Why do people dismiss the capability of the D50 when it comes to high ISO shots? Yes, it's just your basic consumer dSLR and it's old, but my D50 1600 ISO shots rival that of my D300. Can't wait to scoop up another one for cheap ($200 for the last one, sold it for $350).
The problem with the D50 isn't high ISO quality. It's lack of resolution. I've been using D50's now for over a year and half with my photo students, and really don't like any images from those cameras at larger print sizes. Even my wife's old D70 is better.
Additionally, I hate the buried controls in the D60, D50, D40 and D40x. Even the D70 has some controls buried that are much more accessible on the three digit D series cameras (D100, D200, D300). Sometimes this really has a bearing on whether you can get the shot, even if the ultimate image quality were the same.
I have prints that are printed 16x20 on both the D300 and D50 at the same low ISO's and you can seen the crisp detail of the D300 print. The D300 vs the D200 print had a noticeable difference. The print holds up well when far away, all of them do but when you go in for fine details this is where the 6 MP of the D50 lack and even the D200 MP's lack in clarity of fine details. I am a firm believer in the D300 and I will continue to use it for everything I do. I just sold my D50 and although it was my first camera, it was a good sale and I wouldn't look back at it.
There is just something about the clarity and detail of the D3 series. People shots or sports shots or landscape shots. The detail and clarity is just out of this world. I enjoy it every bit.
Chris
May 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I have a 30"x20" print here taken with my D50 and it's super sharp and looks great. I agree with Andre, I'd much rather have an updated D50 than a D40[X]/60 because of its size and motor drive. Put a D300 sensor in a D50, call it the D90 and sort out the menus a tiny bit and it'll sell like hot cakes.
The D40/D40X/D60 also have pretty darn good ISO1600 results. In fact, Nikon has been "cleaning up" their act (sorry couldn't resist) this most recent generation and the one previous (incl. the D50 and D80). All are capable of good ISO1600 results. The D300 is the first though that can say it's capable at ISO3200 in the same manner, which is just the next evolution in high ISO shooting. (The D3 is another story again)...
The bigger difference though is in handling, speed, controls and build... but that's not the point of this topic I realize...
nevertheless my D300 does better and my D40 doesn't come really close. i guess there's at least 1 stop difference. and the resolution difference is a nice bonus too. The cost however is totally crap i have to admit that. Amazing how nice your images can look with a D40/50 you are right...
)