So I lost my gear, what should I get...

FotoFrank · Dec 9, 2008

Ok so I came out of work a few days ago and found my car had been broken into and a bunch of my stuff got stolen including all my camera stuff...

That being said, I used a Nikon D100 (my first DSLR) with a 28-200 f3.5 nikkor. I'm not sure what to replace it with, I haven't been shooting photography for too long but I'd like to pursue it more. (I'm a graphic designer). If I could I'd like to eventually maybe get into some modeling photography (out door stuff not with an inside setup), automotive photography, (more still shots not moving), and some weddings for some extra money.

IF I stick with Nikon I don't know whether to just get a D40 for now, maybe step it up to a D90, or what. I did talk to someone who highly suggested I get a D700 because it's a full frame camera.

Also is it worth it to get fixed prime lens like a 50mm or an 85mm over a zoom lens like my old 28-200?

PatrickHMS · Dec 9, 2008

Do you have insurance, and is it "replacement value".

I like my D40 just fine just to go out and shoot with.

I definitely recommend a nifty 50.

benhasajeep · Dec 9, 2008

Right now I would suggest the D90 for someone not on a low budget, but doesn't want to spend a fortune either. The D90 has some of the most current updates to be on a Nikon DSLR. For digital this is fairly important. The D700 being full frame and lower pixel count has excellent noise / iso range. But if your not going to be doing indoor / outdoor low lighting shots. Really no advantage there. Being at least 2x the D90 price, not so sure it is such a good camera to recommend to someone who is still in the beginning stages of photography. The D90 will be a nice upgrade from your D100.

As for lenses this is where you might want to spend a little extra and pick up faster glass. Start with good lenses and will be little reason to upgrade later. 50mm f1.4 is a good deal at $300. The 50 f1.8 is even better deal at about $100. Not quite as sharp as the f1.4 but you really have to look close. Either one would be good to have. As for car stills you probably like the range of lens you had earlier. One thing I think might happen is Nikon may drop entirely the old body focusing motor. Right now most have it. But as budgets get tighter and tighter I see it going away. So, now is probably a good time to start buying AF-S lenses. So maybe going with the AF-S 24-70 f2.8, instead of buying 24-85 f.28-4D lens again. If you did get into doing weddings or such. You will want the faster lenses anyway.

Sorry about the loss. I had about $5,000 in equipment stolen from a camera store so know the feeling (they closed down while I was away for work).

FotoFrank · Dec 9, 2008

Well I didn't have insurance on the camera it self I got it from a friend. Were looking into a few different things as far as that goes.

I'd like to have a camera were I could do different styles of photography, I would like to do some night photography, I just don't plan on going inside with the big fancy sets, and lighting and all that, if it happens it happens but I'm not looking for that kinda thing. Would the D90 be good for all that?

benhasajeep · Dec 9, 2008

The D90 would fill your needs plus more. It's a really good camera if its in your price range.

FotoFrank · Dec 9, 2008

One more thing I forgot to ask, is it worth it for the money to stick with Nikon, and where do you think the industry is going as far as brands, some seem to thing it's worth going with Cannon cause there cheaper, and have just as good stuff... whats your opinion? By the way thank you all for your help!

OregonAmy · Dec 9, 2008

FotoFrank said:
Well I didn't have insurance on the camera it self I got it from a friend. Were looking into a few different things as far as that goes.

As you said, you might already be looking into it, BUT I felt it was worth mentioning - You don't have to insure the camera itself. If you have homeowner's or renter's insurance, it likely covers the loss of any goods you own even if stolen from your car or off your body.

I'd call your insurance agent and find out! It's worth it.

FotoFrank · Dec 9, 2008

yeah thats one of the things were looking at right now, thanks for your advice. I could use all I can get right now lol.

monkeykoder · Dec 9, 2008

Don't just look at nikon/canon. There are other usable brands out there and some of them aren't pulling the crap that nikon is with the autofocus motors. I personally shoot nikon because my dad has a relatively small investment in nikon lenses. The camera I would have wanted at the time was the Pentax K10D because I liked the way it felt in my hands better than the D40. I ended up going with a used D50 as it was cheaper than the D40 and had the built in autofocus motor. If you liked the D100 and it produced the image quality you wanted I don't see any reason to not buy one used if I remember right they're supposed to be built like tanks.

bigtwinky · Dec 9, 2008

FotoFrank said:
I'd like to have a camera were I could do different styles of photography, I would like to do some night photography, I just don't plan on going inside with the big fancy sets, and lighting and all that, if it happens it happens but I'm not looking for that kinda thing. Would the D90 be good for all that?

The "type" of photography you will be doing is more often something that is lens dependant and not camera body dependant. There are certain exceptions, such as sports photography definatly benefits from a higher FPS (frames per second), but as a general rule, lens = type.

Having a 28-200, you covered a wide range of options. You are missing the wide angle and the longer telephoto. And with many lenses that cover a multitude of focal lenghts, the images are often less sharp that one that covers a smaller focal lenght or a prime lens (1 focal lenght).

The lens focal lenght (ex: 50mm on a crop sensor is good for portraits), aperture (f/2.8 is fast and essential for clear sports photos) and overall lens quality is what will define your styles.

Yes, there are exceptions to all I posted above. X lens with more focal lenght is better than Y lens with less. Just posting general rules up to help you out.

benhasajeep · Dec 9, 2008

FotoFrank said:
One more thing I forgot to ask, is it worth it for the money to stick with Nikon, and where do you think the industry is going as far as brands, some seem to thing it's worth going with Cannon cause there cheaper, and have just as good stuff... whats your opinion? By the way thank you all for your help!

You will get about 5 different answers to this question. As there are about 5 serious players in the DSLR market. Most consider one better than the other for different reasons. Canon for lens selection, Nikon for low noise, Pentax for price, etc. Sony jumped in the game head first by buying up Minolta after they shut down. Olympus has their series with the 4/3rds system. Then you have Fuji, Samsung, Sigma all trying to get a piece.

I chose Nikon as thats what I started out with 15 years ago. I do have a Canon though. But not nearly as much Canon equipment as I do Nikon. Since you are starting from scratch, you could pick a different system.

bhop · Dec 9, 2008

Did you like using the Nikon you had? Did it feel good in your hand? Did the controls feel natural to you? If the answer is yes, then i'd stick with Nikon, if the answer is no, then you might want to give another brand a try.

FotoFrank · Dec 9, 2008

Well it's not necessarily how it felt in my hand, I don't really care about that. I do plan on getting a newer camera. If Nikon doesn't plan on lowering there prices while everyone else is, and say if Cannon is just as good, why not go Cannon. I like Nikon and I'm comfortable with it, but I just wanna make sure that I couldn't have gotten something just as good for a cheaper price

Alleh Lindquist · Dec 10, 2008

I have been using Nikon for 3 years and am currently in the transition of switching over to Canon. I felt they offered a better product at a better price.

Canon 5d Mark II will arrive today actually.