Nikon 3100 or Canon1100d

[ajay124]

You are right. It is f1.8 and not f/18. I have been typing it incorrectly. At 1.8 it is possible to shoot late into the evening without a flash at ISO800/1600. Even daytime results are very satisfactory. Personally I find the results of a prime lens more evocative and real than similar pictures taken with the two zoom lenses I have used till now.

I am not happy with the Auto white balance and ISO settings of D40. Setting them manually gives better results most of the time. Unfortunately the screen of the D40 is very low resolution and while shooting in the open it is difficult to judge the quality of the pictures already taken. D5100 and EOS 550 have wonderful high resolution screens. Definitely required if one wants to keep changing the settings by referring to the shots already taken. The advanced CMOS sensor and high resolution screen of the D5100 is enough reason to upgrade from D40.

 

[ranjeetrain]

D5100 is a good upgrade from D40. High resolution LCDs on cameras are a very recent thing. It started with D90. D90 was the first camera to sport a full VGA screen with high brightness. Technology moves fast. Now standard is 4.6k pixels. And 1MP LCDs are becoming common. Once you get used to a high res screen, its not easy to get back to lower res. And from a low-res to high res, its an entirely different experience.

 

[Kittu]

I completely agree with Ajay's views about the cheap plastic appeal of the camera body. High time Nikon should change it to more sturdy and vintage style.

@Ajay,

It would be nice if you post some sample pictures of your experiments on a website and share the link here.
:signthankspin:

 

[ranjeetrain]

I spoke to a few pros who seem to have spent their entire life shooting wedding portraits and passport sized photographs. I tried my best to gain some knowledge from them. But I was utterly disappointed and bored. Habit, commerce and a lack of imagination has ossified their skills. They passed into kindergarten many years ago and chose to remain there forever. I am sure there are exceptions but most of the photographers I came across when I was a a caterer were merely doing it for a living. Some of them still had a passion for their work. But they had stopped experimenting or attempting to learn anything new. I came across many such professionals in those years.

Ditto. So called 'pros' are so ignorant about newer stuff. They are 'pro' merely because they are into that profession. Other than that, there is nothing 'pro' about them. And this applies to 'most' of them NOT all of them.

A so called wedding photog, with some 18 years of shooting experience, I talked to him, and he didn't seem to know what was the relationship between ISO and exposure, which is a pretty basic thing. Many others I have seen, they are there because they got into the profession. But they have not been acquainting themselves with the newer techs or gear. Enthusiasts are more keen about explorations and experiments.

However, one thing to their credit. Without knowing the tech behind it or without being too technical, they can get their defined job done. And I guess that's what they are paid for.

 

[ranjeetrain]

Zoom lenses can also be used to produce great effects and results. Here is link to some of my pictures online http://www.flickr.com/photos/45986609@N03/ If you examine EXIF data, you would see that most of the pictures are taken with zoom lenses. That despite the fact I own two prime lenses. Why? Because I prefer the flexibility zoom lenses offer. They turn cameras into a much more powerful tool than it would be with prime lenses.

I always prefer zoom lenses while shooting in real life situations. Such as kids, pets, social events, street photography etc. Why? Because a picture is better than no picture. A prime fails me at times because I can't always have the luxury of time and space to compose the frame I would like to shoot. By the time I choose the prime I need and mount it on my camera, by the time I position myself to an appropriate angle, the moment is all but gone.

On the other hand, once you are experienced enough, and once you know how to set your camera up well, you can get as good pictures with zoom as with a prime.

The only reason why a prime is preferred over zoom is - DOF. Depth of field, or Bokeh. Due to largest possible aperture primes have the ability to produce thinner DOF. But again, that point is moot, because good quality zooms come with 2.8 maximum aperture and nominal maximum aperture for a prime is 1.8. That is less than one f-stop difference. Besides, most lenses don't take sharp pictures wide open, so you need to stop-down anyway. So the difference between the 'useable maximum aperture' is further reduced.

