# The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)



## dj_mocok

Share your thoughts, questions, etc, about Nikon (or other related SLR products, but no brand war please) here. 
Or if you wanna share your pictures from your brand new camera or lens, or if you wanna see any particular kind of sample pictures from any lenses. 

Okay, ready, start talking ! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Oh yeah, I wanna ask a question. Some people have recommended me to take off the Nikon L37c filter from the lens (got it along with the lens). To be honest the only reason why I keep it there is probably because I don't want any dust/finger prints on the lens, and the filter itself is quite expensive, sort of a waste for not using it. 
According to them it will affect image quality (plus my filter has some tiny scratches which I think came from wiping the lens when there were still some dust particles). But then again, I haven't seen the real comparison, side by side pictures of a shot taken with and without lens that is showing the difference. Also I assume this L37c is a pretty good filter, won't degrade image quality? 

So should I take it off?


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 plus my filter has some tiny scratches which I think came from wiping the lens when there were still some dust particles 
 

 That's one good reason for using a filter .... better it gets scratched than your front lens element. Scratches from cleaning usually occcur if the lens is wiped while dry or something other than a proper lens cleaning tissue is used. 

 I suggest you set your camera up on a tripod and do some A-B test shots of various scenes with and without the filter on. Then compare them and see if you can notice a difference. I keep filters on all my lenses. Sometimes when shooting I'll leave them on and sometimes remove them, depending on how critical the shot is.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I suggest you set your camera up on a tripod and do some A-B test shots of various scenes with and without the filter on. Then compare them and see if you can notice a difference. I keep filters on all my lenses. Sometimes when shooting I'll leave them on and sometimes remove them, depending on how critical the shot is._

 

See, this is when the problem starts - I'm very lazy when it comes to doing some A/B controlled tests, hehe..
 Maybe I will do it when I'm not in such a lazy mode.

 I keep hearing about people saying how a lens filter will "slightly" degrade image quality/sharpness, but never seen anyone actually post some sample images proof.

 But have you by any chance done the test yet? Or someone else not as lazy as me willing to do the test?


----------



## dj_mocok

I found this link of the process of making a lens. It's pretty cool video, if you haven't watched it, go for it, it's worth watching. It makes you feel like buying a lens with chunky glasses. It's from Canon factory, but I guess it's good to have some sort of idea how lenses are made.

 I read a book about Nikon history, and saw some pictures of how they actually manufacture lenses in the old times. Pretty fascinating, there were a bunch of Japanese Nikon workers sitting and doing the processing by hand (this was before everything started to get automated in modern plant).


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh yeah, I wanna ask a question. Some people have recommended me to take off the Nikon L37c filter from the lens_

 

Is it for the 85 f/1.4? If so, the effect will be far less, than say on the 35 I am getting. You may as well keep it until you can find a better on on ebay; it may actually improve the pleasing softness of the portraiture! You really do not need Nikon filters except for the wider angle lenses, where Nikon is able to list the recommended narrow ring style for elimination of vignetting.

 Yep, this is good to have a Nikon thread here; sometimes Nikonians is just too active and people just seem to want the highlights. A few random things:

 ***
 I've been reducing the load I carry around, and I came across www.signalandpower.com who carry a useful right angle plug adapter so you can leave the extension cord at home and plug the Nikon battery charger directly into the wall:








 ***
 I got a SB-400 as a really nice Christmas gift from my brother-in-law. Now, I'm using it all the time and plan on getting a SC-29 which will still allow my SB-800's AF assist to work off camera

 SB-400





 SC-29






 ***
 With the re-introduction of Fuji Velvia 50, I am planning on dusting off the F3 and doing both film and digital when I take my long trip to NZ in June. I've kept only one DX lens, the 10.5 mm and am pretty much done with the lens purchases, except for maybe another copy of the 35 f/1.4 if the one coming is not good, and except for maybe one of the older 55 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkors if I can find an affordable one in like new condition.

 ***
 I really like the Kirk right angle bracket for the D200, that I got from Nikonians awhile back, it really helps with the product photography, since I am using a carbon fiber tripod and this seems to get off-balance easily.

 ***
 I now pretty much use the 10.5DX for all of the trade show photography work; I find it amazing that the other photographers there have not caught onto this. It makes for great shots, especially when there are a great deal of people in the booth and it is just so compact.

 ***
 After trying Capture NX, I am taking it off my PC; it is sooooo much slower that Photoshop CS and really takes so much getting used to. I'll just stick to the RAW plug-in.

 ***
 Is film dead? Nope! I am thinking that processing locations will reduce their costs to keep it still fairly attractive for those with legacy cameras. So keep that brick of Velvia in the fridge and don't sell the F3. If you don't have one of these "flagship" Nikons, I recommend scooping one of the mint ones available on ebay:
here
 and
here

 ***
 Nowing that they have approached the limit of affordable lens/DX Imager capabililty, the new "pro" standard will most likely be the D3. I feel really bad for all the D2x and D2xs users that shelled out $4K plus; I hope they got their use out of it. I can't even bring myself to sell the D2h; the loss (price drop) was just incredible. The D3 will essentially relieve the user from having to have such an exacting, tiny, dense DX imager that could be quite susceptible to motion, lens issues, etc. I have found the D200 to be more forgiving in that way, but then again, I was fortunate to get a couple of really great lenses.


----------



## Dimitris

Thanks for the link. That was very useful. Its funny cause I work at a plant and if I show up on the production lines I might get a sample from the line for my office. I wish I could do that in that plant. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I would wait next to the 85mm L line and natch one.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevesurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is it for the 85 f/1.4? If so, the effect will be far less, than say on the 35 I am getting. You may as well keep it until you can find a better on on ebay; it may actually improve the pleasing softness of the portraiture! You really do not need Nikon filters except for the wider angle lenses, where Nikon is able to list the recommended narrow ring style for elimination of vignetting._

 

I am thinking to take it off (maybe after I bought a screw in rubber lens hood for the lens) and see how it goes.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevesurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 With the re-introduction of Fuji Velvia 50, I am planning on dusting off the F3 and doing both film and digital when I take my long trip to NZ in June. I've kept only one DX lens, the 10.5 mm and am pretty much done with the lens purchases, except for maybe another copy of the 35 f/1.4 if the one coming is not good, and except for maybe one of the older 55 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkors if I can find an affordable one in like new condition._

 

So what are you gonna bring to NZ? As far as I know usually NZ trip involves a lot of hiking, you probably better off with lighter gear I think.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevesurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nowing that they have approached the limit of affordable lens/DX Imager capabililty, the new "pro" standard will most likely be the D3. I feel really bad for all the D2x and D2xs users that shelled out $4K plus; I hope they got their use out of it. I can't even bring myself to sell the D2h; the loss (price drop) was just incredible. The D3 will essentially relieve the user from having to have such an exacting, tiny, dense DX imager that could be quite susceptible to motion, lens issues, etc. I have found the D200 to be more forgiving in that way, but then again, I was fortunate to get a couple of really great lenses._

 

When is the PMA by the way? I'm curious to see if that guy who said that the new body will be out then was right or not.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So what are you gonna bring to NZ? As far as I know usually NZ trip involves a lot of hiking, you probably better off with lighter gear I think.

 When is the PMA by the way? I'm curious to see if that guy who said that the new body will be out then was right or not._

 

Most likely F3HP + 20mm f/2.8 and D200 + 17~35 f/2.8 + 10.5 f/2.8 + SB-800 + 2-4GB, 1-8GB Cards + five rolls Velvia + 3 EN-EL3 Batteries + iPod 5G + Shure e4s. Gotta make sure I got the trip covered - that's why film+digital!

 Here's the PMA link, March 8~11 2007 Las Vegas.


----------



## warpdriver

I like the idea of a filter as a "first level defense" against exposing the lens to wiping, smudges or impact. I'll gladly take the supposed degradation in quality for that reason. You have to know yourself and what you are comfortable with. 

 If you have a quality filter (multicoated on both sides, made of quality glass), you'll only be loosing, say, 0.5% light transmission, which I can definitely live with.

 For my use I'd never miss the difference, as my most critical application I have is making 8x12 prints and hanging them, or using a shot as wallpaper.

 It's certainly different if you have a uber buck lens. I think my D70 body is the weakest link anyway, not my filter or my lenses. I'll plan to pick up a D80 body sometime in the next year or two, when the price gets to where the D70 is.


----------



## skyline889

For those of you that shoot digital, since the Nikon wb setting for incandescent light is pretty bad, what do you guys do about it? I adjust wb manually through Photoshop but it would be a lot less hassle if there was a trick to do it through the camera. I had this problem on both the D70 and the D50 and it's plagued on the D40 as well, is it like this on the higher end D80/D200 as well?


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For those of you that shoot digital, since the Nikon wb setting for incandescent light is pretty bad, what do you guys do about it? I adjust wb manually through Photoshop but it would be a lot less hassle if there was a trick to do it through the camera. I had this problem on both the D70 and the D50 and it's plagued on the D40 as well, is it like this on the higher end D80/D200 as well?_

 

When I'm shooting flash (iTTL), I am usually keeping it on WB-Auto. Any other lighting situation where I don't know the actual color temp of lighting, I "bracket" between all settings (flourescent, incandescent, etc.) with a test shot and then use that. You will be very surprised by what you get! I am generally making other adjustments in Photoshop like Brightness, Saturation, Unsharp mask and noise reduction.


----------



## nogrot

I always shoot in RAW, but when I'm taking a shot in incandescent light, I manually set the white balance to Tungsten. Generally, I find it to be decent with reguard to the look of a shot. I can always tweak it later from a WhiBal test shot anyway.

 I don't use UV filters. I've seen threads on fredmiranda where some guy was complaining about his new $1600 70-200VR lens giving awful images. After three pages of tests and comments, somebody asked if he was using any sort of filter on the lens. Took the $20 filter off, and suddenly the lens was perfect. I refuse to pay such large amounts of money for a lens, only to put a $20 piece of glass in front of it. I used to be high-quality filters for all my lenses, but realized life is short and things break, but I'd rather have a better image than whine about cleaning my glass once a month. I do like to use a filter whenever I'm on the beach shooting though, salty wind can get really nasty.

 Your other thread inspired me to break out my own 35mm f/1.4 AIS lens the other night. I threw it on the mount and hopefully will get to use it within the next week or two. I really never gave it much of a chance, but now that I have full metering use with it (yay D2x!) I will give it a shot. I love that it's even closer to the ~50mm FOV too. I looked up my serial number on that webpage and found out that I have the f/16 9-blade version. I also dug up an old e-mail from the ebay auction, and found that I paid $355 for it when I got it. I knew that $460 seemed a little pricey to me...

 Hope your lens gets there safe and soon!


----------



## dj_mocok

I wouldn't use $20 one either, but the Nikon one is quite good filter I think.
 You paid a very good price for your AIS, but I still think $460 is still a good price, considering the rarity of the lens especially in mint condition. 

 By the way, do you happen to have the link to that comparison (filter/no filter) images? I'm curious to see how much degradation it makes.


----------



## kin0kin

This is great...does signalandpower sell it directly?


----------



## jewman

I just wish Nikon would have produced an f90x with built-in exposure bracketing and maybe a built-in flash, but alas, they've stopped producing film SLR's altogether.


----------



## dj_mocok

Just wondering, how many of you here use lenspen? I got a new lenspen (thought my older one wasn't doing the job properly), but everytime I clean my lens with it, it always leave a cleaning mark (not oil) around the lens. It's as if I can see a bit of the circular motion of how I clean the lens from the mark. It's not really a mark actually, but it's there and I can see it if I look very closely. 

 Do you have the same problem or maybe it's the lenspen? Or am I being too anal?


----------



## kin0kin

I have a SIMA PLE lenspen, but it is not here yet 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 the solutions in the pen are essentially isopropyl alcohol. The cleaning marks depend on the % mixed content. Usually there'd be more marks left with more water in it. Get some microfibre cloth (thicker ones that'd absorb water, not those eyeglasses cleaning cloth) and rub it until the mark goes away.


----------



## dj_mocok

I wouldn't dare using microfibre cloth for lens. I have thick ones, but for some reason I never trust microfibre cloth, maybe because I bought them from supermarket, lol.

 One thing I hate about Australia is they don't have that many range of products when it comes to photograhy (and audio), my choice is pretty much very limited here, and most stores sell almost the same products.

 My lenspen's brand is INCA (bet you've never heard it too), it's AUS$20 for mini one, for 20 bucks I expect something that at least don't look and feel as if I bought it from a $1 market. The retractable brush is so dodgily made, it's so hard to pull in and out cause it just doesn't align properly inside the slot. I hope the lenspen is actually REAL lenspen.


----------



## kin0kin

I bought my microfibre cloth from dollar store 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 they work very well and definitely scratch free (tried it on some acrylic product, including cd) 

 I prefer microfibre to eyeglass cloth. I've found that those eyeglass cloth only make things worse as they are thin and don't really absorb any sort of liquid.

 Don't be afraid of using general consumer stuff on your lenses, or lcd screen as a matter of fact. Most of the time the pro stuff are just rebranded consumer stuff. For example, I've got no idea wth is in those monster screen cleaning solution that makes them so darn expensive, but if you look at some lcd screen/lens cleaning solution that cost $10 a bottle having same ingredients as those $0.50 rubbing alcohol (isopropyl) in pharmacy. BIG rip off! I wouldn't be worried of using microfibre cloth to clean the lens, if you are skeptical, get 3m's cloth for like 5 bucks...probably 8AUD


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

After using one in the store last week, I have some serious D200 envy! I actually went to check out the Pentax K10D, which was a very nice package. Just to see what else you could get in that price range, I gave the D80 a shot. All-in-all it felt better physically and I felt I had better control of the important parameters (e.g. no needing to use the menu to adjust ISO in manual mode 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




). Of course the D200 was sitting right next to it, so what the heck, eh? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was amazed by how good the D200 felt to hold and operate, so much more solidly constructed than either of the previous two. And it goes without saying that the degree of control possible is nothing short of astounding. I know it would take me quite some time to appreciate all that it can do, but even in my current state I was quite impressed.

 Of course going straight from a manual-enabled P&S to a D200 seems a bit crazy, as would dumping an extra $400 on a camera body that will likely be worth next to nothing in a few years (at least at the pace digital cameras are currently advancing). But I'll be damned if I didn't love operating that camera! The craftsmanship and thoughtfulness of the whole package was ever so enticing! And then comes the lens buying fury, aaaarrrrgh!


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kin0kin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_




 This is great...does signalandpower sell it directly?_

 

Yep, just call them (no online ordering). I believe they are $6 ea. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's as if I can see a bit of the circular motion of how I clean the lens from the mark. It's not really a mark actually, but it's there and I can see it if I look very closely. ... Do you have the same problem or maybe it's the lenspen? Or am I being too anal?_

 

Nope you ain't too anal 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Yep; it's no big deal, it is just the way the lens pen works most of the time, when you get too much solution on the applicator. I found it too difficult to use. Now I just have filters on the lenses and use a Microdear cloth that is always in a bag and dedicated to lens use. I actually have another one that I use for filter cleaning, and another for Camera Body use. This way, it keeps the more soiled items on one cloth.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_After using one in the store last week, I have some serious D200 envy! ... Of course going straight from a manual-enabled P&S to a D200 seems a bit crazy, as would dumping an extra $400 on a camera body that will likely be worth next to nothing in a few years (at least at the pace digital cameras are currently advancing). But I'll be damned if I didn't love operating that camera! The craftsmanship and thoughtfulness of the whole package was ever so enticing! And then comes the lens buying fury, aaaarrrrgh!_

 

NAS is becoming strong with you, Iron Dreamer. It's a great camera, and one that's been pretty easy to get used to coming from a D2h. It actually doesn't seem to be crazy, as you'll probably keep the body for many years. 10.2M is a really nice pixel count and you pretty much should be satisfied until Full Frame Imagers get affordable (2010, I guess!). Keep in mind you really should not be concerned with the "advancements" from this point, other than Full Frame, as the improvements will become more subtle relating to sensor quality and size; although we may start seeing more HD imagers.

 The nice thing about the Nikon System is the lens investment.


----------



## perplex

I accidently ordered a 50mm AI instead of AF. Has anyone used the AI on D50/D70 manual focus? Maybe I can return it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .


----------



## WhatMACHI

Well, ive been seriously considering getting a DSLR or a simpler POS camera (soley for the reason it can take videos). 

 Now the decision if i go DSLR D40 or a D50. The only thing that is holding me back (considering i dont know too much about photography) is that the D40 cannot take AF lenses correct? whilst the D50 can take both AF and AF-S.
 Would this be a considerate drawback?? I read a comment by someone saying that it would be a shame to regret getting a D40 over a D50 due to the lense options. The 3 vs 5 point focus is also something which i dont understand too well, how much so would this make the D50 a better camera overall?? 

 I am however drawn to the smaller size of the D40, being that i would not be doing anything professional, most of my shots would be a hobby type thing, making it more convenient bringing it around with friends etc etc

 Now i know this is a Nikon thread, but i think it would just be a waste to open a new thread to compare this vs a pos with video capabilities (please dont take this as a brand war, more of a decision i want to make between the styles of cameras). If not i can chuck this post into another thread so it doesnt clog this thread up


----------



## dj_mocok

Yes, D200 is a very good camera indeed (even for the price. It's around AUS$ 2,000 here), and with the build like that, it will last you a long time.

 But if your budget doesn't allow, D80 will do you just fine. I actually prefer D80 in some parts, such as the lighter weight (although I prefer the size of D70), and the picture viewing zoom is much better than D200. With D200 if you wanna zoom to check focus accuracy, you have to hold the button and rotate the dial, then release, then use the arrow, whereas with D80, you just need to press the zoom button and use arrow to navigate. It may seem minor, but it's much more convenient.

 D200's biggest advantage to me IMHO is the metering ability with AI lenses, but then if you don't own old lenses, this is not relevant. 
 Some people like the weather sealing, but I don't shoot in extreme condition, so weather sealing isn't really a big deal for me. 
 The size and feel of D200 in your hand is also a big yes factor for me. But then, my partner prefers D80 since it fits her hand better. So actually camera body is quite individual and depends on your shooting style/purpose.

 But regardless of D200 or D80 (or even other brand within similar calibre), like Stevesurf implied, I think they are really good enough for most use already, don't have to worry so much about "getting outdated in a year or two". 

 I mean, they can take gorgeous pictures, even enlarged, fast enough, smart enough, solid enough, what else do you really need? Maybe more batteries, thats all, hehe... 
 Unless my camera broke early, I'd probably wait for an affordable full frame too if I decided to upgrade in the future, considering I honestly think I don't need any additional features at this stage (want, yes, but maybe not need).

 About lenspen, so the smudge there was because of there was a little bit too much solution? I've been thinking it's because of it's not "wet" enough that's why it didn't clear that well. Perhaps I should try to find a really good grade microfibre cloth to wipe the lenspen residue after cleaning it. We don't have that particular microdear cloth here, and it's a bit too much hassle to have it ship to Australia. 

 To perplex: AI lenses will work fine with d70 and d50, but only in manual mode, so no auto metering available. I personally think it's quite okay, it will force you to learn more accurate exposure and the lens will be much much more solid compared to current generation AF lens. But if you shoot lots of moving objects, you'd better off with AF version I reckon.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, ive been seriously considering getting a DSLR or a simpler POS camera (soley for the reason it can take videos). 

 Now the decision if i go DSLR D40 or a D50. The only thing that is holding me back (considering i dont know too much about photography) is that the D40 cannot take AF lenses correct? whilst the D50 can take both AF and AF-S.
 Would this be a considerate drawback?? I read a comment by someone saying that it would be a shame to regret getting a D40 over a D50 due to the lense options. The 3 vs 5 point focus is also something which i dont understand too well, how much so would this make the D50 a better camera overall?? 

 I am however drawn to the smaller size of the D40, being that i would not be doing anything professional, most of my shots would be a hobby type thing, making it more convenient bringing it around with friends etc etc

 Now i know this is a Nikon thread, but i think it would just be a waste to open a new thread to compare this vs a pos with video capabilities (please dont take this as a brand war, more of a decision i want to make between the styles of cameras). If not i can chuck this post into another thread so it doesnt clog this thread up 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Machi, what do you think mobile phones are for? Mobile phones are for taking videos, not to communicate! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But seriously, if you just want to have a hassle free camera, practical, good for taking friends' pictures, etc, you don't really need a DSLR for that. High end prosumer camera can take beautiful pictures, and you don't have to worry about camera weight, dirty sensor, changing lens, etc... and due to size you'll probably take it out with you more often than a DSLR.

 But if you wanna go DSLR, if you asked me for a really basic setup, I'd probably settle with a D50 body + 50mm 1.8 AF. That should provide enough fun and quality for most occassion.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Duh phones are for taking videos, pay phones are for making calls 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Aii, i think im almost trying to convince myself to get a DSLR. But after taking some photos with my dads slr, they just seem so much more full and interactive than a point and shoot. 

 I geuss if it comes down to it, i'd like to get both with my own money, and most likely the DSLR first, since almost everyone in my family has a point n shoot. 

 Thanks for the feedback mocok, much appreciated. Just to be that extra bit annoying, i get the feeling u dislike the D40, and if so, what makes it so bad  Im moreso looking for the capability issues that make the D40 or a D50 a better option


----------



## dj_mocok

No I don't dislike D40, I just prefer other models (but it's me personally, don't take this as generalisation).

 If you asked me, I'd get D40 over point&shoot based from picture quality alone.

 But yeah, I don't like D40 (did I just say I didn't dislike D40? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) because of these factors:

 1. Too damn small it feels awkward (no problem if you actually like small form factor)

 2. Need AF-S lenses, means you're missing lots of nice AF lenses out there (no problem if you only wanna use the kit lens or you don't mind using AF-S only). Some people think they can "get away" with D40 + some MF oldies, but for MF works, it's better to use either D80 or D200 or D2X cause they got bigger viewfinders.

 3. Not enough hard buttons. I prefer a camera with aperture wheel on the front and shutter speed on the back so I can easily change them. I also prefer easy to access ISO and white balance (don't really need hard buttons for image quality). (but again, no problem if you shoot mainly in P/auto mode, or you don't change aperture that often).

 4. Too damn small

 5. Overly small for a DSLR

 6. Need size enlargement.

 But I reckon one of the BIGGEST, unspoken advantages of DSLR over Point&shoot is... behold... the shutter sound. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Seriously, it gives you a much better feeling when you click it and hear that real shutter sound instead of that wimpy 'click click' of point&shoot (even worse, the artificial shutter sound from P&S speaker).

 Different camera got different shutter sound too. eg. The D200 got a louder, more satisfying shutter sound compared to cheaper sound of D80. But if you don't like louder & more solid sound, I guess the opposite works for you. I reckon you go to nearest shop and double blind test the shutter sound, see which one you prefer.

 And you asked why I like D50? Well, it's bigger. Takes AF lenses. But still no front wheel though. Don't cross D70s just because they are old. teamed with AF lens, D70s is still a joy to use.

 The cheapest Australian camera shop that I've found so far:
D-D-Photographics. 

 Yes, it's a "grey" market item, but at least they take care of you. If it's broken under warranty, sent the camera to them, they will take care of it (they will ship it back to whereever they got it from for you) and you don't have to worry about anything.

 And the guy I talked to there, was much better than the majority of sales assistants I talked to at brick&mortar shops. But they don't have D50 or D70s though, I guess they are getting discontinued already?

This shop here got a D70s, it has great prices too, but a bit more expensive than D-D. But at the moment they have D70s body for AUS$ 935.

 But those 2 shops don't really have display stuffs; since you can pick up the item yourself, basically you only go there once you've made up your mind and ready to buy.

 If you're not so used to Nikon interface yet or own Nikon lens yet, try Canon too, who knows you like it.


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nogrot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I always shoot in RAW, but when I'm taking a shot in incandescent light, I manually set the white balance to Tungsten. Generally, I find it to be decent with reguard to the look of a shot. I can always tweak it later from a WhiBal test shot anyway.

 I don't use UV filters. I've seen threads on fredmiranda where some guy was complaining about his new $1600 70-200VR lens giving awful images. After three pages of tests and comments, somebody asked if he was using any sort of filter on the lens. Took the $20 filter off, and suddenly the lens was perfect. I refuse to pay such large amounts of money for a lens, only to put a $20 piece of glass in front of it. I used to be high-quality filters for all my lenses, but realized life is short and things break, but I'd rather have a better image than whine about cleaning my glass once a month. I do like to use a filter whenever I'm on the beach shooting though, salty wind can get really nasty.

 Your other thread inspired me to break out my own 35mm f/1.4 AIS lens the other night. I threw it on the mount and hopefully will get to use it within the next week or two. I really never gave it much of a chance, but now that I have full metering use with it (yay D2x!) I will give it a shot. I love that it's even closer to the ~50mm FOV too. I looked up my serial number on that webpage and found out that I have the f/16 9-blade version. I also dug up an old e-mail from the ebay auction, and found that I paid $355 for it when I got it. I knew that $460 seemed a little pricey to me...

 Hope your lens gets there safe and soon!_

 

i also try to avoid the nikon indoor wb setting and use tungsten instead. seems to have a more natural look to it. 

 as for adding a uv filter to the end of an expensive lens, i've had some bad experience with that also. during my sister's wedding, i was shooting with a 50mm/f1.4 and while all seemed ok when i previewed it on the LCD, i had horrible glare and some weird reflections when viewed on my computer. it really ruined my shots. after that, i've decided to not use a filter anymore and avoid those problems. lenses are a complicated system of optics and putting another piece of glass in front of that system, that wasn't designed into for that system, probably doesn't help. 

 lenses will last a long time with care. i'd rather have a better picture than to worry about scratching my lens. besides, as long as you have a hood in place, it'll also provide some protection. also, from what i understand camera shops push filters on their customers as they make a good profit margin from the filter.


----------



## perplex

Has anyone ever used the 50mm f1.4 AI? is it just as sharp as the AF version?

 I think I'm about to face a huge struggle considering the D70 will be my first DSLR and to put icing on the cake, I'll only have a manual lens 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .


----------



## nogrot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wouldn't use $20 one either, but the Nikon one is quite good filter I think.
 You paid a very good price for your AIS, but I still think $460 is still a good price, considering the rarity of the lens especially in mint condition. 

 By the way, do you happen to have the link to that comparison (filter/no filter) images? I'm curious to see how much degradation it makes._

 

B&H still sells them imported for the low-low price of $700:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

 I guess I didn't realize how expensive a lens it was. Guess I did get a good deal, my front element doesn't even look like it's ever been breathed on. I love buying stuff BEFORE it's been discontinued... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Unfortunately, FM's search function is completely worthless, and I don't even think their threads manage to stick around after two months, let alone a year. I tried to search but could not come up with the link, sorry. Wish I had saved those files, I could barely believe what I saw.

 A piece of glass is a piece of glass. Nikon's filters are expensive, but as far as I have read, most people seem to feel that B+W's are the best. I used to use Super-HMC1 Hoya filters when I bought--wasted money on--them.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jewman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just wish Nikon would have produced an f90x with built-in exposure bracketing and maybe a built-in flash, but alas, they've stopped producing film SLR's altogether._

 

Actually, they still manufacture 2 film bodies: the completely astounding F6, and the cheap beginner-body FM10. They discontinued all of their other film models, as well as the majority of their older prime lenses. *sigh*


----------



## nogrot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_lenses will last a long time with care. i'd rather have a better picture than to worry about scratching my lens. besides, as long as you have a hood in place, it'll also provide some protection. also, from what i understand camera shops push filters on their customers as they make a good profit margin from the filter._

 

Reminds me of how the "salespeople" at Best Buy tell me everytime I buy a DVD Player that I'll "need to buy better cables, the ones that come with it are garbage!" Monster Cables is such an awful company, the markup has to be completely insane.

 An HDMI cable IS worth it though.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've been thinking it's because of it's not "wet" enough that's why it didn't clear that well._

 

That could be as well. Adorama has tons of the MicroDear, which is also widely available in Japan. I can send one to you as well.

 I do not recommend the use of any solutions, since you never know what they are doing to your lens's coating.

 Here's the lens cleaning method I've used for 30 years:
 1) First clean the outer face of the filter
 2) blow the excess dust off using a Dust Off
 2) breathe on the filter
 3) quickly and gently wipe in a circular motion with microfiber cloth #1
 4) remove filter
 5) clean the inside face of the filter
 6) blow the excess dust off using a Dust Off
 7) breathe on the filter
 8) quickly and gently wipe in a circular motion with microfiber cloth #2
 9) clean the lens
 10) blow the excess dust off using a Dust Off
 11) breathe on the lens
 12) quickly and gently wipe in a circular motion (light arc strokes) with microfiber cloth #2
 13) clean the inside of the lens cap with microfiber cloth #3
 14) clean the camera body with microfiber cloth #3


----------



## stevesurf

[size=xx-small] Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I accidently ordered a 50mm AI instead of AF. Has anyone used the AI on D50/D70 manual focus? Maybe I can return it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ._

 

Nope, it won't meter; see below and get the AI-P pancake lens!
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Has anyone ever used the 50mm f1.4 AI? is it just as sharp as the AF version?_

 

I have owned it over 20 years ago with a F3HP; it was extremely sharp.
 [/size]

 There seem to be some confusion about older lens compatibility on newer DSLRs. In general, any lens with a CPU will meter on the Nikon DSLRs D50, D70, D80, D100. AF, D, AI-P, DX all have CPUs will meter:





 The D200, D2h, D2x add spot and center weighted metering, as well as the ability to enter lens info for EXIF data for non-CPU lenses.

 Also, Here is the DSLR Summary Chart. Good luck and keep buying those CPU lenses!


----------



## Mrvile

Let's see...I'm really stretching for nice things to say about Nikon here... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 just kidding.

 Although I'm a Canon shooter, Nikon offers a lot of things I wish Canon had. First, Nikon's flash systems are light years ahead of Canon's (no pun), and the Nikon wireless macro twinflash thing is a macro shooter's dream! Also, Nikon offers the 105mm macro with VR - something us macro shooters have been wishing for for the longest time. Finally, Nikon's budget cams always have much better build than Canon's...anyone who has ever side-by-sided a D70 and a Rebel XT know what I'm talking about.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Let's see...I'm really stretching for nice things to say about Nikon here... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 just kidding.

 Although I'm a Canon shooter, Nikon offers a lot of things I wish Canon had. First, Nikon's flash systems are light years ahead of Canon's (no pun), and the Nikon wireless macro twinflash thing is a macro shooter's dream! Also, Nikon offers the 105mm macro with VR - something us macro shooters have been wishing for for the longest time. Finally, Nikon's budget cams always have much better build than Canon's...anyone who has ever side-by-sided a D70 and a Rebel XT know what I'm talking about._

 

This is actually one of very few times I've seen a Canon shooter complement the Nikon line - all good points. In return, I do need to point out that Canon actually has a very capable technology with IS (image stabilized) lenses when compared with Nikon's Vibration Reduction. Canon has also been doing a very good job on the some of their DSLRsof removing noise from their CMOS sensors.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevesurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is actually one of very few times I've seen a Canon shooter complement the Nikon line - all good points. In return, I do need to point out that Canon actually has a very capable technology with IS (image stabilized) lenses when compared with Nikon's Vibration Reduction. Canon has also been doing a very good job on the some of their DSLRsof removing noise from their CMOS sensors._

 

Whew, now that wasn't so hard was it. Let's be friends


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


 breathe on the lens 
 

Is it really safe to do this? Do you think the fog created from our breath might introduce oil or something? 
 I never dared to breath onto the lens for that reason.

  Quote:


 Has anyone ever used the 50mm f1.4 AI? is it just as sharp as the AF version? 
 

I have the AI-S version. But in general (unless you get a dud copy, but as far as I remember, I never heard anyone got a dud copy of 50mm 1.4 before), 50mm 1.4 is a sharper lens compared to 50mm 1.8 

 From my own experience, the 1.4 within the range of f/1.4 to at least f/5.6 is sharper compared to 50mm 1.8 (and maybe a bit more contrast)
 Some people said that from half the aperture onwards until it's fully stopped down, the 1.8 is sharper, but I very rarely shoot large apertures.

 But whatever version is, if you don't mind spending a bit more, 1.4 is worth it.

 Okay, since I'm not at work today and got nothing to do, I did a quick sample test for you. I'm not really a brick or chart shooter, and don't really like to do sample tests, but here goes: (I know the result will be more accurate if I shoot text or chart, but I prefer apples 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )

 All shots done with tripod (duh!), focusing was on the little red apple picture on the sticker. No apples were harmed during the shot (well at least not yet).
 I didn't touch anything but had to resize them and did "save for web" so they won't take so much space.

































 And this is the 100% crop of the focus area. Again, might not be as obvious as charts, but apples are good for you. (probably the difference is a bit more obvious if I didn't compress the file)














 You can see from the picture, even at 1.4, it still gives you enough sharpness. What I notice more if you increase the aperture a notch (F/2), the contrast increases quite a lot. 

 But if you really wanna "bring up" what 1.4 can do, you won't worry so much about extra sharpness or additional contrast. 
 I personally think the key potential of 1.4 is the ability to create a "dreamy" feeling in a picture, not to shoot charts or apples. 
 Well, I can actually make dreamy apple shots but I'm too lazy at the moment.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is it really safe to do this? Do you think the fog created from our breath might introduce oil or something? 
 I never dared to breath onto the lens for that reason._

 

Not to worry, unless of course you've still got some remnants of Colavita Extra Virgin Olive Oil around! No, seriously, from, Ken Rockwell:
  Quote:


 [size=xx-small]The best way to clean a lens is not to get it dirty. I use a prophylactic filter on my lenses all the time, usually an 81A warming or UV. I clean the filters and rarely need to clean the lenses.

 Avoid cleaning lenses. You can wear off the coatings and scratch the glass. Be gentle and clean as infrequently as you can. This isn't lunch, which should be done early and often. Cleaning lenses is like doing chores or working towards professional advancement: don't do today what you can put off until tomorrow!

 To clean a lens or filter I prefer to breathe on it to coat the lens with a thin fog of pure distilled water. I then wipe it gently with a clean dry soft cotton T-shirt. If I'm out in the field I use a part of my shirt I think is clean, but only if I have a really dirty lens. This cleans off most things that fall on my lenses. I find T-shirts are softer, more absorbent and leave less lint than the special lens paper I used to buy. I'm serious: I photograph outdoors, not in a lab.[/size] 
 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I personally think the key potential of 1.4 is the ability to create a "dreamy" feeling in a picture, not to shoot charts or apples. 
 Well, I can actually make dreamy apple shots but I'm too lazy at the moment. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Nice comparisons; these need to go into the lens test glossary at Nikonians!

 BTW, as a follow up on the Lens Compatibility for D200 users, here is a section taken from a highly recommended Thom Hogan "Complete Guide to the D200," a must have!


----------



## electrathecat

If possible, I highly recommend a dSLR AND a Point and Shoot for virtually everybody -- they're different tools appropriate for different contexts. That being said, I'd shoot with a dSLR whenever possible, and certainly for treasured moments. The picture quality is just so much higher, and it doesn't have to cost an arm and leg to obtain it. Just get a D40 or a D80 and shoot away!


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *electrathecat* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just get a D40 or a D80 and shoot away!_

 

Well said. A little piece of trivia...

 Did you know that slides may be scanned and produce 5782 x 3762 pixels @ 16 bit color? Compare that with the amazing images many of us get with the 10MP sensor having 3872 x 2592 @ 12 bit color. Now, of course, we are not considering film's grain, which detracts from its ability to resolve. Technically, film wins; the visual reality is that D200 or D80 sensor can resolve images equally as well as film, with the possible exception of Kodachrome 25, which is now discontinued. It will be interesting to see if the rebirth of RVP (Velvia) matches K25.


----------



## dj_mocok

Might as well do it since I got my tripod setup and all that. I've been curious about it, guess it's better to see it for myself. Well, the short answer is, yes. It does make a difference. 
 I don't really see difference in sharpness like I've read somewhere, but more contrast can give this perception of more sharpness, so maybe that's why they said it decreases sharpness.

 I did several tests with different conditions, and the results were consistent, when the filter removed, the image showed a slight contrast increase. 

 This first set is wide open indoor ISO 800






 And this is when the filter is removed:









 Second set, same ISO (different aperture):







 Without filter:








 Last one, this is from the back of my apartment, the main brick unit is, dunno, maybe 80m away? Set at f/5.6 focus to infinity, ISO 100.






 Without filter:








 I tried to look at the off centre, distant image, and it still shows difference in contrast. This is the crop:







 But then, all this difference can only be noticeable if you really look hard. So now I think I'm back to square one again, whether to remove the filter or not, lol. 

 Damn... enough pixel peeping today for me (or maybe forever). This is boring, lol. Time to shoot real pictures! (but the question is, filter or no filter? lol) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 [size=xx-small]
 disclaimer: I do not support the practice of shooting brick walls or charts. But I do support portraits with nice bokeh.[/size]


----------



## fureshi

this is camera related but not necessarily nikon related so i hope you guys don't mind. maybe the fact that i love my d50 makes up for it? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i've finally decided that i need a tripod. can anyone suggest one that isn't overly expensive but is light and sturdy so that it can be brought along for long hikes and won't be blown over by the wind?


----------



## dj_mocok

I don't have much experience with tripods, but the information you need to provide in general are such as: budget, weight preference, height preference, your lenses (eg. do you have very long, heavy lens), type of shooting (macro, or panoramic, or portrait, etc), do you need a removable plates, etc.

 I got one of those Manfrottos 728B but now I feel like I wish I put more money and get a better one. It works and support my camera, lightweight yet sturdy, but it's not as good as the pro series, but they cost a fortune.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i've finally decided that i need a tripod. 
 isn't overly expensive 
 light and sturdy
 brought along for long hikes_

 

Check out these threads...
1
2


----------



## jmmtn4aj

dj_mocok

 What font is that on the pictures?


----------



## jumpinjohn1234

question, I'm on a strict budget and I have now a choice between the nikon d40 kits lens and the nikon d70s with the 18-70. I dont care right nowa bout the lens limit on the d40. So in terms of better overall image quality which one would eb a better choice and is the d70s worth the extra 250 over the d40?. budget is 800.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jumpinjohn1234* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_question, I'm on a strict budget and I have now a choice between the nikon d40 kits lens and the nikon d70s with the 18-70. I dont care right nowa bout the lens limit on the d40. So in terms of better overall image quality which one would eb a better choice and is the d70s worth the extra 250 over the d40?. budget is 800._

 

There really isn't that much of a difference between the 18-55 kit and the cheapo 18-70 lens, so it's really between the bodies. I personally find the D40 a bit too limiting, so I'd go with the D70s.


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevesurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Check out these threads...
1
2
_

 

thanks steve!

 funny, i've heard bad thing about nikonians so i've avoided it thus far.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_thanks steve!

 funny, i've heard bad thing about nikonians so i've avoided it thus far._

 

Really? Well, I know sometimes the discussions border on hypercritical at times, but it's still the best Nikon knowledgebase. Is that what you heard, or was it another issue?


----------



## mbriant

*Re: I Did the filter/no filter test *

 dj_mocok: 

 Thanks for doing that. It would be interesting to do a couple sets of filter on/off shots, post them without identifying which is which, and see how many of us can distinguish between them in a poll. It would also be interesting to introduce two levels of filter quality into the mix.

 If you ever get unlazy again ...... Or if I ever get unlazy, period. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I think the main danger of leaving a UV filter on is in a high glare situation ... especially when a lens hood is absolutely necessary to shield the lens. The filter effectively lengthens the lens by 3/16" or so, which can push the glass out beyond the hood's shaded area making the lens hood un-effective.


----------



## dj_mocok

mbriant: 
 Now it's your time to do the filter shots, I'm back to lazy mode already, lol. 
 Anyway, I'm at work now, so unfortunately I can't do any tests at the moment.
 I think the difference is quite obvious if you really look for it and don't have a messed up monitor.

 Jmm:
 About the font, I can't remember the name at the moment (rabiola or something like that), I downloaded it from the free font download site. Just google it, you'll get lots of nice fonts.

 Forum wise, I feel that Nikonians is alright, there are some very consistent and helpful posters there. 
 Don't really like dpreview, too many know-it-all people. I like photo.net forum too.


----------



## Dimitris

To be honest I dont see major differences between the photos. I think you should keep it on.


----------



## dj_mocok

No the difference is not major (L37c is a decent filter anyway), but it's there if you look for it.

 I know if I just look at the picture casually I won't notice the difference. But even so, the difference can be easily "fixed" with a little contrast increase using photoshop.

 I'd probably keep the filter on until I can find a good screw-in rubber lens hood and a nice lens hood.


----------



## nsjong

Hey, I was wondering which to buy:
 18 - 55mm or 18 - 70mm?
 The review at http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.html tells me that the 18-55mm is a better deal but having heard so many great things about the 18-70mm, I was wondering which is better.

 I heard the 18-55mm is a better buy for the price? Is this true?
 It will be paired up with a D80 soon....


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nsjong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey, I was wondering which to buy:
 18 - 55mm or 18 - 70mm?
 The review at http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.html tells me that the 18-55mm is a better deal but having heard so many great things about the 18-70mm, I was wondering which is better.

 I heard the 18-55mm is a better buy for the price? Is this true?
 It will be paired up with a D80 soon...._

 

I think the best deal is still whatever Nikon's version of the 50/1.8 is...


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nsjong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I heard the 18-55mm is a better buy for the price? Is this true?
 It will be paired up with a D80 soon...._

 

Yes, I was surprised; I recommended the D80 to a friend, and he decided to add the kit lens. Get the 18 ~ 55 and save you money for a Sigma 10 ~ 20 lens now to extend the range or a 17~35 replacement later. Try to minimize your purchases of DX or similar lenses. Good luck!


----------



## dj_mocok

Better still, just get the serious one straight away! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But really, good lenses retain their re-sell value very well. So after using it for awhile and you prefer something different, just re-sell it again on eBay. Consider the price difference is the price for "renting" the lens.

 But if photography isn't a big hobby of yours and just wanna take some nicer pictures than P&S, then I think the kit lens is enough.
 But still I would rather have 18-70mm kit lens than 18-55mm kit lens. The quality is different, both build and image quality.
 I haven't got the lens anymore, but as far as I remember, the difference in build are : 18-55mm is full plastic even the mount is plastic, the MF focusing ring is that tiny little ring right in front of the lens (once you've touched it, you'd switch to AF straight away I guarantee), there is no distance number on the body unlike 18-70mm (although I don't really utilise it much but it's cool to have numbers. you can't have enough numbers 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ), and I think it's lighter than 18-70mm. Anyway, when you hold both you will notice. But they both still feel crappy compared to old metal AI lenses. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But to be honest, the 18-55mm can take pretty good pictures, I just can't stand the build. 

 Have you read some reviews of the lens? Try Thom Hogan's reviews here:

18-70mm

18-55mm

 Might help you decide.

 PS: Sometime Ken Rockwell might sound a bit over enthusiastic, so make sure you read several independent reviews.


----------



## kin0kin

18-70mm is my main lens until I could afford the 18-200mm vr. 

 This hobby is the biggest $$ sucker EVER....just added a Tamron 17-50mm to my inventory...I hope the lens can be stacked with the 50mm to fit in the slingshot 100.


----------



## dj_mocok

Interesting combo. So which one do you use more often? The VR or the Tamron?


----------



## kin0kin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interesting combo. So which one do you use more often? The VR or the Tamron?_

 

I don't own the 18-200mm vr just yet. But for now, the 17-80mm is my primary all around lens. I'd dump the 18-70mm once I got the 18-200mm later this year (likely end of the year). I just pulled the trigger on the 17-50mm, and it was a hard one since the SP90 is also another lens in my "must buy" list...and Tamron USA is giving a 90 bucks rebate now for the SP90, knocking the price down to around 359USD shipped. I'll see myself having a collection of:

 -50mm 1.8 (acquired)
 -Tamron 90mm SP
 -Tamron 17-50mm (acquired)
 -18-200mm VR

 For year 2007


----------



## skyline889

What do you guys think of the Nikkor 55-200? I know build quality isn't the greatest but in terms of overall image quality, how well does it perform? I've been trying to get out of photo to free up some funds for a new amp, but the more I read this thread, the more I get drawn back. I'm now reconsidering the 18-200vr and regret selling my D70 for my D50, this really is worse than audio!


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


 I don't own the 18-200mm vr just yet. But for now, the 17-80mm is my primary all around lens. I'd dump the 18-70mm once I got the 18-200mm later this year (likely end of the year). I just pulled the trigger on the 17-50mm, and it was a hard one since the SP90 is also another lens in my "must buy" list...and Tamron USA is giving a 90 bucks rebate now for the SP90, knocking the price down to around 359USD shipped. I'll see myself having a collection of:

 -50mm 1.8 (acquired)
 -Tamron 90mm SP
 -Tamron 17-50mm (acquired)
 -18-200mm VR

 For year 2007 
 

You can try selling your 18-70mm to nsjong head-fi price (refer to post above 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )
 Your Tamron 17-50mm, you can sell it to me once you've got your VR. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (don't think you'll sell it anyway, plus I can't buy any lenses anymore at the moment)

 I personally dont' need 18-200mm. Never used long zoom, and don't really plan to (pretty ironic coming from someone who used to own Panasonic 12X optical).

 The Tamron 90mm, that is one great lens. I used to plan to shoot portrait with it (and macro works of course), but since I got a portrait lens, now I think it won't be used anymore until I got some macro thing to do. I don't know maybe I will if I'm too lazy to do manual stuff. It takes superb portrait too by the way.

 Just wondering, any reason why you overlap the focal length? Why not go for 70-200mm if you need the 200 reach? I know deep inside that's what you want. (but gotta reach even deeper into your pocket)


----------



## kin0kin

Long lens with no VR....likely to get stuck at <100mm without a tripod, or missing alot of shots. I'd probably rather get the 18-55mm instead


----------



## dj_mocok

Which long lens you're talking about? If you're talking about 70-200mm, oh yes, it got VR alright. But if I bought that I'd probably need a body VR from wasting that kind of money.


----------



## kin0kin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just wondering, any reason why you overlap the focal length? Why not go for 70-200mm if you need the 200 reach? *I know deep inside that's what you want*. (but gotta reach even deeper into your pocket) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 






 (they are awesome...buy them all!)
 I bought the 17-80mm coz I didn't think I'd be able to afford the 18-200mm vr soon...the 17-80mm is a good alternative for the mean time. 

 Why not the 70-200mm VR? That's an easy question:
 1 X 70-200mm = 2 X 18-200mm = 4-5 X 18-70mm 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'd actually thought of the 80-200m before coz the bokeh is a serious killer for me! but these long focal length telephoto lens is not quite practical for daily use imho. So yeah, the 18-200mm vr is a good compromise. 

 I need the 17-50mm mainly for indoor shots (besides, it's a good lens to keep), I'd have just used the 50mm 1.8 but I wanted a little more flexibilty. The 50mm 1.8 is a no brainer..everybody should get one whether you use it or not 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Which long lens you're talking about? If you're talking about 70-200mm, oh yes, it got VR alright. But if I bought that I'd probably need a body VR from wasting that kind of money. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

was referring to skyline's 55-200mm non-vr 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ps: you're not the only one not using the sp90 much....I've read alot about ppl neglecting the 90mm for various reasons....the 90mm just gets neglected all the time regardless....ought to donate it to people who need it


----------



## dj_mocok

Yeah, with that price you can get a few great lenses, but then it's a very special one. I'm so glad I don't have interest in zoom range, because zoom = $$$.

 Hey, after using both Nikon 18-70mm and Tamron 17-50mm, which one do you think is a better performer? Not speed, but sharpness and colour in general? Got some sample pictures?

 PS: If you want a cheap long(ish) range with good bokeh, try to get Nikon 105mm 2.5 Ai (or Ai-s).
 I really wanna get that one but I know if I get it, that's more of a lens lust than a need for lens.

 Edit: The reason why my Tamron is sitting is because I haven't got the time to do my still life macro. A bit lazy at the moment since still life needs a bit of time and preparation. But it will be used, don't worry. It's too good lens to be neglected.


----------



## kin0kin

I havent received the 17-50mm 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 in fact, I'm placing order tomorrow, but if nsjong take my 18-70mm, I might just jump to 18-200mm VR! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well it's winter now, nothing much that I could take...but I took 2 quick shots from my window a few days ago with my 18-70mm:









  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The reason why my Tamron is sitting is because I haven't got the time to do my still life macro. A bit lazy at the moment since still life needs a bit of time and preparation. But it will be used, don't worry. It's too good lens to be neglected._

 

and of course the 85mm has taken over for portrait. I must say that the 17-80mm actually has very nice and smooth bokeh as well.


----------



## dj_mocok

That's a nice view you got up there. My apartment is on 2nd floor. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (I think one of the biggest advantage of apartment is the view compared to houses).

 Anyway, make sure that you do some comparison shot at various objects once you received it


----------



## MorpheusZero

I don't need no stinkin' SLR... FZ30 FTW!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Yeah, that doesn't mean I don't want one.... sick of this noise, but 8 usable megapixels and a decent 35-420mm equivalent lens for $500 is hard to beat.

 Later on down the road I'm definitely getting something with more megascreens and bigger resolutions though.


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* 
_I think the difference is quite obvious if you really look for it and don't have a messed up monitor._

 

 You'd mentioned earlier that your lens filter had scratches on it. That would also contribute to a difference in contrast. Not really a fair comparison unless your oriiginal question was whether or not to use THAT particular filter, which IIRC it might have been. Comparing a scratched filter to no filter isn't exactly apples to apples.


----------



## dj_mocok

Yeah that may be true too.

 But as far as I know it takes a serious scratching for lens to be able to have difference in quality. The scratches on the filter are not deep ones, but more like tiny hair lines (not as thick as hair) due to (obviously) wiping the filter when there's some dust/particle on the surface. I don't know how many lines, but roughly maybe 7-8 tiny scratches?

 It's not major but it's there. But who knows it's the reason. But if that's really the reason, then the affect of these tiny scuffs are really major.

 I should post you the close up of the filter, but again, I'm too lazy now, hehe.. 





 By the way, you probably heard this before, that "modern" lenses actually don't benefit from UV filter because the coating on the lens is already acting as UV filtering. But when they are talking about "modern", what is modern here? Since AI ? or AF or something? I'm curious to know which lenses are considered modern here. Do you happen to know?


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you guys think of the Nikkor 55-200?_

 

Well, like the 18-55, it has a plastic lens mount and really is produced as an "introductory" lens. That said, I like the 18-55 better than this lens. Slower focus at the long end, combined with the lens having to be wide open most of the time (maximum aperture) create some inconsistent focusing and lower performance. I definitely has its place, though, and performs pretty well stopped down.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_this really is worse than audio! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You have recognized NAS and it is clawing at your door, begging to come in.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kin0kin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why not the 70-200mm VR? That's an easy question:
 1 X 70-200mm = 2 X 18-200mm = 4-5 X 18-70mm 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'd actually thought of the 80-200m before coz the bokeh is a serious killer for me! but these long focal length telephoto lens is not quite practical for daily use imho. So yeah, the 18-200mm vr is a good compromise._

 

You can do the pricing math all day long, and it will drive you bonkers, since companies like Nikon and Canon are masterful at creating price levels where it is almost better to "step up" to another model, while (sometimes) paying too much for a base model. The only exceptions seem to be the kit lenses, since they want you to get the more expensive body.

 Anyway, for a D50/D70/D80 etc user, there seem to be three Nikkor lenses for that mid/long telephoto range and in the low to mid price range for quality telephotos (I'm ignoring the $1000+ category)

AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED 55-200mm f/4-5.6G DX $250 street
AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor ED 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF $500 street
AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED $850 street

 I feel that the 70-300 offers the best compromise for quality and an affordable lens in that range. Plus, you get VR and AF-S. That said, keep in mind that constant aperture zooms are really worth the money if you are planning on keeping the lens for life. Constant aperture means the lens does not have to be wide open for an average light condition, improving the image quality.

 Good luck with your choices!


----------



## gordolindsay

Hey guys, a little late to the game here but better late than never I suppose.

 My wife and I got the D50 with 28-80 and 70-300 lenses for Christmas. We are definately noobs when it comes to photography but my wife wants to get into a little deeper.

 She was wanting to take a picture of something way up close this weekend but couldn't quite get the pic she wanted with the 28-80 lens. So I guess what I'm looking for is a lens that will do macro(?) shots. 

 We also have a gift card to Ritz Camera for $250 or so to put into it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Oh yeah, sorry to kind of jump in the middle of the conversation


----------



## kin0kin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gordolindsay* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys, a little late to the game here but better late than never I suppose.

 My wife and I got the D50 with 28-80 and 70-300 lenses for Christmas. We are definately noobs when it comes to photography but my wife wants to get into a little deeper.

 She was wanting to take a picture of something way up close this weekend but couldn't quite get the pic she wanted with the 28-80 lens. So I guess what I'm looking for is a lens that will do macro(?) shots. 

 We also have a gift card to Ritz Camera for $250 or so to put into it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Oh yeah, sorry to kind of jump in the middle of the conversation 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

This,
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/351/cat/12

 this,
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/221/cat/30

 or this
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...duct/51/cat/22

 is what you need


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* 
_But as far as I know it takes a serious scratching for lens to be able to have difference in quality. The scratches on the filter are not deep ones, but more like tiny hair lines (not as thick as hair) due to (obviously) wiping the filter when there's some dust/particle on the surface. I don't know how many lines, but roughly maybe 7-8 tiny scrat_

 

 Yes, I've seen plenty of used lens ads that say "small scratch or some dust particles ...won't affect quality" and they're probably right. But IMO, a few scratches on a filter or the lens' front element would do much more to diffuse light/reduce contrast, than a clean piece of coated optical glass (filter) over the lens. Each lens usually has 7, 8, 9, or 10 elements (pieces of glass) in them already, so how much can one more hurt? I read one article where someone said "it's like shooting through a window" ... it's not a window, it's a thin piece of precision, coated, optical glass made to be shot through. To be honest, I'm not seeing much of a difference at all between the test shots you did ... and that was with a scratched filter.

 And yes I've heard that modern lenses don't need UV filtration, and that's probably true. As far as what would be considered "modern" ... your guess is as good as mine. I"ve also heard that modern lenses (and filters) are made with harder glass and some with scratch-resistant coatings, which is also probably true ... but coatings do wear off eventually ... a little bit every time you clean them. I always buy scratch-resistant coating for my eyeglasses and clean them carefully, but eventually noticeable swirls and scratches do appear. Again, that's why I'd rather be cleaning a filter all the time than the lens itself. My reason for using filters is not for UV protection, it's for damage protection. Every time I clean a filter instead of my front lens element makes me feel I've kept that lens pristine that much longer. When I'm in a wet, foggy, or sandy environment, I like the idea of the filter taking the hit, not my lens. And if and when that accidental bump happens, I feel better having that extra protection. And like I've said, the filter can be removed while shooting if you're truly concerned about a loss of quality .... but those test shots you did, with a scratched filter, convince me that any difference is minuscule. I took some shots of a friend's kittens last weekend, (see below)all with B+W filters left on to protect against nose prints, and I'm more than satisfied with the contrast. In fact, today's lenses are too sharp for most portraiture, so for portraits at least, some dust, a few scratches, or another piece of glass in front of the lens is actually preferable. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 IMO, it really boils down to personal priorities and preferences. I'll stop beating this dead horse now.


----------



## perplex

Who has experience with 50mm primes? I've ordered a 50mm f1.4 AF.


----------



## dj_mocok

mbriant: Yeah, I agree, (I actually mentioned it before) the difference in contrast is very little but it's there. You won't be able to tell unless you really look for it. But take my comparison results as for my filter in particular only, not L37c in general.

 Hey, I just remember I got this Marumi skylight filter that came with my 50mm 1.4. This is supposed to be the el cheapo one right? I might just make a comparison test again today using this 50mm 1.4 and see if there's any difference or not. This one is still very clean. If I can't find the difference, this filter will be attached permanently on my 50mm, cause it has a useful built-in lens hood too.

 Do you think testing filter indoor (room lighting) is better than outdoor (sunlight)? I'm not really sure if it's same or not. eg. if the lens' coating don't filter UV, so difference from outdoor test will be more evident, but then (stupid question), is there an ultraviolet ray in room lighting?

 perplex: didn't some of the users (including me) already mentioned about the 50mm a few posts earlier?


----------



## mbriant

It'a my understanding that UV is/was a problem in sunlight, so I imagine outside would be the best place to test. But like you, I've heard that UV isn't really a factor these days, especially with digital cameras, so I wouldn't worry about it. Here's a private epinions review on your filter. Of course you have to take it with a grain of salt, since this guy obviously isn't an optics professional. He comes up with a <5% loss of resolution, which is a subjective opinion and simply his way of trying to explain the difference he claims to see. I very much doubt it's an accurate number.

 Like with subjective listening tests in audio, I really wonder how much knowing in advance which shot is which might create a pre-conception and therefore influence an opinion. If you ever do more tests, post the pics without identifying which is which and let's see how well head-fi's photographers can tell the difference. It would be interesting. It does seem to me however that a photographic print would be a better way to judge than a screen print or a magazine reproduction since the latter two don't offer the same resolution and detail as a photographic print can.

http://www99.epinions.com/content_144538898052


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kin0kin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I havent received the 17-50mm 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 in fact, I'm placing order tomorrow, but if nsjong take my 18-70mm, I might just jump to 18-200mm VR! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well it's winter now, nothing much that I could take...but I took 2 quick shots from my window a few days ago with my 18-70mm:










 and of course the 85mm has taken over for portrait. I must say that the 17-80mm actually has very nice and smooth bokeh as well._

 

was the lens on full wide on the second picture? the barrel distortion seems to be worse on it compared to the first picture even though they seem to be taking the same shot. 

 i find the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 really interesting as it's only about 1/3 the cost of the nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. does anyone here have experience with both? i was saving up for the nikon but if the tamron is almost as good, it's another $800 that i could spend elsewhere.


----------



## dj_mocok

Hey, I found this comparison test using L37c which I belive didn't have scratch on it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm not at my home's PC now, so I can't really tell properly if there's colour/contrast difference or not.

 Link.

 Did you find any difference?


----------



## kin0kin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_was the lens on full wide on the second picture? the barrel distortion seems to be worse on it compared to the first picture even though they seem to be taking the same shot. 

 i find the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 really interesting as it's only about 1/3 the cost of the nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. does anyone here have experience with both? i was saving up for the nikon but if the tamron is almost as good, it's another $800 that i could spend elsewhere._

 

the first picture is at 29mm, and the second is at 24mm. So yeah, the second picture would have a little more distortion but it is imho acceptable.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kin0kin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the first picture is at 29mm, and the second is at 24mm. So yeah, the second picture would have a little more distortion but it is imho acceptable._

 

Look at the difference. Good reason to pick a 24-70 over a 28-75.


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* 
_Did you find any difference?_

 

I took a look and I don't notice a difference. Perhaps I'm simply not as fussy as some or perhaps that size of photo reproduced on a computer screen doesn't have the ability to show the entire story. But since the guy's saying essentially everything I've been saying, I think he's a rational, logical, intelligent person, and agree with him completely.


----------



## dj_mocok

You forgot good looking.


----------



## mbriant

That goes without saying.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Who has experience with 50mm primes? I've ordered a 50mm f1.4 AF._

 

I've owned a couple; one AIS and one AF version. Both were excellent, although I learned to shoot wide open only when I had to. The 50 f/1.4 has become a real quality cornerstone to the Nikon line, even with amateurs getting slow zooms over higher quality primes. You'll get very low distortion, excellent color and resolution.


----------



## nsjong

Alrighty, I'll stick with the 18-55mm. Thanks for the adivce, you camera-freaks!


