Got the Nikon in the mall today. Lots of features, but I was disappointed at the quality of construction. I don't know why I should be surprised, as it appears most of the money went into the electronics. On both zooms, turning the barrel on the lens feels like I'm turning a plastic tube against the inside of a plastic tube because, well, that's what it's doing. For the price, I shouldn't expect more.
The last time I used an SLR to any extent was on running shots for Buell. I had an eight frame per second Nikon with all of the gimmicks. Probably weighed about three or four pounds. It would have made for a good blunt weapon. Turning the lens barrel felt like it was on ball bearings.
It was the same thing with the first SLR I bought, back in 1974. That was a bottom of the line Canon. It had a shutter speed dial, an aperture ring on the lens. and a needle inside the viewfinder for a meter. Still, the construction was better. I think it cost me $75 or something like that when it was new. I still have it, and I was using it right up until film went away.
I've read that the lenses that come with it don't take full advantage of the 24 megapixel resolution. I shot raw and jpeg photos of identical subjects and compared them. There was very little difference.
It's a lot easier to use than I expected. For the Nikon for the Buell shoot, I studied it for two weeks before the job.
This camera should work well for the trip.