Personally, I don't shoot under F4 unless under specific circumstances, be it a prime, or a zoom. So theoretical DOF is same for both types. There on it depends on individual lens quality. Then you have good primes and bad primes, good zooms and bad zooms. So it is basically about how much money you put into your lenses, and not what type it is.

When it comes to lenses, it is often said - you get what you pay for - and this is very very true when it comes to lenses. So forget prime and zoom, just invest in good lenses if you want good results.

 

[ajay124]

ranjeetrain

The Shanghai pics are very nice. What lenses have you used with the D90? Have you personally used and compared the handling and results of your D90 with D5100 and D7000? I am planning to upgrade to either the D90 or the D5100. Both cameras have their pros and cons and my preference keeps shifting between them. But at the moment I am more inclined towards the D5100. Which one would you suggest?

I got the 55-200 mm zoom lens for a reasonable price of 11K. Current price is around 14K. Build quality is average but the results are very good for the price. I have the option of returning it and later buying a better zoom or another prime lens. But the better lenses are in the 25-45K range and not in my budget at the moment. I would like to buy the recently announced AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G prime lens when it starts shipping in March. Price would be around 25K. I can either buy this lens or upgrade the body to D5100. I am more inclined towards upgrading the body first.

 

[ranjeetrain]

Thanks Ajay. About the lens:

For more than two third pictures I use the 18-105 lens. Nikkor AF-S 18-105 VR is the best bargain in the photography industry after Nikkor AF 50 f/1.8. It has the most useful zoom range, has great contrast, very good sharpness, is light as feather, and handles extremely well. This is my favorite lens.

My second favorite is Nikkor 80-200. It is an awesome lens. Easily among the best lenses from the stable of Nikon. During testing period, I took photos of a building about 700-800 meters away on a sunny day, totally handheld. Pictures were tack sharp. The lens was able to resolve details on the wall even from 700-800 meters away. After seeing the result, 80-200 became my favorite lens for street photography. I have taken a large number of pictures with this lens which I like to pieces. The best thing about this lens is it's Bokeh. This lens has a Bokeh to die for, absolutely top notch. This album has some pictures shot with 80-200 Birds - a set on Flickr.

My 3rd favorite is 50mm f/1.8. I have used it for shooting some parties, but I found this to be pretty limiting in confined spaces. Also, being fast (aperture-wise) doesn't help, because it is not VR (or IS in Canon terms, OS in Sigma terms, VC in Tamron terms). So what it gets in form of larger aperture, loses on shutter speed. So back to square one. The net result is same as 18-105 in terms of shutter speed because the later offers 3 to 4 stops of stabilization. Anyway, here is a sample album shot with Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 Sony World Photography Festival, 2010, Shanghai, China - a set on Flickr.


About the D90 vs D5100 vs D7000:

D7000 is decisively better. In fact D7000 is easily the best APS-C camera ever produced (till date). On paper it beats highly acclaimed cameras such as D200 and D300 (once declared the flagship APS-C camera). Between D90 and D5100 it's a tie. Whereas D5100 has a better dynamic range and higher quality sensor, I don't consider it a better proposition. Because in my opinion a camera is more than just a sensor. D90 is a complete spec camera. If you buy a D90 you may live with it for next many years (till you start suffering from Upgraditis). It comes with everything you 'need' to shoot high quality photos. D5100 will leave you wanting for some features. D7000 is a different story. It sits higher in the hierarchy, and rightly so. It deserves every single dollar of its price. But the question is, will you appreciate the excess features at the price it comes for? I for one will totally buy it, only if I 'need' the features. For me, D90 is plenty of camera, and it outdoes me more often than I outdo it. So, if the extra features that D7000 comes with appeal you, go for it. Otherwise, D90 is my camera, I prefer it over D5100.