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nsjong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Alrighty, I'll stick with the 18-55mm. Thanks for the adivce, you camera-freaks! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

doesn't your d80 come with the 18-135mm lens? it's supposed to be much better than the 18-55mm and a more usable focal length.


----------



## dj_mocok

I'm home now, just checked the website, and I couldn't see any difference at all either.
 Can't really conclude anything yet; maybe it doesn't show up at much at higher aperture, or maybe won't show that much when shooting directly into light, or maybe the scratches on my filter, etc...

 But I'm too tired to do any tests now, but the next time I'm doing it, I won't label them and see if the difference is noticeable or not. 

 But I'm not gonna fuss over this too much now; filter or no filter, it's only minute difference.


----------



## kin0kin

look what my dog did to my mem card:





 Culprit:





 I'm gonna neuter him.


----------



## dj_mocok

Damn... aren't you glad you didn't spend a fortune on Sandisk Extreme III?

 I hope the SD didn't have any unsaved images in it.

 But looks like the dog got it rough. Chewing SD card = desexed. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 The next time he chews another one, what you gonna do with him? cut if off ?


----------



## kin0kin

yes, literally cut it off. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 You know what sux...I had my kingston 2 gb ($25) beside it...but he decided that the 50 bucks transcend taste better and took that instead. IIRC the sandisk is fastest, but practically, the transcend is not alot slower.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Ouch, yeah i hope there wansnt any unsaved photos on it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Just found out my friends girlfriend got a D80 just recently  She was meant to get a D40/50 and her dad decided to upgrade her hahaha


----------



## jumpinjohn1234

any thoughts if nikon is going to relase an inbetween d40 and d80? like a d60? 

 I'm going to buy a dslr, but can possibly wait till march 8th for the pma
 Ahy speculation on if nikon will relsease somehting?


----------



## WhatMACHI

Why not a D50? From what i understand it in a sense is inbetween the D40 and D80. (just going from what ive read, and what has been commented on the cameras).


----------



## dj_mocok

Guys, anyone of you wanna buy Nikon F3?

 There's one on eBay for AUS$199. I'm not sure how much is street price, but that sounds cheap to me.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Guys, anyone of you wanna buy Nikon F3?_

 

DJ - you are the king of all great eBay deals...you do have to be very careful with F3s and make sure they have been refurbished or are like new. You'll typically have to put in $200 into a used non-refurb one. However, you are on the right track - this is the "last of the best" rugged type F Cameras, especially the F3/T. I am "jonesing" for the F3/T champagne edition like this one, but just ridiculously expensive, so if you can help me like you did with the 35 f/1.4, I will repay you with some special download or something 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 FYI, the 35's on its way; I am keeping my fingers crossed!

 Date Time Location Service Area Check Point Details 
 Feb 16, 2007 18:5450 AUSTRALIA - PERTH Processed for despatch. 
 Feb 16, 2007 18:5135 AUSTRALIA - PERTH Received and ready for processing.


----------



## dj_mocok

Don't worry, if there's a nice deal I'll let you informed.

 So the lens is on its way huh? That's great. It should be there sometime next week I reckon. Don't forget lots of pictures! (both lens and sample pictures)


----------



## WhatMACHI

Ok just as always with something im too uncertain on, im unable to make a decision even with the great advice given to me. Its seriously as though im TRYING to convince myself something is worth getting or NOT worth getting. D40 vs D50.

 Basically my only real issue whether to get the D40 vs D50 is the long term costs of lenses if i decide to take my photography further. Im guessing since i plan not to take photography to the level where i have a full set of lenses, but rather just the basic stuff that will cover most types of shots.

 I read somewhere that to get a D40, and get set up with lenses that would cover most of your shots would be rather expensive, as opposed to getting a D50 with lenses that cover most shots. And even comparable to a D80 with lenses... (i cant remember what site i read this, but they were listing lenses which didnt mean much to me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)

 DAMIT WHY DIDNT THE D40 GET THE AF MOTORRRRRR T_T

 Mocok, mind if i get ur msn? I wouldnt mind having a chat bout this lol ill pm my msn over if u like


----------



## stevesurf




----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kin0kin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Long lens with no VR....likely to get stuck at <100mm without a tripod, or missing alot of shots. I'd probably rather get the 18-55mm instead 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I've been using a 210mm telephoto (~315mm digital equivalent) for long shots and even at f/3.5, I can only shoot in full sunlight. Thanks for the tip!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevesurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, like the 18-55, it has a plastic lens mount and really is produced as an "introductory" lens. That said, I like the 18-55 better than this lens. Slower focus at the long end, combined with the lens having to be wide open most of the time (maximum aperture) create some inconsistent focusing and lower performance. I definitely has its place, though, and performs pretty well stopped down._

 

Thanks for the info, sounds like I might want to purchase something else. Any suggestions for something comparable that's reasonably priced?


----------



## WhatMACHI

Ok, i went into a few stores today, and spoke with some of the guys there. And ive deceded to stay away from the D40. So thats one thing off my mind 

 D50 it'll be  Now since im getting my camera overseas, so its a bit cheaper, are there any lenses that you guys recommend to start a basic setup? I suppose if my gf is gona buy in HK i may as well get the cheaper lenses while i can.

 So far i would suppose:
 D50 Body
 50mm 1.8 AF


----------



## av98m2

Get the 18-55 or 18-70 kit lens as well

 The 50mm f1.8 is a fine lens but you'd find yourself wishing you had something wider a lot of the time. (moving backwards is not always an option!*remembers the time he nearly backed into oncoming traffic*
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_D50 Body
 50mm 1.8 AF_

 

I would recommend a "portrait" lens like the AF 85 f/1.8 and a wide angle DX zoom as stated below.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *av98m2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Get the 18-55 or 18-70 kit lens as well

 The 50mm f1.8 is a fine lens but you'd find yourself wishing you had something wider a lot of the time. (moving backwards is not always an option!*remembers the time he nearly backed into oncoming traffic*
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )_


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Mocok, mind if i get ur msn? I wouldnt mind having a chat bout this lol ill pm my msn over if u like_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ok, i went into a few stores today, and spoke with some of the guys there. And ive deceded to stay away from the D40. So thats one thing off my mind 

 D50 it'll be  Now since im getting my camera overseas, so its a bit cheaper, are there any lenses that you guys recommend to start a basic setup? I suppose if my gf is gona buy in HK i may as well get the cheaper lenses while i can.

 So far i would suppose:
 D50 Body
 50mm 1.8 AF_

 

I don't have MSN. and I was going to tell you the short answer - "D50" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ;but since you yourself already figured out that D50 is better, so the next logical thing for me to do is by confusing you even further by asking you to also consider whether or not to get D70s or D80 instead, lol.

 But seriously, D50 is good enough already. Where are you going to get it and how much it costs? (including postage) (or is your girlfriend gonna buy one for you from HK?)

 You can get a new D70s body for AUS$ 935 here. How much cheaper can you get for D50 from that overseas seller?

 One thing you really have to consider about buying cameras from overseas is, be prepared to have lots of hassle when you have problem with the camera. (eg. camera faulty after you received it, Nikon Australia won't repair it, etc). Sending it back to overseas dealer will cost you both money and time.

 The first camera I got got a group (around 5-6) bright pixels forming a cross pattern right around in the middle of the screen. They were bright green. Apparently bright/dark pixels are quite common problems, but some are not so obvious, people don't really care or don't really notice it.
 (My brother's D200 got a cross-patterned dark pixels, but since it's really not noticeable in "real life", I decided not to inform him and let him be at peace and enjoy his camera)

 But mine was so bright and sat around the centre of the screen, so it was obvious on most of the pictures I took.
 So I took it back the next working day to the shop, and got a replacement straight away, no problem. So say if you got this from overseas, this thing would annoy the hell out of you.

 I think if the difference is no more than $150, I'd get a local one if I were you.

 About lens, in most circumstances I'd prefer to buy used (even overseas since lenses in general possess less possible problems compared to bodies) and just be a little bit patient and careful to wait for the "right" used lens to come around. You just need to find a lens whose owner is selling it because he/she rarely use it or doesn't like it, not because there's something wrong with it.

 About the lens, 18-70mm or 50mm, both are great lenses, and both can be your main and only lens for awhile depending on your shooting style and circumstances.
 But even if you got 18-70mm first, the 50mm is really a must have lens for Nikon. It's so cheap and considering what you can create with it, it's a steal.

 Did some math for you:

 Option A:
 D70s (new) + 50mm AFD 1.8 (new) 
 = 935 + 200 = $1,135 = very happy shooter

 Option B:
 D70s (new) + 18-70mm (new)
 = $1,335 = very happy shooter

 Option C:
 D70s (new) + 18-70mm (used)
 = 935 + 300 = $1,235 = very happy shooter

 But then, if you can get a bargain for D50, by all means just get a D50, and then maybe with the spare money you can buy both lenses.

 PS: But if you have the 18-70mm and going to get 85mm 1.8, you can skip the 50mm 1.8


----------



## perplex

I just got a D70 and 50mm f1.4 yesterday 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 . I'm been testing ISO and shutter times for hours so far 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . I'm new to SLR photography 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just got a D70 and 50mm f1.4 yesterday 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . I'm been testing ISO and shutter times for hours so far 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . I'm new to SLR photography 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ._

 

Have fun! Post the best pic you've taken so far.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just got a D70 and 50mm f1.4 yesterday 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . I'm been testing ISO and shutter times for hours so far 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . I'm new to SLR photography 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ._

 

 Best of luck - nice purchase! Experimenting with settings on DSLRs is one of the more interesting things. You may want to try a few of the white balance and color saturation settings as well.

 I found an interesting product called camera armor that's like a skin for your Nikon DSLRs:


----------



## jumpinjohn1234

question: I'm picking between the nikon 18-55mm or the 18-70 one. I dont think I'll need the extra zoom, but is the 18-70 worth the extra $150?

 thanks


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jumpinjohn1234* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_question: I'm picking between the nikon 18-55mm or the 18-70 one. I dont think I'll need the extra zoom, but is the 18-70 worth the extra $150?

 thanks_

 

18-70 review




18-55 review

*MTF side-by-side 18-70 vs 18-55*

*WIDE*








*TELE*








 The 18-55 is a very good performer!


----------



## perplex

This is like my second flower try: http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/192/dsc5337vy0.jpg

 50mm f1.4 1/1000s iso200

 Advise me on what would have improved it, I think I should have used a different aperture as I'm not sure I'm happy with that bokeh


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is like my second flower try: http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/192/dsc5337vy0.jpg

 50mm f1.4 1/1000s iso200

 Advise me on what would have improved it, I think I should have used a different aperture as I'm not sure I'm happy with that bokeh 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

From the EXIF I see you shot wide open at f/1.4 and used spot. Try...
 -stopping down
 -front shot
 -softening effect in D70
 -less complex background
 -tripod and off camera flash+matrix

 Good luck!


----------



## dj_mocok

I actually kinda like the smooth background... photography is such a subjective thing eh?

 I see you used manual. So did you end up keeping the AIS version of 1.4?


----------



## perplex

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevesurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_From the EXIF I see you shot wide open at f/1.4 and used spot. Try...
 -stopping down
 -front shot
 -softening effect in D70
 -less complex background
 -tripod and off camera flash+matrix

 Good luck!_

 

What do you mean by "softening effect in D70"? and "front shot"? "stopping down" you mean increase aperture right? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I actually kinda like the smooth background... photography is such a subjective thing eh?

 I see you used manual. So did you end up keeping the AIS version of 1.4?_

 

Huh!!? I used "manual"? that's news to me :/ I thought I used AF, I got the 50mm f1.4D AF


----------



## dj_mocok

Hehe
 How can you use manual without knowing it and still got a good result?


----------



## perplex

I think what might have happened is the AF not AF-ing after a slight movement and D70 thinking it's manual? Or EXIF is wrong :S


----------



## dj_mocok

Make sure it's not faulty


----------



## WhatMACHI

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_so the next logical thing for me to do is by confusing you even further by asking you to also consider whether or not to get D70s or D80 instead, lol._

 

Lol. Gona make me broke !

 Thanks for the guys, my girlfiend is coming back to Aus in a week or so. So ill have her check out the prices. But as you said, if they are only slightly cheaper (i think they a much cheaper) ill get in Aus to maintain warranty. Ill also have her look at the lenses, but if i get over in HK i doubt ill get used, shes been really busy with famliy stuff, and organising to come back that i doubt she'll have much time to shop around for a used lense, but ill be sure to get her to check it out if she does come by some.

 Edit: I just spoke with my friend who just got her D80, and she got it for around 6000HK dollars (Body only), which is almost exactly $1000Aus giv or take a little bit. But ill ring my GF and find out what she can get for a D50


----------



## dj_mocok

Damn... $1,000 for D80 body, that's cheap. I got mine for $1,300.

 You might as well buy a couple of lenses too since it's so cheap there.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Yeah im most likely gona do that. The body is gona be a present from my girlfriend, and ill be paying for the lenses myself 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Aii. went into another few stores today, and the D40 vs D50 crap came up again. bla bla, i think this argument is never going to end in my head, everytime i get my mind set someone new comes along and puts it off lol. 

 Anyway, im still constantly researching, im gona try get my hands on both of the cameras regardless to see how they both feel. But its still strongly leaning towards D50 for obvious reasons. Anything at the D40 is more just becuase its small, and i may not ever stock up on enough lenses that the limitation to AF-S may not be too big a deal. -_-'' someone shoot me


----------



## mr_baseball_08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is like my second flower try: http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/192/dsc5337vy0.jpg

 50mm f1.4 1/1000s iso200

 Advise me on what would have improved it, I think I should have used a different aperture as I'm not sure I'm happy with that bokeh 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

To me (Canon user here, sorry 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), the composition is a bit muddy, but personally I like the bokeh. It looks as if you've focused on the flower furtherest to the right, but with such a small aperture, you've left the rest out of focus. Also one of the flowers is dead or diseased and affects the rest of the composition.

 From now on, before you take a picture, ask yourself what you're wanting to show. If you are taking this picture for others to see, what do you want other people to feel when they see it? Also, start looking at your pictures as if you didn't take them and you're seeing them for the first time. Decide what you don't like and try to keep it in mind the next time you try to take a similar shot. Personally, I'm keeping a photo journal to help myself learn.

 If you're a beginner, I highly recommend the book Understanding Exposure. It will help you tremendously, and will quickly get you well on your way to taking creatively correct exposures.

 JD


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Aii. went into another few stores today, and the D40 vs D50 crap came up again. bla bla, i think this argument is never going to end in my head, everytime i get my mind set someone new comes along and puts it off lol. 

 Anyway, im still constantly researching, im gona try get my hands on both of the cameras regardless to see how they both feel. But its still strongly leaning towards D50 for obvious reasons. Anything at the D40 is more just becuase its small, and i may not ever stock up on enough lenses that the limitation to AF-S may not be too big a deal. -_-'' someone shoot me_

 

I'm quoting this from someone from a camera forum. Basically:

 "When in doubt, buy both".

 You're so not gonna go wrong that way.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm quoting this from someone from a camera forum. Basically:

 "When in doubt, buy both".

 You're so not gonna go wrong that way.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Bahaha, if only i had the money 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Waiting time now, i geuss ive got about as much info and advice as one can get, now its hammer time  Soon as my gf gets back, ill tell her to go camera hunting for me


----------



## perplex

mr_baseball_08 thanks for the advice and I just ordered that book.


----------



## stevesurf

FYI Wide Angle / Tele MTF comparisons of:

 18-200
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 70-200/2.8
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 80-200/2.8
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 70-300VR


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you mean by "softening effect in D70"? and "front shot"? "stopping down" you mean increase aperture right? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You've got Imaging Enhancement in the D70! Pg. 56 - user's manual. Try Soft and then Vivid. Try a shot where you are shooting more into the flower; here's one of mine (no bokeh, but it illustrates a kind of front/side shot)




 Yes, stopping down means it's better to shoot at f/2.8 instead of f/1.4 because of the very narrow Depth of Field (DOF) at your widest aperture. It's also better to get into this habit since most lenses perform substantially better stopped down. That's why constant aperture zoom lenses are so expensive!


----------



## dj_mocok

Went to botanic garden today, took some nice portraits of my partner.

 I didn't bring my macro lens today, but I also got some dead flowers pictures. Dead flowers can be fun 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Looks like I was a few days late, or else I could have some nice fresh flower pictures.

 Don't think too much about the shots below, they're just quick snapshots I took while taking a break from shooting portraits (or more like my partner needed a break).













 This one is not really flowers, but I like the background. It's a handle of wooden bench, with thin grass on the background. The DOF sort of "dissolved" the grass.






 This is the edge of a wooden bench, with some plants in the background.






 Met quite a few hobbyists too. First was this guy with his Canon and a large lens with red ring attached to it (I know nothing about Canon gears, but as far as I know, red ring = premium lens in general?), and he used it to shoot whatever he could point his camera at. Infinity, then medium range, and then did some flower macros, back and forth.

 Then met a bunch of students, I asked one of them, it was shooting day for their photography tuition. It's quite a sight to see a group of people with their DSLRs out.

 Then I bumped into the previous Canon guy, and this time he changed his lens to this 30cm-ish white lens, and still used it to shoot flower macros. Looks like he brought all his arsenals with him. 

 Walked past him and he kept staring at my camera. I think he was trying to figure out what lens I got. From a quick glance when I passed him, it looked like he got this "my lens is bigger than yours and what the hell are you doing with that old looking lens" on his face. Can't stand smug with big lens thinking that just because he got a big lens then he's suddenly a pro or something. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Or maybe he's really a super duper pro, looks like he pretty much "point and shoot" the hell out of everything he saw, came accross one flower, pointed, shot it. The resumed walking around (and holding his camera uphold like a soldier holding his AK-47), looked around, another flower, pointed, shot again. Either that he's a tard who don't have a concept of composition or he's so good at composition, didn't even need to think and just shoot everything right away and all come up perfect. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Not jealous or anything, but it's a bit annoying when you see a guy who thinks he's better than you because his gears are better than yours.


----------



## WhatMACHI

I geuss he was all about compensating for what he has below 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 When you say you were late, there werent any other flowers in bloom?

 Learnt my first bad lesson about my (dad's ) Nikon EM yesterday night. After loading up my film and taking shots for the family that night, looking professional and all, i took my photos to develop...loe and behold i hadnt loaded the film properly. I didnt properly slide the end bit of the film into the turning part (wow how good is my photography jargon) and it didnt end up spooling any of the film the whole night i was taking supposed photos 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was sooo shattered, CNY, family all there, great shots in great lighting....blank negatives...yay


----------



## Dimitris

He was probably one of these dudes that start the "is my lense sharp enough?" threads in fredmiranda, takes a million photos of brickwalls to show to others that his copy is the best and sends 4 copies of a lense back to the store after keeping the 5th "sharper" copy for himself.


----------



## dj_mocok

Huh? Bought 5, returned 4, isn't that abusing the system? I wonder why the store actually let him do that...

 But yeah, he really looked like a poser. I wish I could record a video of him doing his stuff. 

 About the garden, there were lots of roses just now, but I couldn't find any good bunch or something worth shooting (although for some reason that smug 'managed' to find/see sooo many good things to shoot around there 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )

 But I wasn't there to do macro anyway.


----------



## kin0kin

Just wondering if anybody here bought, or used, the MACK warranty. I'm contemplating getting an imported 85mm 1.8, and seperately purchase the 7 year MACK warranty....still cheaper than a USA model


----------



## dj_mocok

*Dimitris*:

 Hey, you also got a 85mm 1.4 AIS right? 
 Just wondering, if we attach the metal screw in lens hood to it, can we still use the original Nikon lens cap without removing the hood first?

 I am thinking to remove the filter and leave the hood permanently attached, but my lens cap is not the newer, pinch-in-the-middle style one. 

 The original Nikon one is expensive, I just don't wanna order one only to find out that I can't use it.

 I tried some other third party ones, they are either not pinch style one or they have this extra loop to attach a line so that you won't lose the cap, and they both won't fit the lens with the hood on.


----------



## Mrvile

Hey djmocok, what macro lens do you use?


----------



## dj_mocok

For macro I have Tamron.


----------



## av98m2

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Went to botanic garden today, took some nice portraits of my partner.

 I didn't bring my macro lens today, but I also got some dead flowers pictures. Dead flowers can be fun 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Looks like I was a few days late, or else I could have some nice fresh flower pictures.


 Walked past him and he kept staring at my camera. I think he was trying to figure out what lens I got. From a quick glance when I passed him, it looked like he got this "my lens is bigger than yours and what the hell are you doing with that old looking lens" on his face. Can't stand smug with big lens thinking that just because he got a big lens then he's suddenly a pro or something. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Or maybe he's really a super duper pro, looks like he pretty much "point and shoot" the hell out of everything he saw, came accross one flower, pointed, shot it. The resumed walking around (and holding his camera uphold like a soldier holding his AK-47), looked around, another flower, pointed, shot again. Either that he's a tard who don't have a concept of composition or he's so good at composition, didn't even need to think and just shoot everything right away and all come up perfect. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Not jealous or anything, but it's a bit annoying when you see a guy who thinks he's better than you because his gears are better than yours._

 

Do you mean to tell me he was shooting flowers handheld? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I can never manage anything half decent unless I'm shooting with a tripod and cable release. And it can take me 10 minutes or more to take a shot. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Here's a sampling of what I got today in my local botanic gardens.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *av98m2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you mean to tell me he was shooting flowers handheld? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Not only handheld, it took him like 2 seconds to point, focus and shoot.
 Looks like he's a 'real pro'. Maybe that's why he's such a snob


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_From a quick glance when I passed him, it looked like he got this "my lens is bigger than yours and what the hell are you doing with that old looking lens" on his face. Can't stand smug with big lens thinking that just because he got a big lens then he's suddenly a pro or something. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

LOL there are many who just have to have the big lens. My GF's brother needed a tele lens, so I took him over to a local Camera Shop and he got a 70-300VR. Wouldn't you know, all the other parents he was with at a wrestling meet were all over him admiring the "long lens." It's funny, and you probably realize this, DJ, I just would rather have a shorter, wide angle lens. It forces me to get closer to my subjects and the action. The less attention for me the better, so these days I'm experimenting with the fisheye on all the time.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *av98m2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_



_

 

I really like this one; a fine shot - the delicate flower pops out!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *av98m2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can never manage anything half decent unless I'm shooting with a tripod and cable release. And it can take me 10 minutes or more to take a shot. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

...and that's why you are taking some fine shots!


----------



## av98m2

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevesurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LOL there are many who just have to have the big lens. My GF's brother needed a tele lens, so I took him over to a local Camera Shop and he got a 70-300VR. Wouldn't you know, all the other parents he was with at a wrestling meet were all over him admiring the "long lens." It's funny, and you probably realize this, DJ, I just would rather have a shorter, wide angle lens. It forces me to get closer to my subjects and the action. The less attention for me the better, so these days I'm experimenting with the fisheye on all the time.

 I really like this one; a fine shot - the delicate flower pops out!

 ...and that's why you are taking some fine shots!_

 

Thanks! I'm glad you like it. I(human, tripod and camera) nearly fell into a pond trying to get the angle for this shot. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Just for fun, a 100% crop from the same picture. No way I can get this handholding the camera, even with VR or IS.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *av98m2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks! I'm glad you like it._

 

Yes/forget the crop definitely enter the original in a photo contest like this!


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For macro I have Tamron._

 

The 90 or the 180?


----------



## WhatMACHI

Ok, ill be asking my Girlfriend to look specifically for a D50 in the next day or so and i want to make a list of stuff for her to check out  (it seems the D40 really hasnt got ANYTHING practical over the D50, and the fact that i like its smaller size isnt worth much)

 But when im buying the D50, should i consider getting the kit with the 18-55 AND the 55-200? or should i consider just the 18-55 for now and add a different lens later on that will cover the range? Or should i just stick with the kit lens for now (meaning i cant take advantage of the cheaper prices unless i ship it) and possibly upgrade to a 18-70 or higher when i have the cash. Lets just say that depending on what kit lens i get will depend on whether i have the cash to pick up a 50mm f/1.8 or not.

 Apart from lenses ill be sure to grab an SD card or two.

 So for sure:
 D50 Body
 SD Cards

 Deciding:
 18-55 vs 18-55 + 55-200 vs 18-70 or any other range of lenses 
 Small tripod
 bag (i may want to see and have a feel of a bag in person before i get one)


----------



## kin0kin

The D40 do have a better jpeg processing engine than the D50...but if you plan to use RAW all the time in the future, then forget about the D40...funny thing is...the D40 is more expensinve than the D50 now.

 the 18-70mm is a good all rounder.


----------



## dj_mocok

I'm not sure about this "better jpeg result" compared to D50, but say if it's so, I'm quite sure that it's because of more aggresive in-camera post processing (to suit someone coming from P&S) rather than the ability to capture more details.
 It's good that D50 is even cheaper than D40, that's a freakin no brainer. Must be a sign of D50 being discontinued soon. Get it while you can IMO.

 Machi, since you are buying the lens in HK and is considerably cheap compared to Sydney price, why not just get a better lens straight away? It will be cheaper than buying it here, especially since you're getting body, tripod, SD card, and whatnot, I think it will be easier to bargain with the shop.

 But seriously, don't back track and think about D40 anymore. I have nothing against it, and I also know it can deliver great result in the right hand, but D50 is just a better camera overall than D40, period. There are too many things in D40 that it's lacking it doesn't feel like an SLR anymore. 

 Get yourself a D50 and get the best lens you can afford. This is the example what a cheap body combined with a good lens can give you. Of course the lens he used is ridiculously expensive, but I'm just emphasising my point of don't cheap out on lens if you are serious with image quality.

 You can also consider 20mm 2.8 AFD if you want wide, but it's more expensive than 18-70mm.


----------



## Veniogenesis

As for non-SLR Nikons, Nikons just announced a slew of new models:

 Coolpix P5000 (Has add-on lens capabilities and ISO 32000? Interesting...)
 Coolpix S200
 Coolpix S50
 Coolpix S500
 Coolpix L10
 Coolpix L11
 Coolpix L12

 Cheers,
 Venio


----------



## WhatMACHI

Well I've had a hold of both the cameras today and they both feel great (in terms of size and comfortability) so no issues with the D50 being bigger. I'll definately be sticking with the D50. 

 But dj_mocok when you say get the best lens i can would that mean i should get the body alone, and try get a 18-70 (or higher), or try get the dual lense kit? I just dont want to be overlapping later on if i do decide to change lenses to one lense that does the job of two lenses i already have.

 But im geussing taking a 18-55 + 55-200 would be a better option than taking the 18-70?? and trying to fit another lens into my budget ontop of that range? Lets say my budget for a lens would be about $500 for the moment, i could definately do more, but that would only be if the lens i get would be much more worth while that a cheaper lens which i am bound to replace relatively sooner.

 At the moment considering i think i should stop fussing over all these differnt types of lenses, and just a solid price from my girlfriend first and see how much more i can go for lenses  Then make a better decision with the budget i got lol 

 IM SO EXCITED


----------



## dj_mocok

Yes, that's what I meant. Get the D50 body, and then get the best lens you can afford. 

 Just wondering, why do you need to have this focal length coverage? (you mentioned 18-55 & 55-200). Are you really sure you need to have that wide coverage?

 Maybe it's better to find out yourself how you would like to shoot the camera and how's your shooting habit. If you don't really need 200mm, you can just get one better lens than buying two so-so range just to "cover" the range.

 This is me personally, but I never need (or very rarely) the length of 100mm+.
 If you give me something like 17-55mm or 17-35mm, I think I can really live with just either one of those attached permanently on the body. (with maybe some cheap 1.8 for night purpose).

 Again, I'd rather have one excellent lens than two "good" lenses. But then of course if your shooting style requires you to have that much coverage, you probably need two. 

 If money is no object (so this is just tongue in cheek), I think you'll be very happy with:

 1. 20mm 2.8 AFD
 2. 70-200 2.8 VR

 There. the gap in between can be compensated by your feet IMO. But then they both cost a lot, especially latter one.


----------



## WhatMACHI

hmmm i never really thought about why i would need up to 200, but it seemed practical at the time of suddent thought lol

 Ill taking into acct i'd have no where near the amount of money for the 70-200 VR, i might ask her to check out in particular mayb a 18-70, or an 18-135. Im unfamiliar with the 17-55 or 17-35 lenses (i havnt looked down a viewfinder of one) but ill try pick up one zoom lense and a prime. Now that i really think about it i dont think i'd ever ever really use some deep zooming, mostly closer up photography, and some mid ranged shots (maybe in a sporting situation, but i wouldnt be tooo concerned with speed for the moment, i gota start somewhere lol)


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, that's what I meant. Get the D50 body, and then get the best lens you can afford._

 

Ditto DJ!

 FYI, the Aussie lens 35 f/1.4 got to my friend's yesterday - that was fast!
 I'm keeping my fingers crossed....


----------



## dj_mocok

*Machi*: Then looks like you'll be happy with 18-70mm and 50mm 1.8 then. Either that or one wide angle prime and one 50 to 85-ish range prime.

*Steve*: Wow that's fast. So you still need to pick it up from your friend?

 By the way I got a new problem. Some of you probably know that I live in a small studio apartment, and since it's summer, I've been turning the air conditioner on and off several times every day.

 All this time I've been "storing" my lenses out in the open, basically just put them sitting outside. I'm not storing them in a box, bag, or cupboard since I'm afraid it might develop moisture and fungus.

 And today I just noticed that there was a tiny bit of condensation on the body (underneath focusing ring to be exact) of my 85mm. I already wiped it out, but this really scares me.
 I'm no good at physics, but can condensation happen within the inside of the lens body as well? or it will always outside? 
 I tried to look for condensation on the glass inside but there was none. Only a little bit outside of body. 
 I'm afraid that this condensation will introduce moisture inside the lens and lead to fungus. You think it's possible?

 By the way, any recommendation of how to store lens in a small room? I know lens should be stored in a constant temp. and all that, but it's difficult to find a good place to store lens when you live in a small apartment. 

 It's a studio, so no bedroom, I got kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom without any walls. So everywhere is a potential danger zone for lenses. Should I just put them in shoebox or something and just store them in my wardrobe? Plus if they are in shoe box, will it actually prevent condensation?

 But wardrobe is very prone to fungus. I really have no idea where should I put my camera gears since my room is so small. I know the surefire way to prevent condensation is not using air conditioner altogether, but it's not possible. Any ideas?


----------



## Dimitris

If you use the hood then the cap screws on the hood and not on the filter or lense (if you are not using a filter). Its a bit difficult to remove and put on but it can be done. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*Dimitris*:

 Hey, you also got a 85mm 1.4 AIS right? 
 Just wondering, if we attach the metal screw in lens hood to it, can we still use the original Nikon lens cap without removing the hood first?

 I am thinking to remove the filter and leave the hood permanently attached, but my lens cap is not the newer, pinch-in-the-middle style one. 

 The original Nikon one is expensive, I just don't wanna order one only to find out that I can't use it.

 I tried some other third party ones, they are either not pinch style one or they have this extra loop to attach a line so that you won't lose the cap, and they both won't fit the lens with the hood on._


----------



## dj_mocok

How come, I think we have different hood. Mine is HN 20, and I just found out (the expensive way) that it's not possible to have cap and hood both on at the same time, since this hood doesn't have similar front diameter like the lens ring.


----------



## Dimitris

Really? I will check mine when I am back home. I havent used it for ages.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Ok just a couple random quotes my gf got:

 18-70mm $2000 HKD = about $330 AUS
 18-135mm $2500 HKD = about $420 AUS
 50mm f/1.8 $830 HKD = about $138 AUS 

 how do these prices sound? 

 Bad news, shes having trouble finding a D50 OMG...she says all the stores she is going to tell her the D50 is discontinued -_-'' damit...hopefully she'll be able to find a store with it, and get more of a discount off the lenses.


----------



## kin0kin

Well the D50 is indeed discontinued, which is why the price is dropping now.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok;2732752[B* 
_Steve[/B]: Wow that's fast. So you still need to pick it up from your friend?_

 

Got it!

 It arrives on my desk at work.





 A funky Peter Max Box inside!





 Open the box - what's this?





 OMG I hope the lens does not look like this; on closer inspection, it's a lens case for an even older lens!










 A thing of beauty; the original 35 f/1.4, quite solid, heavy, smooth focus feel





 Very clean; must mount on camera...





 My first picture, downsized for the web, the only subject that would pose for me, Godzilla. I love this lens!





 Thank you DJ for this find - I owe you one man!


----------



## dj_mocok

Congrats on the lens, so it finally arrived huh? From the picture the glass element looks very clean. Are those a little bit of dust specks on the lens?
 I'm quite surprised with the lack of packaging, luckily it arrived safely eh?

 Machi: That 50mm 1.8 is so cheap, you just got to buy it. If you can't find D50, why don't you look for D70s? It's probably very cheap too there.


----------



## perplex

Anyone used the Nikkor 12-24 and/or compared it to Tokina 12-24?


----------



## av98m2

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*Machi[/B
 By the way I got a new problem. Some of you probably know that I live in a small studio apartment, and since it's summer, I've been turning the air conditioner on and off several times every day.

 All this time I've been "storing" my lenses out in the open, basically just put them sitting outside. I'm not storing them in a box, bag, or cupboard since I'm afraid it might develop moisture and fungus.

 And today I just noticed that there was a tiny bit of condensation on the body (underneath focusing ring to be exact) of my 85mm. I already wiped it out, but this really scares me.
 I'm no good at physics, but can condensation happen within the inside of the lens body as well? or it will always outside? 
 I tried to look for condensation on the glass inside but there was none. Only a little bit outside of body. 
 I'm afraid that this condensation will introduce moisture inside the lens and lead to fungus. You think it's possible?

 By the way, any recommendation of how to store lens in a small room? I know lens should be stored in a constant temp. and all that, but it's difficult to find a good place to store lens when you live in a small apartment. 

 It's a studio, so no bedroom, I got kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom without any walls. So everywhere is a potential danger zone for lenses. Should I just put them in shoebox or something and just store them in my wardrobe? Plus if they are in shoe box, will it actually prevent condensation?

 But wardrobe is very prone to fungus. I really have no idea where should I put my camera gears since my room is so small. I know the surefire way to prevent condensation is not using air conditioner altogether, but it's not possible. Any ideas?*_*
*
*



 Buy a good dry cabinet (the kind with electronic dehumidifier that needs to be plugged into a mains outlet). You'll be glad you did!*


----------



## Mrvile

Woo hoo, UPS finally delivered my 100mm f/2.8 macro after eight days (even though I paid for 3-5 day). I sold my Sigma 150mm macro, which was a great lens, for something a little shorter and smaller for practicality.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Bah, i hope they have some stock of D50 somewhere in HK. Im quite reluctant to get a D70s, mainly because its so old, i mean maybe im just paranoin, but i'd just feel a bit strange starting out something new with a model which is a few years old already. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I hate the fact you have there is such an age gap between the D40 and D70, then a big price gap to the D80...DAM YOU NIKON GIB ME A D50!


----------



## dj_mocok

Old? I'd take D70s over D50 anytime of the day. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 av98m2: No money to buy dry cabinet. Here in Sydney, the cheapest/smallest one I can get is around AUS$250. I already promised no more camera-related equipments for awhile. Although yesterday I bought a 72mm Nikon lens cap for $30, and I can't even fit the cap with the bloody lens hood attached to it. Now I feel so stupid wasting so much money on a lens cap.


----------



## WhatMACHI

hmmm i think ill read up a bit more on the D70s  All i know so far about it is its BIG, its old and its big 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And it uses Compact Flash 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 atm my house has 7+ SD Cards around, i'd hate to let that go to waste (but then i geuss the compact flash isnt the priciest of things)


----------



## dj_mocok

You can give me the old and big Canon 1DS Mark II and I'll be happy to dump my D80 straight away. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And at least the D70s kit comes with that 18-70mm lens.


----------



## skyline889

Any reason? I don't feel that I lost a whole lot by downgrading from my D70 (not D70s though) to the D50. Though I do sometimes miss the extra extension of the 18-70 I sold with it, the 18-55 is still the sharper lens imo.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Ill probably try wake my girlfriend up early today, and get her to go hunting again hahaha. But it seems as though if the D50 is removed from my options, i'd have to move up to cameras which would seem a bit too much for me at the moment?? 

 There are still some D50's over at Digital City in Chatswood when i had a look there, but they are going for $999 body only


----------



## dj_mocok

Why don't you ask your girlfriend to give you the phone numbers of a few shops in HK there and try to call them yourself? I think it's easier that way since she probably knows nothing about camera.

 $999 for D50 body is too expensive. European camera has D70s body for $980-ish or something.

 Can you get D80 body for $1,000 in HK? If you can, why don't you get that one instead, and then get the cheap 50mm 1.8 ($138 you said?). That will make you happy for awhile, trust me.

 By the way, D80 body here is $1,300


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Any reason? I don't feel that I lost a whole lot by downgrading from my D70 (not D70s though) to the D50. Though I do sometimes miss the extra extension of the 18-70 I sold with it, the 18-55 is still the sharper lens imo._

 

I got a few reasons, but I gotta go back to work, but then, these are some that I can think of, but maybe some people don't care about it, so it's subjective:

 - Bigger, feels more solid on your hand. If you use your camera a lot, you want something that is comfortable. I personally have to "put up" with D80's size, but it grew on me now, and I feel comfortable using it. But if I could choose, I'd rather have the D70s size.
 - As far as I remember, there is no backlight on D50 top LCD? It's annoying when you're shooting outside in the dark (I do it often).
 - Front wheel, this maybe a small thing, but again, if you use your camera a lot, pressing a button and rotate a dial is different to just rotating a dial. But then again, P mode shooter probably don't care about this. (I change aperture often).
 - I think shutter speed is higher on D70s, but I don't shoot that fast anyway, so it doesn't matter for me. 

 I'm sure there are other differences, and some people have been saying D50 noise performance is better. If the difference is that noticeable, this is probably the only major drive for someone to get a D50 over D70s.

 Again, this is personal, but in my situation, after shooting with D80 and then when I go to my brother's place and hold the D200, it's like you've been sleeping on a queen size bed and then you moved to king size. (actually maybe double bed to king size, queen size is D70s, hehe...)

 PS: And yes, D40 is a freakin single bed.


----------



## WhatMACHI

I tried looking up some shops on the net, but i couldnt really find much in terms of honkie stores. The thing is she'll be shopping around anyway before she comes back, and shes just popping into Camera/Electronic stores as she sees them (so its not too much of a hassle). 

 Dam, this thing just gets more and more expensive hahaha


----------



## av98m2

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Old? I'd take D70s over D50 anytime of the day. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 av98m2: No money to buy dry cabinet. Here in Sydney, the cheapest/smallest one I can get is around AUS$250. I already promised no more camera-related equipments for awhile. Although yesterday I bought a 72mm Nikon lens cap for $30, and I can't even fit the cap with the bloody lens hood attached to it. Now I feel so stupid wasting so much money on a lens cap._

 


 Hmm....but you've already spend thousands on your camera and lenses right? A dry cabinet is a worthwhile investment(the electronic dehumidifiers are usually good for about 5 years). Much cheaper in the longer run than having to send your fungus infected lenses for cleaning(and they'll never be quite the same again after that). I'd start saving for one right now.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Congrats on the lens, so it finally arrived huh? From the picture the glass element looks very clean. Are those a little bit of dust specks on the lens?_

 

Yes, just a little dust. This lens is so amazingly clean for 20 years old.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone used the Nikkor 12-24 and/or compared it to Tokina 12-24?_

 

Yes, the Nikkor DX 12-24 is a great lens with the exception of an unusual type of complex wide angle distortion that is too difficult to correct in CS2. The Tokina's wide angle distortion is less complex and easier to correct. The lens is perfect at 24mm.

 That said, I would still get the Nikkor 12-24 lens!


----------



## dj_mocok

Yeah maybe a proper cabinet is the way to go, but I really can't get it at the moment. It will be on the to buy list though.

 Hey by the way, has anyone got some sample pictures or link to sample pictures that show the difference of taking pictures with and without lens hood? I don't mean the difference like the obvious flares, but more like colour/contrast difference.

 EDIT: I just found this thread. Does anyone know what kind of microwaveable beef stew was he talking about? I don't think we have this in Sydney, is this an American product?


----------



## dj_mocok

Got nothing to do and was browsing dpreview. Came accross this portrait.

 And really, holy crap, this is probably one of the best portraits I've seen produced with 50mm 1.8. I know the cute little girl really helps, and the image is for sure had been post-processed, but look at the portrait as an overall, that's excellent work. 








 *Image belongs to Markus Arike. This is his flickr page.

 PS: Dimitri: When using your 85mm for portrait, what aperture do you use most often? I've noticed mine has been pretty much wide open most of the time, and rarely 2 or 2.8. I much prefer the "feel" that the wide open shot brings. I wonder if this is just me or it's happening to other 85mm users as well.


----------



## perplex

Yeah, I'm wondering if Nikon 12-24 is worth the extra over the Tokina 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 , but equal number of people saying one of them is better than the other. Then there's that distortion issue at 12mm. Also I was thinking about it for group photos while being close. Like maybe 2m away for a group of 5 for example. Because of the f4 I would need flash indoors?


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, I'm wondering if Nikon 12-24 is worth the extra over the Tokina 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 , but equal number of people saying one of them is better than the other. Then there's that distortion issue at 12mm. Also I was thinking about it for group photos while being close. Like maybe 2m away for a group of 5 for example. Because of the f4 I would need flash indoors? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Do you Photoshop? If so, and since you're working primarily at the wide (12mm end), I would get the Tokina. If you're not going to be correcting either the complex Nikkor "mustache distortion" at 12mm or the less complex barrel type on the Tokina and you can afford it, take advantage of the better Nikkor Sharpness at 24 and 35mm.

 Yup, a flash will many times be necessary, but will experience light fall-off at the wide ends.

 Not to confuse the decision, but I would also consider the Sigma 10-20. This is a very unique lens that has a great following, and is not as expensive as the Nikkor 12-24. 

 Keep in mind that you can use the Nikkor 12-24 on 35mm or FF bodies (w/o filter), but not with the Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24.

 Befor you say, "oh I'll never use film again," take a moment and realize that there are many applications, including infrared photography where you may just! Good luck with your decision...


----------



## dj_mocok

So anyone knows what beff soup cup was that guy talking about (from my previous post)?

 I'll be grateful if someone can buy it and post it for me. I'll pay you for that of course. And you can eat the beef.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So anyone knows what beff soup cup was that guy talking about (from my previous post)?

 I'll be grateful if someone can buy it and post it for me. I'll pay you for that of course. And you can eat the beef. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

DJ, you want to put this on the end of that beautiful lens?





 That thread was archived and really didn't give any more details; although I can send you some DInty Moore if that's what you want!

 I still think you should do these!


----------



## dj_mocok

lol I'm not even sure if those are the ones he was talking about. Can't he even mention the brand...

 Anyway, about that paper one, the problem is, I'm not sure if I can fit in my lens cap without removing the hood first, and it looks like it's designed for AFR version, which is 77mm. 
 I'm very happy with my HN-20 (the original lens hood for the lens), but the problem is I can't fit my lens cap with the hood on.

 I called some shops, and none of them actually have a screw-in 72mm rubber lens hood that I can actually put a cap on the hood as well. I can't it's so hard to find a lens hood. Is it also that hard to find in US?

 I'll look for some more shops this weekend, if I can't find any, I'll probably have to either not use the lens hood or create my own ghetto lens cap to fit on the hood.

 And I still can't believe I'm actually paying 30 bucks for a lens cap that I might not use at all... Anyone wanna buy 72mm original Nikon lens cap?


 EDIT: 

 Found this on ebay. 50mm 1.2. Looks like it's in very good condition (although I haven't asked the seller and he didn't mention much). AUS$500 buy it now. Not noct, but I think AUS$500 is reasonable if it's in near mint. And I'm sure this is one of the lenses that he will regret selling.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyway, about that paper one, the problem is, I'm not sure if I can fit in my lens cap without removing the hood first, and it looks like it's designed for AFR version, which is 77mm. 
 I'm very happy with my HN-20 (the original lens hood for the lens), but the problem is I can't fit my lens cap with the hood on._

 

Have you tried just getting a plastic lid for the lens hood itself?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Found this on ebay. 50mm 1.2. Looks like it's in very good condition (although I haven't asked the seller and he didn't mention much). AUS$500 buy it now. Not noct, but I think AUS$500 is reasonable if it's in near mint. And I'm sure this is one of the lenses that he will regret selling. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Nice find, as usual, very clean! The problem is that I want it for surveillance photography (shoot wide open), but this may be the closest I'll come...thanks


----------



## dj_mocok

What plastic lid you meant?

 You mean using a plastic material to make the cut-off for lens hood?


----------



## dj_mocok

Steve,

Check this one out. This is serious stuff man, and yes, the noct is among them.
 But seller got 0 feedback and only joined a couple of days ago, so I would be very careful if I wanted to get this.

 Maybe escrow or something. But if it was me, I'd probably fly there to pick it up.


----------



## perplex

Understanding Exposure Revised Edition
 - Bryan Peterson

 Just arrived today 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 It looks mighty useful and I can't wait to read it.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Congrats 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Let us know what you think


----------



## dj_mocok

So Machi, have you decided what to get?

 Steve: You sure you don't wanna bid on that bunch of lenses? Once you've got them, that's probably all lenses you ever need, and that's it, no more headache of buying or choosing lenses.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Ok turns out that my girlfriend after all her hunting was not able to find any D50 bodies in HK, only one store was able to order it in, and that was with the kit lens only. 

 Some more updated prices a bit cheaper than before i cant remember but along the lines of

 Previously she had prices of :
 18-70mm $2000 HKD = about $330 AUS
 18-135mm $2500 HKD = about $420 AUS
 50mm f/1.8 $830 HKD = about $138 AUS 

 I rang her tonight and she said she could get
 50mm f/1.8D = $600hkd = $100 Aus!!! getting this one for sure
 18-70mm = --same as before
 18-135 $2300 HKD or so which brings it closer in price to the 18-70mm

 So ill either be getting the 50mm + the 18-70 or 50mm +18-135, and a couple memory cards, and possibly a spare battery from HK.

 So it remains that chances are i wont be getting a camera from HK, just a couple of lenses and the accessories. And because of that im thinking of ordering the D50 from B&H Photography over in NY who have the D50 body only for $570AUS or so. Argh then i need to pay shipping and insurance 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (i dont wana spend 500+ and find out it gets lost in the mail T_T). 

 Also would someone be able to help me out and get the full model details for those 3 lenses i was considering? I just dont wana get the wrong or outdated lens details to send to my girlfriend by accident  (seeing as i wouldnt know which one is which beside the focal lengths).


----------



## Dimitris

I am checking pricing for a friend in Greece and $1300 for the D200 is an amazing deal! I might get one to use with my manual Nikons.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Also would someone be able to help me out and get the full model details for those 3 lenses i was considering? I just dont wana get the wrong or outdated lens details to send to my girlfriend by accident  (seeing as i wouldnt know which one is which beside the focal lengths)._

 

For 50mm 1.8, The AF-*D* ones are the recent ones. Some previous AF models were still made in Japan. 
 Remember look for AF-D, not AF only. 
 But I think I personally would rather have a new old AF made in Japan one, if it's still possible. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 As for 18-70mm and 18-135mm, both are current generation DX lenses. They don't have "previous models" of DX lenses.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Ok just found out, that actually the lowest she could find for the 18-70 was infact $2400HKD, while the 18-135 is on sale for $2300HKD. So ill be getting a 18-135 and the 50mm.

 Now im going to have to order my D50 from B&H i geuss T_T dam gona have to wait even longer now 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 From B&H the D50 + Shipping is about $500US = $640AUS
 I might go into Digital city and see how low they'll go on the D50, if they go low enough ill try get it from them, so i can keep my warranty. What do you think a decent price would be for the D50 if i got it in Aus with the warranty??


----------



## dj_mocok

double post (sort of)


----------



## dj_mocok

If that's the case, I won't pay more than AUS$750 for Australian version one. Would rather take a risk and get the grey market one.

 If you wanna make some quick money to recover your loss, ask your girlfriend to buy five 50mm 1.8D, and dump them on eBay Australia. I guarantee that you can make at least 50 bucks for each. 5X50 = $250. But then, it's a bit hassle to sell so many.

 I haven't tried to 18-135mm, but I've read quite a lot of users who prefer the 18-70mm. And did you know that 18-135mm has a plastic mount unlike 18-70mm (metal)? It probably won't make any difference whatsoever (unless you change lenses like crazy over and over again), but it's good to know.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Lol, i already thought about buying several 50mm lol!! i dun think i have the capital for even 2-3 more  

 Also, whats the difference between the Aus version one?? or is it just a price reason??

 I was thinking of getting the 18-70 originally, but the fact that the 18-135 is cheaper than the 70, as long as i treat the lenses good im hoping there wont be an issue 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Damit, is it just me or every decision i make has some sort of flaw/drawback all the time hahaha


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Steve,

Check this one out. This is serious stuff man, and yes, the noct is among them.
 But seller got 0 feedback and only joined a couple of days ago, so I would be very careful if I wanted to get this.

 Maybe escrow or something. But if it was me, I'd probably fly there to pick it up. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Thanks for the look - the Noc literally makes my mouth water, but this guy is just doing it wrong, selling it as a total package. It actually is a very good deal together, a camera shop will probably snag it. Why doesn't he split it up - he'll make more money. And yes, I wouldn't get it from an eBay newbie, unless there was escow...


----------



## WhatMACHI

Okay, my girlfriend is goin out tonight to buy the 18-135 and a 50mm f/1.8 (oo i just remembered i need to remind her to buy a memory card for me)

 But ill have to wait till i have more money to order the Camera body from B&H, which so far is the cheapest i can find.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevesurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the look - the Noc literally makes my mouth water, but this guy is just doing it wrong, selling it as a total package. It actually is a very good deal together, a camera shop will probably snag it. Why doesn't he split it up - he'll make more money. And yes, I wouldn't get it from an eBay newbie, unless there was escow..._

 


 Yeah, if he do it separately, with each auction for the item loaded with lots of nice pictures, he will defenitely get much more than that. 
 I think AUS$3,200 for the whole lot is really cheap, but I don't have that kind of money for lenses.

 It's so cheap, it's either this guy desperately needs money, or he inherited these from someone, or he's a fraud. But my feeling says he's a real deal and just wanna turn these lenses into cash.

 By the way, I bought a screw-in rubber lens hood today, so I don't need to use the HN20 anymore. The size is very similar to HN20, and I did the test, no vignetting, phew. And most of all, now I can put my lens hood without having to remove the hood first. 
 But a new problem showed up, the slot in my camera bag is not wide enough to accomodate the lens with the hood attached (when the rubber lens hood in retracted position, the diameter becomes quite thick).
 But I'm so sick of finding the perfect solution for this, and no, I'm not gonna buy a new camera bag for this. I guess I'll just attach the hood once my camera is out, and when I'm finished shooting for the day, I'll detach it again before I put it back inside the bag. Just a little bit annoying I know, but guess I have to suck it up.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Okay, my Gf bought the lenses already, but it turns out that they bs'd the prices the first time, and that actually the 50mm f/1.8 was 800HKD -__-'' She bought them anyway for me, but i geuss thats still an average price.

 Im just annoyed now i needa fax through my credit card photocopies to B&H in order to make a purchase booo


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay, my girlfriend is goin out tonight to buy the 18-135 and a 50mm f/1.8 (oo i just remembered i need to remind her to buy a memory card for me)

 But ill have to wait till i have more money to order the Camera body from B&H, which so far is the cheapest i can find._

 

Congrats on the lens. Please wait until next week - if Nikon announces a D200s, the prices will drop [eventually] on the D200.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, if he do it separately, with each auction for the item loaded with lots of nice pictures, he will defenitely get much more than that. 
 I think AUS$3,200 for the whole lot is really cheap, but I don't have that kind of money for lenses._

 

It's really cheap, I know!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By the way, I bought a screw-in rubber lens hood today, so I don't need to use the HN20 anymore. The size is very similar to HN20, and I did the test, no vignetting, phew. And most of all, now I can put my lens hood without having to remove the hood first._

 

 Glad it worked out, just be careful that the new hood is long enough to prevent flare on the 85.


----------



## dj_mocok

Yeah, glad I got that one. Although I got such a bad experience when buying that hood yesterday.

 I went to the shop with my camera, and saw the rubber hood, and I asked the shopkeeper guy if I can try this one on first, to make sure it will screw perfectly on my lens.

 Then the shopkeeper said, yes of course (in a patronising way), and he took the hood and my camera from my hand, and then you know what, he just "slapped" the hood on the front barrel of my lens, and tried to screw it so carelessly and roughly (think of plumber doing a rush job of screwing a nut or something).

 As you know, the thread on the lens is very thin and the thread starts from certain point only, and you really need to carefully align the thread before you screw it in.
 And guess what (I kinda saw this coming), he slipped the hood because he did it so carelessly, and the hood off-marked to the surface of my lens, and then I told him: "whoa, whoa, you gotta be more careful mate" and I took the camera and hood from him right away and I screwed it in myself.

 So all good, it fits the lens, so I bought it. And when I was on the bus, I thought about the slip he did, and I checked my lens carefully, and to my shock, I found a 0.5cm scratch on my otherwise pristine lens surface. 

 I was so freakin pissed, and was thinking to go back to ask for him to be responsible (I don't know... buy me a new one or something, or at least I should get angry like hell in front of him), but then I thought there's no way on earth that idiot will admit he did it. So I pulled my lenspen, and after a few wipe with a bit of pressure, I was so relieved it actually came off. phew.

 Damn that's the last time, I mean last time I will let a shopkeeper handle my camera, especially the one that seems to know nothing about camera. I'm sure if he's into camera, he wouldn't treat a camera like a butcher handling meat.

*Lesson*: don't let a shopkeeper who looks like he doesn't know anything to go anywhere near your camera. If you wanna try a lens with your camera, ask for the lens, don't give the shopkeeper your camera and let him attach it. If I let that guy to do it, he'd probably jam his finger inside the sensor area or something.


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Then the shopkeeper said, yes of course (in a patronising way), and he took the hood and my camera from my hand, and then you know what, he just "slapped" the hood on the front barrel of my lens, and tried to screw it so carelessly and roughly (think of plumber doing a rush job of screwing a nut or something)._

 

I've found that many people just don't care about the things we have, no where near they way we do about our own stuff, because it's not theirs.

 I'm right there with you, I keep all my photo equipment in great shape (fortunately) so I can resell it confidently to others and I know they'll be happy.

 Now you know to be a bit more careful ~ just let careful Head-Fiers use your equipment


----------



## nogrot

On a whim I just checked out what the 28mm f/1.4 AF-D goes for lately on ebay, and found two auctions ending over $3k BIN. WOO.

 I suppose I might not have too much trouble funding a Pentax 645D if it actually gets released in the next year...


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nogrot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On a whim I just checked out what the 28mm f/1.4 AF-D goes for lately on ebay, and found two auctions ending over $3k BIN. WOO._

 

The 28 f/1.4 was probably one of the best Photojournalist lenses on the market. Ever notice how PJ's take pix when the subject has a crowd around them? They simply hold the camera up, point down, shoot away, get another body, shoot more. That lens is the highest percentage chance you'll get a shot that's at least able to be cropped.

 That said, it seems to be the sharpest, fastest Nikkor most useable wide open, other than the Noc. Above all, the view through it is just so bright and wide. Unfortunately, today's tiny digital imagers just don't do the wide justice, but I would expect Nikon to re-introduce this, once FF gets here in a year. Here's some pix of its substantial construction:


----------



## WhatMACHI

wow, u just made it sound as though that were some super lense or something hahaha


----------



## perplex

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevesurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_......Unfortunately, today's tiny digital imagers just don't do the wide justice, but I would expect Nikon to re-introduce this, once FF gets here in a year. ........_

 

Wishful thinking? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Nikon get their sensors from Sony unlike Canon which can afford the R&D etc to make their own. I don't think Nikon will ever go full-frame in their digital segment. Surely they've invested and committed to DX too much 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ?

 But I think eventually they should do to compete with Canon. I've read quite a lot around the web of hardcore long-time Nikon users which are waiting a few more years for Nikon to go full-frame and if not, will switch to Canon.

 Maybe the D3X in a year or so


----------



## nogrot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_wow, u just made it sound as though that were some super lense or something hahaha 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Somebody's been reading Ken Rockwell...


 I own and love this lens, but I generally stick to using it at f/2. Now don't get me wrong, it's very sharp and extremely usable at f/2, and I do use it wide open occasionally... But it isn't a miracle. It performs right along with the 85mm f/1.4 in my book, but retailed for almost double the price. It must've been very hard to construct.

 Oh well, anybody interested in buying mine for $3k?


----------



## skyline889

What do you Nikon experts think of the 12-24 Tokina? I've been looking through my old shots and most of them were shot at wide angle, so I don't think I would make proper use of the 18-200 range of the 18-200vr. Any troubles with the lens? Any good places to buy it new or used? Thanks for the help!


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

My research on the wide-angle topic led me to two contenders; the Tokina you mentioned and the Sigma 10-20. From what I've read, the Sigma tends to have a sharper center, but less sharp edges than the Tokina, and more vignetting to boot. People seem to prefer the build quality and consistency of the Tokina, but the Sigma looks pretty good still, and has their equivalent of AFS. The Achilles' Heel of the Tokina seems to be CA. I'm not sure which I would pick at this point, but I think I would lean to the extra width of the Sigma. Of course I've not used either of these in real life, so a major grain of salt is needed


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_wow, u just made it sound as though that were some super lense or something hahaha 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

For PJ's it became the new super lens, effectively and greatly improving over my 35 f/1.4!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wishful thinking? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Nikon get their sensors from Sony unlike Canon which can afford the R&D etc to make their own. I don't think Nikon will ever go full-frame in their digital segment. Surely they've invested and committed to DX too much 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ?...Maybe the D3X in a year or so 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yes, Nikon is a smaller company, but the very profitable D70 and D50 models will help get them into FF faster. DX was a necessity to bring quality DSLR prices down for a given feature set (example D70s). Yes, the D3 is coming, at least according to byThom, who I read religiously.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nogrot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Somebody's been reading Ken Rockwell..._

 

I just grabbed the image from Rockwell, my usual research is on nikonians, Keppler's books, byThom and photo.net. I actually demoed the lens some years back, as our corporate photographer had gotten a sample, which I found to have astounding quality wide open. At 28, my 17-35 turns out some very respectable images, even exceeding the 28 IMHO, as well as a number of posters. You just will never see this kind of quality in fast glass like the 28, unless the endless search for the Noc ends.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nogrot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I own and love this lens, but I generally stick to using it at f/2. Now don't get me wrong, it's very sharp and extremely usable at f/2, and I do use it wide open occasionally... But it isn't a miracle. It performs right along with the 85mm f/1.4 in my book, but retailed for almost double the price. It must've been very hard to construct.

 Oh well, anybody interested in buying mine for $3k? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Faster wide angles are very expensive to manufacture as the large aspherical elements not only have to have wide FOV, but need be fast and have consistently low distortion. The 28 1.4 does it, at a cost - it is a beautiful lens!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you Nikon experts think of the 12-24 Tokina? I've been looking through my old shots and most of them were shot at wide angle, so I don't think I would make proper use of the 18-200 range of the 18-200vr. Any troubles with the lens? Any good places to buy it new or used? Thanks for the help!_

 

As I stated earlier, the Tokina produces barrel distortion that's correctable in Photoshop. It is a well made lens for the money. I believe Ken Rockwell does a nice comparison.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My research on the wide-angle topic led me to two contenders; the Tokina you mentioned and the Sigma 10-20. From what I've read, the Sigma tends to have a sharper center, but less sharp edges than the Tokina, and more vignetting to boot. People seem to prefer the build quality and consistency of the Tokina, but the Sigma looks pretty good still, and has their equivalent of AFS. The Achilles' Heel of the Tokina seems to be CA. I'm not sure which I would pick at this point, but I think I would lean to the extra width of the Sigma. Of course I've not used either of these in real life, so a major grain of salt is needed 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

People love both Tokina and Sigma. The Sigma won a very prestigious award back a couple of years ago. Keep in mind you can use the Nikkor on FF, but not the Tokina or Sigma. Why do I keep bringing this up? Because lenses are an investment, and I would minimize the amount of "proprietary" optics you purchase.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Yay new lenses 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 18-135





 50mm 





 Cheap 2gb card, only $20! I geuss there's always a reliability issue, but Toshiba seems decent enough 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








 Now i need to go shopping for my camera T_T


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yay new lenses 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Nice setup; you'll have a great time with them. There's nothing like opening up a new gold box...


