In this post, let me elaborate on this choice as well as another thought......a lens......go figure, right!?! Basically without slipping into "review" territory, let me just start with the important attributes about this particular Nikon model that has somehow separated it from the pack. First of all, it's significantly smaller than the D70/D70s bodies. The last post has an image of it right behind a D70 and it's quite marked. Below is a picture from the top which shows how much narrower it is.
I'm not saying that it's "pocketable", but when combined with the right lens (more on that later), this could present quite a bit less mass. So my search for something that's not as intimidating as my full on D300 rig with MB-D10 battery grip and 18-200mm super-zoom, for "street" photography could come to fruition. So, let's see; smaller, lighter, uses the same battery, can focus the same lenses. With the exception of it using the incompatible SD memory cards, this camera could be "IT"! After reading lots of reviews, I became even more convinced that this should probably be my target. One professional photographer/reviewer became so enamored of it, that he dubbed it the "Plastic-Fantastic"! The consensus of all the reviews was that although this camera was made of plastic, it didn't feel "plasticy", unlike the rival small Canons.
So, what has led me in this direction and away from the Olympus E-330 that I had discussed in previous posts? Here's the thing: most ALL advanced photographic systems are all about the glass. Ultimately, the vast majority of photographers who shoot SLRs (of any kind) will have more invested in their lenses then their camera bodies. And with the advent of the modern electronic-centric digital-SLR, this trend is even more pronounced. Quite often you'll even see high-end cameras displaced in the product line in as little as two years! It's simply not possible to constantly replace all of a collection of lenses. So, from a pragmatic standpoint, even if I bought an E-330 at a great price, then assembling enough lenses to make use of it would impede the acquisition of comparable Nikon glass that'd be useable in my main system as well. That just doesn't make good economic sense and I do teach that subject! Now, that doesn't mean I don't love the design of both the Olympus E-330 and Panasonic DMC GF-1 that I talked about in previous posts and won't at some future date try to pick one or both up when their prices have dropped more......but just not now. Yes, I know; it's a sad thing that we can't have everything that we want, but such is life!
So....how exactly does one turn a (relatively) compact DSLR like the D50 into some facsimile of a "street-shooter".....small, light, with some focal length flexibility? ....with the "plastic-fantastic" lens of course! As you can see from the picture above; that's not much of a lens. From it's plastic mount to it's plastic filter ring, it only measures 2.5". It weighs in at just a hair under 7oz. There's no aperture ring, so if you don't have a camera that's capable of electronically controlling the f-stops, then you're out of luck! It's actually a simplified version of the already cheap, 28-80mm/f3.5-5.6 kit lens that Nikon created to match their early low-end AF cameras (6 elements in 6 groups) which included a (then new) Hybrid aspherical element by bonding a polycarbonate (plastic) element with one of the glass ones. At the time, it was considered to be an adequate optical performer, but a pariah to traditional Nikonians for all the cost-cutting measures. However, this didn't deter the legions of consumers who now bought Nikon's inexpensive auto-focus cameras on which this lens was included as part of the "kit". The estimates of units produced vary, but it's most probably in the high- hundreds of thousands or millions, so finding one cheap is not much of a challenge!
The "undropped-shoes" on this is that, with modern, DX sized sensor digital camera, this lens is an amazing performer all out of proportion with it's size and cost (typically under $50)! When combined with the equally nice performing for the price (~ $150) D50, it makes a great inexpensive/compact combo, that would perform not only as a "street-shooter", take anywhere camera, but as a backup to my system as well. I know that the D40 is significantly smaller than the D50, but it doesn't have a screw-drive motor and uses a different battery as well.
As you can see from the above image, it's pretty darned compact and lightweight (26oz total) rig. My D300 with battery, but without lens weighs 32oz, by itself! That lens give a converted angle of view on a 35mm camera of roughly 42-120mm, giving it a nice "normal" to "portrait"-short telephoto range. All for a less than $200 with a little bit of judicious shopping!
Some of you might be wondering how this fits in with my "build quality" philosophy that I often point to? Of course, I still think and will probably always think that it's important, but it's also a relative concept of course. First of all; it's relative to what you can afford! Secondly, and I think, most importantly, the concept should be applied relative to the expected function of the product. More specifically; any "front-line" product that you'd expect to use regularly or in a high-leverage environment must be "top-notch". However, any device or product that's rarely used (like a back-up camera) must simply be functional. A good example is a home mechanic that only occasionally uses his tools: why would he run out and buy tens of thousands of dollars worth of professional grade Snap-On tools? In the case of this camera; it just needs to work at a decent level, be small enough to give me some functionality that the D300 does not.
Plastic-Fantastic indeed!
Not so much of a comment, but an update to this post is that I recently have been able to land both the camera and the lens discuss at less than $120 total.
ReplyDelete