 

[ajay124]

ranjeetrain

The bokeh on the Birds set is truly remarkable. Is the 80-200mm which you are using the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D ED? I am adding this lens to my wishlist

I think your last post has helped me to resolve the issue of my next upgrade. Reading it lead to that perfect moment of clarity where everything gets resolved and you wonder what the confusion was all about! I am going to wait until I find a new D90. Over and out! I have been visiting the local Nikon suppliers almost everyday for the fast few days. Several times I almost made the decision to buy a D5100 and then backed off because I was not completely convinced. So many features that I would want on my next upgrade are not there on the D5100. Like a built in auto focus motor, a big penta prism viewfinder, dedicated manual controls for ISO and white balance, information screen at the top and a bigger prosumer camera body. I am sure that the D90 has many more features which I will appreciate in the future. I have read hundreds of reviews and comments and the consensus opinion which emerges is that D7000, D90, D40 are probably the best designed Nikon DX cameras of the past 5 years. Depending upon budget, availability, knowledge and requirement these are the ones to buy. With a 60% budget for the body and 40% for two lenses to begin with. The 50mm f/1.8 D for 6K or the 35mm f/1.8G for 12K are probably the best buys. Along with the 55-200mm VR for 12K or the 18-105mm VR for 18K.

 

[Asit]

Beautiful pictures of the birds, Ranjeet Rain.

As I have said numerous times, I am not an expert, only an enthusiast. However, I do not agree completely with your point on the prime lenses. A good lens with low distortion/aberration is always very hard to make, and it's even harder on the zoom lens. Even a super expensive zoom lens invariably has more barrel distortion at large apertures than a prime lens which has usually negligible barrel distortion. On nature or animal photography these distortions are hard to find, but that will show up on architecture shots or indoor shots. In addition, a good zoom lens with max aperture of f/2.8 will be very heavy, something that will not suit the lightness of a D5100 or even a D7000, and may need D700 body or at least a D300s. Thirdly, the prime lenses are generally sharper than zooms. Having said all that, obviously there are great zooms, but they are also super expensive (like the Canon L series). I feel here that Nikon has more affordable good quality zooms than Canon.

I love prime lenses. Because usually there is always a cheap one with great optics, and the VFM factor is tremendous (e.g the Nikon 50/1.8, this will not autofocus on the cheaper Nikons). The only thing you lose out with a cheap prime is a buttery smooth bookeh, because the cheap ones cannot afford to have many elements in one lens and as result the bookeh is a bit rough and pentagons etc may appear.

I will be interested hearing your views on this.

Regards.

 

[ranjeetrain]

Ajay,

You do your home work well. No wonder you have not been convinced with D5100. Grab a D90 as soon as you find one.

To complete the list of absolute winner from Nikon: D40 > D70 > D90 > D300 > D7000 > D700 > D3 > D3x. These cameras have been hands down winners. Competition tried hard to beat these cameras unsuccessfully.

There is only one 80-200 from Nikon, and yes, its full title is - Nikon Nikkor AF 80-200mm f2.8D ED.

One note on lenses: you will find 35mm to be a more useful lens than 50mm. 50mm is better suited for FF bodies. For crop body 35mm is a more useful length.

 

[ranjeetrain]

Asit,

Thanks for the kind words.

I do not disagree with the merits you have listed for the primes, viz, cheap, less distortion et al. However, I have many reason to (personally) prefer zooms.

The biggest factor for me is - whether a lens becomes the tool for me that gets me the frame/the angle/the moment/the pictures - or does it become a hindrance in getting one? I do not want any lens that prohibits me from capturing a moment right in time. I want one that lets me capture the moment, even if in slightly less than 100% ideal form. To capture moments with a prime with the same readiness as with a zoom you either need to be able to change the lens in 1/4th of a second, or must shoot with multiple cameras, which are readily available.

