To make a long story short, I had a D50 that cost me about $150. I dropped it on a trip, and the command dial stopped working. I couldn't find a body replacement for $300 or less(my budget), and decided to go with an extremely cheap Canon 350D setup, and to pick up my go to lens in Canon mount(Sigma 30mm f1.4), along with a speedlight.
Not that it hasn't been pleasant, but I do miss controls on my Nikon. I personally feel much more at home with one than with a Canon. The only thing I'll regret is having cheaper pro lenses, and more prime options, but considering my budget and that I don't shoot for money, I don't see that being too much of a loss. My main thing for me since I shoot concert photography is how the body handles high ISO, and I do prefer CMOS to CCD.
With the D90 announcement, I've thought of going back to Nikon since I haven't sold my Nikon equip. I figure I can sell all my canon equip for the price of a D90 body. But when factoring costs, I kind of forgot about the D2Hs. Great high ISO quality, PRO build and features, and SMALL file sizes for quicker editing. If I shoot for money, most of my work will be web or magazine published, where the 4MP camera would be more than adequate.
Thing is, I've never had the opportunity to use one. I had a D2H for a while, and despite liking it's quick FPS, I absolutely hated the image quality above ISO400, and the LCD quality for image reviewing. From what I've gathered, the D2Hs easily has a stop advantage. My other concern would of course be how good the LCD is on the D2Hs.
So I guess what I need help with is, some reassurance that I can shoot ISO800/1600 comfortably, and that I can safely look at the images on my camera without a worry that they look horrible, or may look horrible when uploaded to my pc. My plans are using my Sigma 30mm f1.4(maybe some input from Sandro since I know he likes both) and probably a Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 down the line(I'm not impressed by bokeh of the 3rd party wide to normal zooms). Most of my shooting will be of live music in low lit clubs, but I'm slowly getting back into Strobist stuff, so I'll be using cactus triggers along with older Nikon flashes. Thanks everyone.
Not that it hasn't been pleasant, but I do miss controls on my Nikon. I personally feel much more at home with one than with a Canon. The only thing I'll regret is having cheaper pro lenses, and more prime options, but considering my budget and that I don't shoot for money, I don't see that being too much of a loss. My main thing for me since I shoot concert photography is how the body handles high ISO, and I do prefer CMOS to CCD.
With the D90 announcement, I've thought of going back to Nikon since I haven't sold my Nikon equip. I figure I can sell all my canon equip for the price of a D90 body. But when factoring costs, I kind of forgot about the D2Hs. Great high ISO quality, PRO build and features, and SMALL file sizes for quicker editing. If I shoot for money, most of my work will be web or magazine published, where the 4MP camera would be more than adequate.
Thing is, I've never had the opportunity to use one. I had a D2H for a while, and despite liking it's quick FPS, I absolutely hated the image quality above ISO400, and the LCD quality for image reviewing. From what I've gathered, the D2Hs easily has a stop advantage. My other concern would of course be how good the LCD is on the D2Hs.
So I guess what I need help with is, some reassurance that I can shoot ISO800/1600 comfortably, and that I can safely look at the images on my camera without a worry that they look horrible, or may look horrible when uploaded to my pc. My plans are using my Sigma 30mm f1.4(maybe some input from Sandro since I know he likes both) and probably a Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 down the line(I'm not impressed by bokeh of the 3rd party wide to normal zooms). Most of my shooting will be of live music in low lit clubs, but I'm slowly getting back into Strobist stuff, so I'll be using cactus triggers along with older Nikon flashes. Thanks everyone.