----------



## nogrot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevesurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just grabbed the image from Rockwell, my usual research is on nikonians, Keppler's books, byThom and photo.net. I actually demoed the lens some years back, as our corporate photographer had gotten a sample, which I found to have astounding quality wide open. At 28, my 17-35 turns out some very respectable images, even exceeding the 28 IMHO, as well as a number of posters. You just will never see this kind of quality in fast glass like the 28, unless the endless search for the Noc ends._

 

Funny how the cheaper easier alternative is always better to some people, just like headphones. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I love my "Triad of Power" (28/50/85 f/1.4) and I doubt I could shoot happily without it. The idea of dropping my 28mm is really upsetting now though, since it would be very hard to replace.

  Quote:


 People love both Tokina and Sigma. The Sigma won a very prestigious award back a couple of years ago. Keep in mind you can use the Nikkor on FF, but not the Tokina or Sigma. Why do I keep bringing this up? Because lenses are an investment, and I would minimize the amount of "proprietary" optics you purchase. 
 

The Nikkor and Tokina are both DX-style lenses, so the ability to use them on FF bodies is unproven as of yet. If Nikon includes a crop-mode for compatability with DX lenses, then yes they will work. The Sigma is a FF lens and can be used with film bodies.

 I'm not sure everyone needs to worry about that though, as I imagine when/if Nikon does come out with a FF body, it will cost over $5k and that isn't an option for everybody.

 From what I've read, the Nikkor is the way to go. Ultra-wide angles always have some form of distortion, it's just the nature of the look to me. My rectilinear Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 is pretty awesome, though I don't use it that often. Most of the time I find the 10.5 Fisheye to be more fun.


----------



## dj_mocok

Whatmachi: 
 You girlfriend came back already? That's fast. 
 I'm not sure how large is the buffer in D50 (go google it, I'm lazy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ), but if it has buffer big enough for, say, minimum 6 highest quality Jpegs, I wouldn't worry about using slower (standard) SD card since it won't make much difference in most, everyday usage.

 I forgot to ask you to get a lens hood for your 50mm 1.8 It flares quite easily. But anyway, you can always get it in Australia.

 So have you placed order for D50? I bet you will have a heck of a good time once the whole setup already arrives (especially if you never own DSLR before).

 PS: If you want a camera bag, Lowepro Nova 2AW will suit those perfectly and you can have 1 more spot for 1 lens (or flash) in the future.


 Nogrot: 
 Why do you wanna sell the 28mm (unless you need the money)? That's a real shame. I'd be happy if I only got those 28/50/85 f/1.4 and I don't think I'd need anymore lenses, maybe except for a macro.

 I'm not gonna buy anymore lens anytime soon, but I'm pretty sure my next purchase will be either wide angle prime AF or a wide-to-normal AF zoom. After that, no more lens for me.


----------



## nogrot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Whatmachi: 
 Nogrot: 
 Why do you wanna sell the 28mm (unless you need the money)? That's a real shame. I'd be happy if I only got those 28/50/85 f/1.4 and I don't think I'd need anymore lenses, maybe except for a macro._

 

Pentax's 645D teaser just gets me interested in the next step I guess. While I totally love my Nikon stuff (and results), I'd consider trying something else for a while. I was excited about the Leica M8 for a while, but it's sorta fell out of my price range for the time being, as I wouldn't replace my Nikon setup, just accentuate it.

 I'm at the point now where the only lenses I'm interested in buying are over $4k a piece, and I really wouldn't ever use them. I'd love a 200 f/2 VR, but there is next to no time I'd ever use it. My 70-200VR gets used maybe four or five times a year at the most.

 Ah well, just considering my options I guess. I love the idea of making money from the sell of my lens, too.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you Nikon experts think of the 12-24 Tokina? I've been looking through my old shots and most of them were shot at wide angle, so I don't think I would make proper use of the 18-200 range of the 18-200vr. Any troubles with the lens? Any good places to buy it new or used? Thanks for the help!_

 

I owned the Tokina 12-24 for Canon for a while. It is a very nice lens...it's sharp, consistant, fast f/4 aperture, and it's distortion is reasonable. For UWA lenses, you're always going to have some level of barrel distortion, and the Tokina's isn't any worse than the Nikon 12-24, Canon 10-22, or Sigma 10-20. I wouldn't worry too much about the distortion.

 In the end I traded the Tokina 12-24 for a Sigma 10-20 because 10mm is actually considerably wider than 12mm. Just something to keep in mind.


----------



## WhatMACHI

I had a look today at Digital City because my parents wanted me to get a warranty (super safe people) and it turns out that they only had ONE D50 left which was their Demo model...they said they didnt ever demo it, but yes they demo'd it to me a few times before they knew i was gona buy, so im geussing they demo'd it to other people, also had a set of scratches on one corner from a drop....they said they scratched it putting it in on the glass (bahahah what an excuse). 

 So i geuss ill just convince my parents that its probably a better idea to order from B&H, so im gona have to go get some scans of my credit card before i can make the order T_T 

 Might get the order in tomorow afternoon if i can, then im gona have to wait T_T damit

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevesurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice setup; you'll have a great time with them. There's nothing like opening up a new gold box... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Yup, was great! But after a few minutes of zooming in and out with nothing i decided lenses are no fun with out a camera hahaha


----------



## mbriant

Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but have you checked e-bay? There's lots of them (brand new) there, some with and some without lenses. You can always buy a Mack extended warranty as well.

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Nikon-D50-Di...QQcmdZViewItem

 EDIT: Never mind. I just checked B&H's price.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I had a look today at Digital City because my parents wanted me to get a warranty (super safe people) and it turns out that they only had ONE D50 left which was their Demo model...they said they didnt ever demo it, but yes they demo'd it to me a few times before they knew i was gona buy, so im geussing they demo'd it to other people, also had a set of scratches on one corner from a drop....they said they scratched it putting it in on the glass (bahahah what an excuse). 

 So i geuss ill just convince my parents that its probably a better idea to order from B&H, so im gona have to go get some scans of my credit card before i can make the order T_T 

 Might get the order in tomorow afternoon if i can, then im gona have to wait T_T damit



 Yup, was great! But after a few minutes of zooming in and out with nothing i decided lenses are no fun with out a camera hahaha_

 

No way, I'm not gonna get a demo one which had been dropped before. 
 If you really wanna be safe at this stage, I think the other option is to go for a brand new D70s from European Cameras, they are not gray market products and have a full Australian warranty. But looks like you're pretty set with D50 already, then probably B&H is your best bet then.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Well im not gona ge tthe demo model, Im hoping they can find another D50 in one of their other stores, or ill just order from B&H. Had a muck around with my friends D80 tonight, a bit of a change from the Nikon EM ive been using the past few weeks haha


----------



## stevesurf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nogrot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The Nikkor and Tokina are both DX-style lenses, so the ability to use them on FF bodies is unproven as of yet._

 

From byThom on the 12 ~ 24:
  Quote:


 Drawbacks
 Lottery Winner Price. Not a professional grade build, and an f/4 aperture, so why the over US$1000 cost?
 It's Bigger and Heavier than you'll Expect. If you thought a lens designed to cover a smaller sensor size would be smaller, you'll be surprised. This thing takes 77mm filters!
 12mm Performance could be better. While good, the performance at 12mm isn't up to the levels produced at 24mm. 

 Positives
 Cut Yourself Sharp. At 24mm, this is the only lens you'd ever need (as long as the f/4 maximum aperture didn't get in your way). Even at its weakest focal length, 12mm, it produces contrasty and sharp results, albeit with a touch of chromatic aberration. 

_Works on 35mm. Yep, you can use it as an 18-24mm zoom on your full frame or 35mm bodies, though almost any filter will vignette at 18mm._ 
 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nogrot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The Sigma is a FF lens and can be used with film bodies._

 

Sigma 10 ~20
  Quote:


 * Vignetting will occur if the lens is used with digital cameras with image sensors larger than APS-C size or 35mm SLR cameras 
 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nogrot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My rectilinear Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 is pretty awesome, though I don't use it that often. Most of the time I find the 10.5 Fisheye to be more fun._

 

The 14 is an amazing lens; I had to sell it to fund the 17 ~ 35! That huge front element got me some amazing shots, but I was always worried about it scratching!


----------



## perplex

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but have you checked e-bay? There's lots of them (brand new) there, some with and some without lenses. You can always buy a Mack extended warranty as well.

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Nikon-D50-Di...QQcmdZViewItem

 EDIT: Never mind. I just checked B&H's price. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Hi, I'm interested in knowing what your lens collection is. I just know you have a D2h which you regret overpaying for 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .


----------



## WhatMACHI

....-_-'' wow the Camera god really loves me so much that hes throwing obstacles in my way left right and center. Heres a reply from B&H when i asked them about sending to Australia.

  Quote:


 Due to an agreement with Nikon USA, we can not ship or export Nikon DSLR's outside the United States.

 B+H Is happy to ship overseas including APO Military addresses. All international shipments comply with U.S. Customs regulations, which include a valid, accurate, fully detailed commercial invoice & proper export documentation. Modification of the commercial invoice for tax savings purposes is a violation of US Customs Law. All transactions are in US dollars. We can not provide currency conversions. All of our shipments are insured against Loss and Damage.

 For International customers, shipments will be made to your home, or to a USA residence address, we can ship via Air Parcel Post (approx. 2-4 weeks for delivery, (for orders with up-to a $500.00 value), or International UPS, depending on the weight, value and destination of your merchandise. Order! s with a value of $500.00 and up, can ONLY be shipped via UPS International (3-4 days door-to-door delivery).

 B&H only applies NY state sales tax (approx 8.625%) on orders shipped in NY State or purchased in person at our NYC store. All other orders are not charged tax by B&H.

 Unfortunately we can not offer specific advice on import fees, duty, Customs or taxes that you may be charged when your merchandise reaches you. Please consult your local government import office with any questions regarding this matter. We can not alter the package or billing invoice in any way.

 The item(s) we are quoting you a price on is brand new (not used or refurbished), in the box, made to sell in the US with a full US warranty. You also get all the accessories the manufacturer intended to include in the package.

 Your shipping / handling fee is determined by the parcel's weight and destination. The total value is also considered for insurance purposes. Some orders ! are shipped in multiple parcels. Figuring out what your total bill of sale (US currency) including shipping and handling costs on our web site is easy. (Remember, Insurance is included on your order) Add your item(s) to your cart. In the cart screen you will see a shipping calculator. Type in your zip code (for orders delivered in the USA ) or country ( outside the US ) and hit submit.( NO other information is needed ) In the shopping cart screen, you will find your total including shipping rates for your items plus an explanation of our various shipping methods.

 Please be aware that shipments via UPS are significantly faster, are easily traced, should they go astray, and have a guaranteed delivery time. Shipments sent via air parcel post can take much longer to reach their destination and cannot be tracked.

 We accept MasterCard, Visa, American Express, or Discover. We do not accept Diner's Club, and cannot accept check or COD orders via the web site at this time.

 Please be advised that your order cannot be processed w! ithout the billing information your bank has on file. Payment by credit card is subject to your banks verification of your billing information. Your order will ship once this has taken place. Please make sure you supply us with the correct billing address.

 For large orders or if your credit card is billed outside the USA, our verification dept will require you to send us a photo copy of your credit card. We will notify you by phone or E-Mail should your order be delayed. Please remember to include the order number and to send both sides (front and back).

 To use our secure up-load page

www.bhphoto.com/ccupload

 Any questions regarding your credit card should be sent to our Verification department. To contact our Verification Department: 
 

Ok, i might send to a relo in California, then get them to send it here which would take AGES, or i can just hope digital city found a NEW D50 in one of their other stores (slim chance) or i could be real cheeky and ask my friend to get D80/D70s from HK for me who is coming back in the next week or so 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (id rather go D80 since its much newer than the D70s but, meh, ill see how it goes)


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I owned the Tokina 12-24 for Canon for a while. It is a very nice lens...it's sharp, consistant, fast f/4 aperture, and it's distortion is reasonable. For UWA lenses, you're always going to have some level of barrel distortion, and the Tokina's isn't any worse than the Nikon 12-24, Canon 10-22, or Sigma 10-20. I wouldn't worry too much about the distortion.

 In the end I traded the Tokina 12-24 for a Sigma 10-20 because 10mm is actually considerably wider than 12mm. Just something to keep in mind._

 

Thanks for your help Stevesurf and Mrvile, I think I will be saving up for this lens!


----------



## WhatMACHI

Yay i found a store in Sydney with the D50 in stock, so my dad being the warranty person he is jumped for it much more so than the D80 being bought overseas. Hopefully we'll be going in tomorrow to get it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 Also im just curious, what kind of UV lenses should i look at (that screws into the end of the lens) im not too worried about UV and whatnot, im more concerned that this will protect the end of the lens from dust, statches or accidental drops. 

 So tomorrow im gona grab
 D50 Body
 A couple UV lenses (or whatever little screens you guys recommend)
 And a Bag


----------



## dj_mocok

How much can you get the D50 for in Sydney? This is probably the last chance before you jump, but if it's not so much different from D70s, get the D70s IMO.

 About UV filter:

 I think your 18-135 comes with a lens hood right? Just use the hood everytime you take picture, don't worry so much about UV filter, waste of money IMO. 

 Last time I was considering to use it because I didn't have the lens cap that could fit into my hood, plus what I have is Nikon L37c filter, which is not cheap at all, that's why I was considering to use it. 
 But now since I already found a hood and lens cap to go with it, I'm not using the filter anymore. 

 About 50mm, again, try to get a retractable rubber lens hood for it, so you also don't need to use UV filter. You can buy 52mm retractable rubber lens hood (for 50mm 1.8) everywhere and they're cheap. If you camera falls lens firts on the ground, if the hood is on, the rubber hood will take the hit, therefore preventing a dent on your lens (hopefully)

 If you worry about dust on your lens, instead of buying UV filter, buy a Giotto lens cleaning pack for AUS$ 29.95. It comes with the rocket blower, microfibre cloth, the solution to clean lens, and 10X pointy cotton swabs. 
 The blower can be used to blow your sensor too if it got dust inside.

 If you always use the hood on, and not overly clumsy, I think you won't even need a lenspen and can just use the blower to clean the occassional dust spots on your lenses.

 PS: If you're planning to buy lens hood, or filter or whatever and wanna try it on your camera first, please don't let the shopkeeper try it for you. Refer to my earlier post. I speak from experience 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 PS #2: I forgot to say, since your dad is involved, why don't you persuade him to buy a D80 instead (ask him to chip in or something)? If you're having a hard time persuading him, you can use this quick method: (provided he's a camera guy)

 1. Easy way to do is bring him to the shop that has both D50 and D80 on display (on the way there, mention how glad you are to have such a nice daddy), also bring your 50mm lens, mount on the D50 first, let him play with it (look through the viewfinder, the LCD screen on the back,etc..), and then mount your 50mm to D80, and let him look through the viewfinder. By this time he's probably realised how different the viewfinder and the LCD screen are. 

 2. Remove lens, put it back to D50 again, and ask him to take some pictures using different apertures. You'll notice that he will frame, shoot, put down the camera, look at the top LCD screen, and change the aperture by holding one finger on the tiny, semi-recessed EXP comp. button and rotating the back dial at the same time, and bring the camera up to his face again, and take another picture, and then for next aperture, same thing again. By this time he also gets a reminder that D50's viewfinder is small.
 Put the 50mm back to D80 again, ask him to take pictures with different apertures. When he looks through the camera, he'll notice that again, it's freakin' bigger and everything looks clearer, and guess what, when he wanna take pictures with different aperture, he doesn't even need to put down the camera to check aperture, he can just keep sticking his eye on the viewfinder, and use his finger to rotate the front wheel to change aperture. This way he doesn't need to lose the composition and recompose.

 3. Ask him to take pictures with ISO 100 and ISO 3200 on D50. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well, apart from those 3, study the other differences between the two and overload his brains with all the cons. I'm sure he will let you buy D80.


----------



## av98m2

I'm going to give me 2-cents on UV filters.

 Unless you are willing to clean the front element of your lens directly on a regular basis, slap a decent filter on every lens you own (Hoya HMC, B+W MRC etc)

 A suprising amount of dirt/smut can accumulate on the lens element within a short time. And I'd rather clean the filter, which is a lot easier since its flat, than the curved front element of my lens anyday.

 And depending on where you're taking your pictures, water, mud, etc can also end up on your front element, through no fault fo your own! (I have also shot events where beer/wine stains, bits of cream etc ended up on my filter)

 So a lenspen and good blower are must-haves for me.

 Most people who wear glasses can also identify with this, I think. I need to quite literally wash my glasses daily! And I work in an air conditioned office!


----------



## dj_mocok

If you put filter on, doesn't mean that you don't need to clean the filter anyway, but then if it's only a matter of dust, curved or not, blower will get rid most dust easily.

 Of course if you're going to take the camera to extreme environment, filter is preferred, just to be safe. But for everyday general purpose, I don't think you need that much protection.

 When I sold my 2 yrs+ old digital camera, the lens was still mint, and this was a camera I used a lot and went out a lot with it. I think as long as you are careful with your camera, you won't get finger prints/dirt? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 /or whatnot on it. Of course you can't predict some unfortunate freak accident. But then, what are the chances?

 I remember I think I only got fingerprint on my camera twice for that course of 2 years and more, and that was because I thought I had put the lens cap on, but didn't. But they were easily cleaned with lenspen. Oh yeah, and once I got a twig touched my lens while I was doing macro, lol (focused too close). But it didn't leave any scratch.


----------



## av98m2

Ah well, I guess it depends on what your doing with the camera.

 In other news, compact digicams are getting faster and better I'm actually thinking of going back to them and selling off my entire nikon dslr system (except for my sb800, which i can still use with compacts)


----------



## dj_mocok

Yeah, I was just trying to save some of his money by not getting the unnecessary stuff. A proper filter isn't cheap, and add that to the fact that here in Australia everything is more expensive. 

 About compact camera, well, not really compact, but the one that I am highly interested is the new Olympus 18X zoom. It looks so nice and man, 18X optical. But I know if I buy it, that's just because. And image quality will be far better using DSLR.
 But then again, it all comes down to what you wanna shoot with your camera, and how important is image quality or certain aspect of picture is to you. I'm sure some people are just equally as happy with a proper compact like Canon G series or something.


----------



## av98m2

I'm eyeing the G7 and the Ricoh GRD. So far the Ricoh GRD is calling my name a lot louder (it has no zoom lens, but i'm used to shooting wide primes so...........plus its a lovely old fashioned design!!!)


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Met quite a few hobbyists too. First was this guy with his Canon and a large lens with red ring attached to it (I know nothing about Canon gears, but as far as I know, red ring = premium lens in general?), and he used it to shoot whatever he could point his camera at. Infinity, then medium range, and then did some flower macros, back and forth.

 Then met a bunch of students, I asked one of them, it was shooting day for their photography tuition. It's quite a sight to see a group of people with their DSLRs out.

 Then I bumped into the previous Canon guy, and this time he changed his lens to this 30cm-ish white lens, and still used it to shoot flower macros. Looks like he brought all his arsenals with him. 

 Walked past him and he kept staring at my camera. I think he was trying to figure out what lens I got. From a quick glance when I passed him, it looked like he got this "my lens is bigger than yours and what the hell are you doing with that old looking lens" on his face. Can't stand smug with big lens thinking that just because he got a big lens then he's suddenly a pro or something. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Or maybe he's really a super duper pro, looks like he pretty much "point and shoot" the hell out of everything he saw, came accross one flower, pointed, shot it. The resumed walking around (and holding his camera uphold like a soldier holding his AK-47), looked around, another flower, pointed, shot again. Either that he's a tard who don't have a concept of composition or he's so good at composition, didn't even need to think and just shoot everything right away and all come up perfect. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Not jealous or anything, but it's a bit annoying when you see a guy who thinks he's better than you because his gears are better than yours._

 

sorry if this is kinda late but i haven't had as much time to follow this thread lately. 

 i've ran into a bunch of those guys before also. there was one guy that i could never forget while shooting in some of the hills above golden gate bridge. while walking by, i complemented him on his pair of canon mark2's that he had in the back of his pick up. 

 i struck up a conversation with him, telling that i had a lot of fun with my D50 and kit lens and said that he had good taste in cameras and lenses. the next thing he said really annoyed me. he said that nikons were okay for amateurs but canon are for serious photographers and really had better lenses. that's why he chose canon and only shoots with "L" lenses. here i was happy with my new D50 and he burst my bubble. 

 after that, i got really annoyed and ended the conversation. it was obvious to me that he only cared about the equipment instead of taking pictures. it was the middle of the day and on top of the fact that he had two of the exact same lenses on both of his mark2s but they also had a flash attached to the camera. why would he need his flashes during the middle of the day with such huge zooms attached to his cameras? and all he was doing was hanging out on the back of his truck!!! sheesh...

 by the way, this was not meant as anything derogatory towards canon users. i think either canons or nikons are great and both make really good lenses.


----------



## dj_mocok

When he says something like that, that is obvious he himself was an amateur, probably a die-hard Canon fan that tries to make up his lack of skill with the best equipments he can afford.

 If I were you, I'd ask him to let me see the images he's taken so far, and see whether he puts his money where his mouth is. When he said that only pros use Canon and that's why he only used L-lenses, you should've told him that a real pro can get nice pictures regardless it's L-lenses or not. Either that or ask him that since he got 2 MarkIIs with similar L-lenses so suddenly he's a pro now?

 Seriously, you don't have to worry about other people's equipments, as long as you're happy with yours, that's the main thing. 
 But yeah, that's one hell of a w@nker you met there.


----------



## fureshi

no way, i'm really quite happy with my D50. his equipment was impressive but at the end of the day, it's the nut behind the camera that makes a picture good, not the camera.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Ok, got the D50 today. Couldnt get the D80 dad was pretty against it $$$ wise. If i grow out of the D50 which will be fair enough for me for a long time, i can consider upgrading 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I got a HOYA UV filter for 135, and ill try get a rubber hood for the 50mm sometime 

 Just another note, with all the electronics ive had, ive charged the battery for 24hrs prior to the first use (to properly condition the battery) should i do the same with my Camera battery? Otherwise ill probably keep it on the charger at least overnight.


----------



## av98m2

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_sorry if this is kinda late but i haven't had as much time to follow this thread lately. 

 i've ran into a bunch of those guys before also. there was one guy that i could never forget while shooting in some of the hills above golden gate bridge. while walking by, i complemented him on his pair of canon mark2's that he had in the back of his pick up. 

 i struck up a conversation with him, telling that i had a lot of fun with my D50 and kit lens and said that he had good taste in cameras and lenses. the next thing he said really annoyed me. he said that nikons were okay for amateurs but canon are for serious photographers and really had better lenses. that's why he chose canon and only shoots with "L" lenses. here i was happy with my new D50 and he burst my bubble. 

 after that, i got really annoyed and ended the conversation. it was obvious to me that he only cared about the equipment instead of taking pictures. it was the middle of the day and on top of the fact that he had two of the exact same lenses on both of his mark2s but they also had a flash attached to the camera. why would he need his flashes during the middle of the day with such huge zooms attached to his cameras? and all he was doing was hanging out on the back of his truck!!! sheesh...

 by the way, this was not meant as anything derogatory towards canon users. i think either canons or nikons are great and both make really good lenses._

 

LOL what a wanker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This twit obviously doesn't spend much time making or looking at prints.
 Anyone who actually bothers to look at photographs will never make such an ignorant statement.


----------



## Pm@c

Man should I drop 1200 on the D80? Im looking to get into photography and have been looking at the D80. But its like 1200 Canadian (well thats average, its like 1050 on ebay and like 1500 at futureshop). i should just try and find a camera store.


----------



## mbriant

For anyone who wants to stick their toe in the water and get a feel for DSLR Nikon photography without breaking the bank, I'd suggest they also take a look at a well maintained used D100. New body introductions have been coming fast and furious during the past 3 years so there's quite a few of these on the market. They are 6 megapixel and can be had now for around $400 to $500 (or less) in good and sometimes hardly-used condition .... and are built better (closer in feel and build quality to a D200) than the D50, and D70. Often the seller will throw in an extra battery or bargain-priced lenses as well. Yes, they are older ( but not that old ) and lack a couple of the features that the newer models have, but they also offer some features the newer models don't and most important ... take fine pictures. No matter which body you buy, you're going to take a major bath when it's time to upgrade, so you'll take much less of a bath with one of these. Of course any lenses you buy for it will be usable on a future body upgrade as well. I owned one for 3 years and never had a problem with it ... something I can't say about the more expensive D2H I replaced it with.


----------



## perplex

To support what mbriant said, there's http://www.pbase.com/alex_beb/africa_2005 to show you guys what the "inferior" and "ancient" D100 is capable of. There's quite a collection of D100 taken photos from that person. Just goes to show you how important the photography skills are compared to the need for having the latest and greatest cameras.

 I was thinking about a used D100, but I found a good price for a used D70. Now I just need to build my lens collection 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .


----------



## fureshi

the D100 is a great suggestion but do you guys think that all of the pro level features of it will make photography more difficult for a beginner? the great thing (and maybe not so great if you're an experienced photographer) about the D50 or D40 is that their interfaces are simplified for the consumer. getting to the extra features, which might not be used by a beginner, requires hunting through menus. 

 btw, i've noticed that the D100 uses about the same sensor as the D70/s with the D50 and D40 having a slightly upgraded version. for less than the price of a D50/40, you can get a pro level camera with the D100. sounds really tempting to me but i'd still consider myself a noob.


----------



## mbriant

For someone who only wants a camera to take the odd snapshot and never intends to truly "get involved" in photography, perhaps a D100 is overkill. Then again, if that's the case, perhaps any DSLR is overkill. But for beginners who do intend to learn and get involved more and more, IMO, it's a perfect camera ... and now cheap and good enough to keep as a quality second back-up body to any upgrade they may get in the future.

 The D100 was Nikon's original entry level DSLR and was therefore purchased by both pros and amateurs. It may not come with fixed macro, landscape, portrait, etc. settings like a basic point and shoot, but it does have a built in pop-up flash and full auto settings. Once a beginner understands the relationship between aperture and shutter speed, along with depth of field and lighting, the "flower", "mountains", and "head-silhouette" settings aren't really needed. Even if they never use the advanced features ( that the D50, D70, and D80 would also have ) ... no harm done.


----------



## skyline889

Do you think it would be worth it to sell a D50 to get the D100? Is it a better performer than the D70? I had the D70 but sold it due to lack of use however, now that I'm starting to get back into it, will the extra features of the D100 be useful? The only mode I usually use is manual, so I don't need all the preset functions and modes of the D50/70. Would you recommend buying a better lens over trading in for the D100? I always thought that the D100 was more of a side-step from the D50/70 but perhaps I misjudged that. The one big thing for me that was a step up from the D70 to the D50 was the larger 2" screen on the D50, so I think going back to the 1.8" might be a little hard. The D100 bodies are pretty reasonable right now so I could probably pick one up on eBay. Thanks for your help!


----------



## mb3k

Wow, I didn't realize the D100 bodies are so inexpensive. I have no clue about the D100 skyline889, so I can't comment on your dilemma.
 A question of my own... What's with these filter thread sizes?! I really want the 67mm Nikon circular polarizer but I'm planning to buy the 18-200VR which is 72mm. I heard a lot about buying a large filter then using step-up rings to fit them on smaller threads... but is there performance sacrifices to do such thing?


----------



## mbriant

My recommendation for the D100 was mainly based on cost, the fact that I owned one, and the fact that I usually give extra points for heft and build quality. I've read about the D50 and D70 when they were first released but since I had my eye on a D2H, never paid a whole lot of attention. I believe there are benefits to both the D100 and the D70 but you'd have to do a feature/spec comparison to see what the differences were and what's most important to you. I paid $2000 Can for my D100 body when new and recently sold it in mint condition to my brother-in-law for $1000 Can. ... but included an extra 2 batteries, a vertical/battery handgrip, and 3 practically untouched Tamron (their high end) fast zooms with Hoya MRC filters, and a case. 

 Like I said, because this product category is new and rapidly developing, any future upgrade will mean you'll take a big loss on whatever you own ... so if you're thinking of getting a DSLR as a stop-gap stepping stone to learn on, or if you're just looking for excellent value for a camera that if taken care of should last a while, IMO the D100 is a good choice at this point in time.

 A good friend of mine has been a top commercial/fashion photographer in Toronto for many years and shot with a film Nikon F2, a Hasselblad medium format (which he eventually added a digital back to), and a 4 x 5 camera until recently. His first DSLR??? A Nikon D50 which he used to shoot for magazines. He finally upgraded ... to a D70. Again, he's an award-winning professional. So when people say that the camera itself isn't the most important part of photography ... believe it.

 Here's his website. He keeps his promotional photos current, but over the years he has shot tons and tons of excellent product (including audio equipment) travel, and fashion photos. 

*http://www.lafondphoto.com/index.html*


----------



## dj_mocok

Your professional friend should meet that snob guy with 2x 1DSMkIIs whom Fureshi met and have a bit of talk. 

 Another camera worth picking up is a used Canon 20D IMO. That of couse if you don't care about any particular brands or lenses they offer and you just start fresh. I'd rather have a used 20D than a brand new 400Xt.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'd rather have a used 20D than a brand new 400Xt._

 

x10


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My recommendation for the D100 was mainly based on cost, the fact that I owned one, and the fact that I usually give extra points for heft and build quality. I've read about the D50 and D70 when they were first released but since I had my eye on a D2H, never paid a whole lot of attention. I believe there are benefits to both the D100 and the D70 but you'd have to do a feature/spec comparison to see what the differences were and what's most important to you. I paid $2000 Can for my D100 body when new and recently sold it in mint condition to my brother-in-law for $1000 Can. ... but included an extra 2 batteries, a vertical/battery handgrip, and 3 practically untouched Tamron (their high end) fast zooms with Hoya MRC filters, and a case. 

 Like I said, because this product category is new and rapidly developing, any future upgrade will mean you'll take a big loss on whatever you own ... so if you're thinking of getting a DSLR as a stop-gap stepping stone to learn on, or if you're just looking for excellent value for a camera that if taken care of should last a while, IMO the D100 is a good choice at this point in time.

 A good friend of mine has been a top commercial/fashion photographer in Toronto for many years and shot with a film Nikon F2, a Hasselblad medium format (which he eventually added a digital back to), and a 4 x 5 camera until recently. His first DSLR??? A Nikon D50 which he used to shoot for magazines. He finally upgraded ... to a D70. Again, he's an award-winning professional. So when people say that the camera itself isn't the most important part of photography ... believe it.

 Here's his website. He keeps his promotional photos current, but over the years he has shot tons and tons of excellent product (including audio equipment) travel, and fashion photos. 

*http://www.lafondphoto.com/index.html*_

 

Wow, I'm shooting film with an F2 too! The other half was reversed for me though, I sold my D70 a couple of months ago to downgrade to the D50. I unfotunately don't shoot award winning pictures though. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The D100 looks like a great body to shoot with, but I think the D50 might do a better job for me until next year when hopefully, the D80/D200 prices drop and I can try and pick one up used.

 Another question, what do you guys do when you get in a rut? I've been getting bored with my shots and local scenery lately and can't think of anything interesting to shoot. It seems like everyday and everything just looks the same after a while. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Every now and then I fall into a rut like this and it takes me a while to find something interesting to shoot, any ideas?


----------



## perplex

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, I'm shooting film with an F2 too! The other half was reversed for me though, I sold my D70 a couple of months ago to downgrade to the D50. I unfotunately don't shoot award winning pictures though. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The D100 looks like a great body to shoot with, but I think the D50 might do a better job for me until next year when hopefully, the D80/D200 prices drop and I can try and pick one up used.

 Another question, what do you guys do when you get in a rut? I've been getting bored with my shots and local scenery lately and can't think of anything interesting to shoot. It seems like everyday and everything just looks the same after a while. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Every now and then I fall into a rut like this and it takes me a while to find something interesting to shoot, any ideas?_

 

Buy a new lens 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And about D100, I don't think it would be worth consideration if you already have a D70 or D50.


----------



## dj_mocok

Have you guys ever put too much cleaning solution and it actually left dried out smudges on the lens? 

 I was using the cotton swab that comes with the Giotto cleaning kit, and as instructed, I sprayed the tip first before using the swab to clean the edge of my lens. It scared me for awhile because after wiping it, I got a circular dried smudge on the lens. Luckily I could wipe it off using lenspen.

 If you put too much solution, can this happen? or is it because the cleaning solution is dodgy?


 PS: When bored, shoot different type of things. Since you've been doing landscapes, try shooting portraits (your friends/family) or you can do street B&W photography. You'll never know what you'll come accross outside on the street, you can get lots of interesting images on the street. I love street photography and really wanna do it, but I'm too embarassed carrying my camera around in the city and shooting something that most-passerbys won't find special, I'll look like a tourist or a weirdo (try shooting hydrant or traffic light on the street). Guess street photographer needs to have fairly thick skin eh?


----------



## WhatMACHI

Maybe go around with a friend 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My friends and I were driving through the city to get my girlfriend and we were shooting at anything and everything lol  We probably looked like idiots but we had fun


----------



## dj_mocok

So have you decided (or already bought) which camera to get?


----------



## Pm@c

Im really in a pickle. I want to take beautiful pictures, and get introduced to the photography hobby, but I am unsure of what camera to buy. Would it be better to go cheaper for say a D40 or a D100 or should i splurge for a D80? I really want to get into this and be able to take some beautiful pictures, but I am unsure of what I should get. Can anyone comment on the quality of the different Nikon Dxx models?


----------



## Old Pa

I'm in my 34th year with Nikon kit. My current travel setup is a D70 with a Sigma AF DC 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 D and ReallyRightStuff mounting plate, a Gitzo G1568 monopod with RRS plate on a Monfrotto 3232 pivot, and a polarizing and a neutral density 0.6 filters. The whole kit fits neatly into my usual Tumi travel gadget bag and handles 90+% of shooting circumstances. Having tried this outfit in SoCal in February, I can't say enough nice things about the Sigma SuperZoom. It has Sigma's proprietary image stabilazation and is bright, light, sufficiently fast and sharp. No wonder Sigma has been getting such good reviews. With my D200 main system getting to the point that its LowePro backpack next needs a set of wheels (
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), the D70 based travel kit is simple and fun.


----------



## kin0kin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Pm@c* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Im really in a pickle. I want to take beautiful pictures, and get introduced to the photography hobby, but I am unsure of what camera to buy. Would it be better to go cheaper for say a D40 or a D100 or should i splurge for a D80? I really want to get into this and be able to take some beautiful pictures, but I am unsure of what I should get. Can anyone comment on the quality of the different Nikon Dxx models?_

 

You can get the D50 body at carsandmosher for 570CAD + tax. Get someone from the states to forward you a 50mm 1.8 (cost no more than 115USD to get it here as oppose to 179CAD + tax locally) and you can pretty much take awesome pictures both in and outdoors, with and without flash in most cases


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Another question, what do you guys do when you get in a rut? I've been getting bored with my shots and local scenery lately and can't think of anything interesting to shoot. It seems like everyday and everything just looks the same after a while. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Every now and then I fall into a rut like this and it takes me a while to find something interesting to shoot, any ideas?_

 

you can always trying shooting with a lens of a different focal length. it'll force your composition to be different than what you've been used to.


----------



## Pm@c

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kin0kin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can get the D50 body at carsandmosher for 570CAD + tax. Get someone from the states to forward you a 50mm 1.8 (cost no more than 115USD to get it here as oppose to 179CAD + tax locally) and you can pretty much take awesome pictures both in and outdoors, with and without flash in most cases 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Is the D50 a decent camera though? Is the D40 better? Plus I want to get into some macro. I love seeing some of the pictures on here of bees and draonflies and spiders. Its interesting to see them up close and personal like that,and I would be very well interested in these types of photographing. But at the same time I would also like to photograph landscape and portrait, so I guess it all depends on what lenses I have right? I still like to get a body suggested for me, I have had like 10 different suggestions for a body.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Another question, what do you guys do when you get in a rut? I've been getting bored with my shots and local scenery lately and can't think of anything interesting to shoot. It seems like everyday and everything just looks the same after a while. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Every now and then I fall into a rut like this and it takes me a while to find something interesting to shoot, any ideas?_

 

Yup. All the time. That's when I go to my local library and look at the art photo books for the ways other people see and photograph stuff. Gets the juices flowing.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Pm@c* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is the D50 a decent camera though? Is the D40 better? Plus I want to get into some macro. I love seeing some of the pictures on here of bees and draonflies and spiders. Its interesting to see them up close and personal like that,and I would be very well interested in these types of photographing. But at the same time I would also like to photograph landscape and portrait, so I guess it all depends on what lenses I have right? I still like to get a body suggested for me, I have had like 10 different suggestions for a body._

 

All those cameras, be it D40, D50, 20D, 300D, 400XT, etc... can take beautiful pictures. Heck, even a decent "prosumer" camera can take amazing pictures.
 Is there any reason why you wanna go DSLR? I'm not trying to discourage you, but seems like you want a camera that can do "everything" for you, landscape, good macro, etc...

 If you don't have that much budget, you might wanna consider a good, high end, prosumer camera too. I took many beautiful pictures ranging from macro to long telephoto shots using my Panasonic FZ20.
 But of course, if money is no object, then it's different story. 
 I know top of the range prosumer can cost as much as (or even more) than some entry level DSLR kit, but it offers you convenience.

 Basically, a prosumer gives you a very versatile, convenient, and (generally) cheaper solution for taking pictures. It can create beautiful pictures too.
 A DSLR is much more specific for certain range/type of shot (according to the lens of course).

 But both can take beautiful pictures.


----------



## kin0kin

The D50 is decent enough and the fact that it can use a variety of lenses is really a bonus over the D40....which is now sold for even more than the D50. Like some have said, these bodies are good enough, the only thing you should ask yourself is if you need the bells and whistles of the higher end model. You can take very awesome picture with the D50 and there is more to skill than the camera like others have said. Here's some pictures taken with a D50 and a tamron SP90:


























 not my pictures though.


----------



## Pm@c

Those are beautiful pictures indeed. And yes, I want a DSLR because I want to get more into it than just prosumer. And as for the specific types of pictures, Im just wondering if this camera is compatible with all the types of photos i can take (and someone confirmed that to me by saying it is compatible iwth the different types of lenses). Im just wondering if this body will allow me (with different lenses) to take all these different photos. and more specifically macro (I love those pictures you posted kin0kin, even if they arent yours, it helps me to know that this camera is capable of nice photos).


----------



## kin0kin

Yup, the camera is good enough. I was indeed hoping that the pictures would convince you that the camera will not hold you back as far as taking good PQ is concerned. You can take all kinds of things with it as long as you have the right lens and tools, couple it with some good skills, you're good to go. Like I've said earlier, the cams are good enough, it's just whether you need the bells and whistles of the higher end models.


----------



## nogrot

Personally, I was happy with my D70 purchase when it was available and although I could not afford the D100 at the time, I found out that there were a few things about the D70 that made it better (to me) at the time:

 -better battery life (500-600 shots easily per charge)
 -newly updated flash system, i-TTL, which is known for being exceptional
 -much faster speed and write-from-buffer-to-card-time
 -instant-on with power switch

 Things that the D100 had that I wished were on the D70 were:
 -metal body
 -portrait grip
 -better viewfinder?

 D70 and D70s can be picked up for peanuts right now, and I recommend these models to my friends because of the reasons above, as well as the fact that 6mp is PLENTY of resolution for prints for most amateurs. My other main reason, is that the D70 uses two control dials (unlike the newer D40/50) just like all of their higher-end models (D200, D2*, etc.) and their film models before that. That way, if they ever want to upgrade bodies later, as I ended up doing, they will be more used to the body. Also, it seems easier to learn and experiment in Manual when you have separate dials for Aperature and Shutter speed. This is just my experience, however.

 I have read some posts from D100 fans that feel they are an incredible body with image quality that is better than the D70. I haven't used one, so I can't attest to anything past the fact that it is a great body.


 Switching gears, anybody read all these crazy rumors about a D3 model with a full-frame-ish (1.1x) sensor being announced at PMA? I hate to say it but I find the idea really exciting. Maybe it's good I am keeping my old primes after all.


----------



## dj_mocok

When are they gonna introduce D80s with ability to meter AIS lenses?


----------



## mb3k

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When are they gonna introduce D80s with ability to meter AIS lenses?_

 

9 months after the D80 release?
 I just got my D80 not too long ago, hopefully they don't come out with the D80S anytime soon


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you guys ever put too much cleaning solution and it actually left dried out smudges on the lens? 

 I was using the cotton swab that comes with the Giotto cleaning kit, and as instructed, I sprayed the tip first before using the swab to clean the edge of my lens. It scared me for awhile because after wiping it, I got a circular dried smudge on the lens. Luckily I could wipe it off using lenspen.

 If you put too much solution, can this happen? or is it because the cleaning solution is dodgy?


 PS: When bored, shoot different type of things. Since you've been doing landscapes, try shooting portraits (your friends/family) or you can do street B&W photography. You'll never know what you'll come accross outside on the street, you can get lots of interesting images on the street. I love street photography and really wanna do it, but I'm too embarassed carrying my camera around in the city and shooting something that most-passerbys won't find special, I'll look like a tourist or a weirdo (try shooting hydrant or traffic light on the street). Guess street photographer needs to have fairly thick skin eh?_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_you can always trying shooting with a lens of a different focal length. it'll force your composition to be different than what you've been used to._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yup. All the time. That's when I go to my local library and look at the art photo books for the ways other people see and photograph stuff. Gets the juices flowing._

 

Thanks for the help guys. I think I might try checking into the library to find some new ideas and interesting places to shoot. Also, does the D50 do native B&W shooting? That might be an interesting venture in digital. (The only time I shoot B&W is with film.)


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When are they gonna introduce D80s with ability to meter AIS lenses?_

 

It's called the D200


----------



## skyline889

Got another problem for you guys. I've been having a dark spot show up in all my pictures for the past couple of months now and it's been really irritating me as I has to ps it out, if it's even possible to do that. It's not on the lens since I've tried it with multiple lenses, so I have a worrying suspicion that it may be on the sensor itself. What would you guys recommend I do? Send it in for a checkup/cleaning, or take it in to a local Nikon dealer?

 Here's a pic of the problem (It only show up when a shot is underexposed):


----------



## lz7j

I don't own a Nikon, but I can tell you that your problem is a dirty sensor!!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...cleaning.shtml


----------



## dj_mocok

Well, either it's dust on the sensor (can be cured using bulb blower hopefully), or it might be this:







  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's called the D200 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hehe... that's actually almost true. Apart from the solid, bigger body, more fps, and more hard buttons, etc... 

 I'm not asking for anything else, just add metering. I don't need 1/8000, I don't need weather-proof body, just give me metering please... then it would be my perfect budget camera. 
 Why they (Nikon) never thought of the ones buying their D80 (and not D200) are the ones who are mostly budget-conscious, and budget conscious can be related to buying old MF lens. So if they include MF lens metering, it would be THE camera for the budget-minded shooters.

 But I guess looking from Nikon's (marketing) point of view, mainly the reason for no metering is to discourage people buying second-hand lenses and "force" them to buy new lenses eh? Not to mention it would be too close to D200 too.


----------



## davidd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Got another problem for you guys. I've been having a dark spot show up in all my pictures for the past couple of months now and it's been really irritating me as I has to ps it out, if it's even possible to do that. It's not on the lens since I've tried it with multiple lenses, so I have a worrying suspicion that it may be on the sensor itself. What would you guys recommend I do? Send it in for a checkup/cleaning, or take it in to a local Nikon dealer?_

 

It's dust on the filter above the sensor. you can send it in to Nikon if you want and they'll clean it, but dust is such a common problem it could get annoying doing that every time you notice dust, so you should clean it yourself, either with one of those small hand-power blowers for light dust, or if your comfortable with doing it, do a wet clean following the link above, it is actually very easy to do after awhile.


----------



## dj_mocok

I took my own advice today, doing street photography, and yes it was fun, especially if you have lots of interesting things to shoot like in Mardi Gras.

 I was gonna shoot with the MF Nikon, but then luckily when I went there, my common sense came to me and I suddenly realised that there's no way I can shoot parade using MF, it's very difficult and I'm not gonna risk it. So since I also got my macro AF with me, I switched and used the macro instead.

 Overall, I am pretty disappointed with the result, me and my partner stood there for 5 hours in the crowd, and we stood in a wrong way, so we could only see 1 side of the parade and got stuck there (the parade was coming from 3 directions before joining onto Oxford st.)
 And as if it's not enough, the guy next to me really couldn't stop moving, climbing the fence to look around, bumping me, etc. and f/2.8 is really not enough for ideal late afternoon/night photography (excuses excuses 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ). So I ended up with lots of blurry pictures and only a few quite decent ones.

 Anyway, then to make things worse, the side we were on was actually scheduled to go last, so since we've been standing for so many hours and looked like the interesting ones were on different lanes and already gone, so we decided to go home instead.

 Should've just stayed at home and watch it from tv. But at least one thing that makes me feel better is the macro is really such a versatile lens.

 Here are the better ones that I took:


----------



## Veniogenesis

http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/re...nikond40x.html


 Nikon D40x: Nikon D40 but with 10.2 megapixels. Hmmm...


----------



## jjcha

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_



_

 

Lots of nice shots, but this last one is very good. Personally, I think this one shot alone justifies a day out shooting (well not that a day out shooting needs justification... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )

 Best,

 -Jason


----------



## dj_mocok

JJcha: Thanks. Glad that you liked that one. Unfortunately those are a few ones that I could get something nice out of them. Most of them were crap (I took 137 pictures) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . I put 4 which I think the better ones in my photo.net gallery. 
 Well, at least next year, If I decided to watch, I know where to stand. Gotta go early and get a nice spot. 

 About the new Nikon, I'm actually quite surprised that they introduced D40x, the D40 is still very new. Whatever the reason is, I really don't see much point of "upgrading" the D40 that soon, plus IMO it doesn't have that much improvement over the old D40 anyway. But I'm pretty sure there are lots of pissed off new D40 owners right about now.


----------



## Contrastique

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *davidd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's dust on the filter above the sensor. you can send it in to Nikon if you want and they'll clean it, but dust is such a common problem it could get annoying doing that every time you notice dust, so you should clean it yourself, either with one of those small hand-power blowers for light dust, or if your comfortable with doing it, do a wet clean following the link above, it is actually very easy to do after awhile._

 

Sending that to Nikon would really be a waste of your money. Some good photography stores will do it for you and just make you pay for the cost of using the product for cleaning for example the sensor swab. (at least we do)
 When you do try it for yourself first try out the handblowers. Most of the time they will be sufficient enough and when that's not working then try some heavy stuff. You can also get a vacuum-cleaner for cleaning up the sensor.
 But before doing all that stuff do make sure your battery is full cause when he dies during the time your mirror is up you will damage the most expensive thing in your camera: the sensor.


----------



## Contrastique

By the way; nice this thread excits here on head-fi!! It's my most beloved hobby!!


----------



## Contrastique

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For those of you that shoot digital, since the Nikon wb setting for incandescent light is pretty bad, what do you guys do about it? I adjust wb manually through Photoshop but it would be a lot less hassle if there was a trick to do it through the camera. I had this problem on both the D70 and the D50 and it's plagued on the D40 as well, is it like this on the higher end D80/D200 as well?_

 

To adjust the wb well you can set in on preset wb. Wich means you just take a white piece of paper, hold in front of the camera and measure. With the parametres been given you use it to make the pictures and that circomstances. That is the most accurate way of doing it in your camera.

 As commend on the what I read about filters. You simply just don't put a 20 dollar filter in front of you 70-200 2,8 lens!!! Then yes it will be better without them. The best brand of filters I can come up with is B&W. Shouldn't be a problem there when using!!!

 You can easily check whether a filter is good by putting it on a table. When you look at it and don't see the glass in it then it's good. You can also hold it a way that you can see the refelection of a light in it. When it reflects too much light it's best not to put it on your lens cause it needs to let light go through and not reflect it. Best to do a A/B-ing with another filter to see wich one would be most best.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Ooo i got a bunch of questions regarding my D50 which ive been shooting at everything since ive had it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








 A bit tired to post up my question just yet, but ill be sure to post up some pictures ive takes along with some queries as to improve my shots ^_^

 Peace


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_JJcha: Thanks. Glad that you liked that one. Unfortunately those are a few ones that I could get something nice out of them. Most of them were crap (I took 137 pictures) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . I put 4 which I think the better ones in my photo.net gallery. 
 Well, at least next year, If I decided to watch, I know where to stand. Gotta go early and get a nice spot. 

 About the new Nikon, I'm actually quite surprised that they introduced D40x, the D40 is still very new. Whatever the reason is, I really don't see much point of "upgrading" the D40 that soon, plus IMO it doesn't have that much improvement over the old D40 anyway. But I'm pretty sure there are lots of pissed off new D40 owners right about now. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 from what i've heard after speaking to more experienced photographers, only 3-4% of pictures will be considered good enough so i think you're doing okay. truthfully, i'm pretty disappointed with most of my photographs also. 

 as for the d40x, i'd be surprised if they priced it close to the d40. with a 10mp sensor, it shouldn't be put in the same price bracket. i'd bet that the target audience for the d40x is a prosumer that can't afford the d80 but doesn't want the d40. hmm...sounds like me since i can't afford the d80 either.


----------



## davidd

I'm not surpised at a camera like the D40x being released so soon, but am surpised that used D40x rather than something also like D60.


----------



## Mercuttio

Today I found myself a nice used 50mm f/1.8. One of the older ones, when they were still made in Japan and had metal parts. I'm pretty excited to hack around with it today and this week.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *davidd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not surpised at a camera like the D40x being released so soon, but am surpised that used D40x rather than something also like D60._

 

Ditto this. Although not being in photography for much time at all. Most of the concerns ive been reading with the D40 had little to do with MP. As an entry level camera, why would big MP mean much anyway?


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_from what i've heard after speaking to more experienced photographers, only 3-4% of pictures will be considered good enough so i think you're doing okay. truthfully, i'm pretty disappointed with most of my photographs also. 

 as for the d40x, i'd be surprised if they priced it close to the d40. with a 10mp sensor, it shouldn't be put in the same price bracket. i'd bet that the target audience for the d40x is a prosumer that can't afford the d80 but doesn't want the d40. hmm...sounds like me since i can't afford the d80 either. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yeah, I think I should be glad at least I got something worth keeping. It's just the feeling that I know I could do much better but because of the circumstances, I couldn't. That day I'd say equipment matters. If I had a 70-200 2.8 VR, I'm sure I'd go home with lots of nice portraits. But come to think of it, it's so huge I probably wouldn't be able to use it at all given the confined space I was at


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mercuttio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Today I found myself a nice used 50mm f/1.8. One of the older ones, when they were still made in Japan and had metal parts. I'm pretty excited to hack around with it today and this week._

 

I found myself one of those as well (before I got my camera body, no less; go figure!)

 You have the 18-70 on your D200, right? How does that work out for you? I've pondered whether to get it, or spend the extra $150 or so for a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. I'm more interested in the narrow DOF than low-light capability (although I guess that won't hurt either), so I'm not quite sure how much a half to full stop will mean here (DSLR noob syndrome). Perhaps I should just stick to the 50mm when I want that effect.


----------



## Contrastique

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I found myself one of those as well (before I got my camera body, no less; go figure!)

 You have the 18-70 on your D200, right? How does that work out for you? I've pondered whether to get it, or spend the extra $150 or so for a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. I'm more interested in the narrow DOF than low-light capability (although I guess that won't hurt either), so I'm not quite sure how much a half to full stop will mean here (DSLR noob syndrome). Perhaps I should just stick to the 50mm when I want that effect._

 

IMO...save the money for the 17-50. Is quite similar to the 17-55 from nikon (saw some tests with pictures and discussed them where I work) and it is truly a remarkable lens for the price.
 The 18-70 looses light and qual when going towards the edges ( donnow if that makes any sense..).


----------



## dj_mocok

If I were you, I'd get the 17-50mm from Tamron too. The constant f/2.8 alone is well worth the $150 extra. 
 That's if you like shooting at lower apertures (some people shoot at a bit higher aperture and with flash most of the time).


----------



## fureshi

the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is the lens that i'm saving up for also. i was drooling over the nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 but from the reviews that i've read about the tamson, it's as sharp as the nikon in the center and a little CA on the edges. not a big deal to me considering that the tamron costs one third of the nikon. i'm one of those won't use flash unless i absolutely have to so the 2.8 will come in handy.


----------



## perplex

Beware that within 10 years from now all DSLRs may have 35mm sensors. So be wary of buying DX lens 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I found myself one of those as well (before I got my camera body, no less; go figure!)

 You have the 18-70 on your D200, right? How does that work out for you? I've pondered whether to get it, or spend the extra $150 or so for a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. I'm more interested in the narrow DOF than low-light capability (although I guess that won't hurt either), so I'm not quite sure how much a half to full stop will mean here (DSLR noob syndrome). Perhaps I should just stick to the 50mm when I want that effect._

 

Yep, I do have the 18-70. It's actually been much better than I expected... I was able to get much of what I wanted from it. It seems to me like a jack of all trades, master of none. Nice build with a waterproof seal, really quite nice in well lit settings. I decided to use it for several months and really figure out just what I wanted in other lenses... what were the limitations? 

 In low light, forget about darned thing. Frankly a large portion of why I'm going nuts over my new 50mm is the speed... I can shoot in low light and get super sharp images with very little trouble. It's also just so darned compact... 

 Curse you, Lens Fi!


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Beware that within 10 years from now all DSLRs may have 35mm sensors. So be wary of buying DX lens 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ._

 

but in 10 years, you would've gotten the value out of the lens so why not buy the right tool right now?


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mercuttio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yep, I do have the 18-70. It's actually been much better than I expected... I was able to get much of what I wanted from it. It seems to me like a jack of all trades, master of none. Nice build with a waterproof seal, really quite nice in well lit settings. I decided to use it for several months and really figure out just what I wanted in other lenses... what were the limitations? 

 In low light, forget about darned thing. Frankly a large portion of why I'm going nuts over my new 50mm is the speed... I can shoot in low light and get super sharp images with very little trouble. It's also just so darned compact... 

 Curse you, Lens Fi!_

 

Wait til you get your hands on 1.4 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 By the way, check out this hilarious thread on dpreview. Some people really get the D40 way out of their heads.

 Anyway, I finally found a way to store my lenses. 
 I've been thinking:
 - If I store them in a drawer or inside the cupboard ---> Might be too humid on warm days and might develop mould
 - Outside sitting on the bench ---> gets dusty too quick and might develop condensation from air conditioner
 - Putting it in a plastic container outside ---> Read about degasing and it might cloud the lens
 - Putting it in a wooden box or shoe box ---> bad material, again, might develop mould
 - zip lock ---> some people said it's better to let the air circulate, not sealed.

 So I bought a metal bread bin (something like the one below), it can also breathe and I'm sticking a little bit of bluetak on the sides of lid so that it opens a bit more for the air to circulate, and since it's partially covered (with around 0.5cm opening and some small gaps on top), I hope it won't develop condensation from sudden temperature hike/drop from turning the air conditioner on and off. (hoping that the cool air inside will remain a bit longer when the A/C is off).
 And they're cheap.


----------



## perplex

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_but in 10 years, you would've gotten the value out of the lens so why not buy the right tool right now?_

 

True, depending on who you are. Some people will still be heartbroken spending £700 on a shiny Nikkor 12-24 DX only to find it won't be 12-24 in 10 years time or so. I've heard of people still using Nikkors bought 30 or so years ago 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .

 Ah but then any 35mm sensory DSLR by Nikon will surely have a DX function too, so my arguement is flawed


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 Some people will still be heartbroken spending £700 on a shiny Nikkor 12-24 DX only to find it won't be 12-24 in 10 years time or so. I've heard of people still using Nikkors bought 30 or so years ago 
 

When I compare the build quality of my old MF Nikkors vs. the AF lenses of today, I have my doubts the newer lenses will last as long as the older ones anyway. At least not without a considerable amount of maintenance and/or repair. (not only because of the materials used but the complexity of AF)

 I've already had to replace focusing motors in two AF-s lenses which were only a few years old. Fortunately it was done under warranty. Warranty's over now and one of them is developing the tell-tale intermittent squeak again already. I don't usually buy or recommend others to buy extended warranties for electronic equipment, but I do recommend them for today's expensive AF lenses.


----------



## Contrastique

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When I compare the build quality of my old MF Nikkors vs. the AF lenses of today, I have my doubts the newer lenses will last as long as the older ones anyway. At least not without a considerable amount of maintenance and/or repair. (not only because of the materials used but the complexity of AF)_

 

You are right about that one!! The af lenses contain much more electronics than the mf ones. That's also why your digital camera definately won't last 20-30 years as the old models did. 

 As for the dx function on the dslr; that will probably never happen cause the imagecircel in a dx lens is smaller so it fits the small sensor perfectly. 
 But for example; on a old Minolta af body the new digital lens wich is standard delivered with the Sony a100 will fit it but you have to zoom in, in order not to see the smaller circle of the digital lens.


----------



## dj_mocok

Hey hasn't the PMA started already? I haven't read anything about the new Nikon pro body yet. So it's just rumour afterall or they might announce it later or something?


----------



## perplex

I think there's been a strong belief that Nikon won't announce a pro-body at PMA for a few days now. The consensus is that Nikon will announce a pro-body in H2. But who knows for sure?


----------



## fureshi

For those of you that have used both cameras, do you know if the view finder area is the same between the D50 and D70s? I was considering doing a sideways move from a D50 to a D70s. The D50 feels closed in and was wondering if the D70s is any better.


----------



## Contrastique

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For those of you that have used both cameras, do you know if the view finder area is the same between the D50 and D70s? I was considering doing a sideways move from a D50 to a D70s. The D50 feels closed in and was wondering if the D70s is any better._

 

If I remember well the d70s has a larger viewfinder. 
 What definately will improve is the lensqual. Delivered with the d50 is a 18-55 and with the d70s comes a 18-70 wich is a lot better!


----------



## john_jcb

I was reading an article in the USA Today paper about the prices of digital cameras. They stated that there is going to be a huge price reduction this year even in the top of the line Nikon's and Canon's. They were also discussing how quickly models seem to change with technology advances compared to the film days when Nikon went years between models and a good body was a lifetime investment.

 Are there new advances coming out that would drive the prices down as they predict or are there other factors at play?


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 They were also discussing how quickly models seem to change with technology advances compared to the film days when Nikon went years between models and a good body was a lifetime investment. 
 

 I've commented on this "computer era" phenomena in the past. Like many, I have film camera bodies that are decades old and still work like new. It seems an incredible waste to have to dispose of your entire camera, especially an expensive pro body, in order to keep up to date with the rapidly changing pixel count increases and other incremental sensor improvements. With the size of the Nikon pro bodies, surely they could come up with a flexible and workable modular portion that could be replaced with future upgrades. I think if either Canon or Nikon ( the two leading recognized pro manufacturers) would do this, and keep to their word by making future modular upgrades ( for at least 10 years or so) available at less cost than purchasing a completely new camera, it would be embraced by a lot of people.