Another major factor is - all the limitations that you have mentioned, are easy to overcome. No enthusiast (once they have gone beyond the green auto mode, leaves any picture straight out of camera. They put it through some software. Most software have built-in lens-correction feature. I have a 100 USD software called Adobe Lightroom. It detects automatically what lens was used to shoot the picture and can apply error correction with one click. In fact it goes beyond what the perfect hardware in any lens costing any amount of money can, and allows you to control the amount of correction. Now isn't that awesome? With a software, no matter what lens you have, you have an easy+cheap+reliable+accurate+100% controllable way to fix the distortion. Same applies to other related problems such as vignetting.

One may argue that I do not want to put the photos through a software. Then I have to say, that they are being unrealistic. Because - if someone bothers about that 1% distortion - he will never go without post-processing. Because no matter how many thousand dollars you spend on a lens, you can't shoot with 0% distortion/vignetting. Only that if you spend more thousands, you may get lesser distortion, but still, it will never be 0%. Plus, a person who is at such a level will always shoot raw. And once again, if you are shooting RAW, there is no way you can avoid post-processing. And once you enter post-processing workflow, all these matters, barrel distortion/vignetting etc. become inconsequential.

In film era, where editing photos was only the realm of the super-experts, primes may have held a high value. But this is the digital era. Technology has been moving ahead at an unprecedented pace. I do not see why people should spend thousands on lenses that will still not give a 100% accurate result. If people have to buy imperfect lenses anyway (the only perfect lens in the world are the eyes of a 5 years old perfectly normal and healthy child, and they are not produced in a lab/manufacturing unit these days), why not live with that 1% distortion in RAW photos but save thousands and invest in a USD 100 software that will make every photo technically perfect?

The summary of the above: don't spend thousand of dollars on seeking perfect hardware, as it doesn't exist, rather spend on a 100 dollar software and turn all your hardware into an as-perfect-as-you-like one.

 

[Kannan_madhu]

A Software can correct many lens errors but it cant produce a pro lens image quality just by soft corrections .

ps you can download the light room 4 beta version from adobe free... try it . Also try gimp which is a free programe

 

[ranjeetrain]

A Software can correct many lens errors but it cant produce a pro lens image quality just by soft corrections .

Where does that conclusion come from? I don't think I or anyone else said that. The discussion was about merits/demerits of prime and zoom, not about 'pro lens' image quality.

And if you intend to bring the 'pro lens image quality' in the discussion, then let me add that 'pro lens'es come in both prime and zoom types. In fact, some of the highest grade lenses made these days with highest image quality are zooms, not primes.

May I also add that, having a pro prime lens or pro lens is no guarantee of making a good photo. Not everyone can make good photos only because he owns pro grade lenses or prime lenses. On the other hand, a good photographer can make great photos with everyday lenses, and he wouldn't be looking for a certain lens type, he will just pick what is available and shoot.

ps you can download the light room 4 beta version from adobe free... try it . Also try gimp which is a free programe

I already have what I need. Thanks for the information. It helps to understand that you are abreast of latest version numbers of some photography software.

 

[Asit]

Ranjeet Rain,

You have brought in a few interesting points. I am old enough to have started out in the film SLR era and have continued my interest to the present day of digital photography. Hence I have seen a bit of both.

Optics was of prime importance in the film era. Developing of films was left to the professionals in the dark room, something which I have never tried myself but have seen a lot of because a much older cousin was a well known photographer.

Image processing, in-camera and post-camera, has taken up an important place in this digital era. It has reached a stage when sometimes concerns are raised for the 'genuineness' of even the RAW format and the DXO-mark rankings based on noise and dynamic range in the RAW format.

I for one would tend to give proportionate importance to both optics and image processing. I do not think average or ordinary optics can be fully covered up by excellent image processing. Part of the reason one goes for a brand like a Leica even today is the optics.

