I have been looking for a new digital camera for my railfan trips so I browsed Craigslist and found a Nikon D50 with 2 lenses so I bought it.Man what a difference in quality.Anyways I went railfanning down to the Nashville & Eastern yard and this is what I saw sitting out in front of their paintshop.Not bad for my first trip with the new camera.
Great photos. I got a new point and shoot and it's pretty good with stills, ok with motion, and not so good in the dark.
I love my D50, long out of production. It was advertised as an "entry level DSLR" but I disagree with that assessment. Anyone who used film SLRs had an easy transition to the DSLR. The D50 is a 6 megapixel machine, and they have come out with a new "entry level" DSLR, the D3000, which is a 10 megapixel, and less expensive than any of their other entry level cameras. I might buy one. :tb-biggrin:
I agree the D50 is far from entry level.This camera is unbelievable and has a ton of functions none of which I know.I am now looking for a tripod which I might hit Best Buy tonight because I heard they are having a sale.
It's a great camera. I've learned that 6 mpixels is about all I need without upgrading to professional lenses. The 12 mpixel D90 is overkill for two of my lenses, a 24-85 and a 70-300. There is very little difference between my older D70 and the D90. Only the 12-24 exploits the 12 mpixels.
The D50 was Nikon's entry level at the time however it was priced above what the lower end models go for these days. My D50 was a real sweety but the 6MP CCD sensor just does not cut it with me anymore as images start to get grainy at 400ISO.
I have always used a Canon EOS Rebel film camera. I wanted a digital camera but I can't afford the digital version of the Canon EOS Rebel at this time. I did some looking around and found the Kodak C140 digital point and shoot with 8.1 megapixels for $89.00 at WalMart. I was very pleasantly suprised to find that it is even better than the reviews I read. It is also extremely easy to use. I would definitely recomend it as a great bargin.
That would be a problem! Do you think the D50 might use cheaper components in the filters before the CCD? Or a cheaper processing system on the back end? I'll attest that the early and more expensive D100 was much better at higher ISO than the later and less expensive D70, so perhaps Nikon continued this unfortunate trend with the D50. Degradation at ISO 400 is not a good feature. I did a series of tests about four years ago and found the D100 good until ISO 1200 and the D70 good until ISO 600-800, depending on the scene. If I was using increased ISO for faster shutter speeds, then I got very good performance. If I was using higher ISO for low light situations, then blah! I now have a D90, which does pretty well at ISO 800.
I use this Velbon CX-480 tripod: http://www.velbon.co.uk/newvelbon/pages/CX480.html I mostly shoot video so I love the fluid head--smooth as silk. It's about $80, but it is indestructible. The very first time I (carelessly) set it up two years ago, a gust of wind blew it over and down a 40-foot embankment. It came through without a scratch, although while I was retrieving it I missed an NS high & wide special roll by with exotic loads that I have never seen since. Jamie
The sensor in the D50 is simply dated by today's performance standards. The CCD is inherently noisier than CMOS which is the direction Nikon is now taking. The CMOS sensor used in the D3/D700 12MP bodies is the market leader in low noise. Ironically, CCDs are more suited to video capture than CMOS which is the new craze in DSLRs. Both sensor types have improved over time, however sometimes an increase in total megapixels can have a negative effect on noise as the individual pixels must be made smaller in order to fit more on a given size of sensor, just look at the D3 vs the D3X .
Thanks, Lenny, for your explanation. It's hard for me to keep up, as I have to keep up with so many other technologies. I've been arguing the "smaller pixel" quality issue for about six years now. And the "better glass" issue.
My new D700 lets me mount and meter all my old school AI glass, some over 30 years old, and I could not be more pleased.
I wish I hadn't sold them! For pennies on the dollar. Have you done any controlled, or semi-controlled tests of these great lenses? I did some semi-controlled tests with the D90 vs. the D70, and found no discernible differences with the 24-85 and 70-300 prosumer lenses. None at all! I could see some real difference with the 12-24 between the two cameras. I think that's a pretty good lens.
I tried my old 50mm F1.4 on a series of 10 shots I stitched into a panoramic this summer and I'm likely to try another one this weekend. I used the 50mm because it is closest to the angle of view of the human eye on full frame. I've also started using my manual focus 35-200mm to see how its barrel/pin-cushion distortion matches up to the AF I had been using, (also growing tried of the AF hunting and not getting a lock in some light conditions involving moving trains). My biggest kick has been close-up, mostly floral, work with an ancient Tamron 90mm I snagged on eBay for $100. It is one sharp piece of glass with great bokeh.
Hadn't thought of trying my ancient 50mm F1.4. Well, oops on me. It was stolen this summer in a break-in in my house in Albuquerque.
