Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 7, 2010, 3:35 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 59
Default

ah I guess thats what VR stands for in the name. Correct?
Debbie26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 3:50 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
pbjunkiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pensacola Fl
Posts: 914
Default

Sure is
__________________
SportsShooter
www.85zero.com
pbjunkiee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 4:15 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSProtection View Post
On the other hand, there are many good Nikon lenses that have built in stabilization.
But Nikon's large aperture primes don't. The Nikon 50/1.8, the equivalent of the Minolta 50/1.7 that Debbie26 shoots with now, is not stabilized. And yes, stabilized lenses are larger, heavier, and more expensive than their non-stabilized counterparts.

That's one of the great advantages that Sony has over Nikon and Canon. All those excellent 20+ year old Minolta lenses are stabilized on Sony's bodies. Check the used market for stabilized Nikon and Canon lenses.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 5:15 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 59
Default

Hmm I love my 50mm f/1.7 and if I bought a d90 it would be body only so I can buy the f/1.8 or f/1.4 because I shoot mostly in low light and since neither of those have IS i'm not so sure now.

What are the big factors you think in not having IS? Do you think its that significant?

ETA: Just looked at some comparison pics of with/without IS and yeah looks pretty significant.

Last edited by Debbie26; May 7, 2010 at 5:19 PM.
Debbie26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 5:59 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

I shoot allot in low light and use non stabilized primes lenses in my canon. I can seem to get a handheld shot with a non IS lens at 1/8 sec at f1.8 at 1600iso. IS is a nice feature to have, but it is not as critical as some may think. But it is nice to have with zooms, not as effective with prime lenses.

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/tr...sailboats.html

But given that you have some nice lenses, If I were to upgrade it would be a tough choice between the d90 and A550. But the 12800iso would swing my vote to the A550. Also it will cost more to get new lenses over using the lenses you already have. But a 50mm 1.4 is a really good lens for shooting in low light. Something I will be doing later today with mine.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; May 7, 2010 at 6:07 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 8:15 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

What shutter speeds have you been able to get with your A300 & 50/1.7? If they've been reaonably fast (1/75 or faster) then you can probably get away without it.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 8:23 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

If you want to shoot low light then the 35mm 1.8 (they run about $200) would be the ticket lens with a Nikon. Since it is an AF-S lens it would work nicely with the D5000 which has an articulating swivel screen. The 18-55mm VR lens is a nice lens.

The D90 has one advantage in that it has a drive motor for any Nikon lens. The 18-105 VR lens is average.

I know nothing about Sony so I can't comment about what is or isn't.

I do have everything I mentioned less the 18-105mm VR.
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 10:08 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
pbjunkiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pensacola Fl
Posts: 914
Default

id rather have a 90 over a 5000 also for the iso capabilities.

and the 16-35mm f4 VR would be perfect for what you are looking at doing.

The 50mm 1.4 is always a good choice

and 85mm 1.4 is the fastest telephoto nikon makes

what type of events do you shoot and how much are you looking at spending?

all this plays a role in lens and body decisions....
__________________
SportsShooter
www.85zero.com

Last edited by pbjunkiee; May 7, 2010 at 10:11 PM.
pbjunkiee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2010, 5:22 PM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
What shutter speeds have you been able to get with your A300 & 50/1.7? If they've been reaonably fast (1/75 or faster) then you can probably get away without it.
depends on my background at the time. Last shoot of my daughter on black I got 1/30 but when she's on white its about 1/100. I think I need more lighting but I would still prefer to have IS.
Debbie26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2010, 5:24 PM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 59
Default

[QUOTE=vIZnquest;1090712] The D90 has one advantage in that it has a drive motor for any Nikon lens. The 18-105 VR lens is average. QUOTE]

hmm whats the drive motor for?
Debbie26 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:39 PM.