It is true that modern post-processing can correct parts of the shortcomings of a lens. For RAW conversion, I use DPP (bundled free with Canon DSLRs) which also has these lens corrections. Whether or not all the distortions etc are completely and controllably removed is a matter of debate. I do not think Canon gives out their RAW algorithm to anybody else. Adobe or anybody else has to basically simulate and back-calculate the algorithm, and hence I'd be surprised if Lightroom or Photoshop would do a better job of it.

However, my point is more about the optical qualities of a lens than these corrections. A colleague of mine (also a HFV member "mksharan") has the Nikon D3000, a camera which I also owned for about 6 months and then got rid of it for the same reasons. He was initially disappointed with the low-light performance of his camera with the 18-55 kit lens. He did not want to spend a lot of money at that time for an improved body. I made the suggestion for him to buy the AF-S 35/1.8 lens. He got that lens and is now very happy with his shots. The 18-105 lens is indeed very good, a lens worthy of post-processing being applied to the shots taken with this lens. The point is, the lens has to be good enough in the first place. The resolution of a lens cannot ever be improved by post processing. Another important factor is the color saturation, especially in low light (high ISO) conditions, no matter how much one plays with the curves.

In the end, I will put in a view that you may not like at all. I do not like post-processing to the extent it makes the pictures look unnatural. This is only a personal view and you do not have to agree with it. In music reproduction, I am a tonality-freak. The same goes for photography. I try to remember during post-processing what were the actual conditions under which the shot was taken and I try to mimic that to the best of my ability. Over-emphasis of contrast, sharpness and vividity of colors takes away the naturalness of pictures in my view in the same way P&S cameras tend to produce vibrant pictures. But as I said in the beginning, this is only a personal preference, and nobody else has to agree with this view.

I hope even if you cannot agree you are able to see my side of the view. It's been an interesting discussion.

Regards.

PS: Just adding a point I intended but forgot to include: With the present day high megapixel sensors, it is quite possible to crop the image sufficiently to effectively have a zoom-in (albeit digital), unless one wants a huge printout. Of course the sensor needs to be quite high in megapixels and the lens has to have high resolution as well.

 

[ajay124]

Ranjeet, Asit, Kannan

Interesting discussion. Hopefully we can sustain it for the mutual benefit of all the active and passive participants of this thread. The film developing/ digital processing debate has a whiff of the analogue/digital wars

Personally I see merit in the viewpoints of both Ranjeet and Asit regarding the editing of digital photographs. Editing can potentially bring something and it can also take away something from the RAW footage. The twin acts of taking a picture and editing it are arts which demand talent, knowledge, passion and perseverence. But to retain the joy of photography it is essential to give prominence to the act of taking the actual shot. If post editing software ever reaches a point where it can cure most of the ills of a badly taken picture then the romance attached to this hobby/profession would be lost. To sustain the love affair between the photographer, camera and the subject it is essential to keep post processing within reasonable boundaries.

ps. Based on my experience with the 35 mm f/1.8 and the 18-55 lens I am more inclined towards shooting with only a pair of wide angle and telephoto prime lens. Perhaps the 35mm complemented by the recently launched 85 mm. Asit's idea of using a high megapixel, high resolution camera and then cropping the pics to get a 'zoom' effect seems attracive. It may or may not work well in practise but it will provide me a justification for buying more prime lenses rather than zooms in the future. The 55-200 will be my testing ground to decide whether I want to purchase an expensive zoom in the future or not. If I am not happy with the 55-200 I plan to trade it in and buy the AF S 85mm f/1.8G when this lens becomes available in March.

 

[ranjeetrain]

Hi Asit,

Optics not only was, but even today is, important. It is not possible to have a bad lens and make amazing photos. I know the importance of clicking the shutter as much as any of friends here may. I started in film era as well (with my father's medium format B&W camera). And I did work in my friend's darkroom (mostly for fun) every time I felt like; to wash my films, make enlargement, or as I said just for fun. So of course I know the importance of clicking the shutter. And even in this digital era, I can proudly say well over 90% of my shots are keepers (I don't think that's a number many people from digital era would achieve).

