Quantcast

Quick question for the photo guys

dirttastesgood

Turbo Monkey
Dec 12, 2006
1,517
0
CT
I've decided that I'm going to buy my own DSLR and stop borrowing my girlfriends all the time. I found a really good deal on a Nikon D100 and I was wondering if anyone had any feedback.
Here's what it comes with.


1 x Nikon D100 6.1MP Digital SLR Body -Excellent condition Serial# 20337**
1 x Nikon/Nikkor Lens 28-105mm 1:3.5-5.5 D
1 x Nikon Quick Charger MH-18 + power cable
2 x Nikon Li-ion EN-EL3 Battery Pack
1 x Nikon Multi Function Battery Pack MB-D100 Serial#2086**
1 x Nikon SC-17 36" coiled Flash sync cable
1 x Nikon SB-50DX Speedlight TTL Flash
1 x Nikon D100 Neck Strap
1 x 4GB Ultra II SanDisk Compact Flash
1 x 12" extension Shutter cable release
1 x Lowpro Camera Bag with hidden rain cover
1 x Flash Frame External Flash holder bracket
1 x Quality Quick release flash mount
1 x RCA Video adapter cable
1 x USB Computer connector cable
1 x UV Lense filter/protector
1 x Hoya 62mm PL-CIR Circular Polorizor filter
1 x Hoya 62mm Cross Hatch filter
1 x Hoya 62mm Infra-Red [R72] filter for Infra-red Photography
1 x Body cap
1 x basic lense cleaning kit

Or a Canon Rebel XT with
* Tamron 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Autofocus Lens
* Canon 50mm F1.8 EF Autofocus Lens
* High Resolution Wide Angle Converter Lens
* 3 Piece Multi Coated Glass Filter Kit
* 4GB Compact Flash Memory Card
* Memory Card Wallet
* Digital Flash with Bracket
* Professional Aluminum Hard Case
* Digital Video Camera Case
* Full Size Tripod
* Table-Top Tripod
* Lens & LCD Maintenance Kit
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
21,663
411
NC
That Canon kit is absolute garbage. "Wide angle converter"? "Digital flash"? A couple of crappy no-name tripods? WTF is a digital flash anyway?

I don't know what the cost difference is, but you're getting an actual photography starter kit with the Nikon. A real flash, a remote release, a few useful filters, a sync cable, a couple brackets... You need to consider if you'll actually use most of it but if you're serious about photography that kit will be far more useful than the pile of garbage that comes with the Canon.
 

dwaugh

Turbo Monkey
May 23, 2002
1,816
0
Bellingham, Washington ~ U.S.A.
muffin you should buy my d40 from me
Or buy my D50.

No matter what, go with the Nikon. The D100 is good but it is getting outdated by the D80 and others. It still would be a good starter camera though. Look out for the lens, the body and mounting is likely all plastic and breakable. It took me about a year to break off all the mounts on my stock Nikon lens with my old D50 (biking with it, accidently hitting it on a doorframe, etc). SIgma makes good lenses and all have metal mounts.
 

Quo Fan

don't make me kick your ass
Get to a camera store and feel the different cameras, and not Ritz. Go to Middletown Photo on Main St in Middletown. They are very knowledgeable. I've been in there many times and though I haven't bought a camera from them, it is staffed by photographers, and not clerks.
 

maddog17

Turbo Monkey
Jan 20, 2008
2,782
90
Methuen, Mass. U.S.A.
granted i'm Canon guy, but the Nikon seems to be the better deal. the Canon sounds like some cheap NY camera store B.S. what i'm a little confused about is getting an infra red filter for digital. shooting IF film you would need that filter, but not for digital. and your getting a name brand filter with Hoya, but in the end all you want to do is protect the lens so a cheap filter would work as well.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
21,663
411
NC
Simple. You have one of those heavy big-assed cameras, so you get into using a strap to free your hands for other stuff. You then go tearing through a doorway to capture a good shot, the camera swings out and []smack[/i]!
If I'm tearing through a doorway and my camera lens bashes the frame, I'm going to be worrying about a lot more than just the lens mount :p
 

maddog17

Turbo Monkey
Jan 20, 2008
2,782
90
Methuen, Mass. U.S.A.
you dont need expensive filters for protection. the only reason you use them is to protect the expensive lens. better to break a $5 cheapo uv filter than say a $65 B+W uv filter. spend the money on cir pol, light correction, or any other specialty filter. you won't notice the difference anyway since your using digital and will probably color correct anyway. even if you were using film, the average camera buff won't notice the difference. plenty of variables that can change color with film.
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,971
20
If you are used to the D40, the D100 image quality will be a disappointment. The D40 has a way better image processor.