 Computers, have desensitized people into accepting expensive, perfectly good machinery as being "disposable", but even computers allow the consumer an extended usable life and monitary savings by being upgradeable for a while at least.


----------



## kin0kin

Hi guys, I'm contemplating picking up a telephoto and is looking at Nikon 80-200mm AF macro and Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM. The nikon is actually a tad more expensive after adding the hood and it is slower. As far as optics, I think they are both very decent but I know alot of people prefer to stick to 1st party lenses. Does anybody have experience with both of these lenses? I was pretty sure to pull the trigger on Sigma until I read a bunch of horror story about them. I would like to pick up the nikon AF-S version made in 1998 but apparetly it has been totally replaced by the VR version...the VR version cost too much and I can't justify purchasing it...gonna stick to either one of these + monopod.

 PS: I've also got my tamron 17-50mm, very good build quality for a "plastic" lens, much better than the nikon 18-70mm, the zoom and focus ring is liquid smooth. But the lens suffer from pretty severe vignetting when wide open in certain situation.


----------



## F107plus5

I bought a Tokina 28-85 back in '85 as a knock-about lens for just a two week jaunt.

 I still use the darned thing on my F2A, what a workhorse it's turned out to be!!

 Yeah; and the camera too!

 ....can't comment though on more modern stuff.


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Speaking of Nikon equipment, I have a lot of old MF Nikon bodies and a couple of lenses laying around (most of which collected by my brother):

 Nikon FTN
 Nikon F2S
 Nikon F2AS
 Nikkormat (Nikomat) FT3
 Nikon FE2
 Nikon FA
 DP-1 Photomic finder for Nikon F2
 MD-15 motor drive for Nikon FA
 PC-Nikkor 35/2.8 (post-1977 revision, compatible with pre-AI and AI bodies)
 Nikkor-S 50/1.4 (pre-AI)
 Nikkor 50/1.4 (AI-S)

 As you can see, because of this collection, I am hesitant to buy a DSLR, especially since none of the lenses in this collection will be fully compatible with any of the new (current-production) DSLR bodies; the D100 and lower will not meter at all through any of these lenses, while the D200 and higher will work with the AI-S lens only in aperture-priority or manual modes with centerweighted or spot metering (the PC-Nikkor will also work on the D200 up in manual exposure mode with stop-down metering measurement).

 Also, among all those bodies, for all practical purposes I have use for only the F2AS and the FE2 bodies, plus the PC-Nikkor lens and the 50/1.4 AI-S lens. (I have ruled out the older bodies and the Nikkormat for their less-sensitive, memory-prone CdS metering cells and their increasingly-hard-to-find parts, and the FA for its complicated, trouble-prone electronic features.)

 Thus the question becomes:

 Should I stick to film, and rely on a point-and-shoot camera for digital? Or should I go buy a lower-end DSLR (such as the D40, D40x or D80), knowing that I would have to spend more than double the amount I previously spent on any single camera?

 By the way, beginning sometime this spring or summer, the 18-55 will not be the only kit lens offered to the low-end Nikon DSLR bodies. The 18-135, introduced with the D80, will be offered as an alternative kit-lens choice on the D40(x) series as well; the D80 kit is currently available with a choice between the 18-55 or the 18-135. (In other words, the D40(x) kits will offer a choice between the 18-55 or the 18-135 in the near future.)


----------



## F107plus5

Ah the memories. I bought my F2A in the mid 70s to replace my F Photomic T that I sold to help fund college.

 Big mistake, I knew I shouldn't have sold it when I did. I still miss it.


----------



## dj_mocok

Kino, 

 Do you have sample pictures of the distortion at 17mm?


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've commented on this "computer era" phenomena in the past. Like many, I have film camera bodies that are decades old and still work like new. It seems an incredible waste to have to dispose of your entire camera, especially an expensive pro body, in order to keep up to date with the rapidly changing pixel count increases and other incremental sensor improvements. With the size of the Nikon pro bodies, surely they could come up with a flexible and workable modular portion that could be replaced with future upgrades. I think if either Canon or Nikon ( the two leading recognized pro manufacturers) would do this, and keep to their word by making future modular upgrades ( for at least 10 years or so) available at less cost than purchasing a completely new camera, it would be embraced by a lot of people._

 

Actually, I think DSLRs are progressing enough that they can stay current the way 35mm SLRs could be used for decades. I've been doing a lot of research into DSLRs to replace my very old SLR (Canon AE-1: as old as me!!!). The hardest thing about upgrading is that the really old MF Canon lenses don't work with the newer AF lens bodies. So I'm building up a new system. Got my first starter lens (Tamron 28mm-75mm) and flash (love how it's a wireless: Canon 580EX). I'm just hoping that since Canon made their really old FL lens mount compatible with their FD lens mount, I hope the same will stay true if they ever replace the EF mount.

 Anyways, I'm writing in the Nikon thread as I was looking at both the D200 and the Canon 5D. I read that while the D200 still uses an APS sized sensor, it's viewfinder was very extrodinary considering. However, the 5D just seemed to have so many features that I decided on it. The main advantage it has is a full sized sensor. It also has a larger mirror and prism, so that it's just going to be what I'm used to with a 35mm SLR. One review I read said that it was pretty revolutionary...that Canon has shrunk a lot of the features of the 1D into a body slightly larger then the 20D. And that Canon was making a statement that full frame is going to start coming down to consumer level prices.

 Considering that I'm having to spend a bit extra on the 5D means that it's not quite consumer prices yet.....but I'm sure Nikon is going to start introducing more full framed DSLRs too. Who knows...both companies will probably be competing with one another that way. IMO, sensor size is more important then pixel depth: with a larger sensor, that means more light and better ISOs. At least I'm thinking that and the usability of the 5D will make it last quite awhile (who needs something beyond 12MP too??). The real test will be to see if it lasts 30 years like the Canon AE-1 is doing (alas, the only way the AE-1 can be retired is because film is so obsolete now
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ).

 Hope I can write about Canon stuff in a Nikon thread....if I'm talking about advancements that both companies are going to embrace


----------



## av98m2

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Eagle_Driver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Speaking of Nikon equipment, I have a lot of old MF Nikon bodies and a couple of lenses laying around (most of which collected by my brother):

 Nikon FTN
 Nikon F2S
 Nikon F2AS
 Nikkormat (Nikomat) FT3
 Nikon FE2
 Nikon FA
 DP-1 Photomic finder for Nikon F2
 MD-15 motor drive for Nikon FA
 PC-Nikkor 35/2.8 (post-1977 revision, compatible with pre-AI and AI bodies)
 Nikkor-S 50/1.4 (pre-AI)
 Nikkor 50/1.4 (AI-S)

 As you can see, because of this collection, I am hesitant to buy a DSLR, especially since none of the lenses in this collection will be fully compatible with any of the new (current-production) DSLR bodies; the D100 and lower will not meter at all through any of these lenses, while the D200 and higher will work with the AI-S lens only in aperture-priority or manual modes with centerweighted or spot metering (the PC-Nikkor will also work on the D200 up in manual exposure mode with stop-down metering measurement).
_

 

You can get matrix metering with AI lenses if you enter then lens data through the menu(focal length of lens, max aperture of lens)

 Extract from Nikon USA:

_Exposure Metering System: Three-mode through-the-lens (TTL) exposure metering. 1) 3D Color Matrix Metering II (type G and D lenses); color matrix metering II (other CPU lenses); color matrix metering available with non-CPU lenses if user provides lens data; metering performed by 1,005-segment RGB sensor. 2) Center-weighted: Weight of 75% given to 6, 8, 10, or 13mm dia. circle in center of frame. 3) Spot: Meters 3mm dia. circle (about 2.0% of frame) centered on active focus area (on center focus area when non-CPU lens is used)._


 Even the pre-AI lenses can be used if you get them modified.(like my nippon kogaku 50mm f1.4, after modification I get matrix metering with my D200!)


----------



## kin0kin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Kino, 

 Do you have sample pictures of the distortion at 17mm?_

 

Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to use that wide angle yet....but 50mm...yeah:





 Will try to take some pictures of my apartment building @ 17mm in the next 2 days.


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *av98m2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can get matrix metering with AI lenses if you enter then lens data through the menu(focal length of lens, max aperture of lens)_

 

True. What I meant to say in my post is the fact that Matrix metering is disabled by default with non-CPU lenses.


----------



## dj_mocok

Recent Nikonian's 85mm 1.4 thread.

 Some love it, some don't believe it. I love it. To bits.


----------



## kin0kin

Has anybody encountered squeaky focus ring problem? I was testing a sigma 70-200mm today at a local store and the focus ring squeaks


----------



## aaroncort

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kin0kin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Has anybody encountered squeaky focus ring problem? I was testing a sigma 70-200mm today at a local store and the focus ring squeaks_

 

I've read that it's a bad sign when the focus rings start to squeak. It might be a sign that it's about to stop working. I've have an old Nikon AF lens from the nineties that squeaks with no malfuction as of yet so who knows.


----------



## kin0kin

When does it usually happen....as in after how many years usually? I suppose it has something to do with the lubricant in the focusing ring. I've also read some cases where it happens to the zoom ring as well.


----------



## aaroncort

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kin0kin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When does it usually happen....as in after how many years usually? I suppose it has something to do with the lubricant in the focusing ring. I've also read some cases where it happens to the zoom ring as well._

 

I really can't say, perhaps you'd find more information in a digital camera forum.


----------



## dj_mocok

Kinokin, why don't you make a full review of your new Tamron lens?
 It will be fun.


----------



## kin0kin

I don't really know how to review a lens lol, but I can say the lens is tack sharp. Will try to compare it with my 50mm 1.8 but kinda busy these 2 weeks... (assignments and stuff)


----------



## kin0kin

wow...my brand new manfrotto 680 monopod comes with a nice dent as bonus:









 I can't beleive this...the seller better send me a replacement...this is unacceptable


----------



## dj_mocok

Damn, that is unacceptable. A scuff mark is okay (although still not that okay really), but that, you have to return it.

 I hope you didn't buy it off eBay.
 I always wanna buy monopod but I got two reasons not to:

 1. I feel a bit embarassed setting up monopod around public places because I know some passer-bys will look at me and get curious (I get embarassed quickly, lol).
 2. My partner thinks it's ridiculous to pay for a hundred something bucks for a "stick".


----------



## kin0kin

I contacted the ebay seller but bought it directly off the store. They shipped quick, and regarding this issue, they will ship me a new one, with a return shipping label so I dont have to pay anything. The leg not only has a dent, it also has some very minor scuff mark...probably 1-2. The item was sealed though...I wonder if manfrotto was slacking or was this a demo unit. I requested them to check the item before sending it out. This stick only cost 60usd


----------



## dj_mocok

So how do you like your tripod? I assume the replacement should be here by now? If you use it outside, do you get many stares from people?


----------



## Edwood

Head's up.

 B&H has the 18-200mm VR in stock FINALLY.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

 Hurry up, they will be out of stock very very soon.


 -Ed


----------



## Edwood

Oh, I forgot to mention that my father upgraded to a D200, and handed down his D80 to me since he wants better pictures of his granddaughter.

 Of course, even with the 50mm f/1.8 he gave me, my Pentax *ist DS with 35mm f/2 is still producing better pictures, IMO. 

 So, I'm hoping the 18-200mm VR works well. The 50mm is still a good lens, it's just difficult to shoot with for everyday situations. It's more of a "specialist" lens for me. But I can get some very nice artsy shots with it. Otherwise it's just too soft for me most of the time wide open. 

 So, depending on how I like the 18-200mm VR, I may or may not jump ship from Pentax to Nikon. 

 Ugh, I'll have to buy a SpeedLight as well. My Pentax AF-360FGZ does not work with the D80.

 -Ed


----------



## jjcha

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Head's up.

 B&H has the 18-200mm VR in stock FINALLY.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

 Hurry up, they will be out of stock very very soon.


 -Ed_

 

Thanks for the heads-up, I just ordered one for my dad and his D200. Looks like a piece of kit nearly all Nikonians should have... even if only as a travel lens for people who already have lots of great glass.

 Best,

 -Jason


----------



## fureshi

the 18-200mm vr is a great lens although it does have its limitation and is not the super lens that all the fanboys think that it is. i recently bought one from samys and while i really like it, it's not the sharpest, distortion-free or vignette-free lens. jason is right, it's a lens that all nikonians should have, since it does so many things well but nothing spectacularly well, even if you have a bag full of better lenses.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So I bought a metal bread bin (something like the one below), it can also breathe and I'm sticking a little bit of bluetak on the sides of lid so that it opens a bit more for the air to circulate, and since it's partially covered (with around 0.5cm opening and some small gaps on top), I hope it won't develop condensation from sudden temperature hike/drop from turning the air conditioner on and off. (hoping that the cool air inside will remain a bit longer when the A/C is off).
 And they're cheap. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








_

 

LOL, I keep my R10's in a bread box/bin. It's an acrylic one. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ It's more of a "specialist" lens for me. But I can get some very nice artsy shots with it. Otherwise it's just too soft for me most of the time wide open. 

 -Ed_

 

Remember, if you don't like it, you can always send it to Australia and give it to me.


----------



## Uncle Erik

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Head's up.

 B&H has the 18-200mm VR in stock FINALLY.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

 Hurry up, they will be out of stock very very soon.


 -Ed_

 

No kidding, they're already gone!


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No kidding, they're already gone! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

They were all gone in just under 5 hours.

 I've seen lenses sell out in under an hour before.

 B&H must have gotten a lot of them in.

 Mine has shipped already. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## WhatMACHI

I still have immense amounts to learn about my D50 still  Went to Autosalon today and took some shots. So many were blurred T_T I tried my best not to use the flash as i like the natural light more, but i had to up the ISO to 800-1600. How do you guys usually deal with getting sharper shots without a flash when zooming (18-135).


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I still have immense amounts to learn about my D50 still  Went to Autosalon today and took some shots. So many were blurred T_T I tried my best not to use the flash as i like the natural light more, but i had to up the ISO to 800-1600. How do you guys usually deal with getting sharper shots without a flash when zooming (18-135)._

 

You're going to have to go with a smaller apeture number then. More wide open = more light getting through the lens, but more shallow depth of field. If you have to shoot wide open, (f/1.4 - f/2), it helps to compose your shots so that the subject is more flat, and not foreshortened, that way more of your subject will be in focus.

 That way your shutter speed can be higher, to avoid motion blur.

 *edit, I wasn't paying attention to your lens type. I'm assuming it's not a VR lens, and will be at around f/5.6 at the longest zoom end? You will need more light. If you are not getting the results you want at 1600 ISO, you will either need to be shooting something stationary with a tripod/monopod for assistance or look into getting a faster lens. 

 -Ed


----------



## WhatMACHI

Yeah i usually set it to the lowest f/ to try get faster shutter speeds, but i usually need a real real steady hand which i cant always do


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah i usually set it to the lowest f/ to try get faster shutter speeds, but i usually need a real real steady hand which i cant always do 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You'll need to use a tripod or monopod then. Or use it as an excuse to upgrade. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## WhatMACHI

I wish i could upgrade, but there are sooo many things that need upgrading at the momen 

 I get another round of shots today since im going to the Auto Salon again lets see if i can get my shots better


----------



## Edwood

I'm most definitely going to need a flash. I'm debating between the tiny SB-400 or the more capable SB-600.

 My need to take horizontal format portraits is less common than needing to travel light. Getting the 18-200mm VR pretty much nixes the whole travelling light thing, but it would be the only lens I could bring and perhaps the SB-400 as well, since it really does not add much bulk and weight. Well, what the hell, why not pack the 50mm f/1.8 too, it's so small, LOL. OK, I need a new bag to carry my gear now.

 -Ed


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Meh, I recently got a 18-70 to replace my 18-55 (wanted the extra zoom and non-rotating front element), and now I'm trying to sell my 18-55 + 55-200 and to get a 70-300 Sigma APO Macro, but I'm beginning to realise that a disproportionately large amount of my photos come out with shake blur. Should I sell everything and save for a 18-200? I don't know if I'm willing to accept the drop in sharpness (when the camera ain't shaking that is) and increase in distortion at the wide and tele extremes


----------



## dj_mocok

This thread needs a bit more Nikon sample picture goodness.


----------



## Edwood

Been playing around with a D80 and D200. Nikon is renowned for their flash system and it shows. Pics taken with a flash (even the on camera pop up flash) are much better metered and exposed than my Pentax. 

 But under indoor lighting without a flash, the Nikons take overly warm yellow pics. I've tried to tweak the WB manually, and it still looks bad. I have to tweak it alot in Photoshop otherwise. 

 Also, I'm not all that impressed with the contrast and color overall without the use of a flash. Not as contrasty and saturated as my Pentax.

 But the AF system is a lot faster and accurate than my Pentax for sure. 

 In the end, I prefer the image quality from Pentax, but Nikon is a lot faster and easier to use.

 -Ed


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_OK, I need a new bag to carry my gear now._

 

I have 5 for multiple configurations. Welcome to club multibag and multibody!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In the end, I prefer the image quality from Pentax, but Nikon is a lot faster and easier to use._

 

You sure it's not the lens you're using? have any examples?


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have 5 for multiple configurations. Welcome to club multibag and multibody!_

 

I'm an arrangement FREAK! We're different than neat freaks; neat freaks must have things in order all the time. Arrangement freaks want stuff to fit *perfectly*, in its very own home, but don't necessarily need to have things in order at all times. In accordance with this, I have 4 bags for different configs, and I'm always on the look out for a better solution. 


 *Canon user backs out of thread, never taking his eyes off the Nikon mob*

 We do read your thread you know.


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also, I'm not all that impressed with the contrast and color overall without the use of a flash. Not as contrasty and saturated as my Pentax._

 

In the optimize image field- +2 saturation, medium/high contrast, 3deg hue, +2 sharpening, Ia colourspace for skin, IIIa colourspace for landscape


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jmmtn4aj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In the optimize image field- +2 saturation, medium/high contrast, 3deg hue, +2 sharpening, Ia colourspace for skin, IIIa colourspace for landscape_

 

lol, I'm exactly opposite.

 My parameters are: Contrast -2, Sharpness 0, Hue 0, Saturation -2

 I prefer using lower contrast and saturation to ensure that I get no clipping or lose any image information. I then work the contrast, saturation, and sharpness later in Photoshop as I see fit. Photoshop's processing is a LOT better than in-camera processing.


----------



## Edwood

Nikon's color and contrast are rather poor with artificial lighting indoors. With sunlight it's much better.

 Shooting the same subject with a flash, and it is far improved. 

 So far shooting with a D80 and D200, I'm getting the same results, except the D80 keeps overexposing in most cases. 

 I can get much better pics with my Pentax ist DS with 35mm f/2 with no flash.

 But the AF system is so slow and piss poor in low light. 

 So if the Pentax K10D has better AF system, I may end up ditching Nikon. 

 I am very proficient with Photoshop, but I just don't want to do that much work on nearly every single image I shoot.

 -Ed


----------



## jjcha

Hmm, so the 18-200 VR came in today. Man, this is a small lens. I guess I'm just used to "L" sized lenses (hah, I made a funny) on DSLR. 

 Quick question - does anyone else experience an odd visual shaking once in a while with a VR lens? It's almost like the lens shakes 3 times when the VR turns on (or at least when I turn the camera on). Is this normal (this is my first Nikon VR lens)?

 EDIT: Hmm, it doesn't appear VR related. It's auto-focus related. If I turn off auto-focus, it doesn't do the shake thing. My understanding is that there's a rod inside the D200 that connects to the lens to auto-focus for lenses without such motors there-in. It's almost like this rod is trying to connect with the lens, shaking it 4 times, before disengaging or something.

 EDIT2: Wait, maybe it's not an auto-focus issue but a VR issue. When I have the lens on manual focus, but the VR engaged on the lens, it does the clickly shakey thing. The view in the viewfinder does jump around pretty significantly with each click - you can feel the lens and body vibrate with each of the 4 clicks (it is 4 and consistently 4 clear clicks/shakes) when something engages.

 EDIT3: Hmm, don't have that issue with the 70-300 VR I've got here either... interesting. Might just be a defective lens.

 Best,

 -Jason


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jjcha* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Quick question - does anyone else experience an odd visual shaking once in a while with a VR lens? It's almost like the lens shakes 3 times when the VR turns on (or at least when I turn the camera on). Is this normal (this is my first Nikon VR lens)?_

 

LOL, I'm the opposite, I'm so used to small prime lenses, this lens is huge compared to my other ones.

 As for the visual shaking, yeah, is it an almost distortion type shaking, not particularly a violent shake. I see it happen in two different ones.

 -Ed


----------



## Edwood

Here's a pic I took with my D80 with the 50mm f/1.8 lens, no flash.






 natural light is sunlight from the window.

 -Ed


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_lol, I'm exactly opposite.

 My parameters are: Contrast -2, Sharpness 0, Hue 0, Saturation -2

 I prefer using lower contrast and saturation to ensure that I get no clipping or lose any image information. I then work the contrast, saturation, and sharpness later in Photoshop as I see fit. Photoshop's processing is a LOT better than in-camera processing._

 

Surely you lose information when you lower saturation and contrast using the camera's processor anyway? I used to shoot raw, but then I begun to realise something Edwood has touched on 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am very proficient with Photoshop, but I just don't want to do that much work on nearly every single image I shoot._


----------



## dj_mocok

I just finished shooting with my bro's 17-35mm today, boy, that lens was awesome! There's nothing less-contrasty or pale looking at all about that lens.

 But manual focus wise (but who wanna do manual with that kind of AF-S lens anyway), once you've tried a good manual Ai-S , even something like 17-35mm won't make you happy when it comes to manual focusing.


----------



## skyline889

Hmm, I've been looking for a good, affordable, telephoto lens for a while now and I'm still not sure which way to go. What are your guy's opinions on the Nikkor 80-200 AF-D and the Tokina AT-X 80-400? I know the first version of the 80-400 wasn't great but the newest version is supposedly really sharp with minimal amounts of distortion, the only downside would be that the maximum aperture isn't great, so it's not that fast of a lens. Right now I'm kind of leaning towards the 80-400 since it seems to offer better value for the money but I'm really not sure. Either will eventually be complemented by a Tokina 12-24mm. Any help would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LOL, I'm the opposite, I'm so used to small prime lenses, this lens is huge compared to my other ones._

 

Pentax makes some insane small pancakes. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You're all body and no lens.

 I'm the opposite. My body is a glorified lens cap.


----------



## morphine

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm, I've been looking for a good, affordable, telephoto lens for a while now and I'm still not sure which way to go. What are your guy's opinions on the Nikkor 80-200 AF-D and the Tokina AT-X 80-400? I know the first version of the 80-400 wasn't great but the newest version is supposedly really sharp with minimal amounts of distortion, the only downside would be that the maximum aperture isn't great, so it's not that fast of a lens. Right now I'm kind of leaning towards the 80-400 since it seems to offer better value for the money but I'm really not sure. Either will eventually be complemented by a Tokina 12-24mm. Any help would be greatly appreciated!_

 

I'm in much the same situation skyline. I picked up a D200 a couple months ago and I've been shooting with a 35mm f/2 and a just recently acquired 50mm f/1.4 so my only experience is with standard primes. This has helped my composition for those focal lengths but unfortunately has left me lacking for ANY experience with zoom lenses and telephotos. 

 Some good friends just suggested another trip to Asia in October so before then I'd like to have a somewhat broader set of skills (and lenses) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Looking into telephotos, I'm just frightened by the pricetags; this may simply be because I'm spoiled by the speed of the primes I've been using and couldn't imagine shooting with a lens with a max aperture of f/4 or f/5.6. *Either way though, I've been trying to decide between the 80-200 and the 70-200*. I think I would really like VR but would I like it enough to justify double the cost? I've done a good bit of research, but as you can see I'm torn. Any help would be very appreciated!

 m


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphine* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_this may simply be because I'm spoiled by the speed of the primes I've been using and couldn't imagine shooting with a lens with a max aperture of f/4 or f/5.6.

*Either way though, I've been trying to decide between the 80-200 and the 70-200*. I think I would really like VR but would I like it enough to justify double the cost?_

 

I don't have experience with those lenses but my observations from using these focal lengths are it depends what you want to take pictures of and how you like your pictures.

 - Telephoto depth of field is narrow. To get more in focus, you'll have to stop down. I find myself at f4 to f5.6 for isolation normally anyway.
 - You gain a little better quality stopping down.
 - I hardly use f/2.8 unless it's a more low light situation.
 - Image stabilization will give you sharper pics. It helps at all focal lengths. This could be bad though... once you wonder why your non VR lens images look a little blurry 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Unfortunately you don't have many options so if you're going to spend the $, I would get the 70-200. That extra 10mm on short end can be useful. Changing lenses can be annoying. 80 on 1.5 crop would be a little long for up close action.


----------



## morphine

Thanks for the input lan. I didn't even consider the extra 10mm.

 Also, I agree that 95% of the time I won't be shooting wide open but that extra 5% has a nagging loud voice.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 m


----------



## Edwood

*Here's a little Nikon VS. Pentax Comparo...*

 Nikon D80
 AF-S DX VR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
 SB-400 with Stofen Omni-Bounce

_Shot with Pentax *ist DS _











 Pentax *ist DS
 SMCP-FA 35mm f/2.0 AL
 AF-360 FGZ with with Stofen Omni-Bounce

_Shot with Nikon D80 _










*I love the yin and yang of the flash size to camera body and lens size between Nikon and Pentax here.*

*Shot with Nikon D80* Click pic for larger pic.




*Shot with Pentax *ist DS* Click pic for larger pic.





 Nikon is definitely the master of flashes. Even the diminuitive SB-400 outperforms the much larger Pentax AF-360 FGZ.

 The 18-200mm VR is a very nice lens. Definitely has barrel distortion, but it can easily be fixed with a nice Photoshop plug in. With the pics above, I made no corrections, only brightness and exposure. Also, definitely softer at the corners, VS. the Pentax 35mm Prime's sharpness from corner to corner. I could always slap on a Prime lens on the Nikon and enjoy corner to corner sharpness, but the 18-200mm offer such a large focal range in one lens.

 Where the Nikon fails compared to the Pentax is natural lighting, particularly with compact fluorescent lighting. Pentax wins out here, but only if you can get the damned thing to focus on anything. Pentax's AF system is piss poor, very slow and hunts all the time in low light. Even using the AF-360 FGZ's focus assist lamp, it still hunts.

 Perhaps if I had a better Prime lens like the legendary 28mm f/1.4, I'd think differently, but I could buy a Pentax K10D and a 31mm Limited f/1.8 and still have money left over. I could also buy a Canon 5D and a nice Prime lens for what the going rate of the Nikkor 28mm f/1.4 is selling for these days. 

 I really hope Nikon releases a new AF-S 28mm or 35mm f/1.4 in the future.

 So, as much as I like shooting without a flash, it just isn't possible with the 18-200mm VR, unless I shoot at crappily high ISO's. 

 However given Pentax's iffy financial state, I pretty much have no choice to jump ship to Nikon.

 So, I am officially part of Team Nikon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## nogrot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Where the Nikon fails compared to the Pentax is natural lighting, particularly with compact fluorescent lighting. Pentax wins out here, but only if you can get the damned thing to focus on anything._

 

I like how you just said flourescent lighting was "natural." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm pretty sure you're commenting on their attempts at white balance, which from what I've seen, not a single DSLR from any manufacturer is truly great at. WhiBal's are a great product and I'm told ExpoDiscs are awesome too. Also, Nikon does offer a lens or two with f/2.8 aperature and larger...

  Quote:


 Perhaps if I had a better Prime lens like the legendary 28mm f/1.4, I'd think differently... 
 

Comparing a very mix-reviewed 12x super-zoom to a super fast wide prime seems a little silly to me as far as overall statements on systems go. I suppose you write about what you have, but the lens doesn't always make the photo.

  Quote:


 I really hope Nikon releases a new AF-S 28mm or 35mm f/1.4 in the future. 
 

Me too, with VR. My other hope is that I have the clairvoyance to sell my 28mm for an outrageous price before the bottom drops out on the market.

  Quote:


 So, I am officially part of Team Nikon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 

Congrats. May the evil red triangle serve you well!


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nogrot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I like how you just said flourescent lighting was "natural." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm pretty sure you're commenting on their attempts at white balance, which from what I've seen, not a single DSLR from any manufacturer is truly great at. WhiBal's are a great product and I'm told ExpoDiscs are awesome too. Also, Nikon does offer a lens or two with f/2.8 aperature and larger..._

 

Bleh, you know what I meant. I'll just say no flash pics from now on. My D80 definitely has a warm tint to every pic. Great for people pics, not so much for product stuff. Had the same result with a D200, but that is no big surprise.
 So I'm guessing I'm going to have to get a white or gray card to take a custom white balance shot each time I take "no flash pics"? Any recommendations? Preferrably cheap and portable.


  Quote:


 Comparing a very mix-reviewed 12x super-zoom to a super fast wide prime seems a little silly to me as far as overall statements on systems go. I suppose you write about what you have, but the lens doesn't always make the photo. 
 

Why not? People compare IEM's to full sized cans here all the time. I can dream about the "perfect" lens, can't I?


  Quote:


 Me too, with VR. My other hope is that I have the clairvoyance to sell my 28mm for an outrageous price before the bottom drops out on the market.


 Congrats. May the evil red triangle serve you well! 
 

LOL, just watch the PMA and news closely, then when there are confirmed rumors, eBay that sucker! 

 If Pentax had a wider angle prime with F/1.4, I'd be more likely to stay with them, but as it stands their "best" primes are f/1.8. Close, but no cigar. 

 Oh, yeah. I am dreaming of a 35mm f/1.4 VR Nikkor! Better yet, 16-50mm f/1.4 VR Nikkor. I'd even settle for 16-50mm f/2 VR. I'd bet they weigh 5 lbs, though. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## dj_mocok

I can't even afford the regular 34mm 1.4, let alone the VR or AF-S version, hehe..

 Kinokin: I forgot, but were you the one who got the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8? I wanna see more sample picture of this because I don't think I'll be able to afford the Nikon one if I decided to get a wide angle zoom.


----------



## afton

I have an F80 which is gathering dust in my cupboard
 because I'm concentrating my wallet on other stuff. 
 I'm saving to buy an entry level DSLR like D40.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Perhaps the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 HSM would be up your alley, Ed? Certainly a lot cheaper than the Nikon 28? Or are you against third-party lenses in general?


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Perhaps the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 HSM would be up your alley, Ed? Certainly a lot cheaper than the Nikon 28? Or are you against third-party lenses in general?_

 

I'd be all for third-party lenses if they were better built in general. I guess all third parties believe that they must make it cheap no matter what, even if the first party does not even offer that lens type?

 I'll stay away from that Sigma because it has QC issues with focusing issues. If I wanted focusing issues, I'd stick with Pentax.

 -Ed


----------



## nogrot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bleh, you know what I meant. I'll just say no flash pics from now on. My D80 definitely has a warm tint to every pic. Great for people pics, not so much for product stuff. Had the same result with a D200, but that is no big surprise.
 So I'm guessing I'm going to have to get a white or gray card to take a custom white balance shot each time I take "no flash pics"? Any recommendations? Preferrably cheap and portable._

 

Funny, I always found my D70 to be on the cool side as far as white balance goes. Indoor lighting is a total crapshoot as far as white balance, but I suppose then my Nikon setup tends to be a bit warmer. Someday you'll realize the futility of taking pics in ambient indoor lighting, but until that day, good luck with trying. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 All my favorite shots of people have occured outdoors, preferably in the shade or at sunset. WhiBal.com is my current solution for white balance, but it is for RAW shooters so you may not like it as much as I do. P.S. We call it "ambient light." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 Why not? People compare IEM's to full sized cans here all the time. I can dream about the "perfect" lens, can't I? 
 

True, but I've more been of the feeling that a headphone doesn't change the music; it just plays what's there as far as it's been taught to play.

  Quote:


 LOL, just watch the PMA and news closely, then when there are confirmed rumors, eBay that sucker! 
 

Unfortunately, waiting till a confirmed replacement is out means the price will drop significantly under totally ridiculous, which is the sort of payback I was hoping to receive for selling the lens. Besides, who knows if the replacement will suck ass?

  Quote:


 If Pentax had a wider angle prime with F/1.4, I'd be more likely to stay with them, but as it stands their "best" primes are f/1.8. Close, but no cigar. 
 

Have you looked into their Limited primes? Truly amazing pieces of glass, I dream of a walk-around Pentax setup just to run them on it. The AF Pancake is also a favorite of mine. I have Nikon's 45mm, but it's MF and I just don't use it as much as I wished I did.

  Quote:


 Oh, yeah. I am dreaming of a 35mm f/1.4 VR Nikkor! Better yet, 16-50mm f/1.4 VR Nikkor. I'd even settle for 16-50mm f/2 VR. I'd bet they weigh 5 lbs, though. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 

Zooms are awful. If such a lens existed, neither would be sharp until f/4, and both would be full of barrel and/or pincushion distortion. I zoom with my feet and shoot at f/1.4 and I can to get shots that I know would be nigh impossible for most to get, even with a tripod.






 Or I guess if I had a Canon 5D I could just shoot everything at iso3200 and get "clean shots."


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nogrot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you looked into their Limited primes? Truly amazing pieces of glass, I dream of a walk-around Pentax setup just to run them on it. The AF Pancake is also a favorite of mine. I have Nikon's 45mm, but it's MF and I just don't use it as much as I wished I did._

 

Yes, but as I stated before, Pentax AF is piss poor. Apperently the K10D is still a sluggish AF hunter.


  Quote:


 Zooms are awful. If such a lens existed, neither would be sharp until f/4, and both would be full of barrel and/or pincushion distortion. I zoom with my feet and shoot at f/1.4 and I can to get shots that I know would be nigh impossible for most to get, even with a tripod. 
 

True, I do prefer the IQ of Prime lenses, but there are a few shots I would've missed by having to change lenses. 


  Quote:







 

Very nice pic, what lens, and what settings did you shoot it with? I'm too lazy to take it into Photoshop and look at your EXIF data.


  Quote:


 Or I guess if I had a Canon 5D I could just shoot everything at iso3200 and get "clean shots." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 

Yeah, I would rather buy a Canon 5D rather than pay the extreme prices for the Nikkor 28mm f/1.4.

 -Ed


----------



## nogrot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, but as I stated before, Pentax AF is piss poor. Apperently the K10D is still a sluggish AF hunter._

 

My D2x is quite a spoiler there. It racks my huge heavy slow non-AF-S f/1.4 primes around like they're toys. The CAM2000 module is a true blessing for what I generally shoot.

  Quote:


 True, I do prefer the IQ of Prime lenses, but there are a few shots I would've missed by having to change lenses. 
 

I honestly can't remember any specific times where I missed a shot because of a prime. I suppose that was a bigger problem before I owned more than two lenses though.

  Quote:


 Very nice pic, what lens, and what settings did you shoot it with? I'm too lazy to take it into Photoshop and look at your EXIF data. 
 

Jeez, you need an EXIF view plugin for your browser!

 It's from the magical 28mm 1/90, at f/2 ISO800, which on D2x means beautiful film-like noise, at least to me. My camera only leaves Aperature-priority when I'm shooting with my lens baby.

  Quote:


 Yeah, I would rather buy a Canon 5D rather than pay the extreme prices for the Nikkor 28mm f/1.4. 
 

I don't see it as any kind of money-saver, since the lenses I'd *require* to own with it are plenty expensive in their own right. 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L is all I would ever need as a full-frame Canon shooter. Well, that and a fisheye.


----------



## skyline889

Hmm, sorry to bring the topic of telephotos backup again but what are your opinions of the 70-300mm VR? It seems like a pretty good bargain for only $450. F4.5 is once again making me a little leary as I would be shooting in low light situations occasionally but otherwise for the price, it seems like a very good buy.


----------



## dj_mocok

Just ask yourself how occasional it is, because with 4.5 you can forget about shooting anything apart from daylight. Even 2.8 struggles at late afternoon without flash.
 But I assume you have other faster lens? so even if you can't shoot with your 70-300mm, you can probably switch to your other lens. Well, unless the object is still distant one, then you have no option since fast telephoto means $$$.

 What is it for anyway? Maybe you can look around eBay and get a used, but good quality tele?


----------



## kin0kin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can't even afford the regular 34mm 1.4, let alone the VR or AF-S version, hehe..

 Kinokin: I forgot, but were you the one who got the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8? I wanna see more sample picture of this because I don't think I'll be able to afford the Nikon one if I decided to get a wide angle zoom._

 

yup, I have the tamron 17-50mm 2.8.

 All pictures here are taken with this lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kin0kin/


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm, sorry to bring the topic of telephotos backup again but what are your opinions of the 70-300mm VR? It seems like a pretty good bargain for only $450. F4.5 is once again making me a little leary as I would be shooting in low light situations occasionally but otherwise for the price, it seems like a very good buy._

 

It's getting rave reviews at DPReview at least, probably the most recommended 70-300, right before the 70-300 APO DG Macro from Sigma


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just ask yourself how occasional it is, because with 4.5 you can forget about shooting anything apart from daylight. Even 2.8 struggles at late afternoon without flash.
 But I assume you have other faster lens? so even if you can't shoot with your 70-300mm, you can probably switch to your other lens. Well, unless the object is still distant one, then you have no option since fast telephoto means $$$.

 What is it for anyway? Maybe you can look around eBay and get a used, but good quality tele?_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jmmtn4aj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's getting rave reviews at DPReview at least, probably the most recommended 70-300, right before the 70-300 APO DG Macro from Sigma_

 


 Thanks for the help guys! There're just so mnay options that I really don't know what to go with at this point of time. When I really think about it, most of my shots will be outdoors so in the few instances where I do have less light, I can just bump up the ISO as they probably won't be "serious" shots anyway. 

 Right now I have it narrowed down to the Nikkor 80-200 AF-D, the Nikkor 70-300 VR, the Tokina 80-400 AT-X, and the Sigma 50-500 DG. I think if I can swing the price, I might go for the Sigma 50-500 because it seems like an amazing lens for the price. That 50-500mm range is a definite plus for me because while often times I shoot offshore objects and need the extra range, not having to switch lenses when I want a wider angle shot would be really nice, especially at the beach with the salt air blowing god knows what into my camera. Plus F/4 really isn't that bad for a telephoto. Though f/6.3 is on the slow side, I can probably shoot at ISO 400 or 800 if I really need the extra light. What do you guys think? Good choice or buy something else?


----------



## morphine

Skyline I agree with you there really are simply too many choices 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The 70-300 sounds like an excellent lens but I'm also wary of low light conditions. I don't shoot in them often, but if I'm traveling I DO NOT want to miss a possible shot I won't get another chance at simply because I don't have a fast enough lens.

 Another thought that has popped up concerns the new lenses supposedly being released by Nikon that appear to be overdue. It would really be painful picking up a lens only to have it bettered with VR II or something to that effect in a couple weeks. Is this an unfounded fear?

 The Sigma 50-500 simply sounds frightening 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What a monster! That's the equivalent of 75-750 and I can only imagine that it makes a solid tripod a necessity for decent shots in bright sunlight starting in the middle of its range.

 --

 On a somewhat related note.. I've been looking at tripods and most of the solid ones come in at 4-6 pounds or so. Couple that with a ball head and quick release plate and I could be looking at carrying 8-10 pounds in just tripod gear along with a telephoto lens, 2-3 other lenses, a D200, and misc. in the bag. Does anyone have experience with this? How does it feel and is it ok walking around all day with such a setup?

 I realize I've hopped about some 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Thanks,
 Richard


----------



## flamerz

Well I just got my first DSLR a few days ago off of a user from Nikonians.org after lots of posting classifieds and such. I managed to get a steal.

 D50
 18-55mm lens (kit)
 55-200mm lens (AF broken)
 Nikon bag
 2 batteries
 Battery charger
 A 2 GB card
 A 1 GB card
 Some flimsy table tripod
 Lens cleaner

 All for under $500. Anyway, I'm on my last week of school now, so I haven't taken very many pictures. I'm definitely looking to get a tripod and speedlight ASAP, but I don't have the most money ATM. Luckily I just got almost $100 off of some old clothes, and I'm hoping to get $50 for a few games. I might even sell my iPod, as I use my Shuffle more often than it. I could probably get somewhere between $150 and $200 from that. Anyway, I'm clearly on a low budget, so I believe I'll be getting a SB-400 for my flash and a Bogen/Manfrotto 3001 for my tripod. With my D50, it doesn't seem like there are many advantages of the SB-600 over the SB-400 besides overall power, but am I wrong in this assumption? Also, are there any better valued, yet still cheap tripods I should consider instead? From my quick search, the 3001 seemed to be the consensus and there was little talk about other products, so I have no idea what some other strong options are.






 Man, I'd really like a macro and fisheye lens also, but I definitely can't afford those.


----------



## Sherwood

So, I'm moving to Turkey for a year and intend to document my trip photographically. I love the feel of the D40, and the price is great. I borrowed a friend's With some clever coupons, I can get it for under $500 and 24 month free financing from circuit city. Only thing is, I'm addicted o used gear. Is there any reliable used gear/ discussion forum akin to head-fi for the camera world?


----------



## flamerz

Well I got my deal from Nikonians. It's a pretty busy place. eBay was probably my second most likely option, then Craigslist or FredMiranda.


----------



## Dimitris

I got a refurbished Nikon D200 for a friend of mine for $1150 2 weeks ago. Its a great camera and I have been enjoying it a lot. To me its more or less on par with my 20D and it wins on some points like ergonomics and meter although the Canon is a bit better at high iso. I really love that i can use my manual nikors again.


----------



## dj_mocok

Yeah, D200 is not so great at high ISOs. I'm using my own D80 and my brother's D200 alternately, the ISO performance from D80 is much better. But D200 wins out at ergonomic and feels much more like a solid camera. Can be heavy at times if you're using it with 17-35mm and SB800 - especially when doing vertical shots.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, D200 is not so great at high ISOs. I'm using my own D80 and my brother's D200 alternately, the ISO performance from D80 is much better. But D200 wins out at ergonomic and feels much more like a solid camera. Can be heavy at times if you're using it with 17-35mm and SB800 - especially when doing vertical shots._

 

The D200 exposure is better than the D80. The D80 tends to overexpose quite a bit.

 -Ed


----------



## dj_mocok

I actually never done real test in terms of difference in exposure, because I use old MF lenses most of the time.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D200 exposure is better than the D80. The D80 tends to overexpose quite a bit.

 -Ed_

 

Spot meter and use manual mode for both cameras, and I'm sure they'll get the same exposure!!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Their evaluative (or matrix) metering modes might yield slightly different results, but that's why we don't bow down to the whim of the camera's computer.

 Every dSLR needs user intervention to get the best exposure that the user wants. I have never used full auto on my Canon dSLR....wonder why my manual takes up so many pages in the beginning about the useless auto functions


----------



## lan

Some cameras perform better in some auto functions than others. Same goes with lens performance. It part of the learning experience to figure out the whole system and it's quirks.


----------



## BDA_ABAT

Howdy all! Would appreciate suggestions. Am considering a Nikon D80 as my first dSLR. Reviews look very favorable. Am not competent, just interested. What do you think of the base kit lens (18-135mm)? Is it worthwhile, or should I consider another option??? If so, what would you all suggest as a general purpose lens to start with? Unfortunately, we can't afford the 80-200 right now. Need something with decent macro ability.

 Also, any recs for SD cards? Basic lens protection filter? Other recommendations that might help for someone who is clueless but just starting out???

 Thanks in advance!
 Bruce


----------



## flamerz

Ugh, I left my MH-18a charger and the cable on my desk before I needed to use it. Since then, I've had about five different people over, more than one time for most of them. Now that I need a charge, the cable is missing. I distinctly remember putting it beside my speaker, and it's not there. I'm nearly sure one of them displaced it, but I have no idea who it was or where it could be. I've looked EVERYWHERE. I've looked over three times in the likely places, too. I just don't know where to look anymore. I had a very minor anxiety attack earlier, as I'm a bit stressed today and I'd been looking for about fifteen minutes. I've probably spent over half an hour looking for it, looking everywhere in my room twice, thoroughly checking the rest of my house one time. Even now while I think about it, I get a bit of adrenaline and a horrible feeling in my stomach that makes me want to rip out my insides.






 Anyone know where I can get a replacement cable?


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BDA_ABAT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Howdy all! Would appreciate suggestions. Am considering a Nikon D80 as my first dSLR. Reviews look very favorable. Am not competent, just interested. What do you think of the base kit lens (18-135mm)? Is it worthwhile, or should I consider another option??? If so, what would you all suggest as a general purpose lens to start with? Unfortunately, we can't afford the 80-200 right now. Need something with decent macro ability.

 Also, any recs for SD cards? Basic lens protection filter? Other recommendations that might help for someone who is clueless but just starting out???

 Thanks in advance!
 Bruce_

 

So did you get it? You can't really go wrong with kit lenses, but don't worry so much about buying too many unimportant accessories at once. 

 For SD, just get anything cheap and reliable.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BDA_ABAT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Howdy all! Would appreciate suggestions. Am considering a Nikon D80 as my first dSLR. Reviews look very favorable. Am not competent, just interested. What do you think of the base kit lens (18-135mm)? Is it worthwhile, or should I consider another option??? If so, what would you all suggest as a general purpose lens to start with? Unfortunately, we can't afford the 80-200 right now. Need something with decent macro ability.

 Also, any recs for SD cards? Basic lens protection filter? Other recommendations that might help for someone who is clueless but just starting out???

 Thanks in advance!
 Bruce_

 

I'd definitely get the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8, depending on your budget, it's so small and cheap it's easy to keep handy for when you need a low light fast shooter.

 -Ed


----------



## cotdt

i like the Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 AF


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So did you get it? You can't really go wrong with kit lenses, but don't worry so much about buying too many unimportant accessories at once. 

 For SD, just get anything cheap and reliable._

 

exactly. any SD card will work. you don't really need the fancy 80x or 120x cards unless you're shooting a lot of sports and want to make sure that you don't fill up the buffer.


----------



## kin0kin

After three months of waiting for a good deal I got for the sigma 150mm (490+ new, shipped) - which was backordered - I decided the pay extra 35bucks from another vendor to get the lens. Finally it has been shipped and is on the way to me. I'm damn freaking excited now


----------



## PATB

Has anybody tried the latest Tokina 16-50 (?) or Sigma 17-50 2.8 zooms? 

 I am still new in this as a hobby, and consequently using mostly primes to learn the ropes (35 f/2 and 50/1.4 remnants from the N80 days). 

 However, I can see the benefits of zooms as a one lens kit, especially when travelling. I have the 18-55 DX II kit lens with my D80, but I find it too slow for candid indoor shoots (I have the SB600 and I and my kids hate flash photography!). I handled the Nikon 17-55 2.8 at the store and found it too heavy for my weak, arthritic hands 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I am primarily looking at 28-80, or thereabouts, 35mm equivalent with sharp, fast glass.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PATB* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Has anybody tried the latest Tokina 16-50 (?) or Sigma 17-50 2.8 zooms? 

 I am still new in this as a hobby, and consequently using mostly primes to learn the ropes (35 f/2 and 50/1.4 remnants from the N80 days). 

 However, I can see the benefits of zooms as a one lens kit, especially when travelling. I have the 18-55 DX II kit lens with my D80, but I find it too slow for candid indoor shoots (I have the SB600 and I and my kids hate flash photography!). I handled the Nikon 17-55 2.8 at the store and found it too heavy for my weak, arthritic hands 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I am primarily looking at 28-80, or thereabouts, 35mm equivalent with sharp, fast glass._

 

The Tokina 16-50 doesn't look that great... Photozone review

 If you need a fast ~18-55 zoom, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is going to be your best bet. It's light, sharp, and cheap.


----------



## Shizelbs

I'm going to pick up a couple extra shifts this month. With the money I get from that I will either put that towards either a D200 or D80. I need to figure out what lenses and accessories I will need/want, but I've wanted a quality DSLR for a while now.

 Can anyone point to other good Nikon/DSLR sites besides Nikonians?


----------



## kin0kin

The only tokina that I'll ever buy is the 12-24 f4 and 50-135 f2.8. IIRC both have similar optics as the pentax offer.


----------



## cotdt

I don't like the consumer Zoom-Nikkor lenses. I've been shooting with the Nikkor 18-70mm (which was shown to be sharper than the 18-55mm, 18-135mm, and 18-200mm), but below f5.6 the pictures are a little soft. The primes I've used are much better at wider apertures. I think these zoom lenses are overrated. Need to stop taking lens advice from that Ken Rockwell website 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

 Photography for me has always been about expressing my feelings. One thing I like about zoom lenses is that I can take pictures like these:






 I'll be getting that Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM lens soon. The newest samples are supposed to have that auto-focusing problem resolved. From what I've seen, it is much sharper than the Nikkor 35mm f/2 at all aperatures (time to eBay mine), and takes wonderful pics at the widest f/1.4 setting. Expect an update on my impressions of this lens.


----------



## mb3k

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shizelbs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm going to pick up a couple extra shifts this month. With the money I get from that I will either put that towards either a D200 or D80. I need to figure out what lenses and accessories I will need/want, but I've wanted a quality DSLR for a while now.

 Can anyone point to other good Nikon/DSLR sites besides Nikonians?_

 

http://www.nikoncafe.com


----------



## Shizelbs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mb3k* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_http://www.nikoncafe.com_

 

Thanks.


----------



## mb3k

I was just at a studio photoshoot yetserday and I realized how much talent there is to be learned with lighting and especially model direction. We had snoots, barndoors, honeycombs, gels, backdrops... That was the first time I saw so much personally owned equipment.
 I'll confirm if I can show photos or not, depending on the model release form.


----------



## Shizelbs

Anyone here personally had to choose between the D80 and D200? Thats what I will be doing and I'd love to learn about your decision and the thinking behind it.


----------



## smeggy

I didn't choose between an 80 or 200 as I have wifely constraints these days, but I did get myself a wee D40 with 18-55, 55-200 VR, 50 1.8 and a SB-400. Quite a nice little budget setup which does the job admirably. 

 It's been a long time since I last had an SLR. Back in the 70's and 80's I had a few. Yashica FX2, Contax RTS II, Nikon F3 and the like so it's a lot of fun to be back in it again, albeit on a cheaper scale. 

 On the plus side, it is a lot lighter and smaller than a Nikon F3 with honking big 6 fps motordrive, big lens and a Metz CL-45 hammer style megablitz flashgun. That was about a foot tall and weighed probably in the region of 8 pounds all together 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Ah, the joys (and expense) of photography


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shizelbs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone here personally had to choose between the D80 and D200? Thats what I will be doing and I'd love to learn about your decision and the thinking behind it._

 

That would be me. I had the money to go for D200, but since I could just get D80 + a good lens with the money from D200, I opted for D80 and didn't regret it a bit. I'm using my brother's D200 regularly and don't find anything I feel more than my D80 apart from bigger more sturdy feel and metering on MF lenses.

 Actually battery life wise, I think D80 is better than D200. Noise performance of D80 is also much better too.


----------



## Shizelbs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That would be me. I had the money to go for D200, but since I could just get D80 + a good lens with the money from D200, I opted for D80 and didn't regret it a bit. I'm using my brother's D200 regularly and don't find anything I feel more than my D80 apart from bigger more sturdy feel and metering on MF lenses.

 Actually battery life wise, I think D80 is better than D200. Noise performance of D80 is also much better too._

 

I appreciate the comments. As of right now, I am leaning towards the 80 due to its excellent performance relative to the 200, and I figure I can take the money not spent on the 200 and put it towards nice accessories and a good lens or two. I've got the money for either, but I'd still like to spend smart.


----------



## dj_mocok

I am actually quite surprise you didn't ask me this so called "metering problem with D80", lol. 

 With price difference between D80 and D200, you can get something nice like 85mm 1.8 and still have a bit more maybe for an SD card.


----------



## mb3k

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am actually quite surprise you didn't ask me this so called "metering problem with D80", lol. 

 With price difference between D80 and D200, you can get something nice like 85mm 1.8 and still have a bit more maybe for an SD card._

 

Hehe, the "metering problem" is just a case of laziness. 
 I actually notice that some of my outdoor shots are overexposed with the D80, but I don't have another DSLR to actually know if it's the D80 or not... so my easy solution is to step down the exposure level usually -0.3EV to -1.0EV.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'll be getting that Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM lens soon. The newest samples are supposed to have that auto-focusing problem resolved. From what I've seen, it is much sharper than the Nikkor 35mm f/2 at all aperatures (time to eBay mine), and takes wonderful pics at the widest f/1.4 setting. Expect an update on my impressions of this lens. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Definitely post impressions and sample pics. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## kin0kin

yup, i've also seen some comparison pictures, the sigma is sharper. I've sold my 50mm since it doesnt work that great in low light without flash. 30mm seems to be the better length. The only catch about sigma 30mm is that it's not a FF lens, and there is also the paint peeling problem. But the optics are stellar.


----------



## dj_mocok

There's currently a noct on eBay Australia in case someone seriously wanna buy it. Mind you the zero feedback though. But he said he'll do local pick-up, so maybe you can arrange pick-up or ask your friend/relative to do it for you. I would opt for pick-up since it's a 0 feedback.

 Currently the price is just a tad more than Grado RS1. C'mon guys you know you want it, hehe..


----------



## skyline889

I have a question that has been bothering me for a while. After having the chance to own both Nikon and Canon DSLRs now, I'm wondering if the Nikon sensors offer better image saturation and sharpness straight off the sensor? While JPEGs are pretty similar, I've noticed that while shooting in RAW the pics I get off my D50 seem to be slightly more saturated and more to my liking tonally than ones shot in CR2 with the 20D I used to own. The second half, is probably moreso the doing of the lens than the sensor but I also noticed that I could get near tack sharp images without any kind of PP with my D50 whereas with the 20D I needed to do quite a bit of PP to get the same results. So what do you guys think? Am I just imagining things or do Nikon CCDs offer better color saturation than the Canon CMOS sensors? I really prefer not to do a whole lot of PP so this would probably be the deciding factor of me going back to Nikon or trying to stick with Canon.

 P.S.-I really like both Canon and Nikon systems so please don't turn this into a Canon/Nikon flame. Thanks for the help!


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a question that has been bothering me for a while. After having the chance to own both Nikon and Canon DSLRs now, I'm wondering if the Nikon sensors offer better image saturation and sharpness straight off the sensor? While JPEGs are pretty similar, I've noticed that while shooting in RAW the pics I get off my D50 seem to be slightly more saturated and more to my liking tonally than ones shot in CR2 with the 20D I used to own. The second half, is probably moreso the doing of the lens than the sensor but I also noticed that I could get near tack sharp images without any kind of PP with my D50 whereas with the 20D I needed to do quite a bit of PP to get the same results. So what do you guys think? Am I just imagining things or do Nikon CCDs offer better color saturation than the Canon CMOS sensors? I really prefer not to do a whole lot of PP so this would probably be the deciding factor of me going back to Nikon or trying to stick with Canon.

 P.S.-I really like both Canon and Nikon systems so please don't turn this into a Canon/Nikon flame. Thanks for the help!_

 

Keep in mind that image saturation and sharpness can also be due to internal camera processing as well. A RAW file is just that, raw data directly from the sensor. Photoshop will interpret the RAW file differently than the camera itself.

 Improving contrast can also be done with lenses. The better the lense, the better the contrast and color as well. Prime lenses do this better than most.

 -Ed


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_After having the chance to own both Nikon and Canon DSLRs now, I'm wondering if the Nikon sensors offer better image saturation and sharpness straight off the sensor? While JPEGs are pretty similar, I've noticed that while shooting in RAW the pics I get off my D50 seem to be slightly more saturated and more to my liking tonally than ones shot in CR2 with the 20D I used to own. ......_

 

I've found that the sensor has _least_ to do with chroma. I believe that the most important feature that the sensor brings to the table is capturing luminosity. While it does have separate sensors for each chroma color, the image that you see is one that's been through an A/D conversion and processed into an image format. Invariably color hues change. The big benefit of RAW is that it's keeping the full tonal range that the sensor captured: for all purposes, a 8bpc image has all the hue you would ever need.

 As to why your Nikon specifically had more saturation then your Canon: I would think it also has to do a lot with the program you used to open them. Does the RAW utility keep the camera defaults, or default to something else? 
 The fact that you say Jpegs are comparable with both leads me to believe it's more software related then camera related.


----------



## smeggy

I think Nikons do saturate more by default from what I've seen though some Canons are sharper than many Nikons (usually said to be due to better per-pixel sharpness with the Canon CMOS sensor). These differences should show up more in jpg as they are fully processed in-cam. 

 If you use Nikons own Capture NX, these in-cam settings should be mimiced as the info is embedded in the NEF format. Running either Nikon or Canon raw files through Pshop should look pretty similar to each other I'd imagine but not having both I wouldn't swear to it.


----------



## dan1son

The wife just bought me a Nikon D40 for my birthday. That's the first big gift she bought without my input and also the best, although she did talk to my dad who is a part-time pro photographer.

 I'm still learning all of the photography stuff... picked up a few used books, and borrowed a couple others. Looks like this could be another expensive and fun hobby. 

 Can't wait to pick up that 70-300 AF-S VR lense I keep stalking...


----------



## dj_mocok

I'm thinking to get a new lens for myself for Christmas. I think I have decided on getting Tokina 12-24mm f/4. I was initially going to get Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, but then super wide angle will be a new style for me and I'm quite sure it'll be good fun. Anyone ever uses Tokina 12-24mm? 

 I've read some comparisons of super wide angle lenses, and I think from all those, Tokina offers the best value for money (plus I think it's the best built too).


----------



## mbriant

I have a Nikon mount version of the Tokina 12 - 24. I usually buy only Nikon Lenses, but since I rarely shoot ultra-wide (I mostly prefer longish telephotos), after doing some research I came to the same conclusions as you. It compares well ( if not better ) in many areas against it's competition, it's well made, and it's considerably less money than the Nikon version.

 As mentioned, I've hardly used it, so I can't really comment on sharpness, distortion, saturation, etc. from personal use yet.

 I think I used it with fill flash for this shot:


----------



## dj_mocok

Mbriant, thanks for the picture. Do you have any other indoor pictures at f/4 preferably the ones taken without flash? This is one of the things that I don't like about ultra wide, f/4 is very slow for flashless indoor. That means to use this lens I have to use ISO800 to ISO1000.

 Does it accurately meter with your camera? Or anything you don't like about it?

 PS: I'm open for donation for any hardly-getting-used lenses.


----------



## mbriant

I'm afraid I don't. Like I said, I've hardly used it at all, and I'd rarely attempt shooting anything handheld indoors at anything less than f2.8, which of course would rule out this f4 lens. I don't know what camera you're using, but my D2h's are quite noisy at high ISO settings, so unless it was the only possible way I could get a mustn't miss shot, I wouldn't bother even trying at anything over ISO 800. Even 800 is disappointingly noisy IMO. Then again, at the extreme wide end, this lens would be more forgiving of camera movement than the teles I normally use, so perhaps I should give some indoor low light f4 shooting a try at a slower shutter speed.


----------



## ozz

just got a d-80 and it came with an 18-135 i was thinking of
 a 70-300vr has anyone tried one.


----------



## dj_mocok

Never tried 70-300VR, but I personally don't really like zooms that cover too much and slow. 

 If I were to get a long zoom (and of course I can't afford 70-200 from Nikon), I probably would rather consider something like Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 or I might even just get a used AIS tele prime. But I'm not really into telephoto lenses since my shooting style and subjects don't really include wildlife or sports.


----------



## Edwood

Head's up.

 Nikon 18-200mm VR lens in stock at B&H.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...&O=&sku=408518

 If you want one better hurry, they go out of stock fast.