Wrt to this discussion; I and you seem to be saying the same things, however seem to draw different conclusions. And that's the beauty of life; different individuals see the same picture and draw different conclusions. Isn't that what these forums are all about?

If we go back a little, the discussion was about the merit and demerit of Prime and Zoom lenses. It was never about good quality and bad quality lenses, unless you implied all Primes have good quality and all Zooms have bad quality, in which case I will have to disagree. In each lens type there are good lenses and bad ones, better ones and worse ones. So lets not mix things up and generalize; to make it a good lens vs a bad lens discussion. Discussion, at least to me, was prime lens vs zoom lens, and remains so. And I sure have presented the merits of zoom lenses which you may or may not have noticed. Because I didn't receive any feedback on that, just some very generic remarks about lens quality and tolerance to post-processing.

Oh, coming to post-processing! Tolerance to post-processing is as big a war among photophiles as cable wars are among audiophiles. We cannot go there without having to have some long winded discussions.

One note on Adobe software processing: To Adobe it doesn't matter what the native software bundled by the manufacturer does. Once Adobe has developed the CODEC for a particular format, it works on everything in its own DNG format anyway. And even if it didn't, things like barrel-distortion correction and vignetting correction have no dependency on native format. You can perform such corrections on any image buffer once loaded.

Wrt, lens correction being controllable/effective, its nothing debatable. You just need to use the software, you will be immediately convinced. The software I named does allow you to remove the distortion in a controlled manner. And whether it has removed the distortion or not can be easily verified, because it isn't some voodoo, it's a measurable thing and one can very well measure it and conclude with assurance.

You seem to have somewhat a loose definition for yourself wrt post-processing. For example: you don't seem to consider cropping as post-processing. I would consider that as post-processing. More so than lens-correction. Why? Because, it means your composition wasn't correct. Most important thing in photography (on the human skill side) is composition. And if you need to crop it means your composition wasn't perfect. Think of it like this. Will you be able to crop so easily in film days? Anything that you will not be able to do easily in film days is post-processing, isn't it. Again this is an entirely different debate what is post-processing and what isn't. Like I said, its a big debate.

Regards.


PS: The incident about 18-55 to 35mm was a bit unusual. If buying a prime lens can turn someone into a good photographer, 35mm lens would be a hot-seller IMO the problem might have been in his holding technique. Coming from P&S background many people have shaky hands, which causes blurred images. I can't think of anything else. It would help to know what was lacking in his previous photos and what did the 35 mm lens change. Unless we do that, it isn't right to draw the conclusion that lens turned him into a good photographer.

I am surely happy with discussion. If nothing else, it is going to help future readers of this thread.

 

[ajay124]

I said goodbye to my Nikon D40 yesterday. I purchsaed it roughly 4 years ago for 29K. I got a case for protecting lenses from humidity and a tripod as freebies with the camera. Sold the case for 2.5K to a photophile. Kept the tripod which I presume is worth another 2.5 K. Therefore effective price of the D40 with the kit lens worked out to 24K. Last week I sold the 18-55 kit lens for 2.5K. Yesterday I got a better than expected price of 15K for the body. After having used the D40 regularly for 4 years I got 70 % of my original investment back. Effectively I spent 7.5 K for having used the camera for 4 years. I would consider this to be truly outstanding resale value! Several people from the trade have commented that Nikon DSLR's fetch a good resale price but a used Canon does not command a similar clout. What is the experience of other forum members who may have traded in their DSLR's/lenses in the past?

 

[ranjeetrain]

Not sure of Canon resale value these days but I sold an LX-5 on my last visit to India and got decent price. Nikons do have a good resale value.

 

[Asit]

Hi Ranjeet Rain,

Yes, yes, the discussion is on the relative merits and demerits of prime lenses as opposed to that of zoom lenses. And I have not forgotten that .

