Nikon D50, is it even worth it?

I have been seriously interested in a digital SLR camera since I got
rid of my Nikon N55 film SLR. I am seriously terrible with film, and
out of 10 rolls, only about 30 pictures came out how I liked, and I was
fed up with waiting for the film to develope at Sav-On, and I didn't
like having to pay for film and not know if the picture came out until
the film was already wasted. I have seen some great pictures taken with
a Nikon Coolpix 4600 (4 megapixel), and they were brilliant, vivid, had
great auto exposure, and could handle some complex lighting situations,
but had a good amount of noise came up in the pictures. I heard of the
Digital SLR cameras, and was thrown to the ground at the sight of the
prices, but found a Nikon D50 that would still put a major dent in my
wallet that I would feel every time I sit down, but it was low enough
to handle. I saw the 6 megapixels and thought "well, thats an
improvement on 4 megapixels". Also, I noticed the difference in CCD
sensor size, it is huge comp ared to point and shoot cameras that have
6 megapixels. Also the Nikon D50 has all these cool manual funcions,
but I read that it only goes as low as 200 ISO. Now, one of a few
things I remember about using film as that 200 speed gave much better
picture quality than 400 and 800, where it doesnt have alot of
graniness, but since the D50 is digital, will it be like the Nikon 4600
and have noise regardless of ISO setting? I have Adobe Photoshop
Elements and Photoshop CS2, so I can tinker with some of the noise, but
I would like to have a digital camera that doesnt have much noise so I
dont have to go and tinker with it to get it right. Again, as a simple
recap, does the D50 have the kind of noise that the Coolpix 4600
produces, will the lowest setting on the camera 200 ISO produce much
noise, and pretty much, is it worth the money, like, is it a good
deal? Thanks for any help!

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond50/

Take a look at some pictures taken with the camera. I'm very happy
with my D50.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"sgtdisturbed" wrote in message
oups.com...
:I have been seriously interested in a digital SLR camera since I got
: rid of my Nikon N55 film SLR. I am seriously terrible with film, and
: out of 10 rolls, only about 30 pictures came out how I liked, and I
was
: fed up with waiting for the film to develope at Sav-On, and I didn't
: like having to pay for film and not know if the picture came out
until
: the film was already wasted. I have seen some great pictures taken
with
: a Nikon Coolpix 4600 (4 megapixel), and they were brilliant, vivid,
had
: great auto exposure, and could handle some complex lighting
situations,
: but had a good amount of noise came up in the pictures. I heard of
the
: Digital SLR cameras, and was thrown to the ground at the sight of
the
: prices, but found a Nikon D50 that would still put a major dent in
my
: wallet that I would feel every time I sit down, but it was low
enough
: to handle. I saw the 6 megapixels and thought "well, thats an
: improvement on 4 megapixels". Also, I noticed the difference in CCD
: sensor size, it is huge comp ared to point and shoot cameras that
have
: 6 megapixels. Also the Nikon D50 has all these cool manual funcions,
: but I read that it only goes as low as 200 ISO. Now, one of a few
: things I remember about using film as that 200 speed gave much
better
: picture quality than 400 and 800, where it doesnt have alot of
: graniness, but since the D50 is digital, will it be like the Nikon
4600
: and have noise regardless of ISO setting? I have Adobe Photoshop
: Elements and Photoshop CS2, so I can tinker with some of the noise,
but
: I would like to have a digital camera that doesnt have much noise so
I
: dont have to go and tinker with it to get it right. Again, as a
simple
: recap, does the D50 have the kind of noise that the Coolpix 4600
: produces, will the lowest setting on the camera 200 ISO produce much
: noise, and pretty much, is it worth the money, like, is it a good
: deal? Thanks for any help!
:

Ouch, I am noticing the same problem I had with the Nikon Coolpix 4600,
on the pics you have, where there is one solid color covering a big
area, like the sky, there is significant noise, and the picture isnt
even enlarged. Were these taken at more sensitive setting than ISO 200?
Also, I am noticing that the quality and vivid colors are very similar
to my Coolpix 4600, but it seems that the D50 has the advantage of
handling much more complex lighting situations than my 4600 (I could
NEVER take a good picture of the moon in any setting, it would just be
a fuzzy ball of light), so that is impressive, but apparently the only
difference. Am I missing something? Will good lenses make a differrence
in picture quality?

Well, looking at that comparison, I definately wont let a Pentax eat my
cash. The comparisons between the D50 and D70 looked pretty
interesting, it looks like technology has advanced at a much faster
rate then I thought. But I took a look at some of the graphs and my
brain couldnt decompile all that data, none of it makes sense. Is there
a chart or comparison sight that has an easier to understand set of
graphs and that has larger pictures so I can get a better look?

"sgtdisturbed" wrote in message
ups.com...
Ouch, I am noticing the same problem I had with the Nikon Coolpix 4600,
on the pics you have, where there is one solid color covering a big
area, like the sky, there is significant noise, and the picture isnt
even enlarged.

The pictures are small all right, but I don't see any noise in the sky
areas. I'm using a 17" LCD monitor, and all I can see in the solid-color
areas is the grain of the monitor itself.