 -Ed


----------



## asebastian0

Nikon Persons:

 Got a D40x (Yeah, I know the extra MP's aren't of any use to me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ) the other day and I have a major issue with this camera. Namely, in order to look into the viewfinder I have to smash my nose almost to the point of breaking it, or the camera. So I have begun to look into the various viewfinder apparatuses which will extend the distance between my face and the camera. 

 The DK-21M does not look like it will give enough clearance and overall reception seems lukewarm. Someone on dpreview said they are using the "DK-17m with 2370 adapter and the orion [telescope eyecup]" 

 This leads me to a few questions.. 

 1) Will the DK-22 fit the D40?

 2) Which orion telescope eyecup/magnifier will fit in between this and the final eyepiece, the DK-17M?

 Also other suggestions from you guys are welcome... Need about 3/4"-1.5" and don't want to use the right angle viewfinder all the time.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ozz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_just got a d-80 and it came with an 18-135 i was thinking of
 a 70-300vr has anyone tried one._

 

I have the 70-300mm VR and it's a great lens. It's tack sharp up until about 200 or so mm and the VR works wonders. I can shoot way out at 300mm at very low shutter speeds without worrying about my shots coming out blurry. Sure it's not as sharp at 300m as it is at throughout the rest of the range but honestly it's more than sharp enough. As long as you can get it to focus on the right subject at 300mm, your pictures will be very sharp. 

 Some other pluses include next to zero distortion throughout nearly the entire range, and very little chromatic abberation (Shows up a little at 300mm, but overall very little). If you're shooting indoor sports or the like than yes f/5.6 at the long end might be too slow too freeze your subject but if your outdoors than it shouldn't be a problem. Though I should add that I shot my girlfriend's commencement, which had very little light, and was able to shoot at 300mm f/5.6 at ISO1600 and the pics were still very usable (Her dad, who shoots with a 5D and a 30D was surprised by the results!) so it can do low light in emergency situations.


----------



## ozz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have the 70-300mm VR and it's a great lens. It's tack sharp up until about 200 or so mm and the VR works wonders. I can shoot way out at 300mm at very low shutter speeds without worrying about my shots coming out blurry. Sure it's not as sharp at 300m as it is at throughout the rest of the range but honestly it's more than sharp enough. As long as you can get it to focus on the right subject at 300mm, your pictures will be very sharp. 

 Some other pluses include next to zero distortion throughout nearly the entire range, and very little chromatic abberation (Shows up a little at 300mm, but overall very little). If you're shooting indoor sports or the like than yes f/5.6 at the long end might be too slow too freeze your subject but if your outdoors than it shouldn't be a problem. Though I should add that I shot my girlfriend's commencement, which had very little light, and was able to shoot at 300mm f/5.6 at ISO1600 and the pics were still very usable (Her dad, who shoots with a 5D and a 30D was surprised by the results!) so it can do low light in emergency situations._

 

thanks you answered my question the price is right so i think i will get it
 all the pictures will be outdoor and later i will get primes.


----------



## ozz

i can see this hobby getting like my hi-fi expensive fun and addictive.


----------



## bloodydoorknob

_"Namely, in order to look into the viewfinder I have to smash my nose almost to the point of breaking it, or the camera. So I have begun to look into the various viewfinder apparatuses which will extend the distance between my face and the camera."_

 I've had the same problem using the d40 at the studio I work at and I have a small pudgy nose, yet it always gets jammed up against the LCD, making it greasy as hell.


----------



## ozz

could not resist got both the wired and wireless shutter control.


----------



## dj_mocok

Nikon D3 sample images. The high ISO performance is scary. That picture taken at 6400 looks like my picture taken at ISO 1000 using D80.


----------



## fabool

Those look fantastic! Sure, there's noise, however the quality of it is great - it's more like grain than digital noise in my opinion. Almost makes me want to sell my D200, which I got only two days ago 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think there may be _a few_ Canon people changing to Nikon this winter


----------



## jjcha

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nikon D3 sample images. The high ISO performance is scary. That picture taken at 6400 looks like my picture taken at ISO 1000 using D80. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Given it's a "Standard" JPEG, I imagine there is standard noise reduction and sharpening applied. It explains the lack of chroma noise, with a fairly gentle luminance noise. But having said that, that's pretty insane performance. f5.6 and 1/160th of a second in a dark club? We're only seeing the beginning of what digital sensors can do, I think.

 Best,

 -Jason


----------



## Edwood

Wow. 

 Can't wait until that sensor trickles down to lower end models. Like a D400 or somthing in the future.

 -Ed


----------



## dj_mocok

The high ISO performance is indeed crazy huh? 
 You know I've always been one of those that are not extremely tempted to get newer and most current camera body, but seeing what it can do here, I was thinking, once it trickles down to lower end camera in the future (eg. D90), that will be awesome. 

 In a way, I can even consider it as ALL my lenses got an extra stop down performance, so if you have f/4 lenses, they can now perform like f/2.8, etc...
 For example, the only thing that stands between me and an ultra wide lens now is the f/4 aperture, if I use f/4 indoor, it will be difficult for me to do so, but if I could have ISO performance like that, I wouldn't hesitate a bit to crank the ISO up to get more shutter speed.

 PS: This is the most recent thread from photo.net about a guy who was lucky enough to try the D3 hands on. If D300 is similar in ISO performance, I can see lots of D200 for sale very soon (considering how "bad" the ISO performance of D200 is)


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jjcha* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Given it's a "Standard" JPEG, I imagine there is standard noise reduction and sharpening applied. It explains the lack of chroma noise, with a fairly gentle luminance noise. But having said that, that's pretty insane performance. f5.6 and 1/160th of a second in a dark club? We're only seeing the beginning of what digital sensors can do, I think._

 

i agree and really happy that nikon/sony is more focused on improved sensor performance instead of playing the megapixel game. when i had talked with the sony sensor guys a year ago for camera phone sensors, they wanted to focus on a lower pixel count since they knew they could make them better but because of customer requirements, they were forced to work on higher pixel count sensors. in their minds, a higher pixel count didn't equate to better image quality and i'd have to agree with them.


----------



## dj_mocok

The current state of 10 MP is perfectly fine for me.


----------



## lan

I don't think you'd get the same sensor nor same performance in APS-C because they have to keep the megapixels up or at least the same but not less than before. The same sensor would be about 6MP cropped.

 I'd like to see more images. Unfortunately even if it were that good, most of us could not afford the D3.


----------



## dj_mocok

Still on the high-end equipment topic, this is another Noct Nikkor 58mm 1.2 for sale. Anyone wanna get it, go for it. Looks like the seller is trying to finance a D3. Although I personally wouldn't sell a Noct for a D3 no matter how tempting it is. I mean, D3 is just a new technology, will be surpassed in a year or so, but a NOCT is a NOCT and will always remain a legend in Nikon history. I reckon he's made a mistake putting that one up on eBay, but hey, not mine.


----------



## Contrastique

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nikon D3 sample images. The high ISO performance is scary. That picture taken at 6400 looks like my picture taken at ISO 1000 using D80. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

That indeed looks scary! So totally outpreforms my D200 haha! 
 Oh well, hardly use that anyways...so I can still live with mine 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 But it looks so good! Would like to compare it with the Canon version, noise vs noise I mean.


----------



## Girardian

The progress on the digital front Nikon is making is staggering. I owned one of the first N8008s (non-digital one of the first AF Nikons) and it was a workhorse for years. Upgraded the lenses a few years ago and was very impressed. I'm perpetually tempted by the Nikon digial offerings, but I am hovering in the sidelines for now.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

D3 ISO6400....hooooolllllllyyyyyy COW! And right when everyone was starting to think that Nikon had nothing up their sleeves for Canon. I can't wait to see the reviews and real pictures from this thing start pouring in.

 Well despite my lust for the D200 and the possibility that used prices should be coming down in the near future, I got a deal I couldn't refuse, NIB D70S/18-70 kit for $400. I've been having a heck of a lot of fun, since this is my first SLR. Now the lens lust begins, I suppose, as my brain (and legs) say 70-300VR, but my heart says 80-200/2xTC


----------



## ozz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_D3 ISO6400....hooooolllllllyyyyyy COW! And right when everyone was starting to think that Nikon had nothing up their sleeves for Canon. I can't wait to see the reviews and real pictures from this thing start pouring in.

 Well despite my lust for the D200 and the possibility that used prices should be coming down in the near future, I got a deal I couldn't refuse, NIB D70S/18-70 kit for $400. I've been having a heck of a lot of fun, since this is my first SLR. Now the lens lust begins, I suppose, as my brain (and legs) say 70-300VR, but my heart says 80-200/2xTC 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

i also want the 70-300vr every time i go to get it something else breaks
 around the house maybe next week if i'm lucky.


----------



## dj_mocok

More samples of D3 high ISO:

Link 1 

 Link 2


----------



## kin0kin

I shot an 8 hour wedding gig today. I used my usual rig - d200 + 80-200 2.8 + vivitar 285hv <-- this is not my usual main flash, and I learned something:

 1) You will need the fastest flash you can get...invest in something serious...quantum q-flash for example

 2) I should get the 85mm 1.4 AF-D

 My flash took too long to fully recycle, causing me to lose a lot of shots. Firing at half power is tricky as you never know when the flash is fully powered, which may cause the picture to totally blow out. 

 Carrying a 2kg+ rig for 8 hours is NOT COOL. My right index finger now is hard like a rock....and I totally underestimated how dim some room light can be..f2.8 DOES NOT cut it, and with my slow @ss flash, it totally pissed me off.

 Other than that, all the pictures turned out very satisfying, some samples:


----------



## ozz

hows the sb 600 flash rate its a little late for me cause i already got it.
 seems to work fine i especially like the remote function with the d-80.


----------



## kin0kin

It's very fast, I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## lan

I think it depends what you are doing with the flash and your shooting style to asses whether it's "fast enough".

 AA powered flashes typically take a while to recharge after outputting half and full power. I have that Vivitar also and I only use it in certain cases.


----------



## ozz

oh i have gone through a set of batteries time to think about rechargables.


----------



## dj_mocok

There are some nice wedding pictures there. I too would hate to carry that thing for 8 hours straight. 85mm 1.4 is great but I think for wedding, it's only really useful for posed session, but to cover everything else in wedding in general, I would think something like 17-50mm f/2.8 will suit it better.


----------



## lan

You really need two body's. Changing lenses in a fast paced situation like that is hard. Of course if you're not used to carrying 1 around the whole day, you probably better exercise or work your way up to the weight of 2. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Help would be smart. I don't see how 1 person can cover a wedding.


----------



## kin0kin

We had 3 people doing the wedding, none of us carried two bodies, we just had different lenses on. One guy with a super wide, me with a tele, and the other with a 24-70 L <--he was also changing between this and the 70-200 2.8 IS instead of lugging two bodies even though he had another one in his bag. The reason is simple, it can get very tiring after awhile I am by no means not fit/thin.

 I only shot 17-50 during preperation, after that, it was kept in the bag. I intend to being 3 lenses next time, 50mm, 85mm, and 80-200. I'm gonna sell off the 17-50 soon.

 Final batch of the pictures that I uploaded yesterday:


----------



## ozz

nice pictures


----------



## lan

Yeah if you have a few people, there's no need to carry two bodies. I'm just saying if you were one person, it's certainly a possibility. Indeed it's not for everybody. I tried it out on my recent trip though with a still and video camera mounted on my stroboframe and I kind of enjoyed it. I'd say it wasn't too bad weight wise as they were sort of light rigs each.

 Looks like some nice pics 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The dress in these events are hard to take. It seems a bit blown out.


----------



## kin0kin

that's the thing with wedding gown, you either expose the skin properly, which I always do, or keep everything within the dynamic range, which will result in underexposed people unless flash is used <- which I never had a chance 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Did I mention that it was a wet wedding? lol we only had like 15-20 mins of dry-time to capture those formal shots. 

 For some reasons I only thought of capturing full body shot that day, I should have zoomed in closer for waist up shots...bleh next time I guess

 oh BTW, i've had this idea in my mind for some time now....has anybody tried using IR torch light for AF assist? they are invisible to human eyes but the camera will see it. I was just wondering if it will affect the meter's reading. I'm planning to burn 10 bucks on ebay to experiment this


----------



## ozz

what cleaning kit would you recommend lens and camera i just have the
 micro fiber cloth.


----------



## kin0kin

Micro fiber is what I use. Sometimes I just breath on the lens and wipe it clean, but if the filter is really dirty for some reasons, I'd use 50% isopropyl alcohol.


----------



## dj_mocok

For lens, I tend to use only a (good) lenspen now. It gets the job done most of the time, unless you have serious smudge (eg. oil or whatnot on your lens' surface). And a blower.

 I will first try to blow away all the dust from the lens, and if there are still some specks, I will carefully brush them using the brush, then wipe using lenspen if necessary.

 But usually I only use blower, cleaning lens surface too often isn't good for the coating.


----------



## ozz

what brand lens pen and thanks.


----------



## dj_mocok

The brand is lenspen too. This is the link.


----------



## jjcha

Question for you guys -- my dad's got a D200 and I'm thinking of buying him a nice fast normal prime. He's already got the 18-200 VR and a 80-300 VR as well, but nothing fast for low light. But I look at the offerings from Nikon and they don't seem to have any thing like a 35mm f/1.4 or 28mm f/2.0. I see some historic lenses (some that should be fantastic actually), but none of those autofocus, even with the D200, right?

 Am I stuck looking at the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma if I want a normal prime (considering the crop) that's faster than f2.0? The Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 with the focal crop is a bit longer than I would have wanted...

 Best,

 -Jason


----------



## cotdt

hey jason, the sigma 30/1.4 is a really good choice and my most used lens, and then there is also the nikkor 28/1.4, but the only real difference i notice is that the nikkor is a little sharper in the corners, and cost a little more.


----------



## jjcha

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_hey jason, the sigma 30/1.4 is a really good choice and my most used lens, and then there is also the nikkor 28/1.4, but the only real difference i notice is that the nikkor is a little sharper in the corners, and cost a little more._

 

The Nikkor 28mm f/1.4 is a legendary lens, and for good reason. You really can't compare it to the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, because the former is a true wide angle fast lens, while the latter is a crop only normal lens. Actually, I can't think of any other 28mm f/1.4 full frame lens, at least not any Leica M-mount or Canon lens. But I suppose this is all wasted on a crop camera like the D200, where Sigma saw a prime opportunity by releasing an extremely useful, digital only, 30mm f/1.4.

 But I am concerned with autofocus compatibility... I guess my question really is whether the 28mm f/1.4 Nikkor will auto-focus with the D200? It should, right? This is where my confusion really is.

 Best,

 -Jason


----------



## fabool

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jjcha* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But I am concerned with autofocus compatibility... I guess my question really is whether the 28mm f/1.4 Nikkor will auto-focus with the D200? It should, right?_

 

Yes it does. It's a beautiful (and expensive) lens, I'd love one myself 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 A nice page with some lens reviews. They're all tested on a D200 so the AF info should be accurate.

 Not much else around the 50mm mark (including crop), I'm afraid. If you could do with f2, there's a 35/f2 Nikkor available though.


----------



## perplex

Use http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html


----------



## jjcha

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fabool* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not much else around the 50mm mark (including crop), I'm afraid. If you could do with f2, there's a 35/f2 Nikkor available though._

 

Thanks... yeah, the 35mm f/2 looks like a fine lens, and it's prob what I would use... just knowing my dad, I know he likes the convienance of his 18-200 VR so much that I'd need to give him more than a 2 stop advantage for him to consider a prime for low-light situations.

 How sad... very excellent primes playing second fiddle to a consumer zoom... but I guess that's the market for you... 

 Regardless though, the Sigma 30 f/1.4 does look like a great choice... I'm sure if my dad were paying (he doesn't waste his money) that's what he'd get... but as it's a gift from me, I might need to kick it up a notch... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Best,

 -Jason


----------



## cotdt

i had the 35/2, it's a great lens but i would take the sigma 30/1.4 over it (which i did). while very sharp and close-focusing, it had a lot of chromatic aberrations in highlights. i mean a massive purple outline, it's terrible.


----------



## dj_mocok

Or you can wait for the new Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8.... but that's only 2.8 though. But your dad would be extremely happy with that.


----------



## dj_mocok

Still in the topic of Wide angle lenses, I just purchased this Nikon 28mm f/2.8 lens from eBay using "buy it now" option. 

 I thought it was a "regular" AI-s version, not the budget 28mm 2.8 Series E version. The seller wrote: '_*NIKON 28mm f2.8 AIS lens on auction*_', so I thought it wasn't a series E.

 Although on the picture is actually showing Series E, but it's not so obvious so I missed it. I know I should've checked a bit more thorough, but I think the seller should mention a series E if it's a series E (especially since he specialised in selling camera gears).

 So after requesting payment info earlier, now I just sent him a message saying I don't wanna buy it anymore and I don't mind paying him the listing fee.

 I think both of us were in the wrong here, him not describing properly and me not looking properly. Therefore I think it's quite reasonable for me to cancel this, and reimburse his listing. But I might expect my 1st negative feedback from eBay...


----------



## dj_mocok

UPDATE

 See, I knew it. I've been exchanging email like 4 times with this guy and everytime I explained to him that the description of the product wasn't clear enough and he always dodged it and felt that he didn't do anything wrong at all.

 I've told him at least 3 times that unless he got a "real" 28mm f/2.8 AIs, I'm not interested in his Series E. And I said to him I didn't mind to reimburse his listing fee, but he never mentioned that too.

 I'm getting tired of this. Maybe I should just drop him the negative feedback and expect him to do the same huh?

 I don't really care about 1 negative feedback.


----------



## Herandu

Nope. Email ebay and point out that the seller sold you something that is not as advertised, and that his description turned out to be false since the manufacturer (Nikon) never made such an item. They'll help for sure.


----------



## dj_mocok

Well, Nikon did make an 28mm f/2.8 Ai-s as well as the 28mm f/2.8 Series E Ai-s.

 But if you have a look at that eBay link for the item that I provided earlier, would you also think that the seller is selling the "regular" AiS, not the Series E one?


----------



## acp6s

who's got the D40 baby? I love this thing. I want one so bad. can't wait. i heard it's a giant killer, damn good for the price and favored over much more expensive dslrs, what do you all think?


----------



## dj_mocok

It's good but I'm not so sure about the giant killer part.


----------



## badpenny

LOL @ giant killer!


----------



## dj_mocok

Although I agree that given the right circumstances, a 50mm f/1.8 can be a giant killer. Too bad it can't be used in full function with D40. So there goes your giant killer.

 By the way, update on my eBay hiccup: This was the last message from him:
_*
 You must have a problem understanding - for the 4th time, the link provided further description of the lens, which you obviously did not bother to read. And now you're pushing the blame to me. If in the beginning, you had the courtesy to just admit your mistake & stop there, I would have just let this go. I myself have made similiar mistakes before & a simple apology goes a long way with experienced eBayers. Instead you chose to irritatingly go on & on about what I should have written in MY auction. My complaint is not intended to make you pay as I wouldn't want to conclude any deals with you. *_

 Oh well, looks like it ended with everyone happy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Looks like he was pretty upset that I pointed out to him that he should make the ad. a bit clearer. He specialised in selling lenses and camera gears and got lots of knowledge of Nikon lens lineup. 

 Of all people, he should be the one that really realise that there's a big difference between a Series E lens and a normal Ais lens - and yet he somehow failed to add this series E description on his lens.


----------



## GTRacer

eBay is sso annoying. I won a D80 + Kit lens on the 26th Sep, paid immediately and I've only had a single response that the seller would post it. 3 working days later and it isn't here. What do you guys think I should do? Seller had 100% feedback and I paid by CC through paypal...


----------



## dj_mocok

I actually wouldn't recommend buying a camera body online due to reasons of possible fraud and it might be hard to repair/return if the camera got a problem.

 But in your case, I think all you can do is wait. 3 days is not long at all, but no harm emailing the seller. A good seller will respond in 24 hours time letting you know whether the item is sent already or not.


----------



## ozz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I actually wouldn't recommend buying a camera body online due to reasons of possible fraud and it might be hard to repair/return if the camera got a problem.

 But in your case, I think all you can do is wait. 3 days is not long at all, but no harm emailing the seller. A good seller will respond in 24 hours time letting you know whether the item is sent already or not._

 

i agree and besides if you shop at your local camera store they are more
 apt to work with you to get repeat business.


----------



## dj_mocok

Looks like I won't be getting a negative feedback, I think the seller worries I might give him the same (of course). But anyway, I got a mention in his relisted ad, and still, he still didn't change the description. 

 I personally think it's very wrong to describe a wrong product in your eBay ad, and only provides the actual product when you click the link for the review of the product. I should make a complaint but can't be bothered.


----------



## fureshi

i was thinking of getting a telephoto lens but kinda torn between the 55-200mm vr and the 70-300mm vr. they both seem to be very nice prosumer lenses but was wondering if anyone here has had experience with both? the price difference is almost double for the 70-300mm. i'm not sure when i'm going to need the telephoto but i figure it'd be good to have one on my bag. most of the time, i shoot with the tamron 17-50mm and it seems to do the job nicely.


----------



## kin0kin

the 70-300 is the best consumer range telephoto. If I couldn't afford the 80-200/70-200sigma/nikkor, I would pick up the 70-300mm vr myself. 

 I'm trying very hard to sell my 80-200 2.8 to get the 85mm 1.4 af


----------



## ozz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i was thinking of getting a telephoto lens but kinda torn between the 55-200mm vr and the 70-300mm vr. they both seem to be very nice prosumer lenses but was wondering if anyone here has had experience with both? the price difference is almost double for the 70-300mm. i'm not sure when i'm going to need the telephoto but i figure it'd be good to have one on my bag. most of the time, i shoot with the tamron 17-50mm and it seems to do the job nicely._

 

as soon as funds permit the 70-300 will be my next purchase.


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kin0kin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the 70-300 is the best consumer range telephoto. If I couldn't afford the 80-200/70-200sigma/nikkor, I would pick up the 70-300mm vr myself. 

 I'm trying very hard to sell my 80-200 2.8 to get the 85mm 1.4 af 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

most reviews seem to indicate that the 70-300mm is quite sharp as is the 55-200. i'd go for the 70-200mm f/2.8 but i can't really afford that right now either. comparing pop photo's performance charts, they both seem to be comparable up to 200mm and hence the dilemma. 

 i've recently picked up a 50mm f/1.8. this isn't the D version but early indications from a few pictures seem to show this being a pretty good lens. it seems to be long enough to be a good portrait lens also.


----------



## RIDE

Man...this thread is killing me. Just sold off all of my Nikon gear 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Had the 50mm 1.8, 17-55 f2.8, 70-200 VR. I miss them all! 

 RIDE


----------



## kin0kin

YAY 80-200mm sold, 85mm 1.4 on the way and my new kit:

 17-50, 50, 85, 150

 Just gotta wait till the 24-70 afs comes out


----------



## dj_mocok

How much did you sell your 80-200mm for?


----------



## kin0kin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How much did you sell your 80-200mm for?_

 

$100 less than a brand new 85mm 1.4


----------



## dj_mocok

Man, that's a good price you sold there. 100 dollars less from brand new 85mm 1.4, you can get a brand new 80-200mm here, lol.


----------



## kin0kin

yeah lol, i lost only like 20-30 bucks selling it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 less than the cost of renting a lens for 24 hours.


----------



## perplex

Let's breath some life into this thread. Why don't we make it a "post your Nikon photos" too?


----------



## ozz

any reson not to get a nikon teleconverter for afs lens.


----------



## Arainach

Teleconverters will only work with Pro Constant-Aperture glass. As well, they're only really worth it on long telephotos (70-200VR, 300 f/2.8 or f/4, 400 f/2.8, 500/600 f/4). The 1.4x Teleconverter is rock-solid across the board, the 1.7 is decent, but the TC-20E has too much degradation for my taste (and the taste of a lot of other photographers). Also be aware that you lose a stop of shooting speed and that AF speed is also reduced because of the lack of light.

 In short: If you're using consumer glass (18-70, 18-125, 70-300, etc.) it won't work. If you're using any focal length below 200mm or so there's no point. And avoid the TC-20E.


----------



## bigshot

Here's three pictures I took at the LA County Fair with my D200... click to see them larger.













 More on my blog... Late Night Coffee Shops

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## fureshi

I borrowed my gf's 50mm f/1.2 lens from her old F3 this past weekend. It's amazing that the older cameras used to come with this lens considering that it's a $500 lens nowadays. The following picture is just for test but the shallow depth of field is amazing. The manual focusing isn't a big deal but my main gripe with it is that my camera doesn't meter with it. It took me a few tries with the shutter speed to get the right exposure.


----------



## Arainach

The 50 f/1.4 used to be a common kit lens, but to my knowledge the f/1.2 version was never shipped as a kit lens.


----------



## dj_mocok

There's a new Nikon D80 review on photo.net (and some discussions) in case anyone would like to read more reviews of the camera.


----------



## ozz

thanks for the review its been months later and i am very happy
 with my d-80 now if i can keep this lens addiction under control.


----------



## dj_mocok

What lenses have you got at the moment?


----------



## ozz

18-135 and 70-300 want a 105.


----------



## dj_mocok

The f/2.5 version or the new macro one?


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

Just picked up a D40 on Friday. Sweet camera... I can't wait to be able to afford a new lens. For now though, the kit lens is working well for me, I've been able to get some decent shots. Some of my favorites:

 Camel backs at Garden of the Gods:







 My kitty taking a nap:


----------



## dj_mocok

Actually the kits lens can produce pretty good pictures stopped down. It's very contrasty, they're just fine as long as you can stand the plasticky/toy feel.


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually the kits lens can produce pretty good pictures stopped down. It's very contrasty, they're just fine as long as you can stand the plasticky/toy feel._

 

The feel doesn't bother me at all (hell, its really all I know at this point)... really, the only reason I am interested in a new lens at this point is that I would like something with a bit more zoom.


----------



## ozz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The f/2.5 version or the new macro one?_

 

the new macro but at a grand with tax it will be a while


----------



## dj_mocok

Don't bother with the new macro, just go like me and get the Tamron 90mm one, bokeh is great and to me image quality is equal (or even better - I'll be damned).


----------



## DBrim

The kit lens (the older 18-55, for the D50) did me fine for a good long while. I used it for six months nearly exclusively and had a lot of success with it. Since then I've bought the 18-200 VR and Tokina 12-24, but the kit produced some of my favorite images.


----------



## fabool

I'm eyeing a used 105 as well. Not the new one, but rather the older AI-s f2.5, which is said to be extremely sharp and still quite cheap.
 To be honest, I don't really have a 'need' for the lens, but I just want to get a good manual focus prime to accompany my 18-200VR allrounder on my D200. For some reason I'm enjoying MF a lot more than AF, and the 18-200 just doesn't feel that good when manually focusing.
 Other future considerations are the ever-so-great wideangle zooms (10-20 / 12-24) which, unfortunately, I can't afford at the moment and a shorter and faster prime [size=xx-small]and the 70-200VR über-lens which I doubt I'll ever afford[/size]


----------



## dj_mocok

MF is the way to go man. You feel much better when you take a nice picture using MF than AF.

 If you are into MF, don't forget the 50mm 1.2 as well. Actually I was watching one went on eBay yesterday for AUS$ 345.
 Was gonna get it, but then I got a few fast MF lenses already and I'm saving up for the upcoming Tokina wide angle (I think it's 11-17mm f/2.8)
 Heard that the new Tokina will be made in SLD glass. Although I'd prefer it to be LSD glass though, sounds cooler, hehe..


----------



## DBrim

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_MF is the way to go man. You feel much better when you take a nice picture using MF than AF.

 If you are into MF, don't forget the 50mm 1.2 as well. Actually I was watching one went on eBay yesterday for AUS$ 345.
 Was gonna get it, but then I got a few fast MF lenses already and I'm saving up for the upcoming Tokina wide angle (I think it's 11-17mm f/2.8)
 Heard that the new Tokina will be made in SLD glass. Although I'd prefer it to be LSD glass though, sounds cooler, hehe.._

 

MF depends a lot on your eyes. Mine are pretty poor, and as a result I'm not particularly good at focusing manually. Oh, and that Tokina is 11-16. I'm looking forward to seeing if the CAs are reduced from the 12-24.


----------



## dj_mocok

I usually depend on the green dot confirmation thing. I know some people just think that they're useless, but if you know how to take the 'middle point' in between the dot flashing on and off, it should be fine. I'm using it with 1.4 and most of the time the pictures are focused fine.

 Ah so it's 11-16? No wonder I tried to search 11-17mm but couldn't find that many info. I don't really mind about flare prone or CA as long as they aren't terrible. How bad is the CA from 12-24mm? Some people complain alot but some are just fine with it.

 But what I really wish for is it's sharp wide open, because the only thing that makes me not want to get the 12-24mm f/4 version is the well, f/4. And the actual T stop is reportedly slower than that too (I love fast lenses).


----------



## DBrim

The CA is worse than average on the 12-24, but if you're not viewing it large, it's hard to notice. For printing, though, it's a real PITA to correct.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DBrim* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The CA is worse than average on the 12-24, but if you're not viewing it large, it's hard to notice. For printing, though, it's a real PITA to correct._

 

Try shooting RAW. For some reason Nikon Capture seems to correct nearly all the CA I can throw at it even without special settings.


----------



## DBrim

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Try shooting RAW. For some reason Nikon Capture seems to correct nearly all the CA I can throw at it even without special settings._

 

I shoot RAW, but I use ACR to process it, and getting rid of CAs is pretty tricky.

 My next camera software purchase might be DxO, though, and that supposedly takes care of CA pretty easily.


----------



## ServinginEcuador

Just ordered this morning:
 D300 kit with an 18-200 VRII lens. Seems Rockbrook in Nebraska has a few of them in stock. I can't wait to check this thing out and get into shooting once again. After two trips to DisneyLand this weekend I found myself missing the lack of having a digicam around. Remedied that quickly!

 Next on the list is an SB-400 and an 12-24 f4 Nikkor. May go for the MB-10 grip if I need the extra shutter release and longer battery life.


----------



## dj_mocok

Nice, make sure you let us know once you've got them. Why not get one prime lens as well?


----------



## dan1son

Taken with the green dot on a D40 with the 50mm f/1.4 @1.8.






 It's DEFINITELY possible to MF a D40. It takes a little practice and it's real tough with moving objects, but it's worth it and not really that hard. I'm definitely no pro, hardly even an amateur. I can take shots like that all day with very few throw aways due to focus. 

 Oh and fast primes are amazingly fun. That was taken indoors in the evening with normal house lighting. Can't do that with a kit lens.


----------



## dj_mocok

That's a nice shot. Glad to hear that you're fine with the green dot. Some people really can't get it to work, but it's really fine for me, and looks like it's fine for you too.

 If you have spare money to use on camera, you should try selling your camera and getting a used D200 (since many people are going D300 now). Although picture quality difference may not be that noticeable, but it's much much better to play around with MF lenses. Apart from ability to meter AI/Ais, it feels very good to shoot with it. The build, the more solid shutter sound, etc... it just feels more like you're taking picture.

 That 50mm 1.4 MF will get you hooked. I hope you won't have stupid ideas like trying the 85mm 1.4 version


----------



## Shiro MS08th

Yea, its definitely able to MF on entry-level DSLR, but its kinda PITA using the small viewfinder though.
 Used to MF the 135mm f/2.8 on my D70.


----------



## ServinginEcuador

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice, make sure you let us know once you've got them. Why not get one prime lens as well?_

 

I'll look into some primes once I have a chance to see what I need from experience. I've owned quite a few Nikon cameras and lenses but want to make sure I don't buy a bunch of glass I don't need. Did that with the F4 and F100 both, but at least had a wedding photography business to allow me to write-off the cost of the equipment. Not it's just a hobby, and convincing the wife to go along with another round of big camera purchases isn't as easy the fourth time around. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I also ordered a Lexar 4GB card to use with the camera. Couldn't justify the cost for the 8GB version since I can't foresee shooting that many shots with what I shoot now.


----------



## dj_mocok

I shoot JPEG mainly, and so far 2GB is enough for me for a day's shoot. I might get another 2 so that I can shoot more raws.


----------



## ozz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I shoot JPEG mainly, and so far 2GB is enough for me for a day's shoot. I might get another 2 so that I can shoot more raws._

 

same here but never shoot raw just jpeg fine.


----------



## dan1son

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's a nice shot. Glad to hear that you're fine with the green dot. Some people really can't get it to work, but it's really fine for me, and looks like it's fine for you too.

 If you have spare money to use on camera, you should try selling your camera and getting a used D200 (since many people are going D300 now). Although picture quality difference may not be that noticeable, but it's much much better to play around with MF lenses. Apart from ability to meter AI/Ais, it feels very good to shoot with it. The build, the more solid shutter sound, etc... it just feels more like you're taking picture.

 That 50mm 1.4 MF will get you hooked. I hope you won't have stupid ideas like trying the 85mm 1.4 version 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Mmm the 85mm f/1.4. It's not that I don't have the idea to try it, it's that I can't afford to. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I put my fathers new 70-200VR f/2.8 lens on my D40 over thanksgiving... man that lens is nice. The D40 almost looked like a large lens cap on the back of that thing. It's amazing what that little camera is capable of with good glass. 

 I agree about the D200, not in the budget right now... bought a new MacBook instead. The D40 is lacking some features and speed, but for an entry level camera it's sweet.


----------



## PATB

Just got the Sigma 18-50 2.8 Macro HSM and am shocked at how sharp this lens is, especially for the price. Much cheaper than the Nikon 17-55 2.8. I took quick snapshots of my Qualia last night for the for sale forum, RAW into Lightroom with no adjustments, SB600 flash, and down-res for web.






 I was thinking of getting the Nikon but it was too big, and looked like a monster with my D80.


----------



## DBrim

Sharp, and very nice bokeh as well!


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dan1son* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Mmm the 85mm f/1.4. It's not that I don't have the idea to try it, it's that I can't afford to._

 

Keep looking at eBay, if you're lucky you can score an 85mm 1.4 Ais pretty cheap.

 PatB: Nice picture indeed, the lens is paying for itself already. With that kind of picture, it will sell easier.


----------



## jzhang1013

Nikon D80, The HD, 80-200mm, 18-200mm, tammy 28-75mm, 50mm 1.4

 Just got my 80-200mm aka The Monster yesterday night, very very heavy, but nice. Other than the gear posted my past gear included:

 D70
 Nikon 18-70mm
 Nikon 18-55mm
 Nikon 18-55mm with the silver band
 Nikon 20mm

 Shooting RAW is great if you do PP, if not JPG is just fine.

 I just need to get me:

 SB 600
 Nikon 17-55mm or 12-24mm
 Nikon 70-200mm VR


----------



## dj_mocok

Nice collection there Jz, I've been thinking to get 80-200mm - but I realise that this is pure lens lust, so I'll try to make do with my prime. How's the shooting with 80-200 @200mm f/2.8? do you need to use tripod or handhold is ok?

 By the way I just took this with my 50mm 1.4 MF a few minutes ago. Bored, trying to make something really nice but didn't find anything.


----------



## jzhang1013

Depending on the situation I do fine with these settings in dimmer light:

 1/60, 400ISO, f/2.8 and it's snappy as 4311

 Out in the open its all good.

 Nice picture, with the 50mm you can take that picture of you headphones at 2.8 so it doesnt blur out the alessandro music series of you headphones, which are nice btw ahah.


----------



## dj_mocok

No thanks, I'm a fan of 1.4 or less. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What's 4311?


----------



## Contrastique

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice collection there Jz, I've been thinking to get 80-200mm - but I realise that this is pure lens lust, so I'll try to make do with my prime. How's the shooting with 80-200 @200mm f/2.8? do you need to use tripod or handhold is ok?
 ]_

 

I had the 80-200 once before it got stolen and you can easily use it without tripod in good light circumstances ofcourse. It's fairly heavy but it let's you keep it more stable as well. The 2.8 saves you in a lot of scenes as well.

 To respond on some of you wanting to buy the 12-24 from Nikon, take a look at the Tokina 12-24. Performing really good and a lot cheaper.


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

So, four days into D40 ownership, the flash crapped out on me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. 

 So, I went out today and picked up an SB-400, and I will exchange the camera with Sears when they get more in stock. Seems really odd though. I googled it and it seems I am not the only one to have had a flash stop firing... but it seems and though I am the first to have it happen so quickly.


----------



## fureshi

so now that the D300 is out, has anyone here laid their hands on one yet? my D50 is still going strong and has more capabilities than my abilities can utilize but that doesn't mean that i can't drool over it.


----------



## dj_mocok

ServinginEcuador got one.


----------



## MoxMonkey

picked up a d70 18-70 and 70-300 today too bad i have to wait a week and a half till exams are over to have any real time to play with it


----------



## dj_mocok

Yay! One of my photos taken with that old Nikon is selected for Photo.net's Editor's Pick. Can you guess which one?


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yay! One of my photos taken with that old Nikon is selected for Photo.net's Editor's Pick. Can you guess which one? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I'm gunna have to guess the first one


----------



## nickknutson

Has anyone shot sports with a D40?


----------



## dj_mocok

What kind of sports? Skiing? Basketball? Chess? Car Racing? Golf? 

 Depends on the sport itself, (usually) the lens is the one matters. Unless you're talking about high speed action sports, where high FPS can help a lot.

 But generally speaking, I wouldn't get D40 if my main thing is sports.


----------



## nickknutson

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What kind of sports? Skiing? Basketball? Chess? Car Racing? Golf? 

 Depends on the sport itself, (usually) the lens is the one matters. Unless you're talking about high speed action sports, where high FPS can help a lot.

 But generally speaking, I wouldn't get D40 if my main thing is sports._

 

I was going to shoot a football game...american football. I'm also going to be shooting inside the Metrodome. It's not going to be an NFL game, some friends of mine are renting it for a pickup game...so, I'll be on the sidelines. Any suggestions?


----------



## JaZZ

Hi. I'll chime in -- as I'm planning to buy a new camera, after having given up this hobby more or less (despite a Canon G2 in the household) with the dead of my trusty old Nikon F-601's backplate lock. Since I have a few nice lenses (Sigma 3.5/18 mm, AF Nikkor 2.8/24 mm, AF Nikkor 2.0/35 mm, AF Nikkor 1.4/50 mm, Sigma AF-Macro 2.8/50 mm, Sigma 3.5-4.5/28-70 UC, Sigma 2.8-4/28-105 Asph., Sigma AF-APO 3.5-4.5/70-210) I'll stay loyal to the Nikon system. OTOH, the sensor's APS size makes me consider a few upgrades in this respect. I'm eyeing the Tokina AT-X 4.0/12-24 mm PRO DX, the Tamron AF 2.8/17-50 mm SP XR Di II LD Asph. IF, the Sigma 3.5-6.3/18-200 mm DC OS and the AF-S Nikkor 4.5-5.6/70-300 VR G IF-ED (all of which have turned out to be the best in their class according to tests in a reputable German magazine called «ColorFoto»). 

 Together with the new *Nikon D300* this will cost just about CHF 5000/$ 4400. Now actually I don't need all the features of this high-tech camera and a D80 would possibly do, but I like to have a camera built according to the latest technical standards. Is there a chance that a *D90* will show up in the next future? OTOH, the camera itself won't reduce the total equipment price that much, so... Well, I'm not sure if I really need an 18-200 mm, but I think it would be nice to have the option of travelling with minimal equipment every now and then. 
.


----------



## ozz

i would bet some of the d300 technology will trickle down into a cheaper
 model thats the current trend and the d80 has been out a while.


----------



## fureshi

there will obviously be a replacement for the D80 but nikon has been mum about it so it's all speculation when the new cameras will show up. if the D80 will give you the features that you need then i say go for it as it's a very capable camera as is.


----------



## fabool

Well, there's PMA coming at the end of January and Nikon _announce_ announce something there. There hasn't really been any info on a "D90" though, and I'd say they'll give the D300 a little time to sink in before upgrading the D80.

 You could always get a used D200 and a D300 strap to go with it


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Together with the new *Nikon D300* this will cost just about CHF 5000/$ 4400. Now actually I don't need all the features of this high-tech camera and a D80 would possibly do, but I like to have a camera built according to the latest technical standards. Is there a chance that a *D90* will show up in the next future_

 

Your best bet would be to get a deal on a still in stock D200. Dealers should be willing to really deal on it now that the D300 is shipping, and aside from fewer focus points and a few minor differences here and there, it's basically the same camera as the D300. I don't think Nikon will be updating the D80 until all of the D200s are gone. I would guess that would be a year.

 I have a D200 myself, and it's a great camera.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nickknutson* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was going to shoot a football game...american football. I'm also going to be shooting inside the Metrodome. It's not going to be an NFL game, some friends of mine are renting it for a pickup game...so, I'll be on the sidelines. Any suggestions?_

 

Nick, instead of buying new, why don't you get a well taken care of, used D200? People are starting to jump to D300, if you look around I'm sure you can get a D200 in a nice condition. The reason is I think for sports you'll really benefit from high FPS, especially fast paced stuff like football. The extra focus points might help too.

 Lens is the main problem here, it's expensive to get a good quality zoom like 80-200mm or 70-200mm. How often are you going to shoot football by the way? If it's only occasionally, why don't you just rent it when you wanna use it? And buy a lens that you'll use most for everyday walkaround stuff.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

From what I've seen, the 180MM F/2.8 can be had at some pretty attractive prices on the used market, and it's a lot smaller and lighter than the 70-200 or 80-200 to boot. Of course you lose the convenience of a zoom, but you do get a powerful tele lens at a relatively bargain price.


----------



## Towert7

Hi all. My first post here, though I've been using my Nikon for a few years now.

 Gotta say, I really like the VR 18-200mm for close up shots at telephoto.



 Great for flower or animal shots.




 I was lying right next to my cat. Couldn't have been more than a few inches, but the lens was able to focus on her. Makes it so easy.

 The VR 18-200mm replaced my 18-55mm DX and 70-300mm G.
 Just recently though I picked up the 50mm 1.8D to use as a portrait lens for indoors. I hope it works out good. That's my first fixed focal length lens, so I'm still having a bit of trouble getting accustomed to it. Boy I'm spoiled.


----------



## Cecala

I want one of these....


----------



## dj_mocok

But the question is, do you NEED it?

 But you know that you can get a new D2Xs for AUS$ 4400 if you really want it so bad.


----------



## JaZZ

One of the strongest arguments for D3 and D300 is the extremely high sensor sensitivity, allowing a large depth of field even with low light and without flash/vibration reduction/tripod. 

 Another nice feature is the «active D-Lighting» (contrast optimization during exposure).
.


----------



## bigshot

Ken Rockwell has been posting tests on the D3 and D300 on his site, and although they're great, the D200 is still in the same ballpark. It has to get very dark and you have to blow up the image very big to see a difference. If you can afford a D300, go for it. But the difference between a D80 and either a D200 or D300 is much greater than the difference between a D200 and a D300.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ken Rockwell has been posting tests on the D3 and D300 on his site, and although they're great, the D200 is still in the same ballpark. It has to get very dark and you have to blow up the image very big to see a difference. If you can afford a D300, go for it. But the difference between a D80 and either a D200 or D300 is much greater than the difference between a D200 and a D300._

 

Unfortunately the difference in price between the two models (new) is just marginal. Moreover one of my co-workers is hesitating to give me his (used) D200 because he seems to fare even better with exchange offers (for a D300) from internet stores...
.


----------



## ozz

does nikon ever run a sale on their lens.


----------



## fabool

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ken Rockwell has been posting tests on the D3 and D300 on his site, and although they're great, the D200 is still in the same ballpark. It has to get very dark and you have to blow up the image very big to see a difference. If you can afford a D300, go for it. But the difference between a D80 and either a D200 or D300 is much greater than the difference between a D200 and a D300._

 

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. 
 Although I haven't seen any in-depth looks at the D300 yet, I'd wager the difference between it and a D200 is larger than with a D80 vs. D200. If I remember correctly, D80 has almost the same sensor (a different version of the same model) as the D200, where as the D300 definetly has a new and improved model. The biggest difference between D200 and D80 is the metering - I believe the general consensus was that the D80, which has the older metering engine, exposes more for the shadowss and the D200 for the highlights.

 Not to bash the guy, but I wouldn't place too much faith on Rockwell's writings... the man's tests and views are a bit weird most of the time, in my opinion


----------



## bigshot

What Rockwell found is that at high ISOs, the D300 is a tiny bit cleaner, but it applies more post processing to smooth out the noise. That processing fuzzes the image up a bit. I'd prefer to do that in Photoshop myself and control the degree of the tradeoff. I like Rockwell's site because I can see exactly what he's doing and where he's coming from. He doesn't do in depth scientific tests, but he has a lot of common sense and knows how to apply the technical stuff to the way things work every day. That's rare in this internet full of people citing specs without understanding what they mean.

 The D300 just started shipping. There's a delay between the orders and the deliveries on Nikon stuff. When that lag gets pulled up, you'll see the D200 come down in price I bet. If you can wait a couple of months, the D200 will be a lot cheaper than it is right now.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ozz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_does nikon ever run a sale on their lens._

 

Actually near Christmas time you may see them offer rebates (I think mail-in?) on some of their lenses. I'm surprised I haven't seen any rebates yet.


----------



## fureshi

i believe that nikon has a $100 rebate on some lenses right now but the catch is that you have to purchase the lens in conjunction with a DSLR.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But the question is, do you NEED it?

 But you know that you can get a new D2Xs for AUS$ 4400 if you really want it so bad._

 

There is absolutely NO reason to get a D2X. The D300 is better in every way - faster shooting, live preview, sensor cleaning, more AF points, the works. And it's much cheaper.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ken Rockwell has been posting tests on the D3 and D300 on his site, and although they're great, the D200 is still in the same ballpark. It has to get very dark and you have to blow up the image very big to see a difference. If you can afford a D300, go for it. But the difference between a D80 and either a D200 or D300 is much greater than the difference between a D200 and a D300.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

First of all, images from D80 is very close (if not indistinguishable) to what D200 produces. And D40, although cheap, paired with decent lens, can produce images as good as its older brother D80.
 If D200 is in the same ballpark as D300, and it's been said that D300's image quality is similar to D3, so all in all:

 D3 = D40? 

 Sounds like reading What Hifi magazines


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is absolutely NO reason to get a D2X. The D300 is better in every way - faster shooting, live preview, sensor cleaning, more AF points, the works. And it's much cheaper._

 

Well, there is some reason, but in general, if I got to choose a free camera between the two, I'd have a hard time deciding. D2Xs is REALLY solid camera, I know D300 can take vertical grip, but there's just something about D2Xs construction. (but then again, if you don't like large cams, this is not a concern). 

 If I read correctly, D2Xs still have better battery life than D300. But then it's really hard to pass the ISO performance of newer DSLRs. But again, we're only talking about specs here. Can't wait for someone to do a full, proper review/comparison of D3/D300/D2Xs/D200.


----------



## bigshot

You find out the difference between a D80 and a D200 or D300 the first time you drop it!

 see ya
 Steve


----------



## ServinginEcuador

Messed up the shot with Cinderella's Castle with Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse. Should have spot metered the castle to prevent blowing out the lights. Live and learn I guess. 

 Amazingly, all but a couple of shots used ambient light hours after the sun went down, and at ISO varying from 200-3200. 

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...venture001.jpg
 I tried really hard to get a nicely blurred roller coaster going thru the ears on this ride. I'm quite pleased with how it came out. 
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...venture002.jpg
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...venture003.jpg
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...venture008.jpg
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...venture010.jpg
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...venture018.jpg
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...neyLand003.jpg
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...neyLand005.jpg
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...neyLand007.jpg
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...neyLand010.jpg
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s...sParade002.jpg


----------



## dj_mocok

Which one is the 3200 one?


----------



## ServinginEcuador

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Which one is the 3200 one?_

 

Quite a few now that I'm going back over them in Capture NX:

 Roller coaster blurred (CA Adventure 001), The lake shot with the ferris wheel roller coaster and other rides (CA Adventure 002), The second lake shot (CA Adventure 008), the second shot of the roller coaster going thru Mickey's ears (CA Adventure 010), the Hollywood Tower Hotel shot (CA Adventure 018), the Adventure Land shot (DisneyLand 005), Cinderella's Castle with Reflection (DisneyLand007).


----------



## dj_mocok

The high ISO performance is impressive. they look like ISO800 from my D80.


----------



## ServinginEcuador

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The high ISO performance is impressive. they look like ISO800 from my D80._

 

That was probably the biggest selling point for me. My dad was going to sell me his used D80, but the wife and I decided to go with the D300. The LiveView, lens calibration, and overall performance are simply incredible. Now I can't wait to take it back to DisneyLand and California Adventure during the daytime to see how ISO200 performs!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ServinginEcuador* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Amazingly, all but a couple of shots used ambient light hours after the sun went down, and at ISO varying from 200-3200._

 

Here's some similar shots where I had the ISO pegged on my D200...

http://www.animationarchive.org/pics...gwheel-big.jpg
http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/funzoneatm-big.jpg

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## ServinginEcuador

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's some similar shots where I had the ISO pegged on my D200...

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Steve,
 Did you use your 18-200 VR for those shots? I was looking over the funzoneatm shot and am amazed that the atm sign in the foreground and the ferris wheel in the far background are all in focus. Where were these shots taken?


----------



## bigshot

That's the 18-200 VR on my D200. I took those at the Los Angeles County Fair.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Cecala

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But the question is, do you NEED it?

 But you know that you can get a new D2Xs for AUS$ 4400 if you really want it so bad._

 

Who needs half the stuff we have.


----------



## dj_mocok

I don't need good headphones, but my ears do.


----------



## ozz

its a question of want and its good for the economy look at the bright
 side your keeping people employed by buying the latest gadgets.


----------



## ilikemonkeys

starting in this thread a little late, but I keep my FM with an 85/2.8 in the glove box with a roll of T-Max 400 at all times.

 There's nothing like pulling that thing out at a party and knowing you'l lhave the best pictures to share the next day.

 b


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Well thanks to our good ol' pal craigslist, I just scored a new D200/18-200 outfit for ridiculously cheap. The D200 is just a damn joy to use. I mean, I've checked it out in stores before, but nothing really compares to really putting it to use. It really does make my D70S seem rather like a toy, or in headphone terms, it's like I've gone from an SR60 to an HD650.

 I'm conflicted over whether or not to keep the lens. On one hand, it's supposedly the most convenient thing ever, the ultimate jack of all trades (and VR is pretty damn cool). On the other hand, I wonder if the vast majority of the pics I take (landscape, and indoor medium/low light) wouldn't be better looking with a Tokina 12-24 and Nikkor 35 F/2.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm conflicted over whether or not to keep the lens. On one hand, it's supposedly the most convenient thing ever, the ultimate jack of all trades (and VR is pretty damn cool). On the other hand, I wonder if the vast majority of the pics I take (landscape, and indoor medium/low light) wouldn't be better looking with a Tokina 12-24 and Nikkor 35 F/2._

 

Indoor medium/low light is a tough one for this lens, especially if you have moving subjects. For that you'll want a faster lens for sure.

 Not sure how often you will be filming between 12-17mm, but if not often then you may find it gives you nice landscape shots. Give it a try and let us know how it goes. Oh, and lucky you, getting a D200. If I had more spare money I would seriously consider a D200/300...... but alas.....


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Well the thing is, I've found by analyzing the pics I've taken with the D70/18-70, that nearly all of my "keeper" outdoor shots are from 18-30mm, and quite a few of those at 18. The zoom capability actually just allows me to take pics which might seem nice in theory at the time, but come out looking like crap. I'm not sure if I will use the 12-17 range much, but I've seen enough such pictures that catch my eye to make me think that I can, if I have the capacity.


----------



## Towert7

Hm, sounds like you've already answered your question. ^_^


----------



## dj_mocok

If your shots mostly are within that short range, You can either get the 17-35mm 2.8 or 17-55mm and be done with it or maybe you can wait to see if the new Tokina 11-16mm is any good. But with that Tokina, you'll probably need at least one more lens to complement it.
 But some people really "see" within wide angle (or some, telephoto), if that's the case, you might even live with just one wide angle lens with your D200. 


 I'm gonna wait and get the Tokina when it comes out in February (hopefully) and probably after that, I won't be getting any more lenses for awhile.


----------



## fabool

The 18-200 _is_ nice. It's convenient when you have a lens that you can take a tight telephoto shot as well as almost-decent-wideangle shots.

 but...

 It really is a bit hard to control. I scored the same D200+18-200VR combo used and cheap a couple of months ago and I'm craving for some primes. I've never had a lens that offers this much zoom range and it's almost more trouble than it is worth. I haven't photographed that much stuff in my lifetime, so it might be just be my inexperience with superzooms - or perhaps I'm just a prime guy.

 My mission is to get some old, cheap primes to complement the 18-200 and one of those wide angles (12-24, 11-16, or 10-20) as I also like to shoot more in the wide-short range. However I'm not going to get rid of the 18-200, at least not until I have something that covers most of that range. You never know when there's an excellent shot that just needs that extra bit of telephoto power that the 18-200 gives you...

 Unless you have something in the 100-200 range I suggest hanging onto it for now unless you really need the cash.


----------



## bigshot

The 18-200 is perfect for portraits. You don't have to get right on top of the subject and intimidate them to get a nice close image. Wide angles are best for landscapes and architecture.

 see ya
 Steve


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Well after playing around with the 18-200 today, I do think I'll keep it, at least for a while. The VR feature is even more handy that I had imagined, and fortunately, this copy has quite a stiff zoom ring, so hopefully it won't have any of those creep problems. I still think I'll get that 12-24 sometime soon, and go from there.


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 18-200 is perfect for portraits. You don't have to get right on top of the subject and intimidate them to get a nice close image. 
_

 

Using a 18-200 sucks all the fun out of street photography.


----------



## dj_mocok

Bigshot, you really ought to try something like 85mm 1.8 (or 1.4) for portraits, then I'm sure you'd have different opinion about the 18-200mm for portraits.

 Nothing can touch the likes of 85mm or 105mm (Dc or f/2.5 version) for portraits. Well, maybe 70-200mm can be included as one of the great portrait lenses, but for portraits, those 2 ranged primes are pretty much as good as you can get from Nikon.

 By the way I envy you guys who live in US, you can rent high end lenses or even cameras. Here, I can't rent nothing.


----------



## bigshot

I'm guessing you mean full frame when you say 85 and 105... I have a 43-86 and a 125 for my F3. They're great. But the 18-200 covers that whole range, and the VR means that the slower f stop isn't really an issue. I've set a whole bunch of lenses aside since I got the 18-200. Saving up for the wide angle zoom.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Arainach

The 85 f/1.4 is a classic on either DX or FX sensors. Its bokeh and DoF control are to die for. The 18-200 is a nice walk-around lens, but no lens in existence, for any system, beats the Nikon 85 f/1.4 for portraits.


----------



## dj_mocok

85 on DX is still perfectly fine for portraits, maybe a tad long for full body, but still is a great equipment to do portraits nonetheless.

 Actually even the old 50mm 1.8 Ai/Ais is excellent in this regards. Set it at f/2.8 or f/4, it will give you great results.

 Also try Tamron 90mm DiMacro F/2.8 - excellent bokeh.


----------



## fureshi

Darn, another lens to add to my list of wanted lenses. You guys are killing me with the headphone and lens suggestions...


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually even the old 50mm 1.8 Ai/Ais is excellent in this regards. Set it at f/2.8 or f/4, it will give you great results._

 

The 50s are a nice focal length, but even the f/1.4 still has a 7-bladed diaphragm that makes rough rather than circular light points in the background. The 55 f/1.2 is excellent if you can find a copy, but they're hard to track down.


----------



## dj_mocok

Nightshots or with lots of point of lights they maybe not that great but if you do daytime in a shaded areas, they are great.

 I was thinking to get a 50mm 1.2 but then, I already got 2 50mms.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 85 f/1.4 is a classic on either DX or FX sensors. Its bokeh and DoF control are to die for._

 

I guess I'm not real picky about the fuzzy parts of the picture. I haven't found any Nikkor lens where I didn't like the bokeh.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nightshots or with lots of point of lights they maybe not that great but if you do daytime in a shaded areas, they are great.

 I was thinking to get a 50mm 1.2 but then, I already got 2 50mms._

 

Even the 50 f/1.2 was a 7-blade. Only the 55mm had a 9. I've never figured out why they chose to do that, but whatever. Personally, I far prefer the look attained with the modern f/2.8 zooms (the 17-55, 28-70 or 24-70, and 70-200) over the look of any of the 50mm primes anyday for portraits.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I guess I'm not real picky about the fuzzy parts of the picture. I haven't found any Nikkor lens where I didn't like the bokeh.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Fair enough. I reccomend checking out Nikon Lens Bokeh Comparison however. Even in just that 30-second test you can see where the background with the 18-200 is far sharper and more distracting than lenses like the 80-200 f/2.8 or 105mm Micro.


----------



## JaZZ

When you guys are talking of the «18-200» here, you mean the AF-S *Nikkor* 3.5-5.6/18-200 mm DX VR G IF-ED, right? Has anyone compared it with the *Sigma* 3.5-6.3/18-200 mm DC OS? I'm asking because the latter has performed far better than the Nikkor in the comprehensive lenses test of the German _ColorFoto_ magazine. According to them (and the measuring values) it's the best megazoom available to date.
.


----------



## Arainach

Last I checked no one could get ahold of the Sigma. The Non-OS version was crap, but I haven't seen any reviews of the new one.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When you guys are talking of the «18-200» here, you mean the AF-S *Nikkor* 3.5-5.6/18-200 mm DX VR G IF-ED, right?_

 

Well I am, at least.

 Sigma lenses seem to be quite hit-or-miss as it comes to build quality. Just the other day, in a store, I demoed both their 10-20 and 18-50 EX HSM lenses. The 10-20 felt noticeably better built, focused faster and quieter, and had a focus ring that didn't rotate and allowed instant MF override (whereas the 18-50 was the opposite). Considering that these are both "top of the line" lenses in their scheme (EX), I was quite surprised to note such a gulf of quality. Being that their 18-200 is a non-EX lens, who knows how well it may or may not hold up.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The Non-OS version was crap..._

 

In what respect? (It received a fairly good judgement as well in said test.)
.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In what respect? (It received a fairly good judgement as well in said test.)
._

 

Huge distortion at both ends, very visible. Heavy vignetting. Major quality control issues in trying to get a 'good' sample. In the brief time I tried it, it was impossible to get any reasonably sharp image faster than f/9, even with a tripod.

 The OS version is a totally new optical formula, so I won't condemn it until I've seen it, but I don't hold much hope. The 10-20mm has been the only Sigma lens I've ever liked, and even that's a pain to get a good sample of.


----------



## JaZZ

Some excerpts from the test:


*Vignetting*

18 mm
 IF: 1.3/0.5 apertures (open/stopped down)
 OS: 1.1/0.4
 Nikkor: 1.2/0.4

106 mm (IF) / 60 mm (OS) / 105 mm (Nikkor) (I know, strange procedure!)
 IF: 0.7/0.2
 OS: 0.5/0.2
 Nikkor: 0.8/0.1

200 mm
 IF: 0.8/0.3
 OS: 1.0/0.2
 Nikkor: 1.0/0.2


*Distortion*

18 mm
 IF: 1.1%
 OS: 1.3%
 Nikkor: 1.6%

106 mm (IF) / 60 mm (OS) / 105 mm (Nikkor)
 IF: 0.9%
 OS: 0.6%
 Nikkor: 0.7%

200 mm
 IF: 0.9%
 OS: 0.4%
 Nikkor: 0.5%


 It would go too far to list all other test results, just so much: The Nikkor shows quite poor sharpness at 200 mm, also already at 105 mm, compared to both Sigmas, especially the OS. 
.


----------



## joneeboi

I'm looking for a used Nikkor 18-55mm kit lens for my D40. Any suggestions as to where to look?