That's an ok lens though.

How much for the package? A deal ain't a deal unless it's a deal.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
you dont need expensive filters for protection. the only reason you use them is to protect the expensive lens. better to break a $5 cheapo uv filter than say a $65 B+W uv filter. spend the money on cir pol, light correction, or any other specialty filter. you won't notice the difference anyway since your using digital and will probably color correct anyway. even if you were using film, the average camera buff won't notice the difference. plenty of variables that can change color with film.
Putting ****ty filters on nice lenses is one of the stupidest things you can do. You WILL notice the difference, I guarantee it.

Crappy filters will refract, cause glare, cause fringing, destroy contrast and color balance and will probably screw with your AF.

It really doesn't make sense to buy a $1000, multicoated, engineered glass filled lens and put a $5 piece of crap glass on the end of it. It's sort of like getting a Ferrari and putting a 1.2l Lada engine in it.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,659
26
behind the viewfinder
It really doesn't make sense to buy a $1000, multicoated, engineered glass filled lens and put a $5 piece of crap glass on the end of it. It's sort of like getting a Ferrari and putting a 1.2l Lada engine in it.
do you have any photos taken w/ the same lens+body, and using a high-end and low-end (or at least mid-range, say a Hoya) UV filter? i'd really like to see if there is a visible difference. i don't use 'em because of the possibility of ghosting, but will slap one one if i am outside at the beach or similar.

maybe a better analogy would be floormats instead of an engine.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
do you have any photos taken w/ the same lens+body, and using a high-end and low-end (or at least mid-range, say a Hoya) UV filter? i'd really like to see if there is a visible difference. i don't use 'em because of the possibility of ghosting, but will slap one one if i am outside at the beach or similar.

maybe a better analogy would be floormats instead of an engine.
I did for awhile, but the crummy filter had the autofocus so confused due to flaring, i took them off and trashed the filters. The photos were routinely out of focus and lacked contrast. It also added to fringing and flare (particularly on wide lenses).

I have no filters now to compare to, but need to pick up a circ. polarizer for some work this summer. Nice ones run about $200+. Filters are protection is a bit bogus anyways, as the last piece of glass on most nice lenses is simply there for protection anyways and can be replaced relatively cheaply (even the one on my 300 2.8). I'd prefer to risk that than not getting the shot that may pay my rent for the next month because my AF was acting wonky or I have a big green and purple flare in frame.

Floor mats don't effect performance, an engine (and a crummy filter) do.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,659
26
behind the viewfinder
Floor mats don't effect performance, an engine (and a crummy filter) do.
which is why i'd love to see an ABX comparison of the same scene shot w/ different filters. obviously AF can't be measured in this manner, but fringing, loss of contrast, and flare could be evaluated.
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,165
0
california
The D100, nice in its day, is older than dirt right now and a poorer imager than the Rebel.

A lot of the Canon kit is junk, but then again, a lot of the Nikon is too...They both seem like medicore deals (Canon kit has slightly nicer glass with the addition of the 50mm f/1.8). What's the price on both?

Best bang for your buck bodies right now:

Canon Rebel XT
Canon 20D/30D
Nikon D70/D70S

And maybe soon, the Nikon D200...
 

dirttastesgood

Turbo Monkey
Dec 12, 2006
1,517
0
CT
I think I'm going to buy PSP's D40 just because I'm used to a D40. Get a couple flash's with remote triggers. Should be good to go.
 

dwaugh

Turbo Monkey
May 23, 2002
1,816
0
Bellingham, Washington ~ U.S.A.
I was thinking more like, WTF are you doing smashing your lenses into door frames?
It was an accident. I was walking quickly through my house with the camera in my hand a bit forward and to the right of my chest and in my hurry (I forget what for) the tip of the lens nicked the doorframe when I cut the corner too much, and I think that is when the first mount broke. The others broke when I was riding a nice fast curvy trail with the camera in my backpack, I again hit a corner fast and close and my shoulder just missed a tree, but my backpack hit it.

What I should have said was the Nikon body is best, but cheaper lenses aren't. The glass may be good, but I need a strong product to take beatings. My sigma lenses have been great.