I purchased the D50 several months ago and have been very pleased with it. I have the 18-55 and 55-200 lens and would like to find something that will shoot out farther. I have to agree that the manual could use a bunch of work. I have been fortunate enough to have someone showing me the more detailed capabilities of the camera. The flash system on the D50 is superior to that of the Canon. However at ISO settings above 400, the Canon kicks butt. Either way, both are very good cameras. Here is a link to one of the latest pictures I have taken. No editing has been done to this photo. Hope this helps. http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/editPicture1.aspx?id=622152
I don't know what to recommend here. I have a Nikon 70-300, which is reasonably priced and has great quality, but would overlap your 55-200 by a large margin. I'd guess a Nikon 300 prime (non-zoom) would be a good buy. Nikon makes a number of these at various prices. Their 80-400 zoom is fabulous, but pricey. It really depends on what you are planning to shoot. I do a lot of wildlife, and the long end of a 70-300 is about as much as I can handle, and even then I have to crank up the ISO to 800. Beyond 400 mm, lenses get pretty pricey.
Nikon just came out with a 70-300 VR II (second generation VR) f4.5-5.6 that is fantastic from some of the sample photos that I've seen and the comments posted on the net. Price is in the low $500's. The VR II can give you up to 4 additional f-stop!!!!! Problem is that the demand is so great right now that it's back ordered everywhere.
Wow! The 70-200 VR was about $1100. I've shot some VR lenses borrowed from friends and find that 2 f-stops in very reasonable.
No, it's not 2.8, but you trade shutter speed for aperture. The old lens was at least two stops faster, in terms of shutter speed, than ordinary lenses. I don't buy four stops. I didn't have enough time to test it. I liked it, and wanted to buy it. That's the 70-200 VR, not the new 70-300 VR2. I'm not sure I'd buy that, as I have a 70-300, and don't use it that much in the field at its longer lengths. I do look at the EXIF (and other) info collected with each shot, and find that I'm just not using longer lens lengths for many shots. I shot nothing beyond 170 mm this last trip to Alaska.