----------



## fabool

Maybe eBay?

 I just bagged a 50/1.8 Ai (old version, not the pancake) and, surprisingly, a Katz eye focusing screen for my D200 from there. Just waiting for them to show up, probably sometime after Xmas - unless I was scammed (fairly unlikely).


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *joneeboi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm looking for a used Nikkor 18-55mm kit lens for my D40. Any suggestions as to where to look?_

 

How much you looking to spend?


----------



## dj_mocok

B&H sells used lens. I'm not sure if you can find 18-55mm there, if not, have to be eBay then.


----------



## joneeboi

I've seen them go as low as $100 new, so anything significantly cheaper than that would be just right.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *joneeboi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've seen them go as low as $100 new, so anything significantly cheaper than that would be just right._

 

I have my:
 Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6G AF-S DX ED 
 that came with my D50 kit which I no longer use, and so would be willing to sell it.
 If that's something you are interested in, let me know.
 ~Drew


----------



## ServinginEcuador

While I haven't taken the D300 out for some more funfilled shooting days, I did get the SB800 and an MB-D10, along with a bunch of low discharge 2100mAh NiMH and a charger that charges 8 batteries at a time. Just hooked the MB-D10 and SB800 onto the camera today to see how it feels. I must say that while it does add a bit of weight, the MB-D10 does make it fit my rather large hands SOOOOOOO much better than the camera alone. And the vertical shutter release is another nice addition. Shooting around DisneyLand I found it was hard to get a really steady shot while shooting vertical.

 This weekend will provide plenty of shooting opportunities. LegoLand tomorrow, DisneyLand and CA Adventure later in the week, and Christmas thrown into the mix. Should prove for some awesome opportunities to take some great shots. 

 I've now set the camera to shoot RAW, Lossless Compression instad of JPEG. I do a bit of editing, and read about the advantage of editing 12-bit vs. 8-bit photos. Here are the two articles:
More Than a Bit of a Difference: 8-bit Versus 16-bit - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light
More on the Subject of 8-bit Versus 16-bit - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light

 Enjoy!


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Hey guys, I'm looking to get a D2H, D2Hs or D2X. Anyone can give me the skinny on those? Pros and cons, personal experience or preference, stuff like that. I can't for the life of me decide which to get. The D2H is pretty cheap at around 800USD used, the D2Hs significantly more expensive at 1.6-1.7k used, and the D2X slightly higher than that. How much IQ and handling difference between the Hs and H? 

 I was pretty set on the 2X because I crop a lot, but the 'unusable >ISO 800' talk is kind of scaring me away (my most common ISOs are 400 and 800, with 1600 coming up a close third IIRC). So that makes me look at the 2Hs, but then when I get to the Hs I find that the H is not that much different for a lot less in price.. Arghhh

 (I want a pro body by the way, that's why no D300. Tried a 5D + grip and never wanted to put it down, I can only assume the D2 is even better)


----------



## GTRacer

How about a D300+grip instead? You'll have the resolution of the 2X coupled with high ISO performance that's easily on par with Canon's 40D. And from reports I've seen, the D300+grip isn't far off from the D2X in terms of build quality.


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How about a D300+grip instead? You'll have the resolution of the 2X coupled with high ISO performance that's easily on par with Canon's 40D. And from reports I've seen, the D300+grip isn't far off from the D2X in terms of build quality._

 

From what I've read, people are reaching for the their D2s over the D300+grip (they own both) when it comes to feel. Minor differences in shape and dimensions, hidden notches for fingers, stuff like that seem to make a big difference in how it feels. Also D300 + grip + EL4 + battery cover comes to quite a bit (for that FPS boost), and used prices are pretty much new prices right now.. 

 But yeah, I've been stunned by the high ISO pictures from the D300 owners. Since I'm concerned mostly with the feel right now I feel like getting a D2H on the cheap now, then a used D300 (w/o grip, solely for when IQ is paramount) next year. Hmm.


----------



## GTRacer

In that case I'd go for the D2H, while the price is still low from people using it to trade 'up' to a D300. The Hs is the one to go for as colours and noise seem to better.


----------



## lan

Since you're most interested in feel, you should try things out. It doesn't matter what other people say since that's their own experiences and not yours.

 I used to think feel is quite important but I downplay it now. If you don't have the camera in your hand for extended periods of time, I don't see it as much of an issue. Also, I don't think I'd want my hand holding a camera for that long in the same position so I've just invented new techniques to hold my cameras so now I believe I can use any camera.

 At this point, I totally forget about the camera and just worry about what I'm taking photos of. That's how it should be. 

 I would just get a D300 now. There's a lot of photo opportunities between now and next year. I also don't like the idea of carrying around a big camera all the time.


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Haha, not _that_ many photo opportunities. Unfortunately I don't live in a country like the US where you can drive for 40 minutes in any direction and find some new scenery to photograph. Drive for 25 minutes here and you've reached the end of the island 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 It's not so much the change in scenery, it's that it's scenery I've seen over and over again for years, so I don't really get that 'wow this would look good as a picture' feeling.. Hopefully I'm travelling to New Zealand within next year with a friend or friends though.

 I'll take your advice and try it out before I make a decision of course. I have a D50 already so a handy smaller camera isn't a big issue. In fact the D300 is significantly heavier so even if I got it the D50 would still be used when I need less weight. The D50 doesn't make me feel so confidently about using it even just walking up a particularly steep and rocky trail, or on the beach. Nothing better to rectify that than a body that people swear they could drop from 3 stories then pick it up and start using it again, right? Yes I do realise lenses tend to be less than bulletproof, but hey what the hands feel the mind thinks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Maybe I should just get a film scanner then shoot nothing but B&Ws with an FM2. These things have a reputation for working even after a swim


----------



## dj_mocok

You do realise that those D2Xs or D2H is huge right? So is D300+grip. 
 If you don't shoot vertical most of the time, you really don't need to buy the grip, it's just an extra weight (and dimension) to add for you. Adding a grip means you have to get a bigger camera bag.

 If I were you I'd probably get D300 new, or if I can get a good deal for D2Xs, I'd go for it. It was afterall, Nikon's top of the line camera til a few months ago. With D2X, I'd probably shoot for many many many more years until it crap on me.


----------



## nineohtoo

Hi guys. New nikon user here. I bought a D40 last month on black friday. Before that I was using a fujifilm point and shoot that let me get a feel for adjusting settings and everything. It's only been a month and upgraditis is killing me. Though it probably doesn't help that I'm able to mark down display models and customer returns 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




... I bought it for ridiculously cheap with the 18-55mm kit lens, 55-200mm lens, and an extra battery. Recently I've picked up a 18-135mm lens, and an SB-800 speedlight, and I have the 70-300mm VR lens on my sights for surfing. 

 Great first DSLR, but I kind of want something better now since I can't use all AF lenses out there, and I can't take advantage of some features like the wireless flash. I was thinking I could sell it with the two stock lenses, extra battery and memory so I can upgrade to something like a used D70. I missed out since someone on craigslist just sold there's for $290 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I just had one question for you guys out there who may have experience with the 18-135mm lens. I've been playing with it for a while, and it seems I cant get it that to be focus @18mm like I can with the 18-55mm kit lens. Like if I try to take a close up on my desk of my lens, everything in the background will be sharp, and the lens will be out of focus no matter what I do. Is there something wrong with my lens, or does the lens just suck at this.


----------



## Towert7

nineohtoo, you may be too close to the subject for that particular lens. Each lens has a minimum focusing distance. any closer, and the image will not be in focus. Some can focus closer, others cant. the 18-135 you have has a minimum distance of about 1.5ft....... not very close. your 18-55mm can get closer, at 0.9 ft.

 Try again, but this time put the camera in manual focus mode and manually focus the lens using your hands. If you still can not get it focused, that means you are too close. Back up!


----------



## nineohtoo

Ahh. That was precisely it. Thanks. I got scared and thought I bought a defective one. Now I can sell my kit lenses on craigslist


----------



## uppis

Hey does anyone here own 50mm 1.8D? I bought one last week, it's practically doing good job with my old D50, but I'm having some problems with AF sometimes. It just completely fails to focus, it rolls from 0.45m to infinity and back, but cant find any spot to focus. It happens in daylight and dark environments, and I'm not close anything, thats for sure. I have also tried different AF-Area modes, without great success.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *uppis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey does anyone here own 50mm 1.8D? I bought one last week, it's practically doing good job with my old D50, but I'm having some problems with AF sometimes. It just completely fails to focus, it rolls from 0.45m to infinity and back, but cant find any spot to focus. It happens in daylight and dark environments, and I'm not close anything, thats for sure. I have also tried different AF-Area modes, without great success._

 

I too have the 50mm F/1.8D and the D50. Mine works very good.
 What you describe is what people call seeking, or searching.
 This happens because the camera can not focus on what ever you have pointed it at. There are no contrasting elements to the shot that the camera's processor can focus on.

 This will happen on virtually any lens.

 If however, this happens when you are shooting at something with many contrasting elements, chances are something is not working right (either a setting set incorrectly, or a defective lens or camera).


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You do realise that those D2Xs or D2H is huge right? So is D300+grip. 
 If you don't shoot vertical most of the time, you really don't need to buy the grip, it's just an extra weight (and dimension) to add for you. Adding a grip means you have to get a bigger camera bag.

 If I were you I'd probably get D300 new, or if I can get a good deal for D2Xs, I'd go for it. It was afterall, Nikon's top of the line camera til a few months ago. With D2X, I'd probably shoot for many many many more years until it crap on me._

 

Yeah, I want bigger not only for that 'pro' feeling, but because the D50 feels too small in my hands too. And yeah I do rotate to portrait orientation a lot too. For some reason the camera is even less stable using the proper technique (rotate clockwise so the grip is at 6 o'clock, resting on the heel of your palm) than when I use the improper technique (rotate CCW, so that the grip is at the 12 o'clock position), so I think a grip would help here as well.

 Anywho I've finally stopped dreaming and come to my senses. I don't have nearly enough money for a D300/w/grip or a D2Hs/X/Xs so I'll be getting the D2H first, then some pro glass early next year. Would be so cool finally having two bodies 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Having to switch lenses meant I rarely ever used tele.


----------



## dj_mocok

Is it D2H or D2Hs? 
 If I didn't shoot lowlight, I think I'd be extremely happy with D2Hs, regardless the lack of pixels. 

 I shoot quite a lot of verticals as well, but I don't have the grip (because it wouldn't fit in my camera bag anymore if I used grip). I never worry about 'proper way' of handholding vertical, I use my own way - cradle the camera like holding a puppy and use my right hand thumb to press the shutter - works great.

 If you don't really like D50 why don't you just sell it and use it to fund a new lens? Usually only pros use D2Hs, can you still get one that is not beat up nowadays?


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is it D2H or D2Hs? 
 If I didn't shoot lowlight, I think I'd be extremely happy with D2Hs, regardless the lack of pixels. 

 I shoot quite a lot of verticals as well, but I don't have the grip (because it wouldn't fit in my camera bag anymore if I used grip). I never worry about 'proper way' of handholding vertical, I use my own way - cradle the camera like holding a puppy and use my right hand thumb to press the shutter - works great.

 If you don't really like D50 why don't you just sell it and use it to fund a new lens? Usually only pros use D2Hs, can you still get one that is not beat up nowadays?_

 

H. The Hs costs nearly two times as much for what seems like mainly cosmetic upgrades (screen for example). WB differences shouldn't be a problem since the relatively low res should allow me to shoot RAW almost all the time. I just tried your method on a 300D and it does seem pretty stable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I do like the D50 actually, just don't appreciate the more troublesome ways of getting to certain features. I find I change metering mode a lot, for example, and it's very troublesome having to navigate through the 2 sub menus to set it. Other than the little inconveniences it's a handy little camera. With a 35mm f/2 it'll be great as a small walk around, when I'm not really intending to go out and shoot a crap load of pictures. Also like I mentioned there's the convenience of having two bodies on you. I'm thinking 18-70 on one, 70-200 on another, or for low light gigs 35mm f/2 on one and 85mm f/1.8 on another


----------



## uppis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I too have the 50mm F/1.8D and the D50. Mine works very good.
 What you describe is what people call seeking, or searching.
 This happens because the camera can not focus on what ever you have pointed it at. There are no contrasting elements to the shot that the camera's processor can focus on.

 This will happen on virtually any lens.

 If however, this happens when you are shooting at something with many contrasting elements, chances are something is not working right (either a setting set incorrectly, or a defective lens or camera)._

 

Yep I really like that lens except that malfunction of AF. And no, I'm not shooting white walls..
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But maye I just send it back to adorama and wait for new one. Thanks for help!


----------



## nineohtoo

Hey guys. I've been thinking about this for the past couple days now, but I wanted to get more input. I currently have someone who will buy my 2 lens D40 kit w/extra battery + memory for $450(If it helps any, I paid $250). A few D70s have landed on craigslist recently for around the $300 mark. I'm debating on whether or not I should keep it, because of how much I got it for, or if I should just sell it and upgrade. 

 I'm currently using it with the 18-135mm and SB-800 speedlight. Covers almost everything I'd like to take. I might pick up some of the faster MF prime lenses, that everyone seems to love, for low light situations, and I'm most likely getting a 70-300mm VR lens later on this week that I can use a little for surfing, and a bit more serious telephoto. Since the two main lenses I'd be using will autofocus on a D40, is there any real reason for me to upgrade? The only advantages I can think of is AF with other lenses down the line, and wireless flash. If I do, I'll have to get memory, an extra battery, and I'll probably be tempted to get a battery grip. My friend who shoots with a D70 thinks I might as well, since I got all my stuff for ridiculously cheap, and it really won't hurt my pocket much. Should I go for it? Thanks.


----------



## Towert7

I tell you what, get a lens that requires a AF motor in the camera. See how much fun it is using it in manual mode. I think within 3 days you will have made your decision, cough cough.


----------



## nineohtoo

I do lol. I have a Sigma 70-300mm lens. MF is a pita at times haha. Another route i'm considering is a D50 because I'm reading success with wireless flash as well as the ability to AF. Someone is selling his/her D50 w/kit lens and a 70-300mm for less than what someone is willing to take my D40 for. Hopefully he/she still has it.


----------



## lan

I got my friend a D40x and 18-200VR. Sadly they won't be using any other lens. Which would make this an awesome P&S camera.

 One thing I really like about it is the shutter sound is pretty quiet.

 The auto white balance seems a bit off though. That would matter if they're strictly using JPEGs.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *uppis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yep I really like that lens except that malfunction of AF. And no, I'm not shooting white walls..
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But maye I just send it back to adorama and wait for new one. Thanks for help!_

 

AF is purely a function of the body. If the lens is turning from near focus to infinity, there's nothing wrong with it; any problems would be in the body.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_AF is purely a function of the body. If the lens is turning from near focus to infinity, there's nothing wrong with it; any problems would be in the body._

 

I have heard people report that using non nikon lenses on their nikon body opened the chance up for more seeking for one reason or another..... but I would find it very odd if a nikon lens had that problem, especially if the pictures that come out of the lens are spot on.

 Very strange.


----------



## uppis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have heard people report that using non nikon lenses on their nikon body opened the chance up for more seeking for one reason or another..... but I would find it very odd if a nikon lens had that problem, especially if the pictures that come out of the lens are spot on.

 Very strange._

 

Yes I find it strange too, because my D50 doesn't have same problem with kit 18-55mm. And 50mm 1.8D has that problem only sometimes, usually it does everything right, its fast and sharp. But then out of nowhere, it just fails. In a good light with real life subjects. For me, removing filters helps a little, but it doesn't remove the problem completely anyways.


----------



## Old Pa

Santa was nice enough to bring me a Tokina AT-X 10-17mm Fisheye F3.5-4.5 DX for use on my D70 and D200. Too bad Head-Fi Photo is still tanked or I would be able to show you how neat this little lense is. Merry Christmas!


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Santa was nice enough to bring me a Tokina AT-X 20-17mm Fisheye F3.5-4.5 DX for use on my D70 and D200. Too bad Head-Fi Photo is still tanked or I would be able to show you how neat this little lense is. Merry Christmas!_

 

20-17? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	









 Anyway you could use a image host like imageshack.us..


----------



## dj_mocok

10mm must be really wide. 
 I was at my brother's place on Christmas and playing with his 17-35mm, and most of the time I'm zooming in halfway (maybe around 24mm-ish). 
 Now it makes me wonder whether I really need the upcoming Tokina 11-16mm. But maybe because so far my shortest lens is a 50mm prime. Hopefully I'll be able to adjust myself.
 Although I must admit 17-50mm range will be much more useful considering my situation. But hard to get past ultra wide...


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...Now it makes me wonder whether I really need the upcoming Tokina 11-16mm...._

 

What do you expect from it? Is it said to be (even) better than the now ATX f 4/12-24 mm? (Which probably is the best wide-angle zoom for Nikon DSLRs.)
.


----------



## nickknutson

I have officially joined the Nikon family. After months of wanting a Nikon DSLR, my awesome wife bought me a D80! I'm so happy!


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you expect from it? Is it said to be (even) better than the now ATX f 4/12-24 mm? (Which probably is the best wide-angle zoom for Nikon DSLRs.)
._

 

I just want it to be as good as the 12-24mm. The reason why I'm not getting the 12-24mm is the f/4. I need a low light performer, and someone actually mentioned that the t stop of that f/4 is probably not even an f/4. So f/2.8 is very appealing to me. 

 I'll see how it goes. If it's bad (hope not), I might just get Tamron 17-50mm 2.8


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *uppis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes I find it strange too, because my D50 doesn't have same problem with kit 18-55mm. And 50mm 1.8D has that problem only sometimes, usually it does everything right, its fast and sharp. But then out of nowhere, it just fails. In a good light with real life subjects. For me, removing filters helps a little, but it doesn't remove the problem completely anyways._

 

my D50 and 50mm f/1.8 also has the same problems. sometimes it'll just completely fail to focus where as i don't have the same problems on my other lenses unless i'm in very low light. my lens is the older non-"D" version but i don't think that's why has trouble focusing especially since metering isn't done through the lens.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nickknutson* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have officially joined the Nikon family. After months of wanting a Nikon DSLR, my awesome wife bought me a D80! I'm so happy!_

 

Welcome to the club!
 Oh boy, I can remember just how thrilled I was when I first got my D-SLR. So much learning, experimenting, and so much fun!

 What lens(es) do you have for the thing?


----------



## nickknutson

Just the 18-135mm kit lens...I'm sure there will be more


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nickknutson* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just the 18-135mm kit lens...I'm sure there will be more
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Great place to start! Gives you a very nice range. If I started out with that instead of the 18-55, I probably wouldn't have upgraded nearly as quick.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just want it to be as good as the 12-24mm. The reason why I'm not getting the 12-24mm is the f/4. I need a low light performer, and someone actually mentioned that the t stop of that f/4 is probably not even an f/4. So f/2.8 is very appealing to me. 

 I'll see how it goes. If it's bad (hope not), I might just get Tamron 17-50mm 2.8_

 

So maybe I should wait as well. -- The Tamron 17-50 mm is on my shortlist anyway.

 Tokina 4/12-24 mm (or 2.8/11-16 mm?) / Tamron 2.8/17-50 mm / Nikkor 4.5-5.6/70-300 VR -- that's my plan so far, together with the D300. (Plus 2.8/24 mm, 2/35 mm, 1.4/50 mm and Sigma 2.8/50 mm Macro which I already have.)
.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you expect from it? Is it said to be (even) better than the now ATX f 4/12-24 mm? (Which probably is the best wide-angle zoom for Nikon DSLRs.)
._

 

I've had the Nikon 12-24mm for a couple of years and just love it, but the Tokina 10-17mm is an actual fisheye. Very well reviewed by _Popular Photography_ and others since its release. Specific applications I have in mind for it include those early sunrises and late sunsets that extend up and behind you and those close quarters landscapes where the effect of the terrain is around you beyond the capture of a normal wideangle. Just another tool for the toolbox for exploring my favorite subjects.


----------



## dj_mocok

The 12-24mm is definitely more affordable and already proven - but really, if that 11-16mm can be as good (not much distortion at wide, sharp and contrasty, etc...) that would be one hell of a lens and definitely worth the extra they're asking for. 

 I've read that considering the short coverage (11-16mm), it might very well perform almost as good as a prime. If there's no delay, we are probably only 2-3 months away from the release date, so if I were you, I'd wait a bit more and see how it goes.

 I don't think I'll be getting a new body soon, but if you're getting a D300, imagine the possibility that opens up for you if you combine that 11-16mm f/2.8 and the high ISO performance of D300 - a whole new limit in low light wide angle shots!


----------



## nickknutson

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Great place to start! Gives you a very nice range. If I started out with that instead of the 18-55, I probably wouldn't have upgraded nearly as quick._

 

That was my thinking. I figured if I had that much range with my first lens I can start buying other accessories first...flash, remote, etc.


----------



## jjcha

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just want it to be as good as the 12-24mm. The reason why I'm not getting the 12-24mm is the f/4. I need a low light performer, and someone actually mentioned that the t stop of that f/4 is probably not even an f/4. So f/2.8 is very appealing to me. 

 I'll see how it goes. If it's bad (hope not), I might just get Tamron 17-50mm 2.8_

 

I'm wondering how much the extra stop matters for such wide angles -- can't you handhold down to like 1/10th, maybe even 1/5th at those lengths?

 Best,

 -Jason


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jjcha* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm wondering how much the extra stop matters for such wide angles -- can't you handhold down to like 1/10th, maybe even 1/5th at those lengths?_

 

You still have to calculate with the 35-mm equivalent (factor 1.5), so it's rather like 1/16 s.
.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jjcha* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm wondering how much the extra stop matters for such wide angles -- can't you handhold down to like 1/10th, maybe even 1/5th at those lengths?

 Best,

 -Jason_

 

Result of handholding 1/5th might not be that great of course, compared to if I could take it at say, 1/50th. Also the thing is, slow shutter is a bit annoying when you take candid stuff like people doing what they are currently doing. I'm planning to use the ultra wide more for street/people photography and night shots, so fast one will help me a bit. If I shot scenery/architecture most of the time, I'd get the 12-24mm f/4 straight away.


----------



## lan

I like the 14-24 f/2.8 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The extra stop is also about the weight. More weight = more stable to hold.


----------



## dj_mocok

I like heavier lens too, but not heavy like 70-200 though. The Tokina 12-24mm f/4 is extremely solid lens, for me it even feels more solid than 17-35 mm Nikon pro lens. The build of that Tokina reminds me of Ai-s lenses.

 Although if you want solid and heavy, nothing beats Russian lenses. Damn, with Russian lenses like Helios or Jupiter, you can probably bash a mugger to hospital and still resume shooting afterwards.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I like the 14-24 f/2.8 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The extra stop is also about the weight. More weight = more stable to hold. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I disagree. The 14-24 in my hands is so heavy that it's considerably more unstable than the 12-24 or 17-35. It's heavy enough that I wouldn't want it on a body around my neck all day long.


----------



## dj_mocok

It's almost a kilo right?


----------



## dj_mocok

Whoa, look at the design of those blades! It's so cool, curvy and it's so cool (did I say that the first time?), for some reason it looks badass to me. Stopped-down and still retain the round shape? *drool*





 Picture belongs to gokevincameras


----------



## uppis

Oh those blades are sweet..! Whats the name of this beauty?


----------



## haibane

Canon... Runs away quickly


----------



## Towert7

Hey guys and gals, quick question.
 Why would someone want a full frame (35mm) CCD sensor like that found in the Nikon D3, compared to a ~1.5x crop factor CCD like that found in the D300. What are the benefits? What are the detractors?

 Thanks a bunch!


----------



## haibane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys and gals, quick question.
 Why would someone want a full frame (35mm) CCD sensor like that found in the Nikon D3, compared to a ~1.5x crop factor CCD like that found in the D300. What are the benefits? What are the detractors?

 Thanks a bunch!_

 

Better noise, faster focus, standard film lenses are actual dimensions instead of zoomed. Generally slightly better dynamic range too.


----------



## nineohtoo

I'm getting awfully greedy... I just picked up another speed light. The other day my manager found an SB-600 in one of the totes and said he was gonna buy it. I saw it still in the store today, adjusted the price, then had someone ring me up for it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Had no time to find the accessories so I wouldn't get caught. I'll look for them tomorrow, if I can't i'll just pay the $25 or so on B&H(I just want the diffuser, pouch and stand since I already lost my SB-800s stand). Now I really need to get a D70 or better so I can have fun with the wireless flash. I've only been doing this a month and it's been costly!

 Quick shot of Haruhi on my desk


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *uppis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh those blades are sweet..! Whats the name of this beauty?_

 

Kinoptik. I took it from this eBay sale.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why would someone want a full frame (35mm) CCD sensor like that found in the Nikon D3, compared to a ~1.5x crop factor CCD like that found in the D300. What are the benefits? What are the detractors?_

 

Same old question as when the 4x5 view camera people labeled the "new" 35mm format as "miniature"; the smaller the format, the more the image has to be enlarged to get to finished viewing size. And with enlargement, all the flaws and defects are enlarged as well. 

 Coming into DSLRs with DX size sensors brought back especially the need for me to limit camera motion during exposure. Holding out at arm's length a point-and-shoot camera (with an even smaller sensor) to use the view screen as a viewfinder even further exacerbates the camera motion problem. If you don't have enough shutter speed/ISO speed dialed in, motion blurring is almost guaranteed. And since automatic exposure is the credo of the point-and-shoot crew, there you go. Forget, also, the depth of field benefits of a high f-stop. 

 Fight camera motion when handheld with braced camera position and smooth shutter release. Better yet, put the camera on a sturdy tripod and use a shutter release. Some folks go so far as to lock up the mirror before final exposure to avoid the vibration of its flop. But even a monopod or bracing against a tree, post or other stable object will help sharpness.

 Down side to larger sensors? Not many, unless you're already stocked with good DX lenses. I've always been kind of a "telephoto guy" anyway, and have looked at the 1.5X magnification bump as a boon. Right now, I'm waiting for Nikon to introduce the D300s with a full size sensor so I can score an "old" D300.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


 Down side to larger sensors?.........I've always been kind of a "telephoto guy" anyway 
 

You're a telephoto guy and you missed the most obvious disadvantage to large sensors?

 Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR: $1600
 Nikon 300 f/2.8 VR: $4500

 You have to spend a LOT more to get the same field of view on the larger sensor. Comparatively speaking, the cost of repurchasing an ultrawide (say the Sigma 10-20mm) for DX isn't nearly as bad.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're a telephoto guy and you missed the most obvious disadvantage to large sensors?

 Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR: $1600
 Nikon 300 f/2.8 VR: $4500

 You have to spend a LOT more to get the same field of view on the larger sensor._

 

I didn't miss the expense point, I just didn't mention it with the other points I was making. BTW, I've owned the Nikon ED AF-S VR-Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8G for a couple of years and it's a very nice lense. Great boka and the VR is like picking up two or three stops. And it's a 105-300mm equivalent on my D200.


----------



## Towert7

Thanks for the info Old Pa and Haibane!


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I disagree. The 14-24 in my hands is so heavy that it's considerably more unstable than the 12-24 or 17-35. It's heavy enough that I wouldn't want it on a body around my neck all day long._

 

I'm used to carrying large weights so it's fine for me. I'm sure for most people, they don't carry heavier glass, flash, or grips.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's almost a kilo right?_

 

That sounds about right.

 I got me a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It seems pretty solid so far.


----------



## CLum

I just won a good condition 50mm f/1.8 ai (long nose) off ebay. Am I correct in assuming that this is one of the better 50mm models? Also what would be a good used price for one of these in good condition? I won it for $75.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CLum* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just won a good condition 50mm f/1.8 ai (long nose) off ebay. Am I correct in assuming that this is one of the better 50mm models? Also what would be a good used price for one of these in good condition? I won it for $75._

 

Actually there are many different versions of 50mm 1.8 Ai/Ai-s, so many I can't even bother to remember which one is the so called 'better' one.

 I got the Ai-s version - not the earliest one, but I'm sure according the serial # mine is not the one that is reported to be the best, but heck, the picture is so darn sharp and contrasty, I can't ask for anything more.

 So basically don't worry so much about different serial numbers and all that. As long as it's clean, free from fungus, and very important - the focusing ring still moves fluidly, that's it, you're set.

 I paid mine for AUS$75 in pretty much mint condition with box and paper, but I think that was a steal. $75 is about right for a good copy that's still in great condition IMO. Have fun, it's a great lens!


----------



## Arainach

I wouldn't have paid more than $40. 50 max. You can get used 50 f/1.8D AF lenses in the 80-90 range.


----------



## dj_mocok

It all depends on the condition of the lens itself. I'm a bit of collector, and I appreciate a nicely built lens. That's why I'm still using 50mm AI-s over the AF version even though the AF version it's dirt cheap. Because to me the Ai-S is very fun to use, and the smooth focusing beats the manual focusing even using the likes of 17-35mm AFS. The AF one is a bit too plasticky for me. 

 Basically just paying for the built, optical result, and the satisfaction of doing everything manually. Although at times it can be a pain in terms of metering (eg. fast moving clouds that keep changing the light).

 If it's showing signs of usage, yes, 40-50 bucks is about right. But a near mint sample, I believe it will go more than that especially on eBay.


----------



## CLum

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wouldn't have paid more than $40. 50 max. You can get used 50 f/1.8D AF lenses in the 80-90 range._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It all depends on the condition of the lens itself. I'm a bit of collector, and I appreciate a nicely built lens. That's why I'm still using 50mm AI-s over the AF version even though the AF version it's dirt cheap. Because to me the Ai-S is very fun to use, and the smooth focusing beats the manual focusing even using the likes of 17-35mm AFS. The AF one is a bit too plasticky for me. 

 Basically just paying for the built, optical result, and the satisfaction of doing everything manually. Although at times it can be a pain in terms of metering (eg. fast moving clouds that keep changing the light).

 If it's showing signs of usage, yes, 40-50 bucks is about right. But a near mint sample, I believe it will go more than that especially on eBay._

 

I have a d40 so its manual on any non-afs lens anyways. I figured if I was going to go manual I might as well get some metal instead of plastic. The seller has good feedback and he said it was mint so I'm not feeling too bad about paying a little extra. Thanks for the help.


----------



## dj_mocok

If it's mint then I think it's pretty reasonable. It's hard to find a mint or near mint condition of a 50mm Ai considering how old the lens is (and how they were always used as workhorse lenses for SLR users back in the days). My brother now is in possession of my late dad's 50mm 1.4 Ai. The lens has been serviced before, and the current condition is - many tiny scratches on lens, full of tiny dust particles inside, and you know what, properly used, I think the picture quality is better than his 17-35mm AF-S.

 The good thing about the current gen 'plastic' 50mm is, at least with your D40 it will save you from manually metering it (which can be annoying at times). But if you said you are fine with it, then it's all good then. 

 You know if you don't mind full manual, you can go as old as pre-ai lenses from Nikon, the used price is even cheaper compared to Ai lenses.


----------



## fabool

I bought one of the older 50/1.8 AI-lenses myself just recently. Yes, the "long nose" older version (and the AI-s version after that), is said to be the optically best one out of all the 50/1.8 Nikkors - after that, the design started to veer more towards cutting costs than enhancing optical performance. It should trump the new, pancake versions and the AFs if compared closely.

 I'd say $75 is a good deal for a mint condition one. I paid more or less the same for mine and they seem to go for that amount (or more) all the time on eBay, at least in Europe.


----------



## CLum

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fabool* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I bought one of the older 50/1.8 AI-lenses myself just recently. Yes, the "long nose" older version (and the AI-s version after that), is said to be the optically best one out of all the 50/1.8 Nikkors - after that, the design started to veer more towards cutting costs than enhancing optical performance. It should trump the new, pancake versions and the AFs if compared closely.

 I'd say $75 is a good deal for a mint condition one. I paid more or less the same for mine and they seem to go for that amount (or more) all the time on eBay, at least in Europe._

 

Thanks for the info. I tried to do the research myself but I got confused with all the versions. All I knew is to not get the E-series 50mm. Can't wait to get mine and start snappin away.


----------



## fabool

If you want to do some reading on the 50mm Nikkors here's a few pages with good info:

Bjørn Rørslett's take on various normal range lenses (check out his opinions on other lenses too, and his best of-list). I value his opinion a lot more than say, Ken Rockwells.
Nikonlinks has some great links. Especially the Rolan Vink-lists where you'll find all the specs and serial numbers you need to identify your Nikkors.
Thousand and one night-article on the Nikkor 50/2 contains some info about the 50/1.8 as well. Some say the 50/2 is even sharper than the 50/1.8 and the pinnacle of 50mm Nikkors, although it isn't as well corrected and is a fraction slower than the 1.8. Great lens either way, there's also articles on other Nikkors which are a must read.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CLum* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a d40 so its manual on any non-afs lens anyways. I figured if I was going to go manual I might as well get some metal instead of plastic. The seller has good feedback and he said it was mint so I'm not feeling too bad about paying a little extra. Thanks for the help._

 

The AF version would meter fine on the D40, though, which is more than worth it to me. Manual Focus isn't that bad. Manual metering is a pain.


----------



## CLum

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The AF version would meter fine on the D40, though, which is more than worth it to me. Manual Focus isn't that bad. Manual metering is a pain._

 

I'm just starting this photography thing so the the thought of full manual still seems like a lot of fun. It probably will become a pain after awhile but it should speed up the learning process.


----------



## Harry Tuttle

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wouldn't have paid more than $40. 50 max. You can get used 50 f/1.8D AF lenses in the 80-90 range._

 

the ai/ais are better lenses


----------



## nineohtoo

It feels good to be back on the internet. The storm in the bay area last week only took out the power for a day, but my internet has been gone for nearly four days now. It was tough relying on my cell phone and using the PCs at work(and I was off the last two days!). Sorry for the rant, to my post:

 Just picked up a 50mm f1.8 today(err yesterday?) for $75 off craigslist. I picked up one of those rubber lens hoods for it, and I'm debating whether or not to get a filter for it(I get them for about $8 at work).You people weren't kidding about it. I'm in love with this lens, and probably won't be using anything else for a good while. I only which I could afford the sellers 20mm f1.8(he was asking $180) or maybe find a fast 35mm to carry around with this for group shots. I'm just gonna tell myself to use my 18-135mm and SB-800 for those cases, so I can put that money towards a decent telephoto.

 Here's some pics I took with with it today:






 A sign I saw when driving by the seller's house. Reminded me of V for Vendetta.





 Hobby store at Japan Town. Wanted to test out how well it was in low light. My hand was shaky. I also was able to take well lit shots of the tower outside, but my hands shakier in the cold than inside.




 Testing it out on my brother with only inside light.










 I took home a can of FFVII potion from one of the hobby shops where I picked up the lens, and grabbed "Japanese Underground" at Super 7. Really cool book if you're into japanese street culture, especially if you like vinyl/figures. As for the pictures, the first shot is w/flash at f22, second is with my desk lamp at f1.8.


----------



## Harry Tuttle

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fabool* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I bought one of the older 50/1.8 AI-lenses myself just recently. Yes, the "long nose" older version (and the AI-s version after that), is said to be the optically best one out of all the 50/1.8 Nikkors - after that, the design started to veer more towards cutting costs than enhancing optical performance. It should trump the new, pancake versions and the AFs if compared closely.

 I'd say $75 is a good deal for a mint condition one. I paid more or less the same for mine and they seem to go for that amount (or more) all the time on eBay, at least in Europe._

 

the pancake version is supposed to be as good (if not better) optically than the ai version


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Well, I've got a 35mm F2 AF-D on the way. It will be interesting to compare with the 18-200VR, which has left me with nagging questions about its' performance from time to time. This will be my first prime lens, but from all I could gather about it, it seems like good one. While I could have gone with the much cheaper 50mm F1.8, I just don't think that I'd use that length quite as much (aside from the idea that if I get hooked on primes, I'd want the F1.4 anyway).


----------



## nickknutson

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I've got a 35mm F2 AF-D on the way. It will be interesting to compare with the 18-200VR, which has left me with nagging questions about its' performance from time to time. This will be my first prime lens, but from all I could gather about it, it seems like good one. While I could have gone with the much cheaper 50mm F1.8, I just don't think that I'd use that length quite as much (aside from the idea that if I get hooked on primes, I'd want the F1.4 anyway)._

 

I'm thinking about renting a 35mm for an event I'm shooting on Friday. I'm still debating if I want to get that, or a zoom lens...I figured I can always crop them down. I've seen quite a few pictures with that lens and they were amazing!

 I just bought the 50mm 1.8 the other day off a guy on the Cafe and should be here today, I'm eager to try it out. I was going to use that for the event, but I don't think it's going to be a wide enough shot...we'll see, hopefully I'll have both with me.


----------



## Towert7

The 50mm on a DX sensor is a bit tight for me most of the time when I'm out doing landscape shots, but it's pretty nice for head shots where you are not very close to the person..

 I also have the 35mm F/2.0 lens. It's quite an interesting lens. You get such a tight DOF with it for closeups, you can create some effects that you never dreamt of with the 18-200mm. It's made quite nice for the price. Personally, I tend to use the 35mm for closeups when I can use the tripod. It allows pretty close focusing (especially for a non micro lens)!


----------



## jterp7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I've got a 35mm F2 AF-D on the way. It will be interesting to compare with the 18-200VR, which has left me with nagging questions about its' performance from time to time. This will be my first prime lens, but from all I could gather about it, it seems like good one. While I could have gone with the much cheaper 50mm F1.8, I just don't think that I'd use that length quite as much (aside from the idea that if I get hooked on primes, I'd want the F1.4 anyway)._

 

I remember when picking out my first lens I got recommendations for primes ranging from the 50mm 1.8, the 50mm 1.4, and your aforementioned 35mm f2. Now thinking back, the 50mm most of the time allows me to keep a good distance from the subject, but there are those times when I feel the it could be just a bit wider. I initially chose the 1.4 over the others since it would be used for indoor pics of the kids. Later on I picked up the 18-200mm VR, but like you have some issues with its performance. I have to say that the convenience of zoom is really nice, but the sharpness of the 50mm 1.4 from 2.8 and up just kills it. The 18-200 is definitely better for outdoor shots since light isn't as much of a problem, but for pictures indoors of people, the wide end of the 18-200 definitely helps. 

 I'm debating whether or not to sell the 18-200..and just pick up the 35mm f2, but I'm wondering if after that i won't even pick up the 50mm and thus sell that as well


----------



## Harry Tuttle

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I've got a 35mm F2 AF-D on the way. It will be interesting to compare with the 18-200VR, which has left me with nagging questions about its' performance from time to time. This will be my first prime lens, but from all I could gather about it, it seems like good one. While I could have gone with the much cheaper 50mm F1.8, I just don't think that I'd use that length quite as much (aside from the idea that if I get hooked on primes, I'd want the F1.4 anyway)._

 

35mm is a great focal best all-around imho. I used to shoot only with a 50mm and even though it gave great results, it got boring pretty fast. I believe the f1.8/2 nikon are not only much cheaper but usually sharper than the 1.4 so it's not really worth it... I've always wanted to try the 105mm 2.5 from nikon, supposed to be one of the best portrait lens, anybody has it and could post some pictures?


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It feels good to be back on the internet. The storm in the bay area last week only took out the power for a day, but my internet has been gone for nearly four days now. It was tough relying on my cell phone and using the PCs at work(and I was off the last two days!). Sorry for the rant, to my post:

 Just picked up a 50mm f1.8 today(err yesterday?) for $75 off craigslist. I picked up one of those rubber lens hoods for it, and I'm debating whether or not to get a filter for it(I get them for about $8 at work).You people weren't kidding about it. I'm in love with this lens, and probably won't be using anything else for a good while. I only which I could afford the sellers 20mm f1.8(he was asking $180) or maybe find a fast 35mm to carry around with this for group shots. I'm just gonna tell myself to use my 18-135mm and SB-800 for those cases, so I can put that money towards a decent telephoto._

 

Don't bother putting on filter on your lenses. All my lenses don't have any filters on it. Unless you shoot in extreme condition, I don't think you need those 'protective' filters. You look like you're having fun with the lens, same like me, I think old manual fast primes are more fun that zooms. 

 About the other lens that you couldn't afford, did you mean 20mm 2.8? 
 I can't quite remember what camera you got, but for decent telephoto, used 80-200mm (the earlier push-pull version) can be had for pretty 'cheap'. (but I think it's too big for anything smaller than D80 size. Actually even D80 is a bit small to be comfortably used with this lens).

 Too bad Nikon doesn't offer something like Canon's 200mm 2.8. (well they have 200mm f/2 but man that's serious money you're talking about) Although I'm not really into tele, but that Canon is one nice, affordable telephoto lens IMO. And it's relatively compact too.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Too bad Nikon doesn't offer something like Canon's 200mm 2.8. (well they have 200mm f/2 but man that's serious money you're talking about) Although I'm not really into tele, but that Canon is one nice, affordable telephoto lens IMO. And it's relatively compact too._

 

Nikon has the 180mm f/2.8 at the same price. Of course, for just about the same money you could get the 80-200 f/2.8D and be far better off.


----------



## dj_mocok

I was kinda hoping for a Nikon's 200mm 2.8 that can perform as good as the 200mm f/2 (less the VR) and can be had for the cost (and size) of Canon's 200mm f/2.8


----------



## Arainach

Keep dreaming. The 200 f/2 is done with the same optical care as the 300 and 400 f/2.8 - a level of quality that may not appear in sub-$1000 lenses in our lifetimes (and given the rate of inflation, maybe ever).


----------



## nineohtoo

I stand corrected. I checked his listing and it is indeed a 20mm f2.8. 

 For my telephoto, I was hoping for a 70-300mm, or something that could get me close enough to shoot some surfing. I've seen people get decent shots from shore with that length. I played with the VR one at my work, and I feel like a spy when I take pictures with it lol. 

 The 50mm is such an awesome lens though. I really want to shoot with it at a club, but unfortunately there's no shows I'd be interested in seeing until next month when the Hives come around(probably wont even be able to bring my camera). For those in the area somebody just relisted their D version with hood, box and paperwork for only $90 on craigslist. Only about $15 more than I paid for my regular version and rubber quantaray hood.


----------



## dj_mocok

28mm f/2 mint condition one on eBay. For those who appreciate the finer classic lenses. Too bad is a tad expensive IMO.


----------



## ServinginEcuador

What's a good price for the 28 f2?


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Hi guys 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I got myself a D2H on friday. On the same day I went to a friend's gig and shot a few pictures (whilst still carrying the D2H's box, so you know I never had time to get to know the cam) with my friend's 50mm AF, as my 18-70 is with Nikon service (after 1 $@^@$ing month!). Was a little too close for my liking since the place was pretty small and because I'm really used to shooting with zooms, but I thought a few shots came out alright..

 View em here:
Flickr: Photos from Liak's


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ServinginEcuador* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What's a good price for the 28 f2?_

 

Don't quote me, but I think around 250-300 depending on the condition.


----------



## Towert7

Quick question.
 Just the other day I took a few pictures with black things in it. One was a camera strap which is black. The other is a jacket which is dark grey. Now, I calibrated the WB on a white part with the same lighting as I took the picture, and so the WB was spot on. But, for some reason, the blacks and dark greys get a very noticible purple tint to them. They look dark purple. This has happened to me a few times before in the past.

 No filters were used, and no flash.
 Obviously, the cameras picking up something my eye's not. Could this be UV? Hm, next time I'll have to see if a UV filter helps.

 Any idea what's going on here?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

To my knowledge, Nikon DSLR's post D70/D50 are all but impervious to UV, so I doubt that's the issue (you shoot a D80, right?)


----------



## lan

That's strange. Can you upload an example photo for us?


----------



## ServinginEcuador

What portion of the image did you meter for? Did you use spot metering, or allow the camera to average out the image as a whole with matrix metering? 

 IIRC a camera assumes an 18% grey for metering. So, if you overexposed the grey of the jacket due to the presence bright whites in the shot the jacket might appear purple. 

 Purple fringing, which can happen in high contrast shots, could also explain the phenomenon.


 Try shooting the same scene, but this time using a bounce flash off the ceiling. See if this changes the appearance of your black jacket. Or, meter the shot using spot metering at various point in the composed shot to see if the purple shift still occurs.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To my knowledge, Nikon DSLR's post D70/D50 are all but impervious to UV, so I doubt that's the issue (you shoot a D80, right?)_

 

D50 actually.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's strange. Can you upload an example photo for us?_

 

Sure:

 Here is the grey jacket and my blue shirt:



 All the colors, execpt my shirt and jacket are spot on.

 Here is the camera strap:




 This strap, in real life, is pure black even in this lighting. All the other colors are spot on.


----------



## Towert7

Actually now that I look at it, the camera strap picture was taken with my 35mm lens that had a UV filter on it...... hm........


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ServinginEcuador* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What portion of the image did you meter for? Did you use spot metering, or allow the camera to average out the image as a whole with matrix metering? 

 IIRC a camera assumes an 18% grey for metering. So, if you overexposed the grey of the jacket due to the presence bright whites in the shot the jacket might appear purple. 

 Purple fringing, which can happen in high contrast shots, could also explain the phenomenon.


 Try shooting the same scene, but this time using a bounce flash off the ceiling. See if this changes the appearance of your black jacket. Or, meter the shot using spot metering at various point in the composed shot to see if the purple shift still occurs._

 

The camera was set for Matrix Metering both times. I'm happy with the lightness of both the pictures.

 Hm, that would be funny if purple fringing explained these results! I wonder...


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sure:

 Here is the grey jacket and my blue shirt:



 All the colors, execpt my shirt and jacket are spot on.

 Here is the camera strap:




 This strap, in real life, is pure black even in this lighting. All the other colors are spot on._

 

I've seen many fabrics that looked ever so slightly purple under certain lighting conditions, so maybe the strap is actually purple, and the camera exposed to show that?


----------



## nineohtoo

Picked up some new goodies this morning:






 Nikkor 85mm f2 (AIS?)





 Nikkor 28mm f2.8(AIS?)





 Shot of my beloved 50mm f1.8 taken with the new 28mm.

 Last night, I saw a listing on craigslist asking for offers. But all he had was this picture, and no description of what it included:






 I checked my mail this morning and got a reply. 28mm, 85mm, and a 80-200mm. I recognize the last name of the seller, and low and behold it belongs my younger brother's friend's older brother(lol). My brother gives him a call and I offer him $100 for everything. I tried forty to sixty for the nikkor lenses, but he wanted to sell everything as one. 

 Everything I came home with:






 The 28mm is really something else. I only wish it had metering. Everything people say about this lens online is true. I'm gonna do more research and see if someone can convert this, because it would be such a waste. I'll play around with the 85mm later on to see how I like it. 

 There was one problem though. There's a tiny bit of fungus in the 28mm which luckily isn't showing up in my images, and a noticeable amount in the 85mm that does show up. Anyone know a place in the bay area that can clean or get rid of that?


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The camera was set for Matrix Metering both times. I'm happy with the lightness of both the pictures.

 Hm, that would be funny if purple fringing explained these results! I wonder..._

 

I don't think it's a lens or metering problem. Though if you're taking a photo indoors, with a filter on....that might give you a slight color difference. Looks like a slight color imbalance only: exposure looks good to me. How exactly are you calibrating WB? Make sure you expose the WB card at the same distance and spot as what you want to shoot.....and if worst comes to worst, shoot in RAW and try tweaking the curves in PS 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I do find that if WB is off, some colors might look spot on, but it's just certain ranges that get clipped (and you wind up with too much purple or blue in certain areas).


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think it's a lens or metering problem. Though if you're taking a photo indoors, with a filter on....that might give you a slight color difference. Looks like a slight color imbalance only: exposure looks good to me. How exactly are you calibrating WB? Make sure you expose the WB card at the same distance and spot as what you want to shoot.....and if worst comes to worst, shoot in RAW and try tweaking the curves in PS 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I do find that if WB is off, some colors might look spot on, but it's just certain ranges that get clipped (and you wind up with too much purple or blue in certain areas)._

 

Yea, that might be it. With my D50, I set the custom WB by photographing a white card in the light.
 Sadly, I can't use RAW because I use Photoshop CS1 (no raw support for my camera).
 I'll certainly have to fool around with this some more and see what I come up with.

 Thanks.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yea, that might be it. With my D50, I set the custom WB by photographing a white card in the light.
 Sadly, I can't use RAW because I use Photoshop CS1 (no raw support for my camera).
 I'll certainly have to fool around with this some more and see what I come up with._

 

Did your camera come with any software for opening RAWs? If so, it might let you save as 16bit tiff...which you would be able to open in CS1 (as memory serves, I think CS1 does at least read 16bit).

 Yeah, setting WB isn't so easy.....I do find that changing the distance, even slightly, changes WB. One time I thought I was keeping the same shot and everything after shooting for a custom WB. But then when I took the photo, it came out a deep purple! Trying again fixed it. Usually I just manually enter in a WB mode and then adjust in PP. Photographers who are sticklers for color and exposure do a fair about of PP afterwards anyway.


----------



## dj_mocok

Nineohtoo:

 Your younger brother's older brother.... ?? Isn't that yourself? 

 Fungus you have to deal with it ASAP or it might get worse. Best way is just take it to your local repairer and get it cleaned and fixed properly. You might have to pay more than what you paid the lenses for, but for the 28mm, I think it's worth it.


----------



## nineohtoo

Edited lol. I think i'm gonna call around and ask. It's not showing up in the images I suppose since they're on the sides of the element.


----------



## dj_mocok

I never experienced fungus before, but from what I read it's really have to be dealt with ASAP. I'm not sure whether it will still grow after you store the lens properly or not, but if I were you, I wouldn't want any fungus on my lenses at all. Dust in the lens, I got no problem, but not fungus.

 From your posted picture, that 28mm still takes very beautiful picture. It would be a shame if that lens was ruined by growing fungus.


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

I have a question for all you folks in the know... still learning...

 I ordered a pack of lens filters today, just as something to play around with. It has a warm filter, a polarizing filter, and a UV filter. I figure if nothing else, they will serve as a way to help protect my lens. But, doing a bit of research on what filters actually do, I am a bit confused. The warming filter is sort of self explanatory, the others, not so much. The polarizing filter, I can see what it does through examples online, but I can't seem to find a solid answer as to why it does what it does. Hows it work? Also, from what I saw, the polarizing filter made for some nice shots. It made me wonder what the point of the UV filter was. I was under the impression that a UV filter was basically just to help in keeping the sun out of your lens shooting outside, but offers no real visual enhancement, whereas the polarizing filter makes for some nicer looking colors. I guess my question is, in what scenario would I want to use the UV filter over the polarizing filter?


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Polarizer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 UV filters were made for film cameras in film days when UV light would interfere with the exposure, causing fogginess and such. With digital it doesn't affect that much, if at all any more. Most people with digital cameras buy UV filters simply for the protection of their lenses. 

 People normally keep the UV on all the time until they want to use a polariser (or any other filter), then they remove the UV filter and place whatever onto the lens, and remove than and put the UV back on when they're done. The UV is meant for protection after all.


----------



## ServinginEcuador

Gil,

 A polarizing filter is for one of only a couple of circumstances. I'd try and explain it, but there are simply too many articles that are better. I copied some links that are easy to understand at the bottom of this post. 

 UV filters are used 24/7 on lenses simply to protect them and block any large amounts of UV light from messing up your exposure. UV can't be seen with the naked eye, but still strikes your lens and if the lens isn't coated will end up messing up your exposure. This line of thinking started with film cameras, and with modern CCD and CMOS cameras isn't as big a problem. It can add a bluish tint to photos if it's allowed to get to the CCD. 

 Found this online:

  Quote:


 Polarizing Filters

 These deservedly popular filters, also known as polarizers, use the inherent polarization of atmospheric scatter, glare and other unwanted reflections to remove such photographic pests selectively and prospectively from the light entering your camera. If you shoot much outdoors, the ability to mount a polarizer is reason enough to invest in a filter-capable camera and the required adapters. 

 Used properly, polarizers can darken the blue of the sky, highlight clouds, suppress unwanted highlights and improve general color saturation by suppressing atmospheric scatter and color-robbing reflections off water, glass, sunlit foliage, vehicles and even bald heads. (In wide-angle shots showing lots of sky, however, you may get better results with a GND.)

 Polarizers are admittedly more complicated to use effectively (and to know when not to bother) than one might hope, but once you develop an understanding of the ways in which scattering and reflection add polarization to light in the photographic environment, polarizers become very simple. Digital rangefinder users often complain that they can't see their rear LCDs well enough in bright sunlight to adjust a polarizer properly under TTL (through-the-lens) control. But as long as you're after maximum effect (as is almost always the case), you can easily learn to adjust a polarizer reliably without TTL control.

 Polarizers always require substantial exposure compensation. In strongly polarized ambient light, a polarizer can easily cut to 3-4 stops or more. In the absence of polarized light—or when set at 90° to the prevailing target polarization or target directions—most polarizers end up acting as 1- to 2-stop (0.3-0.6) neutral density filters.

 To my mind, there are no polarizer advantages unique to digital cameras, but digital cameras with limited dynamic range can benefit greatly from the selective suppression of excess contrast discussed next. Due to the limited UV sensitivity found in most digital cameras, polarizers also provide a welcome and effective alternative for haze control at favorable camera-sun angles. 

 Polarization Primer

 Scattered light, glare and other strong reflections can degrade photographs in many ways—e.g., by diluting colors, by obscuring or distracting the viewer from important image details, or by forcing suboptimal exposure compromises. Luckily, nature tends to tag such "bad light" with varying degrees of polarization, and that marker provides an easy way to suppress the "bad light" while capturing the good.

 Most of the primary light sources encountered in photography—the sun, moon, indoor lighting, flash lamps—are unpolarized, meaning that the electric field fluctuations accompanying the light are oriented equally and randomly in all directions perpendicular to the light's direction of travel. If all the light's electric fields were oriented in the same direction, we'd say it's linearly or plane polarized. Other types of polarization—e.g., circular and elliptical—are seldom encountered by photographers outside their cameras.

 Unpolarized light typically acquires polarization through absorption, scattering or reflection.

 The Reflection Method

 This method uses a strongly polarized reflection as a reference.

 * Find a flat, shiny tabletop, countertop or water surface with bright reflections. Don't use a curved surface like a car fender here.
 * View the reflections obliquely through your polarizer at an angle near 35° above the reflecting surface. This special angle (Brewster's angle) will insure that the reflections are maximally polarized by the bounce. (If yours is a circular polarizer, be sure to hold it with the male threads toward you.)
 * Keeping this aim, rotate your polarizer until the reflections are maximally suppressed. The polarizer's blocking axis will now run parallel to the reflecting surface and perpendicular to the reflected light's direction of travel to the camera. 
 


 Links:
Filter options for digital cameras
Using a polarizer effectively without TTL control


----------



## Happymonkey

Not to mention the two types of polarizing filters you can get, linear and circular.


----------



## Towert7

Well, I just ordered myself a Nikon 35-70mm F/2.8D lens. I really want to see how this works for people shots, as I plan to do a lot of people shots now. I have high expectations of this lens, even if it's a 20 year old design.

 Should be interesting to see the types of pictures I get from it.


----------



## bloodydoorknob

The Nikon 35-70mm F/2.8D is a superb midrange zoom lens. I found it to be great for portraits, but on a dx camera, it could use a little more on the wide end for those big group shots (weddings).


----------



## Towert7

Ah, that's great to hear!
 Yea, the 1.5x was a little concern to me. I have a 35mm fixed and the angle is acceptable for getting a few people in.

 At the moment I'm still building up my experience, so I don't need the 1000-1600$ lens quite yet. ^_^


----------



## lan

I thought about that lens also but settled on Tamron 17-50, and 50 and 85 mm primes.


----------



## OverlordXenu

I just got a used F100, and Adorama shipped it without a body cap...

 Anyway, the mirror, insides, and outside are filthy. Example below...
http://i28.tinypic.com/5xo56w.jpg

 NOTE: The above is a somewhat large pic (1600*1200) and I was not the one that touched the mirror.

 How in the hell do I clean the mirror et al.? I have some alcohol swabs, 91% isopropyl alcohol, and some cottons swabs, but I don't want to leave fibers all over the place. At least, on the inside optics et al. What about the outside? Would the alcohol be too harsh?

 Thanks guys. Photo-fi FTW!

 (I have no tripod, so excuse the blurry pic...)

 Edit: Anyone have any recommendations for B&W and color slide film?


----------



## Towert7

Well thankfully the junk on the mirror will not affect the final picture quality (since the mirror flips out of the way of the film). Still, that looks like a pain when viewing it. And to be honest.... if the mirror looks like that, chances are other parts of the camera aren't much cleaner. Might be worth it to just bring it to your local camera shop and have them give it a good cleaning if it's cheap.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well thankfully the junk on the mirror will not affect the final picture quality (since the mirror flips out of the way of the film). Still, that looks like a pain when viewing it. And to be honest.... if the mirror looks like that, chances are other parts of the camera aren't much cleaner. Might be worth it to just bring it to your local camera shop and have them give it a good cleaning if it's cheap._

 

The only real local camera shops around here are Ritz Camera and a photo studio. What type of place should I look for?

 Outside of the dirt, this camera is perfect, at least, it seems so (as of right now, I only have the camera and some extra battery holders, still waiting on the flash, lens, and strap).

 Is there anything "essential" that I should pick up? I don't really have a need for a tripod...Maybe a filter or something?


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 I have some alcohol swabs, 91% isopropyl alcohol, and some cottons swabs, but I don't want to leave fibers all over the place. At least, on the inside optics et al. What about the outside? Would the alcohol be too harsh? 
 

I would not use isopropyl alcohol. Usually optics are cleaned with methanol or acetone and swabs. It is very tricky to do it without leaving streaks though. You might be better off sending it in somewhere and having it done professionally.

 I like Fuji Provia for color slide film, but others like Velvia for saturation of landscapes.


----------



## bloodydoorknob

If you're gonna do any outside shooting in the sun, you'd do well with a uv and polarizing filter.


----------



## lan

I'm not a big fan of Adorama. Even though they might be cheaper than B&H, I rather pay the extra price.


----------



## KimbaWLion

Hello there,

 JUST to add my 2 cents I have owned the Nikon 35-70mm F/2.8D for ages. Its my standard lens on my very old Fuji S1. I know the camera needs upgrading but that lens serves me VERY well all of the years I have had it. I have never been disappointed and I am sure you will NOT be either.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KimbaWLion* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hello there,

 JUST to add my 2 cents I have owned the Nikon 35-70mm F/2.8D for ages. Its my standard lens on my very old Fuji S1. I know the camera needs upgrading but that lens serves me VERY well all of the years I have had it. I have never been disappointed and I am sure you will NOT be either._

 

Ah, that's great to hear!

 I'll be getting mine some time tomorrow, and I'll be sure to ploop it on and see how it fairs!


----------



## OverlordXenu

A 77mm UV filter by Nikon is like...$80 A 67mm to 77mm step-up ring varies from $7 to $25...(My lens has a 67mm threaded filter ring.)

 Damn, those are expensive.


----------



## Towert7

Wow, 80$ for a UV filter is pricey, but if it's been optically coated to help transmit light....... then I can see the price they are asking for it. If you go for something like a budget tiffen that is just a plain sheet of glass, than yea... 80$ is a shame.


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

Just placed an order for a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D. It was cheap, and makes for something new to play around with. I am going to take a trip to Garden of the Gods when I get it... should be fun.


----------



## dj_mocok

50mm 1.8 is a mandatory lens for every Nikon owners. It's so good yet so cheap, it's a crime not to have it.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Gil Schwartzman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just placed an order for a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D. It was cheap, and makes for something new to play around with. I am going to take a trip to Garden of the Gods when I get it... should be fun._

 

It is a very fun little lens. Small, lightweight, crystal clear, and nice saturation.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

You can get very good prices on some nice B&W and Hoya Pro1 filters at hvstar.net . It takes a few weeks to get them from Hong Kong, but it's quite a bit cheaper than anywhere else I've found for comparable products.

