Nikon D50... need quick advice

[Krioni]

I have an opportunity to get a Nikon D50 for $300 that includes lens, body and battery... nothing else.

Do you think this is worth it assuming it's in decent shape?

Do any of you guys or gals have experience with this camera? This would be my first DSLR, so I'm really flying blind here.

Thanks in advance for your help!

EDIT
The lens is a "Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR ED 55-200mm 1:4-5.6G"

 

[Fardringle]

Which lens?

 

[pennylane]

I have it. It's a great camera. For an entry-level SLR it's surprisingly not stripped down. You're better off with that than with a D40 because the D50 can autofocus more lenses than the newer D40 (the D50 has an internal focus motor while the D40 doesn't, correct me if I'm wrong).

If you can verify that it's in decent shape, I'd say go for it for sure. The body in good condition is probably worth $300 alone. Though yeah, what lens does it come with?

Does it come with the battery charger? It wouldn't be a deal breaker for me but just asking.

 

[Krioni]

It is a 55-200mm Nikon, I don't know any other details about it at this point.

 

[pennylane]

Originally posted by: Krioni
It is a 55-200mm Nikon, I don't know any other details about it at this point.

Do you know if that's the VR version?

 

[Krioni]

Originally posted by: fanerman91
I have it. It's a great camera. For an entry-level SLR it's surprisingly not stripped down. You're better off with that than with a D40 because the D50 can autofocus more lenses than the newer D40 (the D50 has an internal focus motor while the D40 doesn't, correct me if I'm wrong).

If you can verify that it's in decent shape, I'd say go for it for sure. The body in good condition is probably worth $300 alone. Though yeah, what lens does it come with?

Does it come with the battery charger? It wouldn't be a deal breaker for me but just asking.

No, it doesn't come with the charger or anything. Though I've seen those for $15 on ebay.

Is the USB cable a standard USB cable or something proprietary?

 

[Krioni]

Originally posted by: fanerman91

Originally posted by: Krioni
It is a 55-200mm Nikon, I don't know any other details about it at this point.

Do you know if that's the VR version?

No, I don't know that... but I would assume not.

Basically, I'd assume the lens is probably the cheapest Nikon brand of the sort.

 

[jpeyton]

The USB cable is a standard one; it's actually the same one that is used by Sony PSPs, PS3s, and a host of other USB devices. You can pick one up for <$5 online.

The Nikon 55-200mm (non-VR) is actually worth a decent amount on eBay; more than the standard kit lens is worth. You can sell this and it will put the total cost of your D50 body under $200, which is an absolute steal.

I wouldn't hesitate at all. Extra batteries and chargers are cheap at Sterlingtek.com, which is where most people go for quality after-market batteries for their DSLRs.

 

[greengrass]

Hey that looks very nice deal.

 

[Severian]

I'd jump on it. I also picked up a D50 for a steal, and I had to pick up a charger, lens cap, strap, etc afterwards. Don't buy one of the el cheapo aftermarket chargers, you can find used MH-18 chargers for nearly the same price on Ebay.

I love my D50.....can't recommend it highly enough as an entry-level DSLR....

 

[pennylane]

Originally posted by: Krioni

Originally posted by: fanerman91
I have it. It's a great camera. For an entry-level SLR it's surprisingly not stripped down. You're better off with that than with a D40 because the D50 can autofocus more lenses than the newer D40 (the D50 has an internal focus motor while the D40 doesn't, correct me if I'm wrong).

If you can verify that it's in decent shape, I'd say go for it for sure. The body in good condition is probably worth $300 alone. Though yeah, what lens does it come with?

Does it come with the battery charger? It wouldn't be a deal breaker for me but just asking.

No, it doesn't come with the charger or anything. Though I've seen those for $15 on ebay.

Is the USB cable a standard USB cable or something proprietary?

It's standard, though I'd get a card reader anyway. I think transferring directly from the camera drains the battery. The D50 is a really good camera and you'll be glad you bought it. You may want a more standard range lens to pair with the 55-200mm (unless you want to sell it).

 

[skriefal]

That's a great price for a D50 and Nikon 55-200 lens. Even if it were the body only (no lens) it'd still be a good price. A good condition used D50 body sells for more than that from keh.com (one of the most reliable online dealers of used cameras).

