera to get started with DSLR photography. I dont have anything to compare it to, but can only say that I am happy. I have long way to go with my bird photography, but the images I am already getting with the D50 amaze me.
As the first response stated, read as many reviews as you can.
Scott
greypoint
Well-known member
Having been out with my new D50 yesterday, I'm very impressed - more so considering the price. It felt little different from the D70 - just a few different controls to master. I shall do a few comparison tests when I get my D70 back but the results, considering it was'nt the best day weatherwise yesterday, are comparable. Using a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 the images needed little in the way of USM - experiments with the direct print setting were perhaps a little too sharp! A picture taken of a couple of swans at ISO1600 produced a perfectly useable image - very little noise was present considering the setting. The camera does appear to be a bargain if you can do woithout it's missing features.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
This is very worth reading:
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/body/d50/index.html
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/body/d50/index.html
After reading all the comments I have put my order in at warehouse express. Now I need to know which lens to buy. Looking at their web page its a bit confusing to work it all out, some lens seem more expensive than the camera and which type do I need ?. I notice in a prevoius post that Greypoint is using an 80-200mm. Is this a good lens for a beginner to start with. Obviously my main reason for use is to photograph birds and i don't want to spend more than i have already on the camera.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
200mm of reach would be fine for birds that are "arm's length", but I reckon you'll soon want a longer lens.
Greypoint's main(?) lens (hoping that she won't mind me answering on her behalf) is the Sigma 135-400mm - I chose the same lens based on her work with that one.
Mine never comes off my camera, and I'd struggle with anything shorter myself.
The good news is that you can pick this one up for less than £300, and - seriously - I don't think you'll find better unless you really want to hammer the credit card...
Greypoint's main(?) lens (hoping that she won't mind me answering on her behalf) is the Sigma 135-400mm - I chose the same lens based on her work with that one.
Mine never comes off my camera, and I'd struggle with anything shorter myself.
The good news is that you can pick this one up for less than £300, and - seriously - I don't think you'll find better unless you really want to hammer the credit card...
I'd agree with Keith a 200mm lens will not have the reach for bird photography most of the time - whatever lens you buy you'll always want one with a bit more reach...
The Sigma 135-400 is a great lens to start out with (I used one with my 300D for a while) and for the price it's a bargain. If you can stretch the budget a little further look at the Sigma 170-500 (~£440), you'll be greatful for that little bit more. If both these lenses are seeming to much look at the Sigma 70-300 (~£160), not quite as much reach, but a great lens with a useful macro on it too.
You should be warned that lens's are where the big expense is in slr photography, there's always the next one that's just a bit better...
With any long lens support is vital, invest in a good tripod (or monopod) it can make the world of difference to your shots.
The Sigma 135-400 is a great lens to start out with (I used one with my 300D for a while) and for the price it's a bargain. If you can stretch the budget a little further look at the Sigma 170-500 (~£440), you'll be greatful for that little bit more. If both these lenses are seeming to much look at the Sigma 70-300 (~£160), not quite as much reach, but a great lens with a useful macro on it too.
You should be warned that lens's are where the big expense is in slr photography, there's always the next one that's just a bit better...
With any long lens support is vital, invest in a good tripod (or monopod) it can make the world of difference to your shots.
Last edited:
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
To follow on from Postcard's important point about support, one of the reasons I like the 135-400mm so much is that it's very usable handheld.
It's actually the only way I use mine (I'm very mobile when out and about) and while I do get shots that would be better if I'd used a tripod, generally things work out pretty well (by my reckoning anyway!
) without.
It's actually the only way I use mine (I'm very mobile when out and about) and while I do get shots that would be better if I'd used a tripod, generally things work out pretty well (by my reckoning anyway!
) without.
rayl
Well-known member
Its down to your budget and what you are going to do with your pictures. Markho. If you are looking at the majority of your images on a monitor you can get away with a slightly shorter lens and croping your pics. think about the number of pixels on your camera sensor (3000 x 2000) and the resolution of your monitor (maybe 1200 x 900).