 I landed a 180mm F/2.8D today, and boy is this thing sharp! Edge to edge, even at 2.8, it's sharper than the 35 f/2. However one must be very careful about exposure, as it seems quite prone to purple fringing around blown highlights, much more so than I expected. The size and build of the lens give it a great feel in use. The extreme blah-ness of today's weather (at least by California standards) precluded me from capturing much terribly interesting today, though.


----------



## bloodydoorknob

This combo has been working really well for my walk around shooting these days: D300+Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_50mm 1.8 is a mandatory lens for every Nikon owners. It's so good yet so cheap, it's a crime not to have it._

 

This is what I kept hearing. I paid $116 shipped for it, which seems very reasonable. Really, the only downside to it is that it won't autofocus with the D40, and I am not terribly worried about that anyways. It works with the focus light in the viewfinder, so I can still use that to tell when I am in focus, and I think the lack of autofocus will be a small price to pay for what should be a very excellent lens.


----------



## Towert7

Nice to hear you are liking your D300 Bloodydoorknob.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bloodydoorknob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This combo has been working really well for my walk around shooting these days: D300+Tamron 17-50 f/2.8._

 

Congrats on your combo! Exactly what I'm considering as well.
.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Does anyone know if Ritz camera will clean my camera? If not, Nikon is only in Long Island, so it wouldn't take too long to ship...


----------



## Towert7

Personally, I don't trust the staff of Ritz camera. They just never impressed me. 

 You have a few places that *may* do that for you:

 EMPIRE PLAZA 650 W AVE
 NORWALK CT 06850 203-866-3456

 FOTO ONE CAMERA CENTER 274 CONNECTICUT AVE
 NORWALK CT 06854 203-324-6000

 GREENWICH PHOTO SHOP 17 E PUTMAN AVE
 GREENWICH CT 06830 203-869-4325


----------



## bloodydoorknob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Congrats on your combo! Exactly what I'm considering as well.
._

 

Thanks! I was delighted to see a major improvement (over the D80) in all of my shots. I'm getting better color saturation and less noise at higher ISO's. It really is a wonderful body. My old 105mm micro nikkor works extremely well with it too!


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Personally, I don't trust the staff of Ritz camera. They just never impressed me. 

 You have a few places that *may* do that for you:

 EMPIRE PLAZA 650 W AVE
 NORWALK CT 06850 203-866-3456

 FOTO ONE CAMERA CENTER 274 CONNECTICUT AVE
 NORWALK CT 06854 203-324-6000

 GREENWICH PHOTO SHOP 17 E PUTMAN AVE
 GREENWICH CT 06830 203-869-4325_

 

What did you search for on switchboard/yellowpages/whatever?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What did you search for on switchboard/yellowpages/whatever?_

 

nikonusa.com > "Where to buy"

 If you go to nikonusa.com and click the "where to buy" link, type in your zip code, and it will give you local nikon retailers around you. Chances are, if they sell nikons, they may repair them..... or at least know of another place.


----------



## Towert7

My parents got a D80.

 I noticed a picture when using my D50 that made something black appear purple.
 I tried their D80, and no such purple colors. Both were set to auto incandescent WB (I just had my D50 set a little darker and more saturated).






 Looks like it's just something going on with my D50.
 :sigh:


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_(I just had my D50 set a little darker and *more saturated*)._

 

That'd do it.

 Also, on Auto WB, it's impossible to tell a thing. Try setting them both to the preset Incandescent mode.


----------



## nineohtoo

I've been spending quite a bit of time on the nikon cafe. Man, that place is absolutely worse than here(when it comes to upgraditis )! Weeks ago I would have never imagined spending more than $500 for a lens, considering this is only a hobby and not a profession. Now I'm saving for a 80-200mm f2.8(surfing mostly), and thinking of financing or selling a crapload of misc. gear around the house for a 10.5mm fisheye lol. I think I might even downsize or sell most of my headphone rig for it!

 So the guy I picked up my 50mm f1.8 from still had his 20mm f2.8 for sale. Me and my dad drove there to pick it up yesterday. Not quite the low light weapon the 50mm f1.8 is for me, but i'm loving the fast enough wide angle. I think all I need is a 35mm f2 and I'd honestly be really happy. I've been lusting for a Tokina 12-24mm so I can get a real wide angle DX lens, but f4 might not work too well in lowlight for me, and I think the 20/35/50 combo covers everything that _I_ enjoy shooting(except surfing). On the other hand, I could always save money by telling myself to paddle out instead of taking pictures 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Here's a shot of it(Taken with backup D70 w/50mm f1.8 + SB-800 @ 1/80 sec and f/4
 ):


----------



## dj_mocok

If you already got 20mm 2.8, I don't see any point getting 35mm f/2, unless you are really a collector type. Plus you already got your 50mm 1.8 for lowlight anyway.

 You should start saving for the upcoming Tokina 11-16mm 2.8


----------



## GTRacer

Or an 85 f/1.4...


----------



## Ansel

The Nikon 80-200/2.8 is a great lens. I have it for shooting wedding ceremonies (in a former life). Despite it's size I always found that the pictures made it worth the trouble of lugging it around. I would recommend using a mono pod to steady the lens while shooting at longer distances. Also, since the digital SLR's increase the focal length of standard lens because of the chip size, I would recommend looking at some wide angle lenses. Nikon has a 14mm 2.8 that gives the equivalent of a 21mm lens on film. Its super wide angle so there is relatively little distortion ( i.e not a fish-eye).


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That'd do it.

 Also, on Auto WB, it's impossible to tell a thing. Try setting them both to the preset Incandescent mode._

 

Oh, they were preset to the Incandescent mode.


----------



## nineohtoo

Quote:


 You should start saving for the upcoming Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 
 

Yeah. I'm looking forward to that one. I wanted a 12-24mm, but this look like it'll fit the bill. A tad bit wider, and a couple stops faster. Thanks for the tip on the 35mm 2.0. I figured if anything, I might as well sell my 50mm 1.8, and get a 50mm 1.4. 

 I was also recommended the 85mm 1.4, but that won't get me close enough to surfing or indoor events like the 80-200mm 2.8. It'll probably be even cheaper now that the 70-200mm are discontinued.


----------



## Towert7

Yea, the 80-200 F/2.8 is a good price. You're missing out the VR vs the new 70-200mm though, but it's about 1/2 the price of the 70-200mm.


----------



## ingwe

My Nikon VR 70-200 broke! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Intermittently, AF and VR won't work. I think I'm just out of warranty (need to dig out the receipt).


----------



## Towert7

You made sure the contacts are clean?


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You made sure the contacts are clean?_

 

yes, you could eat off it.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yes, you could eat off it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Oh that's scary!
 Well hope your warranty still covers it.


----------



## nineohtoo

I jumped the gun...






 It was only $400 though. Only thing that might bother me is a lack of a tripod collar, but we'll see how that goes.


----------



## dj_mocok

Great buy !


----------



## Towert7

What lens is it?


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Personally, I don't trust the staff of Ritz camera. They just never impressed me. 

 You have a few places that *may* do that for you:

 EMPIRE PLAZA 650 W AVE
 NORWALK CT 06850 203-866-3456

 FOTO ONE CAMERA CENTER 274 CONNECTICUT AVE
 NORWALK CT 06854 203-324-6000

 GREENWICH PHOTO SHOP 17 E PUTMAN AVE
 GREENWICH CT 06830 203-869-4325_

 

Just tried calling those three places...The first was some random person's cell phone, the second was a different business, the last was out of service.

 Am I screwed? There is no way I'm going to spend $180 to have my camera cleaned...


----------



## Towert7

Oh that's sorry to hear. Yea..... I don't know what you should do now.
 I've never had to give any of my cameras an inside cleaning luckily.


----------



## OverlordXenu

It's like this camera was thrown into a pile of dirt and never used. It's weird.

 I would have thought that Adorama would have cleaned it. I guess they don't.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What lens is it?_

 

That's the 80-200 f/2.8. It's not the newest model; it's the old 'push-pull' zoom style, but the optics are the same. The AF's a touch slower, but the biggest drawback's the lack of a tripod collar (i.e. you have to hand-hold the lens always; if you put the camera body attached to a tripod the lens is heavy enough to rip the mount out), but it's still a great lens.

 I'd love to own one oneday, but I'm waiting until I can afford either the 80-200 2-ring or the 70-200.


----------



## Towert7

Ah, I've looked at the lens on BHphoto...... but for some reason their picture didn't make it look half as big as this picture!
 Yikes.


----------



## jjcha

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh, they were preset to the Incandescent mode._

 

Does the D50 suffer from special sensitivity to IR? If it's only on synthetic blacks (e.g., a black cat looks fine) I'd look into that. There are IR-cut filters which may help in that case.

 Best regards,

 -Jason


----------



## Towert7

Thanks for the info Jason. Yes, it only ever occurs on synthetic materials, like a coat, a zipper fabric, etc. My black cat, as well as my camera lenses all show up as black.

 It's sensitive to something...... whether it's IR or UV I'm not sure yet. I do know one of my older P&S's would record IR (since I could see it on the LCD), and perhaps the D50 suffers the same thing. How strange.


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the info Jason. Yes, it only ever occurs on synthetic materials, like a coat, a zipper fabric, etc. My black cat, as well as my camera lenses all show up as black.

 It's sensitive to something...... whether it's IR or UV I'm not sure yet. I do know one of my older P&S's would record IR (since I could see it on the LCD), and perhaps the D50 suffers the same thing. How strange._

 

Well, hold up the transmitter end of a tv remote to the camera and take a picture


----------



## TheMarchingMule

I'm holding off from getting a DSLR (grad gift) until the D60 arrives Spring 2008.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheMarchingMule* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm holding off from getting a DSLR (grad gift) until the D60 arrives Spring 2008. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Would you like a side of 16-85VR fries with your vaporware burger? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You think the D60 will be a D40 form-factor w/12.2mp sensor? Or something else entirely?


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Would you like a side of 16-85VR fries with your vaporware burger? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You think the D60 will be a D40 form-factor w/12.2mp sensor? Or something else entirely?_

 

Nikon D60 DSLR press release leaked - Engadget


----------



## dj_mocok

Looks like Nikon is getting comfortable with all these 'accidentally leaked' informations, hehe...


----------



## fureshi

i guess we'll find out tomorrow when PMA starts. i was looking forward to a D80 replacement that would be more of a competitor to the 40D than a D40x replacement. but having said that, it would make sense for Nikon to come out with a D40x replacement that could go up against the 450D, that was recently announced.


----------



## Towert7

I'm waiting for Nikon to release a D300 style camera in Full Frame.
 I'd like to see this become the trend for Pro-sumer Cameras.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nikon D60 DSLR press release leaked - Engadget_

 

LOL, well that didn't take long! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I too am surprised that they've chosen to upgrade the D40x rather than the D80. It seems to me that releasing a D300FX or the like would be a bit too close to the D300's release to make much business sense. Though it would be nice to see at some point.


----------



## nineohtoo

I'm really disappointed that there's no DX primes still. But since their latest models are FX, I'm highly doubting we'll be seeing some any time soon.

 Picked up a Nikkor 12-24mm the other day for $500(and I thought head-fi was bad), and took it around Japan Town today:
















 I should have taken the last one with my 20mm, or 50mm. Oh well. Really fun lens, and I'm not even shooting landscape with it, or planning too. I *think* I'm done with lenses now. I hope so at least.


----------



## Towert7

Just visited NikonUSA, and they are announcing their D60.
Nikon USA: D60 Kit

 Looks to be a more compact D40, for better or worse.
 The lens compatibility info makes my head hurt.


----------



## dj_mocok

WHat? more compact than the D40? They might as well make it a point and shoot.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_WHat? more compact than the D40? They might as well make it a point and shoot. _

 

You know, I might have to take that back. I was looking at the stock images from nikon. It appears their new VR lens is a bit wider which made the D60 look smaller in comparison. I saw side by side pictures, and the D40 and D60 look VERY close in size.


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

If anyones interested, I have some shots up on flickr playing around with the new lens. 

Flickr

 Everything from the picture of the lens up was taken with it. Nothing amazing... i was trying to get a nice sun-set, which sort of disappointed, and it got real dark real fast after that. As such, all the pictures are pretty dark. 

 Still though, I am super happy with this lens, its great, especially considering the price. I was afraid the lack of autofocus might be a bother, but it's really not at all. At first, I had the focus indicator to peek at, and after just a few days of use I don't even usually rely on that. 

 I really need to find some more opportunities to use it. I missed a a decent photo op today being stuck at work (it was very windy, and there was a huge cloud of snow blowing off pikes peak, it was pretty cool)


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Towert7, the D60 has the same housing as the D40, IIRC, so it's the same size..

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Picked up a Nikkor 12-24mm the other day for $500(and I thought head-fi was bad)_

 

Wow, where from?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jmmtn4aj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Towert7, the D60 has the same housing as the D40, IIRC, so it's the same size.._

 

Thanks for the info.


----------



## jayehs

Someone at work is selling his half year old D200 body only for $750. 

 Purchased June 2007 from a camera store right across work for $1599. Still have the receipt, all the boxes, accessories. About 1500 actuations, no scratches or dents. Nothing wrong with the camera. Good deal? I'm pretty tempted.


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jayehs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Someone at work is selling his half year old D200 body only for $750. 

 Purchased June 2007 from a camera store right across work for $1599. Still have the receipt, all the boxes, accessories. About 1500 actuations, no scratches or dents. Nothing wrong with the camera. Good deal? I'm pretty tempted._

 

Yeah it's a pretty frickin' good deal.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jayehs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Someone at work is selling his half year old D200 body only for $750. 

 Purchased June 2007 from a camera store right across work for $1599. Still have the receipt, all the boxes, accessories. About 1500 actuations, no scratches or dents. Nothing wrong with the camera. Good deal? I'm pretty tempted._

 

Yea, I think I'd take that over a D80.
 ^_^


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jayehs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Someone at work is selling his half year old D200 body only for $750. 

 Purchased June 2007 from a camera store right across work for $1599. Still have the receipt, all the boxes, accessories. About 1500 actuations, no scratches or dents. Nothing wrong with the camera. Good deal? I'm pretty tempted._

 

Please tell me that you bought it straight away. If not maybe I can buy it. I'm not sure if he was high on acid but $750 for a barely used D200 is a frickin steal you should go to jail. 1,500 shutter is like a 4-5 days shooting for me.


----------



## nineohtoo

I suppose a lo of people are making their upgrades to D300s, because I've seem some on craigslist here go $900ish.


----------



## kurumaya

The best bokeh of any Nikkor I have had is the 105mm macro. I almost never use it these days, as the 18-200 never seems to come off. 
 I've been into night shots lately:


----------



## nineohtoo

^Both from 18-200? Is the first shot hand painted with an LED light? Nonetheless, both are fantastic.


----------



## kurumaya

Yes, both are taken with the 18-200VR, shot from a tripod. That first shot was me with my led headlamp doing some light painting. 

 I'm going to start watching for D200 deals. I love the D80, but the weather sealing would open up some possibilities.


----------



## jayehs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Please tell me that you bought it straight away. If not maybe I can buy it. I'm not sure if he was high on acid but $750 for a barely used D200 is a frickin steal you should go to jail. 1,500 shutter is like a 4-5 days shooting for me._

 

No 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 I don't really *need* the upgrade at the moment and i have few big purchases coming up. Only reason why i was considering was because it seemed like a really good deal. Still 1.5 years warranty left on it too.

 I talked to him for a while when he was showing me his D200. Seemed like a really nice guy. He's upgrading to D300 or D3 but he's not in a hurry to sell since it's winter and he doesn't go outside too much to take pics. Only reason why he's selling it cheaper is because it's through work. 

 *sigh* what to do... 

 How does transfer of ownership work with Nikon?


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kurumaya* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The best bokeh of any Nikkor I have had is the 105mm macro. I almost never use it these days, as the 18-200 never seems to come off. 
 I've been into night shots lately:









_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^Both from 18-200? Is the first shot hand painted with an LED light? Nonetheless, both are fantastic._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kurumaya* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, both are taken with the 18-200VR, shot from a tripod. That first shot was me with my led headlamp doing some light painting. 

 I'm going to start watching for D200 deals. I love the D80, but the weather sealing would open up some possibilities._

 

What? I thought they were screenshots taken from the Warcraft series of games LOL. Something about the trees and colours..


----------



## Towert7

It definitely does look like something right out of a blizzard game.


----------



## kurumaya

I hadn't noticed that, but it kinda looks like Winterspring. It felt way less creepy actually being there, though...


----------



## Towert7

I do have to say, that the new Kit lens for the D60 looks much MUCH better than the kits lenses before it on things like the D50 and D40.
 EX: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma...n/DSC_0365.jpg

 16-85, easy manual focus ring, and VR......... wow, that's quite a robust kit lens.


----------



## uppis

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but thats not D60 kit lens, D60 comes with 18-55mm VR. But that 16-85mm VR is pretty nice looking lens, now I'm just waiting to see some pictures with it..


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *uppis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm sorry to disappoint you, but thats not D60 kit lens, D60 comes with 18-55mm VR. But that 16-85mm VR is pretty nice looking lens, now I'm just waiting to see some pictures with it.._

 

POP! Thats the sound of my happy bubble being popped.
 Ah, that disappoints me!


----------



## Csidinim

you'll be able to purchase it for around $500. a good alternative to the 18-200 and starting off with better impressions.


----------



## nineohtoo

Hi, guys. I just took my 85mm 2.0 AIs out tonight for a show to decide if I should keep it. Here's some shots I were happy with. 

 Pardon the softness of the images(Mostly camera shake and improper focus), this is my first time shooting a concert/club event, and I really plan on doing a lot more if I can get a camera in, so please critique and criticize! Thanks for looking.

 BTW, all were shot with 85mm AIs 2.0 at f2, 1/30" and ISO 1000. EDIT: first two are w/50mm @ 1.8. Sorry about that. 


























 Do you guys think it's a keeper?


----------



## Towert7

My only gripe is the blurred heads in the front bottom of the pics.


----------



## kurumaya

The lighting is good, and framing as well. The crowd kinda works in that last picture, but it's a bit distracting in the first ones. Ever try just raising the camera above your head and doing a rough aim?


----------



## lan

I think you need a faster shutter speed. A sharper photo but noisier is still better IMO.

 As for the rough aiming, that' definitely takes some practice. There's no way to stabilize unfortunately so you'll need faster shutter speeds here. I would prefocus or manually focus and have focusing off when it's in the air.

 I prefer to use wider angle since depth of field is deeper so there's more leeway in nailing the focus. Wide open and telephoto require more precision to get a sharp image.


----------



## Arainach

For dark clubs like that, ISO1600's a minimum. 2400 or 3200 if you have them are preferable. It's impossible to get enough light to get the shutter speeds you want. The shots aren't bad per se, but you can see definite subject motion blur, which indicates that faster shutter speds are needed.


----------



## dj_mocok

That kind of borderline lighting, that's the time when a 1.4 lens is paying for itself. Especially on longer lens, that's the time when even 1/10 extra of shutter speed will make a break the shot in regards to how you can handhold the shot. With 85mm, I think I wouldn't shoot at anything slower than 1/40. It would be too difficult to get good success rate. I'm more comfortable in around 1/60 range (when I have to), but if you can get it to around 1/100 or 1/80, the difference is a big in terms of handholdability (is that even a word?)

 But with your f/2, don't be afraid to push your ISO to 1600 especially if you camera is a newer one. With ISO1600, the grain isn't that bad, what you will notice is the details are decreased. (eg. if you nail the focus on the face, the eyelash may not be so detailed).

 But overall, it will still give a perfectly nice image. Can't say the same with 3200 though. I think I'd go for 1600 max. No more than that. From that point the quality is going downhill


----------



## OverlordXenu

Well, it looks like I'm going to be forced to send my camera to Nikon. I've asked a ton of photographers, friends, photography teachers, etc...There are like no repair shops or camera shops around here except for Ritz...And they've screwed up so many rolls of film (friends and family) over the years, I am hesitant to trust them with my camera.

 So it's off to Nikon to get looked over for the cost of the camera.


----------



## nineohtoo

Picked up a Sigma 16mm fisheye. It's really tempting me to trade my 12-24mm for the 10.5mm 2.8. I'll see if I can get by with this in the meantime though. Primes FTW!


----------



## jmmtn4aj

That's an.. interesting collection.. o.O


----------



## OverlordXenu

Do I see a medium format camera in there?


----------



## Arainach

Would explain the Mamiya lens.

 Medium format I can understand; what I want to know is what traitor keeps a Canon in there.


----------



## nineohtoo

Oh those aren't mine haha. I bought it from the guy who owned those lenses. Before my shift I went by the photo show, and the fisheye really caught my eye. I always showed some interest in Nikon's 10.5mm, but I wasn't that comfortable for a specialty lens at that asking price(I probably won't use it much outside of skateboarding). I came back to buy it on my lunch break. This one was only a $140 16mm, so it's really not all that wide on my D70, but it still has nice distortion


----------



## Arainach

The problem is that due to the way a Fisheye distorts, a full-frame fisheye won't have a real fisheye effect on a DX sensor. Get yourself an old Film Body and have some fun.


----------



## bahamaman

I've been following this thread (and hundreds of others on various Nikon boards) and need some advice.

 My wife wants to get deeper into photography, to go beyond her decent point and shoot. She's got a good eye for composition and is super motivated to learn.

 I am thinking of getting her a D300 for Valentines Day but I am in a quandry about getting the right lens. She shoots mainly people and landscapes, no sports. She tells me she would like a VR lens, so the 18-200 seems a logical choice. Even so, I am concerned that's overkill for her needs. I am leaning toward the 17-55 2.8 Nikkor. My question is this. Given the shorter focal length and speed of the 17-55, how likely is it that camera shake will be a problem?

 Any other suggestions?


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bahamaman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've been following this thread (and hundreds of others on various Nikon boards) and need some advice.

 My wife wants to get deeper into photography, to go beyond her decent point and shoot. She's got a good eye for composition and is super motivated to learn.

 I am thinking of getting her a D300 for Valentines Day but I am in a quandry about getting the right lens. She shoots mainly people and landscapes, no sports. She tells me she would like a VR lens, so the 18-200 seems a logical choice. Even so, I am concerned that's overkill for her needs. I am leaning toward the 17-55 2.8 Nikkor. My question is this. Given the shorter focal length and speed of the 17-55, how likely is it that camera shake will be a problem?

 Any other suggestions?_

 

Whoa...I don't know if it would be a good idea to jump right into something like the D300 right away.

 I have to say, an all-manual camera is _a lot_ of fun. That's how I learned, that's how my mother learned, that's how my friends who are really into photography learned. Nikon FM10 and start lens = fun.

 If you don't want to go that route (which I think would be a mistake, honestly...there's _nothing_ in digital like seeing your first roll of film on a light table, or seeing your first picture start to appear in developer...it's just a magical feeling), the 18-200 is supposed to be an amazing lens (I wouldn't know, I can't afford it) and I doubt she would be disappointed. The D300 is also supposed to be an amazing camera. (Again, too poor, etc.)

 I like How to Do Anything Photographic, myself.


----------



## bahamaman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Whoa...I don't know if it would be a good idea to jump right into something like the D300 right away._

 

Yes, that worries me a bit as well. What I would hate to do, OTOH, is get her a D80 to start and then later regret not spending the extra $ to go all the way to the top of the heap (or at least pretty close to the top!).


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bahamaman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, that worries me a bit as well. What I would hate to do, OTOH, is get her a D80 to start and then later regret not spending the extra $ to go all the way to the top of the heap (or at least pretty close to the top!)._

 

Even the D80.

 I think she may have more fun with an all-manual film camera, at least I do.

 If you want to start her in digital, I'd go with the D40. Ken Rockwell has said that he really only uses the D40 and D300 (or something along those lines).


----------



## lan

I'd get D80 or used D200 and various lenses. But it depends what kind of situations and photography she's into so you should find out. I like D300 because it's more rugged, better ISO, lens tweaking, and live view but unless you need those, it makes no sense to get.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bahamaman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My wife wants to get deeper into photography, to go beyond her decent point and shoot. She's got a good eye for composition and is super motivated to learn. I am thinking of getting her a D300 ...the 18-200 seems a logical choice._

 

You should find out how she feels about the weight of a camera. The feel of the camera can make a big difference to women. A D300 with an 18-200 might feel solid to a man, but it might be like carrying around a brick for a woman. I would suggest getting a D40 and a smaller lens to start, and then get an 18-200 if she expresses interest in it.

 Money is best spent on glass. The differences in different models of camera bodies is more a matter of build quality (read weight) and some features she might not even use. The only one I can think of between the D300 and D40 is the live view.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

A D300 and good lens........ I see money is not much of an object for you.
 In that case, there really is no reason to get anything short of the D300 (assuming she likes the feel and weight of it). For all those saying start simple........ nah........ jump right into it and have the most flexibility. It'll pay off.
 It's great when you don't have to go through menus to change certain functions, all you do is flip a switch.


 Ok, as for lens.

 17-55 is more on the wide side. It would be tough to get a tight closeup of a person when you are far away. The 'people' zoom lens is the 24-70mm, or older 28-70mm. Sadly, neither of these have VR, but they are beautiful lenses.

 On the other hand, like you mention, you can consider the 18-200VR for a fraction of the cost. The pluses? It's smaller, lighter, more inconspicuous, does have VR, has a wider zoom range. The cons? It's not Full frame (though that doesn't matter on any nikon digital except the D3), aperture not as fast as the 24-70mm, images perhaps not as crisp, but close.

 I'd start off with the 18-200. The added flexibility of the zoom range is a big help, especially when first learning the shots one can get on the SLR. The smaller size and weight are also a great thing. That and a D300, golden!

 You asked about aperture speed vs. VR. If you are taking pics of moving subjects, VR does not help! VR is good for static images. For serious people pictures, the faster aperture is preferred. 

 If she plans on taking a lot of indoor pictures, consider one of the SB speed lights soon. Much better than the built in flash, and it opens up the option of bouncing the flash.


 Boy, what a valentines day gift! It'll be a wonderful camera that she'll enjoy immensely.

 Keep us posted on how it goes.


----------



## fureshi

i recently purchased a D40 for my girlfriend as a christmas gift and she loves the camera. in the past, she has done some point and shoot photography but the camera held her back. 

 now with the D40, she's starting off slowly and mainly using the P setting. i think if i had purchased something like the D300 for her, all of the functions that would be convenient for seasoned photography enthusiasts, would intimidate her.


----------



## bahamaman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A D300 and good lens........ I see money is not much of an object for you.

 In that case, there really is no reason to get anything short of the D300 

 Boy, what a valentines day gift! It'll be a wonderful camera that she'll enjoy immensely. Keep us posted on how it goes._

 

Money is always an issue, but she has been so unfailingly supportive of my audio addiction, I felt it was about time to pony up with something truly special just for her.

 Present thinking is that I will get the 18-200 and, either immediately or after, get the 50mm or 85mm prime lens, probably the 1.8 (not 1.4). That way, she can have the best of both worlds. Great indoor, low-light portraits of kids and dogs, uber flexible 18-200 for everything else.

 I'm even planning to enroll her in an upcoming 8 hour workshop on the D300 put on by the folks at nikonians later this month.

 Thanks for all the help and advice.


----------



## lan

If you truly want a do it all camera, the D300 is an excellent option! I'm not really that excited about the 18-200VR but it'll at least show you what range you like to use the most on the camera and plan the next lens upgrade.


----------



## bahamaman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you truly want a do it all camera, the D300 is an excellent option! I'm not really that excited about the 18-200VR but it'll at least show you what range you like to use the most on the camera and plan the next lens upgrade. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Actually, I am not totally sold on the 18-200 either, but I felt that its versatility and Vibration Reduction might make it a good starting point. I would probably prefer one of the Pro lens, maybe the 17-55 or even the wicked pricey 24 (or is it 28?) - 70.

 As you say, we could always upgrade later. Just what the family needs . . . two expensive hobbies


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not really that excited about the 18-200VR_

 

It's not that bad, probably better than you expect. It is bested by nikon's best primes, but not by much.

 Just a few examples (sorry 56'ers):




















 All taken with the 18-200VR and my D50.
 Not bad I would say. Again, not quite as crisp as my 50mm fixed..... but very close. They look lovely printed. I've done an 10x15 of the butterfly and really love it! Easily could have gone larger.

 Nikon seems to have used a lot of aspherical lens elements on it to try and increase sharpness. It worked. A downside though, is it's hard to get good bokeh. I can't really get a tight DOF with it or very soft bokeh.


----------



## bahamaman

Towert7 - wow, wonderful pics! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bahamaman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, I am not totally sold on the 18-200 either, but I felt that its versatility and Vibration Reduction might make it a good starting point. I would probably prefer one of the Pro lens, maybe the 17-55 or even the wicked pricey 24 (or is it 28?) - 70._

 

The 18-200VR is a really nice lens. It's fairly priced at 670$us. The other, more specific, lenses that cost 1600$ and up are when you get serious and need the best performance from the lens. Seriously though, feel the weight of the 18-200VR and the 24-70mm on the camera itself, and you'll see that the 24-70mm is a beast! I have the 10 year old 35-70mm nikkor, and even that is fairly heavy. The 24 (or 28) - 70mm is quite a bit heavier, and certainly much bigger.
 Yea, I'd start with the 18-200 and take it from there.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bahamaman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Towert7 - wow, wonderful pics! Thanks for sharing._

 

Thanks!


----------



## jterp7

wow Towert..I also have a D50 + 50mm 1.4 and 18-200VR and none of my pics look that good lol...most likely user error though -_-


----------



## Towert7

Jterp7, thank you for the nice comment!
 Give it time, and lots and lots of practice. Then, all that you need to do is photograph what makes you happy, and I simply know that you will take wonderful pictures!


----------



## nineohtoo

Towert7: The bokeh doesn't look as bad as you make it seem, particularly on the butterfly. Which is a really nice picture BTW.

 I think the 18-200 would be a wise decision to start off with. I started with a D40 and 18-135mm just to get a feel for what I was going to shoot. If she find she needs particular lenses for what she needs, you guys can always find someone who likes it, or keep it as a travel lens. But once she finds what she needs, it's gonna be bad...

 For me it's worse than head-fi. My current camera gear is worth well more than my car's blue book value, and how much I currently have floating around my room that's in between trades and sales... and to think, I only picked up that D40 during black friday


----------



## Towert7

Thanks nineohtoo!

 Ah, but it's a fun and harmless addiction, albeit expensive.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

But you have to look at the cost ceiling. A D3 is $5k, and the most any non-supertele lenses cost is ~$2k. Whereas one can easily shell out $30k+ for a top-end source or set of speakers


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's not that bad, probably better than you expect. It is bested by nikon's best primes, but not by much.

 Just a few examples (sorry 56'ers):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2416/...1a21d28b_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/221/4...a4e815d6_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2266/...3f37dddc_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1285/...0978a07d_b.jpg

 All taken with the 18-200VR and my D50.
 Not bad I would say. Again, not quite as crisp as my 50mm fixed..... but very close. They look lovely printed. I've done an 10x15 of the butterfly and really love it! Easily could have gone larger.

 Nikon seems to have used a lot of ED glass on it to try and increase sharpness. It worked. A downside though, is it's hard to get good bokeh. I can't really get a tight DOF with it or very soft bokeh._

 

Dude, whatever, man. Your photos just prove to me again that the Photographer behind the body and lense is most important. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll bet that you could shoot better pics with a point and shoot than if I had a D3 and the 28mm f/1.4. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Your photos are simply gorgeous. Oversaturated, but gorgeous.

 -Ed


----------



## dj_mocok

Cat with digital camera. I swear he takes better pictures than my partner! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I should mount similar cam to a grandma and setup grandma-strapped-with-cam project and see how it comes out.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dude, whatever, man. Your photos just prove to me again that the Photographer behind the body and lense is most important. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I'll bet that you could shoot better pics with a point and shoot than if I had a D3 and the 28mm f/1.4. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Your photos are simply gorgeous. Oversaturated, but gorgeous.

 -Ed_

 

:blushes:
 Thanks Ed!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cat with digital camera. I swear he takes better pictures than my partner! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I should mount similar cam to a grandma and setup grandma-strapped-with-cam project and see how it comes out._

 

Haha!!!!! That's hilarious, both the partner comment and the grandma idea.

 It wouldn't work on my cat....... all i'd get would be her favorite chair, the litter box, or the food bowl. Really nifty idea though. I'm amazed the cat gets used to it.


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

Anyone here real knowledgeable on the D70s? I have the opportunity to swap out my D40 for it for $50. Good idea? By the looks of it, its definitely bigger, but thats not a huge deal. I don't like the fact that it wont work with my batteries or SD cards, but I can deal. What I do like is having a focus motor.... i don't know what else is different about these cameras though. 

 Any insight?

 (either that, or, anyone got a D80 they want to sell 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## dj_mocok

Pictures! (Taken with a Nikon 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Gil Schwartzman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone here real knowledgeable on the D70s? I have the opportunity to swap out my D40 for it for $50. Good idea? By the looks of it, its definitely bigger, but thats not a huge deal. I don't like the fact that it wont work with my batteries or SD cards, but I can deal. What I do like is having a focus motor.... i don't know what else is different about these cameras though. 

 Any insight?

 (either that, or, anyone got a D80 they want to sell 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)_

 

Stick with a d40. Ken Rockwell doesn't like those mid-level cameras. He likes his D40 and D3.


----------



## nineohtoo

Quote:


 Gil Schwartzman 
 

Great upgrade. I've liked the camera so much I upgraded my one month old D40 to both a D70s and D70. 

 The only good thing thing that the D40 already had is a high flash sync, as well as being able to be tricked into a higher flash sync(at least I think D40 is one of them). Bigger screen, is definitely a plus, but I can get by w/o it.

 D70s has a high flash sync on its own, and can even go higher with the modified SC-17(I have two on the way). I think only the D40 and D50 are the other one's that share the 1/500". The rest I believe only go up to 1/250". It's got a depth of field preview button, it can wirelessly trigger the SB-800 and SB-600(big benefit if you can't afford something like a Pocket Wizard at the mment), and ability to auto focus with all F mount AF lenses. I feel the bigger size and separate controls for aperture and shutter speed are a plus, but those are really just a matter of preference. 

 I personally think that the D70 is really all an amateur will ever need(unless you want to meter with AIs lenses), and if you need a bigger screen, you can always get a D80. Otherwise a used D70 is a bargain.


----------



## MoxMonkey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Stick with a d40. Ken Rockwell doesn't like those mid-level cameras. He likes his D40 and D3. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

ken rockwell's also a twit when it comes to many things

 the d70 does have some advantages over the d40 mainly a focus motor in the body itself allowing for a much wider selection of lenses being able to autofocus

 but switching most likely wouldn't be the greatest idea considering the d70 most likely has a lot more wear than your d40 itself would


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Great upgrade. I've liked the camera so much I upgraded my one month old D40 to both a D70s and D70. 

 The only good thing thing that the D40 already had is a high flash sync, as well as being able to be tricked into a higher flash sync(at least I think D40 is one of them). Bigger screen, is definitely a plus, but I can get by w/o it.

 D70s has a high flash sync on its own, and can even go higher with the modified SC-17(I have two on the way). I think only the D40 and D50 are the other one's that share the 1/500". The rest I believe only go up to 1/250". It's got a depth of field preview button, it can wirelessly trigger the SB-800 and SB-600(big benefit if you can't afford something like a Pocket Wizard at the mment), and ability to auto focus with all F mount AF lenses. I feel the bigger size and separate controls for aperture and shutter speed are a plus, but those are really just a matter of preference. 

 I personally think that the D70 is really all an amateur will ever need(unless you want to meter with AIs lenses), and if you need a bigger screen, you can always get a D80. Otherwise a used D70 is a bargain._

 

While I would take a D70s over the D40 anyday, the original D70 is pretty dated these days and has been surpassed in many ways be even the D50. Another big killer for me is that the D70's noise performance is mediocre compared to the tweaked D70s and D50. For some the difference may be minimal but I shoot a lot at ISO 800/1600 and the D70 does not fare very well at high sensitivities. 

 With prices the way they are, I would personally go with either a D50 or a D200. If you're just starting out, you probably won't be using the expanded feature set of the D70s so the D50 should be all you need and the bodies can be had for about $350 whereas the D70s bodies are still going for about $450. If you're looking for something more than the D50, or more importantly something that you can shoot with your old glass, go straight for the D200. I've seen D200s with MB-D200 grips go for only $900-950 and it offers you so much more than the D80. I think this will in fact be next camera as I have some really good old glass, namely my 35mm 1.4 that I adore, that I would love to be able to meter with. Shooting test shots or bracketing just takes too long for non-still objects on the D50.


----------



## Towert7

My only gripe with my D50 is: The small viewfinder, and the lack of a light on the top LED. For my needs, it fits me very nice. A D300 would just be for simplicity by having more knobs instead of pushing buttons. A D50, D70s, D80, D200........ plenty enough for most people.


----------



## uppis

I own D50, and your so right, lack of the light in top LCD is maybe the most annoying thing in whole body. Also, sometimes I find it too limited with settings, for example missing button for exposure in Manual mode drives me crazy time by time. I'm thinking about upgrading to D300, but I'm not sure yet is the price worth it, I could buy a nice lens with that money too.

 EDI. Don't get me wrong, I think its still pretty nice camera for its price, and compared to D40 the AF motor in body is just great.


----------



## jterp7

I had a chance to finally play with a D300 in a ritz store..and wow it feels quite substantial. It took me a bit to get used to all the knobs/buttons since it's quite different from the D50 setup. But having played with it, I think an upgrade to the D200 is in order. A buddy of mine picked one up for 600 with only 1000 shutter actuations on it, not bad.


----------



## fureshi

i have the same gripes with my d50, that and the fact that you can't lock up the mirror for night shots, only for cleaning the sensor. still, it's a great starter camera for me and i don't think i'll ever let it go. for a short time last year, i also had the d70s but i ended up getting rid of it as anything over iso800 was too noisy compared to the d50. 

 now if i could only find a d200 for $600, i'd be all over it. having so many functions on dedicated buttons makes shooting easier instead of having to dig through menus.


----------



## nickknutson

I'm thinking about getting a flash for my D80. What are your guys' opinion on the whole SB600 v. SB800 debate? Will the 600 be enough for a rookie like myself? Or should I just jump to the 800 and save myself some time?


----------



## ozz

so far i have not needed anything the sb600 can not do,but i am new at
 this.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Well, I would have bought a diffuser for the SB600 anyway, which brings the cost difference of it and the SB800 down to about $100. I've so often read that people end up with the SB800, and end up with a little-used SB600 in the process, I just decided to go straight to the top.


----------



## xdfjdkz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nickknutson* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm thinking about getting a flash for my D80. What are your guys' opinion on the whole SB600 v. SB800 debate? Will the 600 be enough for a rookie like myself? Or should I just jump to the 800 and save myself some time?_

 

Just buy an SB-24, 26 or 28 and learn to shoot manual, its great.

 Learn about it here: Strobist


----------



## GTRacer

Get an SB-800 and mess around with the built-in wireless commander in the D80.


----------



## nickknutson

Have any of you made a quicktime virtual tour with your photography?
 I'm looking to make one, and need some help.


----------



## OverlordXenu

What does everyone think of the 24-120 streetsweeper? I am thinking of getting one, mainly for the VR, but also for the zoom.

 I use a film camera, so no nerfed DX lenses for me.

 I've got around $200-$300 to drop on a lens.


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

Decided to go ahead and get that D70. Apparently, my sisters boss has a D70s and I got to play with his camera a bit tonight. The screen on top was a lot better than using the back LCD for making settings, and that second dial under the shutter button rocks. I like the feel of that 18-70mm lens too. Likewise, I liked the size of it better. The D40 is pretty small in my hands. 

 All in all, I can't complain. For a mere $20 I'll be swapping my kit D40 for a Kit D70 w/ 18-70mm lens, two extra batteries, a 1 gig cf card, a bag, a padded strap, and promaster UV and polarizing filters. Don't think I can beat that. I'll be very happy when I get it.

 After that, I am looking at a 70-300mm VR. Someone has one on Craigslist in my area for $300, and it's damn tempting.


----------



## Towert7

Wow, what an upgrade, and all for 20$!!!

 I have the real old version of the 70-300mm. I really love it, execpt that mine doesn't have VR and it has a fair amount of chromatic aberration. From what I gather, the 70-300VR has nicer optics. That plus the VR really makes it a nice budget telephoto.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What does everyone think of the 24-120 streetsweeper? I am thinking of getting one, mainly for the VR, but also for the zoom.

 I use a film camera, so no nerfed DX lenses for me.

 I've got around $200-$300 to drop on a lens._

 

From what I've seen, it seems comparable to the 18-200mm, only for FF. At the price, I bet it's worth every penny.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_From what I've seen, it seems comparable to the 18-200mm, only for FF. At the price, I bet it's worth every penny._

 

Really? I was actually considering this lens since it would mate well with my 70-300 VR and a 12-24 Tokina but everywhere I've read says that it's not a very sharp lens. Some people actually took their camera in for service thinking it was their camera and not their brand new lens!

 On a different note, I got a chance to see my friend's 30D and 10-22 and wow! I thought 18 was decent enough for what I do but 10mm is ridiculously wide, even on digital.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really? I was actually considering this lens since it would mate well with my 70-300 VR and a 12-24 Tokina but everywhere I've read says that it's not a very sharp lens. Some people actually took their camera in for service thinking it was their camera and not their brand new lens!

 On a different note, I got a chance to see my friend's 30D and 10-22 and wow! I thought 18 was decent enough for what I do but 10mm is ridiculously wide, even on digital._

 

I haven't had a chance to use one myself but I've heard similar things - high levels of distortion and not-that-great sharpness.

 And, yeah, ultrawides are a load of fun. I've tried a friend's Sigma 10-20mm on my D50 before, and it was unbelievable. I'd like to get one myself eventually, but I don't foresee any budget for camera expenses in the next year or so.


----------



## uppis

Talking about ultrawides, what would be your recommendition for widest, cheapes and best quality one..? I'm thinking about Tokina 12-24mm, but I'm not quite sure yet. And I live in a place where is no photography stores near, so testing is quite hard..


----------



## nineohtoo

^get that one. From the pics on nikon cafe, flare seems to be the only noticeable difference between the two. I sold my nikkor 12-24mm yesterday to help pay for my eeepc, and i didn't really like it. I'd personally wait for a DX f2.8 wide angle(I'm on the fence about the fisheye), but that's me. I'm not much of a landscape person, and f4 made the pictures I took with it boring imo. I prefer my 20mm 2.8, even if its really a 30mm. 

 I got it for $500 w/filters and sold it for $650 w/o filters(i needed them for my 80-200mm) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 and then i got my eeepc for cheaper than retail with more ram


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *uppis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Talking about ultrawides, what would be your recommendition for widest, cheapes and best quality one..? I'm thinking about Tokina 12-24mm, but I'm not quite sure yet. And I live in a place where is no photography stores near, so testing is quite hard.._

 

The build quality and optics on the Tokina are great but there's a significant amount of chromatic aberration. I personally can't stand purple fringing so that broke the deal for me but it can be corrected in CS3 if you're not lazy like I am. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Other than the CA and the flaring the poster above mentioned, it's a really great lens, especially if you can get one for between $350-400.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really? I was actually considering this lens since it would mate well with my 70-300 VR and a 12-24 Tokina but everywhere I've read says that it's not a very sharp lens. Some people actually took their camera in for service thinking it was their camera and not their brand new lens!

 On a different note, I got a chance to see my friend's 30D and 10-22 and wow! I thought 18 was decent enough for what I do but 10mm is ridiculously wide, even on digital._

 

I've also read that it's not very sharp...but I doubt it's so unsharp as to inhibit your photos.

 If you're not taking product photos, I doubt it will matter.

 On that note, I'm trying to get the VR version on ebay.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^get that one. From the pics on nikon cafe, flare seems to be the only noticeable difference between the two. I sold my nikkor 12-24mm yesterday to help pay for my eeepc, and i didn't really like it. I'd personally wait for a DX f2.8 wide angle(I'm on the fence about the fisheye), but that's me. I'm not much of a landscape person, and f4 made the pictures I took with it boring imo. I prefer my 20mm 2.8, even if its really a 30mm. 

 I got it for $500 w/filters and sold it for $650 w/o filters(i needed them for my 80-200mm) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and then i got my eeepc for cheaper than retail with more ram 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that fisheye doesn't work nearly as well on digital as it does on film.


----------



## uppis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The build quality and optics on the Tokina are great but there's a significant amount of chromatic aberration. I personally can't stand purple fringing so that broke the deal for me but it can be corrected in CS3 if you're not lazy like I am. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Other than the CA and the flaring the poster above mentioned, it's a really great lens, especially if you can get one for between $350-400._

 

I find chromatic aberration quite irritating too, I like when I don't need to mess with photoshop too much, in best cases pictures are ready straight out camera. Although BW is always something for PS.. Is Nikkor 12-24 better with CA?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that fisheye doesn't work nearly as well on digital as it does on film._

 

The effect is reduced on DX.


----------



## fureshi

i had the 24-120vr for a while and thought that it was a good lens for the price that i purchased it at, $300. the only thing that i didn't like about it was that the bottom end wasn't wide enough. i don't pixel peep but i didn't notice any issues with sharpness or distortion while color and contrast looked great. if it's a range that works for you, i say get it. i enjoyed it when i had it.


----------



## OverlordXenu

I just got one on ebay for around that. I can't wait.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just got one on ebay for around that. I can't wait. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Keep us posted on how it works.


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, what an upgrade, and all for 20$!!!

 I have the real old version of the 70-300mm. I really love it, execpt that mine doesn't have VR and it has a fair amount of chromatic aberration. From what I gather, the 70-300VR has nicer optics. That plus the VR really makes it a nice budget telephoto._

 

Yup 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. I am freakin excited. Should be here any day now. 

 I went to check out the 70-300 VR yesterday. As I didn't have a camera with me, he let me play with it on his D200. It was a sweet little lens. I spent about a half hour playing around with it and really liked it. It's a lot bigger than I thought too... fully extended its a monster. I will probably be picking it up in a week, but he said I was the only one to contact him about it, so it should still be around whenever I can pay for it.


----------



## OverlordXenu

So, does anyone think Nikon is going to start moving away from DX and back to FF lenses with the D3? It'd be awesome if they made a FF 18-200mm.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, does anyone think Nikon is going to start moving away from DX and back to FF lenses with the D3? It'd be awesome if they made a FF 18-200mm._

 

They already did..........................
 Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the D3 came out they released 3-4 new FF lenses. I believe they may have also released a couple of more FF since then.

 Yea, if anything, I would think they drop the DX line if they begin to make their budget DSLR's full frame as well.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They already did..........................
 Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the D3 came out they released 3-4 new FF lenses. I believe they may have also released a couple of more FF since then.

 Yea, if anything, I would think they drop the DX line if they begin to make their budget DSLR's full frame as well._

 

Really?


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Nah, an FF 18-200 VR Nikkor doesn't exist yet. It would be 28-300. Right now with the D3 being the only FF DSLR, it hardly seems worthwhile to release a consumer lens, which all superzooms are. If we ever see consumer digital full-frames (all current ones are pro or semi-pro regardless of brand), then maybe.. yeah.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really?_

 

Nikon USA: PC-E NIKKOR 24mm f/3.5D ED
Nikon USA: AF-S Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED
Nikon USA: AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mmf/2.8G ED
Nikon USA: AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
Nikon USA: AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
Nikon USA: AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR
Nikon USA: AF-S NIKKOR 600mmf/4G ED VR

 I believe all these came out after the D3/D300. Yea, they wanted to make sure the D3 had a fresh new lineup of FF lenses.

 If (and I would expect this may be the case in 2 years), all budget DSLR switch to FF, these DX lenses might be phased out in time, and thus having a DX camera would become a burden, because you have to find those darn DX lenses that are no longer made........ if that makes any sense.


----------



## OverlordXenu

If anyone wants a 24-120mm VR lens, there is one up on ebay for about $210 shipped, but no one has bit...Mainly because there isn't a description and the picture is a stock photo of the old, non-VR version. I did, however, PM the seller and he said that the glass was good, and the lens is a VR version.

 It ends in around 50 minutes.

 Item number 160207864337


----------



## Towert7

haha, i've heard horror stories of people saying a lens has no mold, only to receive the lens and find mold. I wouldn't buy a lens used, but that's me.


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If (and I would expect this may be the case in 2 years), all budget DSLR switch to FF, these DX lenses might be phased out in time, and thus having a DX camera would become a burden, because you have to find those darn DX lenses that are no longer made........ if that makes any sense._

 

While I agree that Nikon will eventually switch budget DSLRs to FF, I don't think it'll happen in 2 years. The APS sized sensors are doing fine and from what I understand, they haven't hit their limit. I think Thom Hogan said that the theoretical limit for APS sensors is about 16mp. Besides, the DX sensors are doing a good job and cheaper for the beginner and enthusiast photographer and there is a great line of lenses to support those cameras. Look at the D300. I'm still drooling over that camera and it has a 12mp APS sensor that has amazingly low noise in high ISO. I don't think the DX market is one that Nikon or Canon will not give up all that quickly especially when it's a cost advantage to the consumer.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_haha, i've heard horror stories of people saying a lens has no mold, only to receive the lens and find mold. I wouldn't buy a lens used, but that's me._

 

I've never had an issue returning things not-as-described through Paypal and ebay.

 That's why you have to explicitly ask.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_While I agree that Nikon will eventually switch budget DSLRs to FF, I don't think it'll happen in 2 years. The APS sized sensors are doing fine and from what I understand, they haven't hit their limit. I think Thom Hogan said that the theoretical limit for APS sensors is about 16mp. Besides, the DX sensors are doing a good job and cheaper for the beginner and enthusiast photographer and there is a great line of lenses to support those cameras. Look at the D300. I'm still drooling over that camera and it has a 12mp APS sensor that has amazingly low noise in high ISO. I don't think the DX market is one that Nikon or Canon will not give up all that quickly especially when it's a cost advantage to the consumer._

 

2 Years is a very long time (2-3 generations)....... 
 but like the old proverb says: "Only time will tell".


----------



## OverlordXenu

Someone got the lens, was it a head-fier?


----------



## dj_mocok

I'm starting to fall in love with my 50mm 1.4 MF again after seeing how beautiful it can take picture especially around f/2.8 - f/4 range.


----------



## jterp7

hah i have the ever popular 18-200VR, but have also switched back to my 50mm 1.4 due to its clearly superior sharpness from f/2.2 and up


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jterp7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_hah i have the ever popular 18-200VR, but have also switched back to my 50mm 1.4 due to its clearly superior sharpness from f/2.2 and up_

 

The superiority starts from f/1.4, because the 18-200 doesn't even go there!


----------



## agentsim

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_2 Years is a very long time (2-3 generations)....... 
 but like the old proverb says: "Only time will tell"._

 

I think it will be easier to tell once Canon announce their 5d successor. Canon are usually the first to either new tech or lower price points.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agentsim* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think it will be easier to tell once Canon announce their 5d successor. Canon are usually the first to either new tech or lower price points._

 

For sure. I was so sad when they didn't release their new 5D last month. I sometimes wonder if they are waiting for nikon to announce a D300 type Full Frame, only to release their new one to steal some of the spot light.
 Either way though, it's just bound to happen... and I'm betting sooner than latter.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_While I agree that Nikon will eventually switch budget DSLRs to FF, I don't think it'll happen in 2 years. The APS sized sensors are doing fine and from what I understand, they haven't hit their limit. I think Thom Hogan said that the theoretical limit for APS sensors is about 16mp. Besides, the DX sensors are doing a good job and cheaper for the beginner and enthusiast photographer and there is a great line of lenses to support those cameras. Look at the D300. I'm still drooling over that camera and it has a 12mp APS sensor that has amazingly low noise in high ISO. I don't think the DX market is one that Nikon or Canon will not give up all that quickly especially when it's a cost advantage to the consumer._

 

Yeah, Nikon has put a lot of money into the DX format and it has already been adopted by a large following so I can't see it becoming mainstream for a while. I think it'll probably be more like Canon right now, where FF is more of a niche market. Also, for Nikon's higher end DSLRs, they usually are replaced every two years so even if they move their prosumer DX00 line to FF in two years, it'll take at least another year for their consumer line to get updated as well. 

 For me, full frame would be great but I shoot a lot of long distance shots so the narrower field of view with the DX crop sensors benefits me a lot more. I definitely wouldn't say no to a consumer FF with DX compatibility like the D3 but I think that's still a long way off. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 A FF version of the D300 would be interesting and I think it would take a lot of market away from Canon's 5D but I can't see Nikon releasing FF to the D300 as it would also cannibalize sales of their new flagship so Nikon will probably want to milk it a bit more. A FF D300 wouldn't really help me out much though. I got to test out the new D300 with an 18-200VR the other day and while it was indeed amazing, the blazing speed in particular is just crazy, it's way more camera than I'll ever need. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What would be nice though would be for them to update the D80 to make it more like the D200 (And give us AI metering. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




).


----------



## agentsim

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For sure. I was so sad when they didn't release their new 5D last month. I sometimes wonder if they are waiting for nikon to announce a D300 type Full Frame, only to release their new one to steal some of the spot light._

 

I honestly think Canon were surprised by how good the Nikon D3/D300 are. I'm betting they thought the 40D would hold up nicely (like the 30D vs. D200), but the D300 blows it away. I guess Canon were getting complacent at the top of the market.

 Having said that, I expect Canon know they need to bring their A game at Photokina. Most people seem to think Nikon will introduce a 24mp D3x at Photokina, which will steal the show... unless Canon have something like a 7D at 14-16mp costing the same (or less!) than a D300...


----------



## dj_mocok

Nah, 7D will never cost the same as D300. This is where Nikon is stealing the show - managed to put so much of a camera in D300 with that low price.


----------



## agentsim

Don't wanna sound like a Canon fan (I'm a Leica person!), but they do have a history of making what seemed like impossible price points reality.

 For instance, the 300D was the first $1000 DSLR. Even the 5D at the original price was considered impressive when it came out. Now, the 40D at $1300 for a somewhat sealed, 10mp, 6fps body... pretty impressive.

 I doubt they'll get the 7D down to D300 levels, but pretty close, within $200 would be my guess.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agentsim* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Don't wanna sound like a Canon fan (I'm a Leica person!), but they do have a history of making what seemed like impossible price points reality.

 For instance, the 300D was the first $1000 DSLR. Even the 5D at the original price was considered impressive when it came out. Now, the 40D at $1300 for a somewhat sealed, 10mp, 6fps body... pretty impressive.

 I doubt they'll get the 7D down to D300 levels, but pretty close, within $200 would be my guess._

 

Haha, compared to leica, everything else seems close in price. ^_^


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I got to test out the new D300 with an 18-200VR the other day and while it was indeed amazing, the blazing speed in particular is just crazy, it's way more camera than I'll ever need. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I guess speed is all relative to what you've tried. In 14bit RAW it only does 2.5 or so fps and the AF of some other cameras are faster in good light. In that regard I don't think it's that fast.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nah, 7D will never cost the same as D300. This is where Nikon is stealing the show - managed to put so much of a camera in D300 with that low price._

 

There is an incredible amount of features in the D300. I doubt many people would be able to use most of it. In it's entirety it's an impressive camera and would be my choice if I only had one camera.

 I actually chose the D300 over the 5D because of it's compactness and it has pro AF. I don't find 5D much of an action cam and it would be far too slow for my uses. I don't care for more resolution in the 5D successor but I do care if it had same AF as 1 series and lens tuning oh yeah and auto ISO. Then I might switch back to Canon


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agentsim* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I doubt they'll get the 7D down to D300 levels, but pretty close, within $200 would be my guess._

 

If that happens I'm switching straight away.


----------



## fureshi

i would happy if the speculated D90 had the D300 12mp sensor in the D80/D50 sized body. the D300 is probably too much camera for me also, not to mention too expensive for my current budget.


----------



## kugino

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i would happy if the speculated D90 had the D300 12mp sensor in the D80/D50 sized body. the D300 is probably too much camera for me also, not to mention too expensive for my current budget._

 

i've been thinking the same thing...but all the rave reviews of the d300 has peaked my interest (and scared my wallet). my d70 is feeling its age. but that might mean i would have to sell some audio gear to finance the d300 (my wife doesn't let me buy anything without selling something else)...


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kugino* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i've been thinking the same thing...but all the rave reviews of the d300 has peaked my interest (and scared my wallet). my d70 is feeling its age. but that might mean i would have to sell some audio gear to finance the d300 (my wife doesn't let me buy anything without selling something else)..._

 

i can't say the same thing about my D50. it's just that upgraditis is so hard to fight. also having some of the controls at your fingertips instead of having to go digging through a menu would be nice also. otherwise, my D50 is still in great condition with only something like 15k shutter activations on it.


----------



## lan

I don't know guys... wouldn't you be better off with another lens?


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't know guys... wouldn't you be better off with another lens?_

 

yes of course. it's the prudent thing to do but a new body can also make the act of photography easier. my longest lens right now is the tamron 17-50mm. there are times when i wish i had a longer reach so to your point, yes a new lens is also on my wanted list.


----------



## kugino

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't know guys... wouldn't you be better off with another lens?_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yes of course. it's the prudent thing to do but a new body can also make the act of photography easier. my longest lens right now is the tamron 17-50mm. there are times when i wish i had a longer reach so to your point, yes a new lens is also on my wanted list._

 

i understand your point. i would certainly love to own a few more lenses...a 12-24mm and the 70-200VR, for example. but my 50mm prime and 18-200VR at the moment are good enough for most of the stuff i do. do i need a new body? probably not...but i'm at the point where i want to upgrade my body before investing in another lens, even knowing that the body gets trashed much sooner than a good lens.


----------



## nineohtoo

I'd honestly invest more into good glass before looking at other bodies. I've seen amazing images taken with the D50, and don't see why one would absolutely need to upgrade. There are definitely some benefits that can't be achieved with PP'ing, or faster glass like higher FPS, better AF, metering w/manual lenses, etc, but not everyone will need all of that. I know I don't(got a D2H, and now im selling it and much prefer using my D70/s).


----------



## roastpuff

Anyone have any impressions of the D60? From what I saw at the store when I was playing with the D60 and the XTi demo models, is that the D60 is one SOLID camera. And the bundled VR kit lens is very nice. 

 Seriously leaning towards the D60 with 18-55 DX VR lens...


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone have any impressions of the D60? From what I saw at the store when I was playing with the D60 and the XTi demo models, is that the D60 is one SOLID camera. And the bundled VR kit lens is very nice. 

 Seriously leaning towards the D60 with 18-55 DX VR lens... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

For what it does I'm sure it's real nice. Just make sure that what it does is what you want out of a camera.


----------



## Towert7

In other news I've been playing around with my 35mm F/2.0 Fixed Focal Length nikon nikkor lens.

 This thing is beautiful. Very light weight, and very easy to operate. It is very sharp. Easily comparable to my Nikkor 50mm Fixed Focal Length. And the colors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow. I was out in dull lighting, and the colors just popped! It's not often that I say to myself "Wow, that looked better than it did in person"...... but I find myself saying that with this lens. Wild!

 Great lens for 320$us.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For what it does I'm sure it's real nice. Just make sure that what it does is what you want out of a camera. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Um, just a bit confused. Care to explain? I'm new to DSLR's, so if I do get one it'll be my first SLR of any kind.


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone have any impressions of the D60? From what I saw at the store when I was playing with the D60 and the XTi demo models, is that the D60 is one SOLID camera. And the bundled VR kit lens is very nice. 