 

[soydios]

aye, I use a D50, and while it saddens me to think that my camera is worth so little now on the used market, I would definitely pick that up. I'm going to use mine as a backup body for hopefully a D90, whenever that arrives on the market.

I vastly prefer the D50 to the D40. both have the same sensor and image-processing chips, but the D50 has a top LCD, 5 AF points, and an in-camera autofocus motor. for the price bracket, the D50 was surprisingly full featured, and I'm disappointed that Nikon crippled the D60 so much (c'mon Nikon, a D80 sensor and engine with 7 AF points, top LCD, and in-camera autofocus motor would be perfect, a worthy D50 successor).

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: soydios
aye, I use a D50, and while it saddens me to think that my camera is worth so little now on the used market, I would definitely pick that up. I'm going to use mine as a backup body for hopefully a D90, whenever that arrives on the market.

I vastly prefer the D50 to the D40. both have the same sensor and image-processing chips, but the D50 has a top LCD, 5 AF points, and an in-camera autofocus motor. for the price bracket, the D50 was surprisingly full featured, and I'm disappointed that Nikon crippled the D60 so much (c'mon Nikon, a D80 sensor and engine with 7 AF points, top LCD, and in-camera autofocus motor would be perfect, a worthy D50 successor).

I also prefer the D50 (wish it had the D40's screen, though), but I believe the image-processing is different between them, since the D40 has slightly lower noise than the D50 at the same ISO.

In my opinion, Nikon over-engineered the D50/D70. Lots of people are still producing great images with these 2-4 year old DSLRs, with no clear reason to upgrade unless they want to move into the next bracket (D200/D300).

 

[Krioni]

Here's an update on the lens...

It's reads "Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR ED 55-200mm 1:4-5.6G"

Is this a good lens?

 

[Krioni]

I bought the camera, it will be shipped tomorrow...

What would be a good general purpose lens for taking pics inside the house?

 

[skriefal]

The 18-55 kit lens would be decent for that, but its slow speed would require that you use flash for most shots. A better choice might be the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens, or even the 28mm f/1.8 or 24mm f/1.8.

 

[Krioni]

Before I forget, I would like to thank everyone for their advice on this purchase. You guys/gals are great!!!!

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: Krioni
Before I forget, I would like to thank everyone for their advice on this purchase. You guys/gals are great!!!!

No problem, enjoy the camera!

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Krioni
Here's an update on the lens...

It's reads "Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR ED 55-200mm 1:4-5.6G"

Is this a good lens?

A good lens, but not exactly a portrait lens for your 2 year old.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Krioni
I bought the camera, it will be shipped tomorrow...

What would be a good general purpose lens for taking pics inside the house?

Your best bet would be to sell the 55-200mm, and re-invest that money into a fast prime lens. You need a faster lens to take indoor portraits.

A great inexpensive option is a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D; runs about $100. On your D50, the focal length will be 75mm, which is long enough to give you some good candid shots of your subject in an indoor environment.

 

[skriefal]

The 50mm is a good choice for close-up candid shots or for portraits, but also consider that it will be too narrow (too "tele") for most indoor group shots. But if you don't care about indoor group shots then it'll be a great and inexpensive option. Especially when compared to the 30mm Sigma f/1.4 that I mentioned above, which sells for $400+.

 

[Krioni]

Well, I certainly cannot afford a $400 lens at this point... the $110 Nikon lens mentioned previously is about all I have to spend on a lense now. However, there are many times where I'm trying to get groups shots in a relatively confined space (my living room, for example).

Is there a lens that I should be looking for to handle this kind of situation?

Thanks to all of your for your recommendations and help!

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Krioni
However, there are many times where I'm trying to get groups shots in a relatively confined space (my living room, for example).

Is there a lens that I should be looking for to handle this kind of situation?

Your best inexpensive solution to that problem is the Nikon 18-55mm kit lens; about $90-$100 on eBay. 18mm is about as wide as you'll get with your budget. Shots with sub-standard lighting will require a flash, though. Unless you plan on buying an external flash unit, make yourself a little DIY film canister flash diffuser to cut down on the harsh shadows produced by your on-camera flash.

 

[skriefal]

The 18-55 kit lens is both good and bad for in-home use. The 18mm wide end is a good choice for group shots, but the relatively slow f/3.5 aperture will force more frequent flash use. A fixed-focal length 24mm lens would also work well and would be a bit faster than the kit lens, but you won't find one (even on the used market) for $110.