Also as a rough guide a 50mm lens is 1 x magnification, therefore 300mm would be 300/50 which is equal to 6 x mag. This is simplistic but may give you a feel for the numbers.
The tripod really is vital you will need to spend approximately £100 for something decent.
Lots of homework still to do then Markho, lookout for some second hand lenses for your camera, people are always upgrading and there are bargains to be had. Any lens will get you taking photographs, and thats the best way to learn.
Ray
Also as a rough guide a 50mm lens is 1 x magnification, therefore 300mm would be 300/50 which is equal to 6 x mag. This is simplistic but may give you a feel for the numbers.
The tripod really is vital you will need to spend approximately £100 for something decent.
Lots of homework still to do then Markho, lookout for some second hand lenses for your camera, people are always upgrading and there are bargains to be had. Any lens will get you taking photographs, and thats the best way to learn.
Ray
Last edited:
Thanks for the info ,I have looked at warehouse express they sell a 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 APO (77mm) nikon fit for £298.99. I assume this would fit the D50. I already have a tripod which I use for my scope and its pretty sturdy.However one of the reasons i want a DSLR camera is because I find too many limitations when digiscoping and always miss the photo opportunity due to the bird in flight or simply taking too long to set up. So I wasn't anticipating needing the tripod and having to use it again.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Hi Markho,
yep, that lens will go right onto the D50.
Again, the 135-400mm is very usable without a tripod (Greypoint would agree) and I'd say it would be an ideal lens for you, based on what you've written.
yep, that lens will go right onto the D50.
Again, the 135-400mm is very usable without a tripod (Greypoint would agree) and I'd say it would be an ideal lens for you, based on what you've written.
I am very happy with my 100-300mm f4. Its chunky and a bit heavy, but it is well balanced (internal focus). I find this lens is probably the best optically that I can afford anytime in the near future. The autofocus is fast and silent. If you read about this lens on the internet, it is one of the few that consistently gets glowing reviews.
It is a little short at 300mm, but I am getting ready to purchase a Sigma EX 1.4 telecon. With this, the lens becomes a 420mm f5.6 (can still autofocus). From what I have read, this should still yield very sharp results.
Costs more than the 135-400mm, but based on my research (dont have any practical experience with the 135-400mm) I think it would probably be worth it.
My 2 cents worth
Scott
It is a little short at 300mm, but I am getting ready to purchase a Sigma EX 1.4 telecon. With this, the lens becomes a 420mm f5.6 (can still autofocus). From what I have read, this should still yield very sharp results.
Costs more than the 135-400mm, but based on my research (dont have any practical experience with the 135-400mm) I think it would probably be worth it.
My 2 cents worth
Scott
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Hi Scott,
it's a lovely lens, by all accounts - I'd love one.
But in the UK at least, the price is about three times the price of the 135-400mm (£999 recommended price for the 100-300), then the £150 for the telecon...
it's a lovely lens, by all accounts - I'd love one.
But in the UK at least, the price is about three times the price of the 135-400mm (£999 recommended price for the 100-300), then the £150 for the telecon...
Hi Keith,
Didn't check the UK pricing....A big difference indeed!
If you ever make your way to Singapore, the 100-300mm f4 can be found for approx. 550 quid (S$1600). I have had a few work colleagues from London in town for business in the past. Everytime, I end up taking them down to one of my favorite haunts to purchase cameras, etc. They are always very happy with the pricing
I complain about prices here (compared to the US). I guess I shouldn't complain so much (o)<
Guess it comes down to what he intends to spend. The 135-400 should get him off to great start shooting birds.
Scott
Didn't check the UK pricing....A big difference indeed!
If you ever make your way to Singapore, the 100-300mm f4 can be found for approx. 550 quid (S$1600). I have had a few work colleagues from London in town for business in the past. Everytime, I end up taking them down to one of my favorite haunts to purchase cameras, etc. They are always very happy with the pricing
I complain about prices here (compared to the US). I guess I shouldn't complain so much (o)<
Guess it comes down to what he intends to spend. The 135-400 should get him off to great start shooting birds.
Scott