D3 vs D50 which is better in practise for a beginner

[Hamish Gill]

Following on from my best value thread I have an idea...

I'm going to do some d3/d50 comparisons at some point ...

In the shop I work there is obviously encouragement from the top to make a profit, but we do concentrate on selling the customers the camera that is right for them, not always the one that makes us the most money.
With this in mind I ofter suggest to customers that buying the most expensive camera they can afford is not always the best route ... But buying the most appropriate to their needs... Short and long term
An example of this is that I will always try to swerve a customer toward a dslr over a not interchangeable lens hybrid camera ... They are better value in my books as thier value doesn't plummet so much!
Another example is when a customer might be mulling over a d90 vs a d300s ... The d300s has comparability with more lenses but would be, to a beginner, a much steeper learning curve. The obvious question "which takes better photos" always comes up... On paper, the d300s should take better photos... Higher spec metering, better focusing system etc. But, I ofter suggest to the customer that in day light, used correctly a d3000 would probably, to most peoples eyes take just a good photo as a much higher speced modle ... My point being that more money on a camera is often spent on more fetures (often superfluous) more consistent results, and a longer life span to the camera ... Three things that don't matter so much to an ameture who's going to take photos of thier kids, holidays and christmas.
This is based on owning a d70, d300, d3 and d50 ... Not through actually testing my theory... So yeah, at some stage I'm going to compare my d3 and d50 and see how well the d50 stacks up when used properly ... Just how much difference does high end metering and focusing make to someone who is goon to take snap shots ... I know the d3 is a better camera for my needs ... But would it provide any advantage to p&s photographer ... And how much do they need to learn about photography before having such a high end camera makes a difference?

One thought though... The d3 can be crippled to dx format... This will make direct comparison easier... Would it be fairer considering my goal, to cripple the d3 or use my 50mm on the d3 and use my 35 on my d50 to give similar angles of view ... The latter seems more logical as it will allow comparison of resolution ...

 

[Paul Lange]

I have always thought that if work on the principle that your photos are mostly going to be printed no larger than A4 and if larger than that they will be viewed from quite a distance there is not a lot of difference between 2 and 12 MP. The main difference that I have found has been in the quality of the lenses with decent SLR lenses having the most controlled abberations. I've compared and old A4 print of a pic taken with my first digital camera; a Casio QVX2800, to recent pics and have not noticed a huge problem with lack of MP's. In fact colour fringing has been the biggest issue.

 

[Darren Turner]

when buying your first DSLR would it not be a good idea to buy the best in way of features & technology you can comfortably afford, a way of future proofing your investment? I know people who have bought a cheaper end / older DSLR's and a few month later have craved for this feature or that feature there cam hasn't got......then they upgraded 8 months later to a much more expensive, modern or feature rich camera and then in the long run its cost them twice as much?

Just a thought.

Daz

 

[Hamish Gill]

Paul, that's the "circle of confusion" the further way you are the bigger the circle of confusion can be!

That is a very good point Darren ... This is why we ask the customer a lot of questions about what they want...
Also, I'm really just talking about what advantages in image quality would be gained by having a very expensive camera over a cheap one for a "point and shoot" type user... The point of this for me and maybe others on here is to work out how much o an advantage carrying that extra weight gives me in terms o image quality in various situations.

I will ofter take out my d3 on the idea it is always an advantage in all situations ... But I suspect, it's not always an advantage ... I'd like to know more accurately where the line is ...

 

[Laurie Parker]

I believe its hands on as to the feel of the cameras too, Its like take for example a Nikon d300 I myself have difficulty holding this camera its not really designed for someone with small hands I found it very uncomfortable also found the same with the Canon 40 and 50D then adding a grip on makes things even worse for people like myself, also depends on what the person is wanting the camera for will it be for as you say taking snapshots of children, pets etc.

So its a case of what you can afford, do you need video features and certain gimmicks which lets face it knock the prices up with cameras.

End of the day though you have to have an eye for what you are doing as no camera no matter what make model etc is anything without its "eyes"

 

[Laurie Parker]

when buying your first DSLR would it not be a good idea to buy the best in way of features & technology you can comfortably afford, a way of future proofing your investment? I know people who have bought a cheaper end / older DSLR's and a few month later have craved for this feature or that feature there cam hasn't got......then they upgraded 8 months later to a much more expensive, modern or feature rich camera and then in the long run its cost them twice as much?

Just a thought.

Daz

Lol this sounds like you

 

[Paul Lange]

Paul, that's the "circle of confusion" the further way you are the bigger the circle of confusion can be!