It is needless to say that lenses of all kinds have a place in this world, and that's why they are made and used. I agree with you totally that a general purpose zoom lens is very convenient for taking a variety of shots. As I have said before, I use a 15-85 lens which is a high quality lens and comparable to a L lens in optical quality (not all weather construction though like a L), and much more than 90% of all my shots are keepers. The perfect implementation of auto-ISO implementation (in the Digic 4 of Canon) helps in a big way here. I hardly ever miss a shot.

But my point was and is: having such a high quality lens on my camera (resolution-wise it is certainly one of the best that is there today), I still miss a prime, especially for indoor shots and narrow depth of field (let's say for portraits). Prime lenses work like magic in certain circumstances.

My other point was that: prime lenses of very acceptable quality exist for all manufacturers (at times) at a fraction of a cost of a zoom of similar acceptable optical quality. Prime lenses can become very expensive, for example when the max aperture goes below f/1.4 or f/1.2 or when at the same time the lens is a very wide one or a long telephoto. A f/1.2 lens has to have extremely precise focussing mechanism because the depth of field is very very small there. If the lens front-focusses or rear-focusses by just a little, the whole shot is ruined and nothing can be done afterwards. But, people like me usually do not need a f/1.2 (although very often I dream about having a f/1.2, no harm in dreaming ) and f/1.8 is good enough and usually it has very usable sharpness from f/2.0.

Image processing is done automatically before it reaches the RAW stage (or whatever equivalent stage, for example Nikon calls it NEF). Of course, you know that. I was talking about the algorithm of this processing. BTW, unlike Nikon, Canon bundles a full featured RAW processing software called DPP (Digital Photo Professional), and true to its name, many professionals using Canon DSLRs prefer the DPP over anything else for RAW processing, before proceeding to use other (e.g. Adobe) software in the workflow. It's got lens corrections of all sorts too, and I use it to remove barrel distortions at the wide end of my lens and some aberrations. My points are as follows: 1) I think it is very difficult for a 3rd party vendor to better the Canon correction because only Canon knows the algorithm that makes the RAW from the information deposited on the sensor, 2) I am also not convinced if the corrections are always very satisfactory and it does the complete job. I am far from an expert at all in these areas, and do not hesitate to correct me if I have said anything wrong here.

My colleague was unhappy about the low-light performance of his D3000 with the 18-55 VR kit lens. He then got the 35/1.8 prime and now is happily clicking away with far better performance under low light. I have not understood why you are surprised by this. If I find him (these days he is often in Geneva for the experiments), I will ask him to post here to share in his own words the difference in his experience with the two lenses with the same camera body. Again, he is not an expert, but a decent clicker I'd think.

I have owned both Nikons and Canons, more Nikons than Canons. There are minuses and pluses on both sides. I'd request all of you to refrain from indulging in a Canon-vs-Nikon discussion/fight (I am seeing some inkling of that sprinkled around here and there). Canons too earn a very decent resale value and unless one is talking about the D3X, there are alternatives on both camps at the moment. I used a D90 and a 550D for several weeks before I chose to buy the 550D. I knew I was missing some niceties of the D90, but at the same time gained somethings else in the 550D (not talking about video at all). It was a very tough decision - something about which even my wife started making fun -having lived with Nikon all my life and not just that - I had to also absorb blows from my diehard-Nikon-lover-friends (like Cranky, our ex-member). Actually I find the newer Pentax DSLRs the best value for money in the low to middle end. Unfortunately they are not officially marketed in India. Very recently a PhD student in our Institute went abroad for a conference and there he bought a Pentax, and it's an amazing DSLR for the price.

Regards

 

[iaudio]

Ok, derailing this thread and prime vs.zoom debate , but just thought of posting it here so that somebody could benefit, there s a great deal on Panasonic Lumix gf2 micro four thirds cam with 14-42 lens on amazon

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B004A8ZQJS/2406d-20