Is this too good to be true? I just compared some of the test pics from
the D50 to the test pics of the D200, and I'll be damned, I couldnt
tell the difference whatsoever! Except of course the size of the
images, but for normal 4x6 prints, that shouldnt matter, I dont plan on
making huge prints. The low noise, great color, and near perfect light
handling makes my once-beloved Nikon 4600 look like a toy. I have an
artistic personality, and photography has brought it out even more. I
used to think that the Nikon 4600 would be the best I could get for the
money, but man, after looking at the D50 in all it's glory, it is
apparent that this camera will do me a great deal of good. I used to
dread taking pics with a 4600, since I would have to go to my computer
and Photoshop the noise out of the pictures where the sky is, but
looking at these pics taken with the D50, I could likely get away with
taking my memory card straight to Sav-On after taking pics, without
doctoring the shiznit out of the picture with Photoshop. NOW, seeing as
I have seen much good with this camera, the D50, I need to know the
bad. Is there any hidden problems I should know about? I noticed that
the D200 has a LCD screen protector, does the D50 have a similar safety
feature for it's LCS screen, or do I have to make one myself...

oh, oopsie, I am using a LCD 17 inch monitor too...

If you quote the photo id I'll post the exif. I usually don't put it
in the shots on Flickr.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"sgtdisturbed" wrote in message
ups.com...
: Ouch, I am noticing the same problem I had with the Nikon Coolpix
4600,
: on the pics you have, where there is one solid color covering a big
: area, like the sky, there is significant noise, and the picture isnt
: even enlarged. Were these taken at more sensitive setting than ISO
200?
: Also, I am noticing that the quality and vivid colors are very
similar
: to my Coolpix 4600, but it seems that the D50 has the advantage of
: handling much more complex lighting situations than my 4600 (I could
: NEVER take a good picture of the moon in any setting, it would just
be
: a fuzzy ball of light), so that is impressive, but apparently the
only
: difference. Am I missing something? Will good lenses make a
differrence
: in picture quality?
:

No, D50 doesn't have an LCD protector and it doesn't have the notch
needed to add one.

Have you scratched an LCD yet? I haven't scratch one in 7 years of
digital photography.

You might notice that since January, I've been using the 18-200mm VR
lens. It's magic.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"sgtdisturbed" wrote in message
oups.com...
: Is this too good to be true? I just compared some of the test pics
from
: the D50 to the test pics of the D200, and I'll be damned, I couldnt
: tell the difference whatsoever! Except of course the size of the
: images, but for normal 4x6 prints, that shouldnt matter, I dont plan
on
: making huge prints. The low noise, great color, and near perfect
light
: handling makes my once-beloved Nikon 4600 look like a toy. I have an
: artistic personality, and photography has brought it out even more.
I
: used to think that the Nikon 4600 would be the best I could get for
the
: money, but man, after looking at the D50 in all it's glory, it is
: apparent that this camera will do me a great deal of good. I used to
: dread taking pics with a 4600, since I would have to go to my
computer
: and Photoshop the noise out of the pictures where the sky is, but
: looking at these pics taken with the D50, I could likely get away
with
: taking my memory card straight to Sav-On after taking pics, without
: doctoring the shiznit out of the picture with Photoshop. NOW, seeing
as
: I have seen much good with this camera, the D50, I need to know the
: bad. Is there any hidden problems I should know about? I noticed
that
: the D200 has a LCD screen protector, does the D50 have a similar
safety
: feature for it's LCS screen, or do I have to make one myself...
:

"sgtdisturbed" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have been seriously interested in a digital SLR camera since I got
rid of my Nikon N55 film SLR. I am seriously terrible with film, and
out of 10 rolls, only about 30 pictures came out how I liked, and I was
fed up with waiting for the film to develope at Sav-On, and I didn't
like having to pay for film and not know if the picture came out until
the film was already wasted. I have seen some great pictures taken with
a Nikon Coolpix 4600 (4 megapixel), and they were brilliant, vivid, had
great auto exposure, and could handle some complex lighting situations,
but had a good amount of noise came up in the pictures.

The Coolpix 4600 is an excellent little low-end camera, I have one myself,
but its sensor is very small (smaller than the similar-sized Coolpix
4200/5900/7900 models) and is inevitably a bit noisier for that reason.
Personally I never found the noise bothersome, but then I never found a
reasonable amount of grain bothersome while I was using film, either. And
when I use this camera outdoors it's almost always at the default ISO 50
which keeps noise at a minimum.


I heard of the
Digital SLR cameras, and was thrown to the ground at the sight of the
prices, but found a Nikon D50 that would still put a major dent in my
wallet that I would feel every time I sit down, but it was low enough
to handle. I saw the 6 megapixels and thought "well, thats an
improvement on 4 megapixels". Also, I noticed the difference in CCD
sensor size, it is huge comp ared to point and shoot cameras that have
6 megapixels.

Yes, it is several times larger and that's really more important than the
50% increase in pixels, especially as far as noise at high ISO numbers is
concerned.


Also the Nikon D50 has all these cool manual funcions,
but I read that it only goes as low as 200 ISO. Now, one of a few
things I remember about using film as that 200 speed gave much better
picture quality than 400 and 800, where it doesnt have alot of
graniness, but since the D50 is digital, will it be like the Nikon 4600
and have noise regardless of ISO setting? I have Adobe Photoshop
Elements and Photoshop CS2, so I can tinker with some of the noise, but
I would like to have a digital camera that doesnt have much noise so I
dont have to go and tinker with it to get it right. Again, as a simple
recap, does the D50 have the kind of noise that the Coolpix 4600
produces, will the lowest setting on the camera 200 ISO produce much
noise, and pretty much, is it worth the money, like, is it a good
deal? Thanks for any help!

I don't have that particular dSLR myself, but from everything I've read
about it from others it's a terrific camera for the price.