Yep thats right Hamish. Seriously though, Circle of Confusion principle allows you to print larger to a point but after a threshold even RAW images start to show their artifacts, even from a distance. Generally more MP's help with this but I think its the lens that's the major factor.

 

[Larry Bolch]

I bought my first digital camera in the year 2000 and upgraded to each successive model. First were the prosumer-level Nikon Coolix cameras (990, 5000 and 8400) and when they were discontinued, to the D200, D300 and D700.

Coming from a lifetime of shooting film, each camera paid for itself in a short time just in film and processing cost savings. Up to the D300, the cameras were all adolescents and each generation showed a great amount of progress in every way over the previous. The CP990 was totally controlled through menus - pages and pages of them. Each generation had more and more direct access to whatever one constantly adjusts when shooting. Everything simply worked better and it showed in my photography.

The D300 finally felt like a finished, mature camera, which I liked very much. It also provided decent results at ISO1600 and tolerable results at ISO3200. I spent my life lugging flash equipment, while loving the look of ambient light. With slow films, often flash was mandatory to produce the quality clients demanded. Now that I was finally shooting for my own pleasure, I abandoned flash. The sensor on the D3 drew me strongly, but the size and cost of the camera were deal-breakers. What I wanted was a D300 with that sensor.

The rumors were pretty firm, so I walked to my neighborhood camera store a few days before it was announced and ordered a D700. My sales-gal said there was no such thing, winked and took my money. Now all the lenses I had for film worked perfectly at their actual focal lengths. Now I could work in almost any light. For the first time in the decade, I have a mature camera with everything I want. I still follow the announcements out of curiosity, but no longer longing for the next generation to solve the problems that are driving me nuts.

I really don't know what could be added to make me trade again. If this camera had existed when I started photography, it could well have been the only camera I ever used. The D3s adds a couple of EV sensitivity, but with the low light performance I now have, it is not worth the price of an upgrade. More pixels don't excite me. Most of my street and people shots go to the web, and the contemplative stuff is easily stitched from multiple images if I feel a need for more resolution.

I will not state that the D700 will be my final camera, but it very well could be. I have no regrets buying the previous five. I have regained the excitement in photography that started me out in the first place. It was fascinating to experience the evolution over the years and even with the earliest cameras, I did work I am still proud of. Furthermore when the D700 came along, I had the experience to fully appreciate it and exploit its capability to the max.

As a beginner's camera, I would rate it as poor - unless the beginner was willing to put in countless hours learning the camera, image processing RAW files, and learning photography as well. The manual is nearly 450 pages and anything but verbose. Nikon puts in a lot of effort to make cameras like the D3100 accessible to beginners, while still providing very good image quality. It would be a far better choice.

 

[Milan Vjestica]

The D50 is a very good camera. However, I find the images from the D300 need less processing and the setup allows you to configure the camera more to your personal preference. For me going from a D50 to D300 is still a big learning curve and I am only at the front end of that at the moment.

For a total beginner a starter camera is easier to set up and allows you to concentrate on the photography rather than the camera. If they have the money maybe it would be better to spend it on lenses or lessons? Even better a good trip to practice travel photography!

 

[Larry Bolch]

Best investment is time. Taking the time to go through the manual page by page, trying each feature. This is best done when there is 'nothing to shoot'. These are learning shots that can be deleted later. The worst time to try to learn is when there is an obligation to bring back photographs - like on a trip. It just is not possible to have a manual in hand while trying to find out how to make a shot while people are growing impatient and the light is fading.

The more fluent one gets with the camera, the less distracting it is when actually shooting. Anyone wanting to become a successful musician spends loads of time practicing between gigs or concerts. The same is true of photographers. Time spent on pure learning - practice - greatly pays off when it is time to create great photography.

 

[Davis Hilary]

Instead of going with D50 go with a better one Nikon D3s.Nikon D3S camera is a professional full frame digital camera ( DSLR ) announced by Nikon in October 2009 it performs much better and produced excellent result.Nikon D3S is the fourth full-frame camera from Nikon after D3 , D700 and D3x. It is also the first Nikon full-frame camera that can shoot HD video.This camera has Sensor Cleaning System,12.1-megapixel sensor, redesigned from that of the D3,Quiet shutter-release mode,and Lower processing times.

 

[Pete Askew]

Hi Davis,

Welcome to the forum. The D3 and D3s are both great cameras (I use them both) but, for many people they are either too expensive or just too heavy - me I like a bit of weight!

It would be nice to know a bit more about you; photographic interests etc. Maybe you could pop a post into the Welcome Section. It's good to have someone from NY on board. Can we expect to see some street photography?!

Have fun, it's friendly place here.