Dave Metsky makes an excellent point about the 1:5 focal length muliplication factor (for lack of a better term) on lenses designed for 35mm film when they are used on many of the digital SLRs. (I am familiar with some of the Nikon line.) Thus, as Dave says, when used on a DSLR a 100mm lens for your 35mm film SLR will behave like a 150mm lens does on the film camera. Confusing and vexing as this can be when you first make the switch, after a while you can get used to it.
One of my favorite “landscape” lenses for a 35mm film camera is the 85mm focal length -- a short “telephoto.” (The visual effect produced by this lens on film would be replicated by about a 55-60mm lens on a Nikon DSLR.) What I like about this focal length is, it produces an image that very closely resembles the “edited” image we see with our eyes. It looks very natural. This is an old trick borrowed from the great landscape photogs of the past.
Using a lens in this focal length for landscapes helps avoid what I call “wide angle disappointment.” That happens when a short lens has taken in a dramatically broad vista, but the stunning details that made the scene so wonderful in real life are so small in the picture that the photographic rendition loses much or most of its punch.
I regularly use Nikon D1H and D2Hs cameras in my (newspaper) work these days. The D2Hs is a speed demon (both in shutter lag time and frames-per-second) that nearly equals the capababilities of my Nikon F5 film camera. The D2Hs has a better autofocus system than the F5. Our shop practice (for newspaper work) is to set the D2Hs for max speed and relatively low image quality, and it still will produce excellent 11 X 14 inch prints and decent 16 X 20s. So I’m not at all persuaded that total megapixels is the end-all-be-all in this game. As others have observed, I rather suspect that lens quality and how steadily you hold the camera are more important factors.
As a great wide angle lens for your digital Nikon SLR, I recommend Nikon’s 17-35mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S workhorse. It is big, heavy and pricey, but a superb zoom lens for both film and digital. I also would look very closely at Nikon’s 17-55mm G f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S DX lens, which is made specifically for the digital cameras (lacks coverage for the full 35mm film format). It takes in the wide-angle to 85mm (35mm format equivalent) landscape lens range. It is less expensive than the 17-35mm zoom.
One of the most serious limitations I’ve found with the digital SLRs I’ve used (Nikons) is their rechargeable batteries. Nothing works when the battery goes flat, so meticulous “battery management” is a must. Our newspaper shop uses “pool” gear shared by several shooters, and I’ve been burned on assignments several times by discharged batteries. Some of these problems likely would go away with single users, but a word of caution about batteries remains in order.
Right now, looking at a digital SLR camera body for personal use I would seriously consider a Nikon D200. This body probably is a step up in robustness from the D-50 or D-70s. It also can be set up to accept AA size batteries -- a good backup to the regular rechargeables and an attractive option based on my experience.
G.
