Originally Posted by GoneTomorrow
Well if you go for the D300 you will get a better performing camera, but will need to spend the extra money on Nikon VR lenses. I say try the Pentax with the Sigma lenses, I bet it will be a nice setup for a lot less money.
And the 105mm macro is a popular focal length because of how close it gets, but you should know that it is very shaky and hard to keep still hand held or even with a monopod. I tried out 60mm, 85mm and 105mm in my camera shop and went for a 60mm because I could keep it the steadiest and it still gets plenty close up. Just a thought.
Yeah, I've revised my list again and for the D300, will go with the Nikkor 105mm Micro, VR. The Sigma version doesn't have OS afaik, so it's only good on a camera with in-body IS, like the K20D.
Nikon D300 body - Â£1,000 / $1,978
General Purpose - Sigma 18-200mm f3.5/6.3 OS HSM [Nikon Fit] - Â£340 / $673
Macro & Portrait - Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Micro - Â£420 / $831
Landscape & Big Group - Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM [Nikon fit] - Â£340 / $673
Total: Â£2,100 / $4,154
Pentax K20D body - Â£700 / $1,385
General Purpose-Sigma 18-200mm f3.5/6.3 [Pentax Fit] -Â£270 / $534
Macro & Portrait-Sigma 105mm Macro f2.8 [Penax Fit]-Â£320 / $633
Landscape & Big Group -Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 HSM [Pentax Fit] -Â£290 / $574
Total: Â£1,580 / $3,125
These lists are still not definitive though. I'm still open to suggestions as the more I learn the more possibilities I see. As always, cash will be the ultimate decider though. I'm hoping to have somewhere around 2K to spend, but it could be a lot less. Obviously, I'd rather get the best I can afford, but I need to consider all the extras that increase costs, like filters, memory cards, batteries, high quality MC Protectors, etc, etc... I need to cost it all out thoroughly really. Handy I have about eight weeks until I'm able to actually make the purchase, if all goes well.
Yeah, I've read about 10 or so reviews on the K20D and seen lots of ISO shots with full size and 100% crops. Thanks for the “heads-up” though
. I'm fairly satisfied that the K20D is a good camera for the money. The only thing I don't like really, is the live view implementation. It's not very good and I'd probably use that to compose macro shots more than the viewfinder.
It's not just the composition, its the manual focusing, or refinement of the auto-focus when taking macros that the live view is also useful for. You just can't do it with the K20Ds implementation (at least in the reviews I've seen), so you're stuck with the viewfinder. No matter how good the viewfinder may be (and it is a good) I'm not sure I'd find using it for macro very practical. Still, I guess I should give it a try with my FZ50 and see if I could get used to macro shooting through the viewfinder.
The K20D has some advantages over the D300, not least, I was surprised to learn, it's continuous shooting speed... The D300 is a lot faster when shooting JPEG, but when you shoot RAW, it's FPS drops below that of the K20D's 3FPS when shooting RAW. As I always shoot RAW+JPEG, I'd actually get faster continuous shooting with the K20D, over the (43% more expensive) D300.
If I can get past the macro shooting with the viewfinder, I still think the K20D is a good choice and would be a massive step up from the super zoom I have now. Still, despite the K20Ds faster continuous RAW shooting and higher mega-pixels, the D300 is still the better camera, with a very well implemented live view system and I'd like to make a sound investment for the future.
I don't know. It's a tough decision, but I have a feeling that finances will make it for me
Highly-AnnoyedEdited by Highly-Annoyed - 5/22/08 at 1:27pm