 Seriously leaning towards the D60 with 18-55 DX VR lens... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The D60 doesn't have the AF Motor though... something to consider. I ended up getting rid of my D40 for that very reason.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Gil Schwartzman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D60 doesn't have the AF Motor though... something to consider. I ended up getting rid of my D40 for that very reason._

 

Yeah, that is one issue with them. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm not sure how many lenses I'll be getting (definitely the kit 18-55mm VR, and the 55-200mm VR tele) but I want a macro and a prime, too, and no AF-S versions of those lenses have come out.


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, that is one issue with them. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm not sure how many lenses I'll be getting (definitely the kit 18-55mm VR, and the 55-200mm VR tele) but I want a macro and a prime, too, and no AF-S versions of those lenses have come out._

 

Ive got a 50mm f/1.8, and I simple adore this lens. It was the single reason for me leaving my D40. I managed to find a used kit D70, and the cost difference was next to nothing (and I got a ton of nice accessories with it, it was a steal. I have been so incredibly pleased with it. Honestly, I really suggest you go shop around Nikonians and see if you can find a bargain. I paid $500 for a D70 w/ the 18-70mm lens (which is a TON nicer than the D40 kit lens, and the D60 kit lens also i'm sure), as well as two spare batteries, a CF card, a bag, and promaster UV and polarizing filters... simply stellar deal. The focus motor ROCKS, as does the top LCD screen. Those are reason enough as far as I am concerned. Also, the D70 was proof that smaller is not better. It is feels much more natural in my hands, I like it a ton better.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Gil Schwartzman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ive got a 50mm f/1.8, and I simple adore this lens. It was the single reason for me leaving my D40. I managed to find a used kit D70, and the cost difference was next to nothing (and I got a ton of nice accessories with it, it was a steal. I have been so incredibly pleased with it. Honestly, I really suggest you go shop around Nikonians and see if you can find a bargain. I paid $500 for a D70 w/ the 18-70mm lens (which is a TON nicer than the D40 kit lens, and the D60 kit lens also i'm sure), as well as two spare batteries, a CF card, a bag, and promaster UV and polarizing filters... simply stellar deal. The focus motor ROCKS, as does the top LCD screen. Those are reason enough as far as I am concerned. Also, the D70 was proof that smaller is not better. It is feels much more natural in my hands, I like it a ton better._

 

'Kay, I'll shop around and see. I'm also interested in the 450D, but it's not available locally yet so I'm going to have to wait to see that one in person. The 400D definitely sucks in terms of ergonomics compared to the D60, but the 450D is supposed to be a bit bigger and also better-shaped. 

 The thing is, I'd rather avoid shopping cross-border (I'm in Canada) because of taxes and shipping issues. So, most of the deals I'll be shopping for will be local...


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_but I want a macro and a prime,_

 

Well you ruled out the D60. You have to start at the D80 to have that type of lens compatibility.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well you ruled out the D60. You have to start at the D80 to have that type of lens compatibility._

 

Weeeeeeeell, there is that Sigma 30mm HS-EX lens, and that 105mm Nikkor VR macro (that's HUGE, though...) if I really wanted them. And hopefully Nikon will release some more AF-S lenses. I don't need the other lenses _now_ now.

 EDIT: Ooooh. 60mm AF-S Micro Nikkor.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Weeeeeeeell, there is that Sigma 30mm HS-EX lens, and that 105mm Nikkor VR macro (that's HUGE, though...) if I really wanted them. And hopefully Nikon will release some more AF-S lenses. I don't need the other lenses now now.

 EDIT: Ooooh. 60mm AF-S Micro Nikkor._

 

If you're going into D-SLR for the lenses, then it is unwise to limit yourself with a camera body that can't take 1/2 of lenses. And to be honest, why do we choose nikon or canon? The lenses, of course!

 I would be so sad if my D50 couldn't use my lovely little 50mm or 35mm.

 Just a heads up.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you're going into D-SLR for the lenses, then it is unwise to limit yourself with a camera body that can't take 1/2 of lenses. And to be honest, why do we choose nikon or canon? The lenses, of course!

 I would be so sad if my D50 couldn't use my lovely little 50mm or 35mm.

 Just a heads up._

 

It can use them just fine, it just won't AF. Which isn't that much of a handicap. I leave my 50mm on my Nikon FE film body - fully manual. It's a thrill.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It can use them just fine, it just won't AF. Which isn't that much of a handicap. I leave my 50mm on my Nikon FE film body - fully manual. It's a thrill._

 

masochist
 ^_^

 I assume it still meters off those lenses even if focus is manual, right? Yea, I guess it's not as bad as an AI-S lens.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you're going into D-SLR for the lenses, then it is unwise to limit yourself with a camera body that can't take 1/2 of lenses. And to be honest, why do we choose nikon or canon? The lenses, of course!_

 

For people who are casual, it may not matter as much but if it's a specific task, then you probably want to look at lens options more. I know for my uses, both are about the same. with a few exceptions. Nikon 14-24 and Canon 70-200 f4.

 Most people manually focus with macro anyway so AF is non-issue.


----------



## nineohtoo

I'll have to second what Gil Schwartzman said. I also started my DSLR journey with a D40 two lens kit. Sold it within a month once I found out it wouldn't AF with a 50mm 1.8, and some older gems. If you don't ming buying used, you should keep checking craigslist for deals. I've gotten so much for a lot less than what the D60 and XSi list for. I got a D70s($250), 50mm 1.8($75), 85mm 1.8($125) all from craigslist(though deals like these might be kinda slim). Fortunately I work somewhere that sells Nikon so I was able to work some magic and pick me up a ridiculously cheap SB-800 and 600. With all I've spent, including memory, bag, etc, I'm still under how much the D60 outfit+necessities costs. I really don't see why anyone else with some patience can't do the same(in terms of saving). Be aware a kit like mine requires my feet to zoom, but is a magnet for light and loves bokeh... plus my sigma 30mm 1.4 comes in tomorrow to round my prime kit off 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The money I saved with my setup can be spent towards pro lenses, wireless, flash systems, etc that will make a bigger difference than a new body will.


----------



## Towert7

85mm 1.8 for 125$? Dam! I think that's my next lens (can't afford the 1.4).


----------



## dj_mocok

Man whoever sold that 85mm 1.8 for $125 is either intellectually challenged/drunk/stole the gear/or it's in bad condition.


----------



## lan

Yeah that was some great deals you got. Craigslist can be great. I got a sweet light meter a few weeks back. That 85mm 1.8 was a no brainer if it all checked out ok which is the great thing about meeting in person.


----------



## kugino

so i've been thinking about getting some new gear and want to hear some opinions. right now i'm working with a D70 and an 18-200VR and a 50mm lens. i can either buy a D300 and keep the current lenses or i've thought about getting a really good lens (like the 70-200 2.8 VR) and keeping my current body for a couple more years.

 i know people say that lenses are what you hold on to so a lens is a better buy, but i'm feeling a bit limited by my d70 these days (or at least that's what i'm telling myself) and the reviews of the d300 are making it harder to stay away. what do you guys think?


----------



## nineohtoo

So I came home to my Sigma from Prestige Camera 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Despite the hassle I had to deal with, and the grey market item they shipped me, all is well. I just hope nothing goes bad with it, otherwise I'm gonna wish I spent the extra $100+ elsewhere. I was too tired to go out tonight, but I'll probably run around with it tomorrow evening to test it outdoors. 

 As for the 85mm, it was in pretty good condition minus some specs of dust inside. It wasn't an AF-D, so it's probably well over ten years old. It had no lens cap, but it had a dinged up metal lens hood to protect the front(I did get a cap for two bucks at a swap meet). The guy who sold it to me was a medium/large format guy, and I guess just had them lying around(was also selling an older AF body). It was pretty cool because he showed me some shots he took for Banana Republic and some other magazines/catalogs with it from the nineties.


----------



## Towert7

Keep me posted on how the 85mm works out.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kugino* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i can either buy a D300 and keep the current lenses or i've thought about getting a really good lens (like the 70-200 2.8 VR) and keeping my current body for a couple more years._

 

It really depends how you're limited. Would you use 70-200 2.8 VR often? It's a rather big lens to be using all the time.

 I'm very for getting a new body if it's a pro level one because I like having pro AF and faster operation. I feel some cameras just cannot keep up with my fast shooting style in extreme conditions.

 You should get a D300 if you need any of these:

 Better AF (51 points, nice tracking, low light AF)
 More resolution (more megapixels)
 Better sharpness (af micro adjustments)
 Better macro (live view)
 If you eventually want to go weather sealed (but you'll need matching pro lens)


----------



## nineohtoo

It's no 1.4, but I like it.


----------



## Arainach

Bodies go obsolete within a year or two max. Lenses rarely if ever go obsolete; a 300 f/2.8 AI ED-IF from 1977 is still optically stunning.


----------



## lan

Something goes obsolete if you can't make use of it anymore or you outgrow it and there's something else newer that you can use more.

 As far as my use is concerned, your 300 2.8 is obsolete. No AF and no VR. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But if you're not tracking fast moving objects and there's plenty of light it's not obsolete.

 Same goes for a 4MP camera. If you didn't need more resolution it's not obsolete.

 A pro camera is just in a different class than the consumer ones even if it's an old one. I'm a firm believer in good glass but body's make a large difference to me also. D300 is what I believe the ultimate do anything / go anywhere camera at this moment


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_



_

 







 Whoa, I didn't know my dog got a twin 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 btw: it's taken w/ canon 50 1.8

 I'm planning to jump ship to Nikon, I'll take D300, tamron 17-50 and nikon 50 1.4
 How's nikon 18-200 compare to tamron 17-50 on the same setting (same appeture and range)? 
 I know tamron is constant at 2.8 and nikon start from 3.5. Currently, I shot potrait and landscape which is why I chose 17-50 & 50 1.4. But nikon 18-200 sure is tempting to try but Image quality is more important to me.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bodies go obsolete within a year or two max. Lenses rarely if ever go obsolete; a 300 f/2.8 AI ED-IF from 1977 is still optically stunning._

 

You know what, that no longer applies. Technology is at a point now where it's good enough (plenty good enough).
 I could buy a D300 or D3 and photoshop CS3 and keep that setup for 10 years and it will not be obsolete, because it takes beautiful pictures.

 A 2mp camera is obsolete because it sucked to begin with.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How's nikon 18-200 compare to tamron 17-50 on the same setting (same appeture and range)?_

 

Nikon has more distortion and the Tamron is a bit sharper. Of course this depends on condition. If it's really low shutter speed, the VR should help make a clearer pic.


----------



## RYCeT

Thank's Ian,

 Any of you guys using an aftermarket/offbrand battery for your nikon? Any problems?


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thank's Ian,

 Any of you guys using an aftermarket/offbrand battery for your nikon? Any problems?_

 

I have four EN-EL3 batteries. One is Nikon, the others are off brand. The off brand ones last longer


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A 2mp camera is obsolete because it sucked to begin with._

 

Actually, I have a 3mp Olympus 3030 from many moons ago that still takes beautiful pictures. It's fast and unobtrusive for quick grab photos. I shot a picture with it that ended up being printed as an 14x18 poster and it looked razor sharp. Good optics.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, I have a 3mp Olympus 3030 from many moons ago that still takes beautiful pictures. It's fast and unobtrusive for quick grab photos. I shot a picture with it that ended up being printed as an 14x18 poster and it looked razor sharp. Good optics.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Haha, then you should have seen the 2mp fugi I had. Wow boy, it was pretty bad! Much less my 0.3mp polariod. My dad had a 3mp olympus C740, and even that was pretty bad!

 All of them were cheap to begin with, so they were destined to be outdated. The D3 isn't cheap, and I would expect it to be an investment for many years to come (especially for someone who couldn't afford to replace it with the next pro camera).


----------



## kugino

i hear what people are saying about obsolescence. while some good glass would be more than welcome, i feel somewhat limited by the relatively poor high ISO capabilities of the D70 as well as its minimal AF points. i know i'll probably rarely take the 70-200 around with me b/c it's so heavy and bulky, so i think a new body is probably in the near future for me. a new body and maybe a wide-angle...the 12-24 tokina, perhaps?


----------



## nineohtoo

^Faster glass will kind of help your ISO issues. Albeit the D70 isn't that great above 800(see picture of my dog), it can be usable. In situations where I need more than that, I should be using 1.8 or faster glass. D70's AF points do suck though. Before putting up my D2H for sale, I loved the amount of AF points it had(as well as the 8fps and better tracking). However these were features that didn't really make my pictures any better. It just made shooting a little easier. 

 Although I agree with newer bodies being nearly as important as having quality lenses, I'd still rather have a D50(or similar) and 17-55mm 2.8(or something similar), than a D300 and 18-135mm. I had the opportunity to get a D300 at an employee price of $1300, but went with a cheaper body because I felt I got more value out of it. Now if Nikon releases a newer entry level body with high ISO capabilities like their pro and prosumer bodies AND have a built in motor, I'll be first in line. 

 Something I've though about recently after spending(thankfully not wasting) money on this stuff is that you shouldn't be concerned about having a full range of focal lengths, but more having the best lenses you can afford for what focal lengths you shoot. I've spent money on more expensive zooms, that I ultimately didn't use as much, and I know people who have consumer zooms that cover quite a bit of range, but they're generally not that happy or impressed with their results.


----------



## bigshot

Well, here's a photo I took with the 3mp Olympus. (not full resolution here on the web though). Megapixels don't mean that much.

band portrait

 There's a famous article in Life magazine where they sent Steichen out with a Brownie. The pictures he took with it were great.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

But hopefully you agree with my main point? Something will only be outdated in an absolute sense if it wasn't good to begin with.

 Your picture is an example of this. The camera was always good enough to make a ~1000x1000 picture, so if you never had a need for more than that it will not be outdated, so to speak.


----------



## bigshot

That picture was originally shot at 2048x1536. It was printed as a 14x18 four color poster and it looked sharp and clear. The resolution of even 3mp cameras is plenty to print high quality images at reasonably large sizes. The difference between the horizontal dimension of this Olympus and my Nikon D200 is less than half. How often do you need to blow up your images beyond 14x18 inches?

 The quality of a camera isn't in the number of megapixels. It's in the sharpness of the optics, the smoothness and accuracy of the color and tones, and the ability to shoot fast in challenging lighting situations. This particular Olympus was not a cheap camera. It cost me $800 when I bought it. It's got great glass, handles well in dim light, it fits in my pocket and it's unobtrusive for shooting in public without attracting attention. I have a D200 too, and it's a lot better for shooting in low light, but when it comes to resolution, it isn't all that much different.

 Megapixels are not the best way to judge cameras.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But hopefully you agree with my main point? Something will only be outdated in an absolute sense if it wasn't good to begin with._

 

I still think it's a matter of taste and needs. "Good" is still subjective.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That picture was originally shot at 2048x1536. It was printed as a 14x18 four color poster and it looked sharp and clear. The resolution of even 3mp cameras is plenty to print high quality images at reasonably large sizes. The difference between the horizontal dimension of this Olympus and my Nikon D200 is less than half. How often do you need to blow up your images beyond 14x18 inches?

 The quality of a camera isn't in the number of megapixels. It's in the sharpness of the optics, the smoothness and accuracy of the color and tones, and the ability to shoot fast in challenging lighting situations. This particular Olympus was not a cheap camera. It cost me $800 when I bought it. It's got great glass, handles well in dim light, it fits in my pocket and it's unobtrusive for shooting in public without attracting attention. I have a D200 too, and it's a lot better for shooting in low light, but when it comes to resolution, it isn't all that much different.

 Megapixels are not the best way to judge cameras.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I know.......... 

 You seem to be continuing down a different path than what I want to convey. That's ok though, no worries.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I still think it's a matter of taste and needs. "Good" is still subjective._

 

You said it!
 Good is very subjective.


----------



## fureshi

i had a d70s for a short period last year. it deserved the praise that it received and had many features that make shooting easier. in the end, i kept my d50 and sold off the d70s. the d50 had better iso performance, same image quality at low iso and is much smaller. the few extra features of the d70s wasn't enough for me to keep it and the size made it difficult to carry. if i want to carry something that big it should have better capabilities. like a d300 for example.

 anyhow, the point of this is that there is a point when a body will become the limiting factor. i feel that many of the current bodies will keep most users happy for many years. in the past, sensor performance was a limiting factor and in the case of the d70s, its high iso performance disappointed me. this is subjective and for me, the d50 meets most of my needs. if you're happy with your camera's performance then maybe the better strategy is to spend your money on better lenses.


----------



## SenjStevo

Just brought a 18-55 D40 kit and still waiting for the SD card. Any tips for a total camera newbie with an appreciation for pretty scenes? I live in the country, so i'd like to take loads of landscape pics of hills and the sky, etc.. and also some nice pics of hi-fi stuff, and some really up close, detailed shots of electronics. The country side is the main reason i wanted a camera, i live in Scotland and the views can be spectacular.


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SenjStevo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just brought a 18-55 D40 kit and still waiting for the SD card. Any tips for a total camera newbie with an appreciation for pretty scenes? I live in the country, so i'd like to take loads of landscape pics of hills and the sky, etc.. and also some nice pics of hi-fi stuff, and some really up close, detailed shots of electronics. The country side is the main reason i wanted a camera, i live in Scotland and the views can be spectacular._

 

Use appeture priority, f/8 to f/11, it should take care your landscape scenes.


----------



## dj_mocok

Believe it or not, I printed an A3 size from my 1280x960 picture (1MB). The result looked great. 

 3MP can give you a very good result if the picture is taken properly.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SenjStevo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just brought a 18-55 D40 kit and still waiting for the SD card. Any tips for a total camera newbie with an appreciation for pretty scenes? I live in the country, so i'd like to take loads of landscape pics of hills and the sky, etc.. and also some nice pics of hi-fi stuff, and some really up close, detailed shots of electronics. The country side is the main reason i wanted a camera, i live in Scotland and the views can be spectacular._

 

As always, a tripod will help (or monopod). You just need to decide if you want to carry one when you go out to take pictures.

 A polarizer filter *can* be a nice addition to some scenic pictures thanks to it's ability to intensify colors and change the brightness of the sky.

 And, aside from learning the basics of general photography, the next biggest thing is just timing!!! Time the pictures so they look nice in person, and you will be more likely to get a very wonderful picture.

 Once you get good at these, then you can start experimenting with different lenses if you have money to spare.


----------



## perplex

Anyone have experience with the 80-200 f2.8 push-pull? I just ordered one off ebay, hoping it's a good one.


----------



## perplex

Anyone have experience with the 80-200 f2.8 push-pull? I just ordered one off ebay, hoping it's a good one.


----------



## Arainach

Optically, it's the same as the two-ring, so it'll take nice pictures. The problem is the lack of the tripod mount; you try to attach your camera body to a tripod with that lens on and it could damage or even rip out the lens mount. That's why most heavier lenses (including the 80-200 2 ring, 80-200 AF-S, and 70-200VR) have tripod mounts built in. If you're comfortably always hand-holding the lens, it won't be an issue.


----------



## perplex

Yeah, I think I found a good price on ebay and jumped for it. I'm a bit paranoid about somethings though. Dust because it's push-pull, the weigh! and how good the copy will be. Ah well... we'll see soon enough


----------



## dj_mocok

Don't worry about dust in the lens, it won't affect you in real life situation unless you got serious dust/fungus problems. My dad's old lens is so full of dust but the pictures coming from it are still beautiful.


----------



## perplex

Whoever has the 80-200 f2.8, mind posting some nice samples? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think that mbriant mod has one?


----------



## mbriant

You're correct. That mbriant mod has an 80 - 200 2.8 af-s version. It's possibly the sharpest lens of the 10 or so Nikon lenses I own......no small feat since most of them are fixed focal length. Here's some samples ... sorry about the bandwidth.


----------



## perplex

Thanks for those mbriant


----------



## kugino

nice pics, mbriant!


----------



## SenjStevo

Went out in the cold and took my first pics with the D40 kit. I did loads of auto and landscape preset stuff and then experimented with the focal size and shutter speeds. Here are some of my favourites:


----------



## afireinside

Looking to purchase a D40 kit, mainly looking to do car photography. Anywhere I can look for used ones?


----------



## Towert7

Ah, your very first pictures *SenjStevo*, very exciting! 
 Keep up the good work and the fun outings. For me, just getting out is half the fun!


----------



## Towert7

My Nikon 85mm F/1.8D AF came in today and I'm very impressed by the image quality. Rather small and light which is a nice bonus.

 Sadly the weather is expected to be rather bad for the next few days, so I won't be able to go out and take pictures. Oh well, no biggie.

 I'm just so impressed by the three fixed focal length lenses I've got from nikon. The 35mm, 50mm, and now 85mm. They are so nice. I sometimes wonder what they look like on the D3.


----------



## Gil Schwartzman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *afireinside* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looking to purchase a D40 kit, mainly looking to do car photography. Anywhere I can look for used ones?_

 

Nikonians :: The Nikon User Community


----------



## perplex

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My Nikon 85mm F/1.8D AF came in today and I'm very impressed by the image quality. Rather small and light which is a nice bonus.

 Sadly the weather is expected to be rather bad for the next few days, so I won't be able to go out and take pictures. Oh well, no biggie.

 I'm just so impressed by the three fixed focal length lenses I've got from nikon. The 35mm, 50mm, and now 85mm. They are so nice. I sometimes wonder what they look like on the D3._

 

Atleast with a 85mm you can play inside. I'm hoping the weather will be ok when my 80-200 arrives


----------



## dj_mocok

With 80-200mm, you don't worry about weather. You can use it anywhere.


----------



## Towert7

Man, 2.84lbs. I'm such a wimp. I don't know how you can carry a lens like that around. I start to bitch if it's over 1 pound.


----------



## milkpowder

My dad just got a D300 w/ a 18-200mm VR. It's his first DSLR and I get to play with it when I go back for Easter break! I'm so excited! How do I get started? I've played around with my friends' D80 and D70 before. Is the D300 a lot more difficult to use?


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* 
_At least with a 85mm you can play inside. I'm hoping the weather will be ok when my 80-200 arrives_

 

For bad weather, there are usually 2 or 3 different type/sizes of camera/lens rain covers on ebay like this one. They make things a little more awkward, but they help keep the rain/snow out of your equipment. Some use clear plastic at the camera end so you can easily find controls.

Christy Lens and Camera Rain Cover - eBay (item 280192410194 end time Apr-13-08 13:12:49 PDT)


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My dad just got a D300 w/ a 18-200mm VR. It's his first DSLR and I get to play with it when I go back for Easter break! I'm so excited! How do I get started? I've played around with my friends' D80 and D70 before. Is the D300 a lot more difficult to use?_

 

The D300 is quite similar to the D80. It just has a few additions and whatnot.
 You'll find it very easy if you've had experience with the D80 or D70.
 Have fun!


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Man, 2.84lbs. I'm such a wimp. I don't know how you can carry a lens like that around. I start to bitch if it's over 1 pound._

 

Hmm, with the 180mm Nikkor and SB800 attached, the D200 is pushing 5lbs (I think), but it hasn't phased me yet. Next stop, 200mm F2 VR! LOL


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm, with the 180mm Nikkor and SB800 attached, the D200 is pushing 5lbs (I think), but it hasn't phased me yet. Next stop, 200mm F2 VR! LOL_

 

Wow oh wow! I usually take walks around with my camera for an hour or two, so I like a light setup. I don't know how I would fare with a 5lbs+ rig. I give you credit!


----------



## lan

The 200 2.0 VR isn't that bad. It's about 6 and half lbs. What you really don't want to carry is the 300 2.0. It's about 16 lbs.


----------



## perplex

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For bad weather, there are usually 2 or 3 different type/sizes of camera/lens rain covers on ebay like this one. They make things a little more awkward, but they help keep the rain/snow out of your equipment. Some use clear plastic at the camera end so you can easily find controls.

Christy Lens and Camera Rain Cover - eBay (item 280192410194 end time Apr-13-08 13:12:49 PDT)_

 

Sorry, I was worrying about the weather for myself. I don't want to go out in the pouring rain 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .

 Anyway, I got this lens (80-200 f2.8 push-pull) today, only done a few test shots and I'm very impressed so far. Seems pretty sharp. Will do some more testing tomorrow 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Wow those shots with the 80-200 look absolutely stunning, mbriant. If I'm looking for a new zoom lens under a grand, should this be my first choice?


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 Wow those shots with the 80-200 look absolutely stunning, mbriant. If I'm looking for a new zoom lens under a grand, should this be my first choice? 
 

It's MY favourite lens.


----------



## perplex

Just be aware that mbriant has the AF-S version which is quite a bit more pricey. However optically I don't think there is that much difference? 

 I've just acquired a push-pull version and in the process of testing it out


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just be aware that mbriant has the AF-S version which is quite a bit more pricey. However optically I don't think there is that much difference? 

 I've just acquired a push-pull version and in the process of testing it out 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Make sure to tell us how you like it.


----------



## perplex

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Make sure to tell us how you like it._

 

I don't really have anything to compare it to and I'm a beginner/unexperienced in photography. I'm just learning and really need to work on composition.

 Build quality wise it seems very solid compared to my kit lens 18-70 and 50 1.4. Though the 50 1.4 is pretty good itself. 

 I took this shot of a cat yesterday, which I think is cool. I'm practising composition 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Also the sun just hid itself so I couldn't get it as sharp as I'd have liked.


----------



## ServinginEcuador

Shot these while walking around with the wife near here. 
























 All shot with a D300 and 18-200 Nikon lens handheld. Tripod and monopod purchases are coming around SOON! 

 (I also posted them over at NikonCafe, but thought I'd share them here since I've not been around in almost two months. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## dj_mocok

I must admit I love my lens


----------



## milkpowder

I took some pictures with a D300 w/ 18-200 VR a couple days ago at a family outing in Hong Kong.
































 It was my first real opportunity to use a DSLR and I really had trouble taking sharp, in focus photos. I also noticed that the 18-200 is not so sharp when at full zoom, or it might just be my incompetence
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 A few more here:
Picasa Web Albums - milkpowder - Un sejour a l...

 Also, what settings do you use to take sharp photos of the moon? I had real trouble doing so...

 This was my best attempt:







 Anyway, I'm hooked. The D300 is my dad's and I really want one myself! It's hugely capable and was much easier to use than I thought. The screen is ultra-high res. Bird spotting was a huge problem due to the limitations posed by the lens and I am keen to get my dad to buy a telephoto. An uncle of mine recommended the Swarovski STS80HD. Has anyone used one?


----------



## Towert7

Ah, so that's how the richest 1% live. I see.............


----------



## milkpowder

Just been playing around again. The auto WB is quite terrible in less-than-ideal light conditions. Setting the WB properly is still something I've yet to learn to do. I'm also a very inefficient "photographer". Out of the 300-400 or so photos I took, only a couple dozen actually turned out to be relatively decent ones. Just imagine what it would've been like back in the days of the film camera


----------



## Towert7

Ah, lots of us started off trying different things and learning along the way. I know when I first started out, I would take many pictures of the same scene just so there was a chance that one came out nice, adjusting various settings. As you get better and more familiar with the camera, pictures will come more naturally. You'll end up taking less pictures and getting more keepers at the same time. You'll also start to visualize which will be better pictures than others.

 You're doing the right thing though, playing around. That's a great way to learn, just by doing. All it takes now is time.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Moon pics definitely seem like a realm best suited for use with a tripod. I took a handheld few the other day, just for the hell of it. My best results came at ISO100, 1/125", F8. Even stopped way down as such, I got a much better pic from my 180mm prime than from the 18-200 (this is a 100% crop):






 Auto WB problems are definitely a good excuse for RAW+JPEG and a big CF card!


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah, lots of us started off trying different things and learning along the way. I know when I first started out, I would take many pictures of the same scene just so there was a chance that one came out nice, adjusting various settings. As you get better and more familiar with the camera, pictures will come more naturally. You'll end up taking less pictures and getting more keepers at the same time. You'll also start to visualize which will be better pictures than others.

 You're doing the right thing though, playing around. That's a great way to learn, just by doing. All it takes now is time._

 

Lots of time
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm eyeing a more basic DSLR for myself, something along the lines of a D60 kit w/ 18-55VR. So far, I'm liking what I've read about it but the three zone AF seems a bit too basic, no?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Moon pics definitely seem like a realm best suited for use with a tripod. I took a handheld few the other day, just for the hell of it. My best results came at ISO100, 1/125", F8. Even stopped way down as such, I got a much better pic from my 180mm prime than from the 18-200 (this is a 100% crop):






 Auto WB problems are definitely a good excuse for RAW+JPEG and a big CF card! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Very impressive moon picture! My dad's tripod is very old and cheap, which might be why I had trouble.


----------



## milkpowder

A few more shots yesterday...













 F/5.3, 1/80, ISO 200. Should I have increased the exposure, or just reduce shutter speed?









 I have a general question. Why get two-three lens to cover the same range when you can use just one lens? I was just chatting casually to a friend who is into photography and he told me he is waiting for a Nikkor 14-24 and a 24-70. He currently has a 70-200 VR, which means that he'll have 14-200 covered. Couldn't you do that with just one lens, eg 18-200, give or take a few mm.

 Another question. This friend of mine also said that 50 (or was it 75 or 85mm?) is close to the natural field of vision of a human being. Is that true?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 I have a general question. Why get two-three lens to cover the same range when you can use just one lens? I was just chatting casually to a friend who is into photography and he told me he is waiting for a Nikkor 14-24 and a 24-70. He currently has a 70-200 VR, which means that he'll have 14-200 covered. Couldn't you do that with just one lens, eg 18-200, give or take a few mm.

 Another question. This friend of mine also said that 50 (or was it 75 or 85mm?) is close to the natural field of vision of a human being. Is that true?_

 

On a DX camera, it is either the 50mm or 35mm that is close to what we see. For me at least. How can you check? Keep both eyes open and focus on something. Bring the viewfinder in front of one eye. Change the focal length until the picture you see in the viewfinder nicely overlaps with the image you see in the other eye (ie, make them the same size visually).

 Why get multiple lenses? Well one thing is for sure, you loose the convenience factor! However, they are better lenses in general. They will take, in general, sharper pictures, may have more saturated colors, can open up to wider apertures (fixed minimum f-stops), and will probably have less barrel distortion.
 The 18-200VR is no shabby lens. It covers a very wide range, with VRII, is small, somewhat light, etc etc. But it lacks the low f-stops (3.5 vs. 1.8 for example) and will have a little barrel distortion near the extremes. For 800$ it's a great lens, but it is bested by some of these pro lenses.

 Once you try your first good pro lens (either 1 of the three you mentioned, or a fixed focal length), you'll see the difference right off the bat.


----------



## milkpowder

Thanks!

 I understand that separate lens will tend to give better results/quality. Now if you would bear with me, again 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Say I have a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm. At which point do I switch from one lens to the other? If 50mm is close to what we see, do I switch to the 70-200 whenever I want to view something at closer than what I normally can see?

_Re: low F-stops_
 Apart from being able to shoot at higher shutter speeds (because of lower possible F-stop), are than any other advantages?

 Lastly, is there any point in getting 1k+ 'pro' lens for a more modest camera like a D60? Would the difference still be worth the extra money, eg AF-S 24-70mm ED vs AF-S 16-85mm ED DX VR @ a third the price, especially when the 24-70mm is really only optimised for full-frame cameras?


----------



## RYCeT

Hi, Milkpowder, my advise, shoot more and if possible use the 50mm 1.8 prime lens. From that lens, zoom with your feet, with enough shootings, you will eventually learn which range will suit your needs. However, be warn, 50mm 1.8 produce a good result which hard to match from consumer zoom lenses. I got rid of my Canon 17-55 2.8 is because I can't justify the price compare to what my nifty fifty able to produce.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Say I have a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm. At which point do I switch from one lens to the other?

Re: low F-stops
 Apart from being able to shoot at higher shutter speeds (because of lower possible F-stop), are than any other advantages?

 Would the difference still be worth the extra money, eg AF-S 24-70mm ED vs AF-S 16-85mm ED DX VR @ a third the price, especially when the 24-70mm is really only optimised for full-frame cameras?_

 

If you want to see stuff up closer then you need to go more telephoto. Most DSLRs have a crop view and for Nikon D60 it's 1.5X so if you use 50mm lens, you'll see like looking through 75mm lens (which is telephoto). So 24-70 is behaving mostly like a little wide to telephoto.

 f/2.8 lens will give brighter viewfinder and better autofocus speeds/accuracy.

 24-70 maybe a full frame lens but a cropper sensor camera would use the sweet spot in the center of the lens which will yield the best resolution, edge to edge sharpness, and no/less vignetting.

 A better lens is always a better lens but more lenses can be more fun and could yield you pictures you would've never else have taken for the same price as a 24-70. You could get walkaround, lower light, macro, and more telephoto lenses for the price.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks!

 I understand that separate lens will tend to give better results/quality. Now if you would bear with me, again 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. Say I have a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm. At which point do I switch from one lens to the other? If 50mm is close to what we see, do I switch to the 70-200 whenever I want to view something at closer than what I normally can see?

Re: low F-stops
 Apart from being able to shoot at higher shutter speeds (because of lower possible F-stop), are than any other advantages?

 Lastly, is there any point in getting 1k+ 'pro' lens for a more modest camera like a D60? Would the difference still be worth the extra money, eg AF-S 24-70mm ED vs AF-S 16-85mm ED DX VR @ a third the price, especially when the 24-70mm is really only optimised for full-frame cameras?_

 

All else equal, a smaller F-stop will give a tighter Depth of Field. So if you are taking a picture of someone, the background will be more blurred at F/1.8 than at F/16. There are a few more subtle things, but the main thing is shutter speed and DOF.

 For switching to different focal length lenses: Think of the lens as capturing a rectangle image (which the camera does). The larger the focal length, the smaller that rectangle becomes and so the things appear bigger. The larger the focal length, the smaller the angle of view.

 SO a person far away will look really small at 18mm because you have a huge angle, and in comparison to this the person is smaller. if you use a 200mm lens, the angle is much less, and so the person appears smaller. 
 What governs which lens you want is how big you want the rectangle (what angle of view you want to capture).

 If the 24-70mm is optimized for full frame, it'll look that much better on a DX camera. The reverse is not true. If the lens is made for DX, it won't fill up a FF (full frame) camera. I have a little D50. It's not a pro camera. But the choice in lens is so important. It really will make a difference! And not just a little one. As long as the camera is decent enough that it doesn't get in the way of you taking pictures, then it's fine. Then the lenses start to make the big difference.

 Other things can also help, like filters or flash units, etc.


----------



## milkpowder

Excellent stuff guys!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That should really get me started.

 RYCeT, by 50mm 1.8 prime, you mean the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D right? It's got _superb_ reviews. I think I'll ask my dad to get one right away considering it's very reasonable price tag and then nick it from him when I get my own camera
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Will it work on DSLRs without AF motors (probably what I'll end up with)?


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Excellent stuff guys!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That should really get me started.

 RYCeT, by 50mm 1.8 prime, you mean the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D right? It's got superb reviews. I think I'll ask my dad to get one right away considering it's very reasonable price tag and then nick it from him when I get my own camera
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Will it work on DSLRs without AF motors (probably what I'll end up with)?_

 

You'll have to manually focus, but it'll shoot fine.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

I just recieved a D200 with a grip, and I have to say, I'm enjoying it immensely. Great ISO performance, a damn solid build, fantastic image quality, and an array of programmable hardware round off the camera's niceties; not to mention the status LCD screen or second command dial. Really; I thought of the D40 as a pinnacle in overall technology, but the D200 is mind-blowingly superior in almost every aspect - I completely agree with those claiming the D200 to be more tool than toy. 

 As such, I thought I'd give you guys a few samples taken right after charging the batteries. Unfortunately, an admittedly consumer grade 18-135 is all I have right now, but I'm expecting the arrival of a 50 f/1.8 and an 85 f/1.8 shortly - perhaps these lenses will do the D200 more justice.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Excellent stuff guys!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That should really get me started.

 RYCeT, by 50mm 1.8 prime, you mean the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D right? It's got superb reviews. I think I'll ask my dad to get one right away considering it's very reasonable price tag and then nick it from him when I get my own camera
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Will it work on DSLRs without AF motors (probably what I'll end up with)?_

 

The Nikon AF 50mm F/1.8 *DOES* have excellent image quality. Nice color and a really sharp lens. For 130$, it's such a great value. Any other focal lengh and you'll be spending 300$+. I have the 50mm, and my only wish is that I went with the F/1.4 instead of the F/1.8, but I did save about 150$.

 Sadly, with the D40, D40x, or D60 you will not have auto focus. That for me was enough to NOT get either of those cameras. With the price of the D80, I would get that as an entry level DSLR. My parents have it, and it is similar to my D50 (in terms of weight and size), but with a few improvements.


----------



## RYCeT

Hi guys, I just got my D300 w/ 18-200 kit, I'm waiting for my tamron 17-50 2.8. I want to add another prime, I love 50 1.8 w/ my rebel xt, I'm considering nikon 50 1.4, however I also found nikon 35 2.0 within that price range. 35 2.0 w/ D300 will be a better range for me. I will get 85mm eventually so the 35mm will complement it better than the 50mm. However I wondered how's 35 2.0 bokeh, it will be used for indoor and potrait. Will the 2.0 appeture useable? Will this lens be fast enough for indoor? 
 Anyone got both lenses?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi guys, I just got my D300 w/ 18-200 kit, I'm waiting for my tamron 17-50 2.8. I want to add another prime, I love 50 1.8 w/ my rebel xt, I'm considering nikon 50 1.4, however I also found nikon 35 2.0 within that price range. 35 2.0 w/ D300 will be a better range for me. I will get 85mm eventually so the 35mm will complement it better than the 50mm. However I wondered how's 35 2.0 bokeh, it will be used for indoor and potrait. Will the 2.0 appeture useable? Will this lens be fast enough for indoor? 
 Anyone got both lenses?_

 

I have the Nikon 85mm 1.8 and 35mm 2.0. With the 35mm, the bokeh is really very impressive when you get real close to the subject. It's a nice lens. Image quality is roughly the same as the Nikon 50mm 1.8.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi guys, I just got my D300 w/ 18-200 kit, I'm waiting for my tamron 17-50 2.8. I want to add another prime, I love 50 1.8 w/ my rebel xt, I'm considering nikon 50 1.4, however I also found nikon 35 2.0 within that price range. 35 2.0 w/ D300 will be a better range for me. I will get 85mm eventually so the 35mm will complement it better than the 50mm. However I wondered how's 35 2.0 bokeh, it will be used for indoor and potrait. Will the 2.0 appeture useable? Will this lens be fast enough for indoor? 
 Anyone got both lenses?_

 

Before you buy anything, see how you like the tamron. I hardly ever use my 50 1.8. I guess it's situational of a lens for me. I just sold my Canon 50 1.4. I guess 50mm is just not for me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think 35mm is a great focal length. Right now I use D300 tamron 17-50, 50 1.8, and 55-200vr. I think you should get rid of 18-200VR. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 All these other lenses we're talking about are better than it and cheaper.


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have the Nikon 85mm 1.8 and 35mm 2.0. With the 35mm, the bokeh is really very impressive when you get real close to the subject. It's a nice lens. Image quality is roughly the same as the Nikon 50mm 1.8._

 

Nice, how useable is the 2.0 stop? Does it need to be stopped down to get a sharper image?

 Hi Ian, I know the 18-200 vr doesn't seem very useful for me. I got it since I bought the d300 from CC taking advantage of their financing promotion and they only offer d300 w/ 18-200 kit. I want to try it first before making any decision whether I want to sell it or not. I prefer the tamron 17-50 2.8 and nikon 70-300 vr combination. Obviously I hope I can afford the 70-200 vr, not for now though, I'm saving my money for 85 1.4.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice, how useable is the 2.0 stop? Does it need to be stopped down to get a sharper image?
_

 

I haven't done a side by side test, so I can't comment on that really....
 All I can say is that I have not taken a picture with it where I thought it could have been sharper.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I also have the 35 F2, and I find it very usable wide open, and really sharp from 2.8 onwards. It is mostly the borders that are a bit less sharp at F2, but not to the point that they detract from the picture, IMO. I'd only be concerned about that kind of degradation for landscape pics, which I'm usually not taking at F2 anyway.

 I really like this lens a lot. The close-focus ability really makes it useful in a lot of settings, and it is so small and light, it's like having no lens on the camera at all. I just wish I could get a prime in the 14-18mm range with similar characteristics!


----------



## M0T0XGUY

That's good to hear, Iron Dreamer. I've been on the fence about buying a wide-angle prime lens, since so few seem to receive glowing reviews, but I think I'll give the 35 f/2 a try, along with an 85 f/1.8 for general photography.

 What do you guys think of some longer telephoto primes; say, in the upper-100mm's?


----------



## perplex

With a crop sensor body a 50mm prime isn't 50mm. It's ok if the room is big and of course the f1.4 is great indoors. But just be aware that it'll be 75mm.


----------



## RYCeT

Thank's for the input guys, it made my decision easier.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thank's for the input guys, it made my decision easier._

 

Keep us posted on how you like it.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you guys think of some longer telephoto primes; say, in the upper-100mm's?_

 

I can only vouch for the 180mm F/2.8, but it is my favorite (if not most used) lens so far. It is very sharp wide open, very close indeed to the peak sharpness found at 5.6. It feels really well balanced on the D200, and AF is quick enough for me (though the AFS lenses are obviously even faster). More than all that, I love the character of images it produces, with great bokeh and contrast, and just a more lifelike presentation. My only complaint about it would be that it throws up some noticeable purple fringing around overexposed areas when used wide open.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_With a crop sensor body a 50mm prime isn't 50mm. It's ok if the room is big and of course the f1.4 is great indoors. But just be aware that it'll be 75mm._

 

Wrong.

 A 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens. Its depth-of-field and focal points are still calculated as a 50mm lens. It will have the same field of view as a 75mm would have on film, but it's still a 50mm lens.


----------



## nineohtoo

Quote:


 RYCeT, by 50mm 1.8 prime, you mean the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D right? It's got superb reviews. I think I'll ask my dad to get one right away considering it's very reasonable price tag and then nick it from him when I get my own camera Will it work on DSLRs without AF motors (probably what I'll end up with)? 
 

Like mentioned it'll need a motor in the body. If you're patient, Sigma announced their 50mm 1.4 that will AF with the D40 and D60. If it's anything like their 30mm 1.4, it'll be a great lens. What Sigma really needs to do is release an affordable 85mm 1.4. If they do I'd honestly be set.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wrong.

 A 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens. Its depth-of-field and focal points are still calculated as a 50mm lens. It will have the same field of view as a 75mm would have on film, but it's still a 50mm lens._

 

That's true if you want to get technical but for all intents and purposes, it's 75 don't you think? Most people are interested in the field of view. The depth of field is also less on a cropped body. But it is good to mention what you said.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's true if you want to get technical but for all intents and purposes, it's 75 don't you think? Most people are interested in the field of view. The depth of field is also less on a cropped body. But it is good to mention what you said._

 

As far as I'm concerned, it's a 50mm. Most DSLR users have never shot film. When I think of the FOV of a 50mm lens, I think of the FOV of a 50mm lens on an APS sensor.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 Most DSLR users have never shot film. 
 







 I don't agree with this statement, but I agree that a 50mm lens still has a 50mm magnification ratio, but with a smaller FOV.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As far as I'm concerned, it's a 50mm. Most DSLR users have never shot film. When I think of the FOV of a 50mm lens, I think of the FOV of a 50mm lens on an APS sensor._

 

Ok but in use you'd still have to backup and frame it as if it was 75mm.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Like mentioned it'll need a motor in the body. If you're patient, Sigma announced their 50mm 1.4 that will AF with the D40 and D60. If it's anything like their 30mm 1.4, it'll be a great lens. What Sigma really needs to do is release an affordable 85mm 1.4. If they do I'd honestly be set._

 

Re: Sigma
 That's good news.

 I went to a large electronics retailer and enquired about the 50mm F/1.4 and F/1.8. The F/1.4 costs around $300 and the F/1.8 a measly $80-85. They didn't have either in stock. Is the F/1.4 really worth that much more? I read a review which said that the F/1.8 is as sharp as the F/1.4 when stopped down. Also, I saw a 85mm F/1.8 for $900+
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Earlier in the day, I went shooting photos again. There is a spot on a random bridge in Hong Kong where a lot of enthusiasts gather to take photos of this special tree which blooms at certain times of the year. I saw a D300/70-200 as well as a D3 user with what looked like a 14-24 + teleconverter.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Will post a couple pictures later.


----------



## meat01

I am happy with my 50 1.8 and do not think it is worth the extra 2/3 stop for the 1.4. Some people do want or need that extra low light ability. I think you would be hard pressed to differentiate the sharpness between the lenses.


----------



## nineohtoo

It's really in what you're gonna shoot. I want to get into shooting rock shows, and I've got no choice but to use fast glass and high ISOs. If you're walking around outdoors, 2.8 should be good enough to have control over your depth of field, unless you want some razor thin DOF.

 Nikon has renewed it's accommodations with us. D300 for $1300... But there are used D200s on the market right now for about half that. I'm happy with my D70s, but I'd really love to have better ISO's and faster low light focusing. More AF points would be a huge plus too. I want to tell myself to hold off on both, because Nikon's next consumer update(if it ever happens), should have some of the D300 goodness trickled into it. What should I do? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (and I don't have $1300 lying around lol)


----------



## perplex

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wrong.

 A 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens. Its depth-of-field and focal points are still calculated as a 50mm lens. It will have the same field of view as a 75mm would have on film, but it's still a 50mm lens._

 

Yeah sorry.. let me just clarify.. I did NOT mean that a 50mm lens will magically morph into a 75mm lens on a crop body 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

 You're actually confusing noobs with what you said because on the internet you sometimes hear that a 50mm is the "perfect prime" and it's very close to what the human sees, but that is assuming it's used on full frame. So it can be confusing.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_




 Re: Sigma
 That's good news.

 I went to a large electronics retailer and enquired about the 50mm F/1.4 and F/1.8. The F/1.4 costs around $300 and the F/1.8 a measly $80-85. They didn't have either in stock. Is the F/1.4 really worth that much more? I read a review which said that the F/1.8 is as sharp as the F/1.8 when stopped down. Also, I saw a 85mm F/1.8 for $900+
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...._

 

Optically the f/1.4 and f/1.8 are similar if not f/1.8 being very slightly better, though don't forget you can stop down the f/1.4 to f/1.8 too and it might be even better than the f/1.8 wide open. This is just from what I've heard on the internet. I've got the f/1.4 and I'm very glad I did even if it's just for the superior build quality. It's still not quite pro-quality I don't think but it's supposed to be much better than the f/1.8's. I've heard people say they were unhappy with the latter's build quality

 Over the long run the extra cost might be justified.


----------



## Towert7

I just used the technique I mentioned earlier to find out what focal length matches my eye.

 On my DX camera, my vision is equivalent to about 70mm ± 5mm.
 So about 105mm ± 7.5mm on 35mm format.
 Although, this may be dependent on the viewfinder being used. I'll try it on a D80 sometime and see if I get a different result. 

 It was cool. As I got closer and closer to what my eye sees, all of a sudden the overlapping images became 3D (like one of those child's 3d stereograph toys).


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nikon has renewed it's accommodations with us. D300 for $1300... But there are used D200s on the market right now for about half that. I'm happy with my D70s, but I'd really love to have better ISO's and faster low light focusing. More AF points would be a huge plus too. I want to tell myself to hold off on both, because Nikon's next consumer update(if it ever happens), should have some of the D300 goodness trickled into it. What should I do? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (and I don't have $1300 lying around lol)_

 

did nikon lower the price of the d300 to $1300? this is the first time i've heard of this price. if this is so, i wonder where the D90 will slot in. with the original D300 price of $1800, i was expecting the possible D90 to be somewhere around the $1200 mark.


----------



## lan

All places I search still show D300 for $1800 so I don't know where $1300 comes from also.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I want to tell myself to hold off on both, because Nikon's next consumer update(if it ever happens), should have some of the D300 goodness trickled into it._

 

That would be nice. Live view and lots of AF points would be superb!

 FJYI, The D300 is $1670 in Hong Kong. It was $1900 when it first came out.


----------



## nineohtoo

Quote:


 Nikon has renewed it's *accommodations* with us 
 

I work with a retailer that sells Nikon, and the accommodation price for the D300 is $1360. Sooo tempting.


----------



## dj_mocok

Milk: 

 Can I know what picture was that dude taking with his D3 and (I think) 200mm ?


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Milk: 

 Can I know what picture was that dude taking with his D3 and (I think) 200mm ?_

 

Same as me
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Everyone was taking photos of those flowers.

 Here's why. Nice isn't it
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








 Picture of a bunch of other flower lovers. It's like this every single day.


----------



## dj_mocok

I see. 

 I am not gear-envy, but I am very interested in seeing what pictures can that guy with those gears produce...


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I see. 

*I am not gear-envy*, but I am very interested in seeing what pictures can that guy with those gears produce..._

 

Well I am!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 There is a website quite popular amongst Hong Kong photographers called DCFever.com It's likely that he would've uploaded his pictures. I'll see if I can find them.


----------



## dj_mocok

Christ, all those long lenses and gears for one measly flower tree? 
 I thought they were covering World cup. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They are beautiful flowers indeed. I don't know how far is the tree from you (maybe that's why they all got the tele?), but if it was me, I'd probably just bring my 85 or 90mm macro.


----------



## Towert7

Wow, that's a sight I have never seen before.......... so many people taking pictures of the same tree.


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder;4021033[IMG* 
_http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/1464/dsc16631024oi5.jpg[/IMG]_

 

Did you take this pic because his exhaust fell off?


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Did you take this pic because his exhaust fell off?_

 

Yup
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was walking down the stairs from the bridge looking over the cotton flower tree and saw the SL parked on the roadside. Thought to myself "Nice car!" It was quite an odd place to put your car but I took a picture of the side anyway. Then I saw the back 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 Apart from the exhaust problem, it was in mint condition.


----------



## kevin gilmore

The guy with the nikon d3 is using a 200mm f2.0 lens. However
 he is also using a tc20 teleconverter resulting in something that
 ends up a 400mm f4.0. If he stops it down 2 stops and can get
 close enough to minimum focus distance he can get pictures that
 are 1/4 life size. Stunning pictures for sure. I don't think the
 400mm f2.8 can do as well for this kind of thing.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Before you buy anything, see how you like the tamron. I hardly ever use my 50 1.8. I guess it's situational of a lens for me. I just sold my Canon 50 1.4. I guess 50mm is just not for me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think 35mm is a great focal length. Right now I use D300 tamron 17-50, 50 1.8, and 55-200vr. I think you should get rid of 18-200VR. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 All these other lenses we're talking about are better than it and cheaper._

 

Heheh, my Nikon 50mm f/1.8 goes mostly unused as well. But it's so small and light, I bring it around anyways, it doesn't add really any bulk or weight.

 -Ed


----------



## perplex

Ditto. 50mm (75mm on crop) just isn't ideal on a crop body. Don't regret buying my 50/1.4 though, it can be useful when you absolutely need the f/1.4.


----------



## blessingx

Funny, on my D70 I don't think I've taken off the 50mm f/1.8 in five months.

 Only a slightly related note, for those on OS X LightZone is on sale today at MacUpdate. I just picked up a copy.


----------



## dj_mocok

I think it depends on what you're doing and what lenses you have too of course.


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *blessingx* 
_Only a slightly related note, for those on OS X LightZone is on sale today at MacUpdate. I just picked up a copy._

 

You might want to hold off a little while on that ...

 From ZDNET:

[size=large]Approach Adobe Lightroom 2.0 Beta with caution[/size]
[size=x-small]*David Morgenstern: *The company on Wednesday offered its Photoshop Lightroom 2.0 beta for download. While this version is feature complete, it's more than "rough around the edges," and users of the professional image editing and photo management software should be wary.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/size]
[size=xx-small]Wed Apr 02 10:09:44 PDT 2008[/size]


----------



## bloodydoorknob

I actually use the 50mm 1.8 alot. I have one that's from the early 90's that's built like a tank. It's all metal and it's the loudest lens I have. I sometimes startle babies with it in the studio. For this reason, I have decided to replace it with the AFS 60mm micro. From what I've read, the new AFS version will have better IQ than the previous AFD version for general photography. I'll also use it as an alternative to my 105mm micro, which is sometimes too heavy to have on my neck all day when I'm shooting flowers. The lens that get's the most use as of late is the 18-200 vr as I've found it to be the most versatile. I've been using fixed focal lengths for a while, so not having to change lens as often has made my shooting much easier. 

 I've sold my Tamron 17-50 2.8 as I've found it's performance less than desirable at f2.8. I experienced a lot of fringing and focus problems wide open. I'm always using the 18-200 anyway to cover the lower focal range, so I'm currently looking for a fast telephoto zoom lens to compliment the 18-200 vr. I think I'll end up settling on the Tamron DI f2.8 70-200mm. I've tested the canon version out at PhotoBarn and I was really impressed. The nikon mount won't come out for a month though.


----------



## milkpowder

The experimentation continues:

















 I don't have Photoshop or any other more professional image editing tools so I'm using a combination of Picasa2, HP Photosmart Premier and FastStone Photo Resizer to do the editing. I don't know what I'm doing half the time and am merely applying my highly non-professional and subjective "oh that looks cool why don't I do that" cookie-cutter to every photo. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Still trying to figure out how to best balance ISO, aperture and shutter speeds... I'll also attempt some night shots of Hong Kong's skyline if my dad feels like driving me tonight. Hope the weather will be good...


----------



## perplex

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kevin gilmore* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The guy with the nikon d3 is using a 200mm f2.0 lens. However
 he is also using a tc20 teleconverter resulting in something that
 ends up a 400mm f4.0. If he stops it down 2 stops and can get
 close enough to minimum focus distance he can get pictures that
 are 1/4 life size. Stunning pictures for sure. I don't think the
 400mm f2.8 can do as well for this kind of thing._

 

Hi there.. I remember years ago you using the words "or else" if Nikon don't release a full frame body. So did you buy the D3?


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't have Photoshop or any other more professional image editing tools so I'm using a combination of Picasa2, HP Photosmart Premier and FastStone Photo Resizer to do the editing._

 

If you use xp, Image resizer from xp powertoys is the easiest way to resize your image. I wish mac has one tool like that.


----------



## milkpowder

The XP image resizer is good for general usage but a bit too basic. I need something with resampling options + batch capability + free and the FastStone Photo Resizer 'fits the bill' perfectly.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't know what I'm doing half the time and am merely applying my highly non-professional and subjective "oh that looks cool why don't I do that" cookie-cutter to every photo._

 

What you have to know is that most photographers use your cookie-cutter approach .

 And let me just say that after seeing the picture of the bubbles you can no longer call yourself unprofessional. You're at the point where I would recommend you stop criticizing yourself publicly. Just let your pictures speak for themselves. You'll find that there are a lot of people who *would* call some of your photos professional.

 One thing is for sure, you certainly have nice equipment.


----------



## uppis

Any D300 users..? I got mine yesterday, great camera, at least compared to D50. Feels wonderful in my hands. I'm just having a little problem with custom setting f1, multi-selector in playback mode. Which one is 100% magnification, low or medium?


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *uppis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Any D300 users..? I got mine yesterday, great camera, at least compared to D50. Feels wonderful in my hands. I'm just having a little problem with custom setting f1, multi-selector in playback mode._

 

Indeed! I am strictly a user only because the camera is my dad's. I've only read the last several pages and iirc there are at least 2 or 3 D300 users.


 I went shooting (photos) with a friend today around the Mong Kok, Pacific Place and Kowloon Tong in Hong Kong. He has a D300 and I got a chance to try out two of his splendid Nikon lens, the 70-200mm F/2.8 and 35mm F/2.0.

 The 70-200mm was heavier than I was expecting but the images are immaculate. AF is pretty quick and I liked the "Internal Focus" feature. I'm not so sure I'd like to lug it around on holiday though...

 I was even more impressed by the 35mm F/2.0, which produced razor sharp photos. The generous aperture size makes indoor photography very easy (low ISO and fast shutters). Funnily enough, I never missed the lack of 'zoom' at all. Initially, I had trouble controlling the depth of view, which required a surprising amount of skill and precision with the F-stop. I have never shot at lower than F/3.5 and never expected the focus to be so shallow at F/2.0. I didn't have a chance to verify this myself, but I felt that the same F-stop value on the 35mm produced shallower depth of view than on my dad's 18-200mm. Am I imagining things? Nevertheless, I enjoyed the 35mm's short minimum focussing distance.

 The 35mm F/2.0 isn't without its drawbacks though. First, the lack of VR (which I'm used to) means that I have to use a high ISO to compensate for low light when the shot asks for a particularly small aperture and therefore slow shutter speed. This quite frankly makes hand held shooting a bit of a pain in the arse... I also discovered that even 35mm (x1.5 on DX) isn't wide enough to take photos in tight indoor spaces. I know this isn't the lens' _fault_. Anyhow, I was glad I could try the 35mm because I now know that the 50mm F/1.4*/8* I was considering would've been a tad 'narrow' for my needs.

 I have no photos from today because I didn't have 'my' camera with me and shot with my friend's instead.

 Later in the day, we went to a large specialist camera shop in Mong Kok where my friend enquired about availability of the 24-70mm. Apparently, they only sell it with the D3 body!?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Why? They couldn't tell us... Anyhow, my friend already has one on order from one of the larger electronics retailers and will hear from them early next week. I hope to be able to try it out if it arrives before I leave Hong Kong for university, which starts in a few days. Unfortunately, that also means I will no longer have a single decent DSLR at my disposal. I do have a colleague with a D80 but it would be inconvenient and awkward to use it on a regular basis...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Hence I need to ask for some advice as to what would be a suitable Nikon package for a beginner. For the body, I was thinking one with an AF motor. I personally would like to wait for the D90 (or whatever the D80 replacement will be called) because that should have some of the D3/300's waterdowned features. For lens, the 50mm F/1.8 should be a good place to start because it is so cheap. Later on, I could perhaps add in a 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 VR and a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. I find this all incredibly expensive and not something easily affordable by a student with no regular income whatsoever. Considering my inexperience and newness to this "hobby", for lack of a better word, should I start with the much cheaper, more basic but still very decent D60 kit? My main concern are the lens restriction and that the D60 may be too basic(?).


----------



## Towert7

You Dad won't give you a D300 for a going away present?


----------



## milkpowder

Haha... I could dream, couldn't I?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *uppis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Any D300 users..? I got mine yesterday, great camera, at least compared to D50. Feels wonderful in my hands. I'm just having a little problem with custom setting f1, multi-selector in playback mode. Which one is 100% magnification, low or medium?_

 

I've read people say it's the medium setting. 
D300 LCD zoom levels : Nikon D300/D200/D100 Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Towert7

I say that because after you try a D300, nothing will suite in comparison. Only thing to do is get a D300. ^_^
 I'm just kidding of course.

 To be honest, a D80 is plenty good enough. Unless you can afford better, the D80 should be very nice.
 As for a lens, you need to decide what you plan on doing with the camera. If you only take long range shots and drive to your location, a big telephoto lens is going to work nice.
 If instead you like the lightest you can get because you walk around with your camera for hours on end, then you need to look into something light.

 For most of my pictures, I could get away with a nice 85mm and either a 35mm or a 20mm fixed focal length.
 For times when I will be taking pictures of a variety of subjects though, it is nice to have the 18-200VR. At 680$, it is a great starter lens. (since it takes the place of 2 or so lenses).

 A slightly cheaper, though arguably more cumbersom (and not as good) alternative would be something like the 18-70mm and 70-300mm basic lenses. Neither of these have VR, which the 18-200VR does. It also means that you will need to carry 2 lenses most of the time, and will find yourself switching lenses quite a bit.

 Again, this is for 'in general'. if you photograph very specific scenes, like only landscapes, or only people pictures, then you can buy a setup that is more specific and not as 'general purpose'.

 For a sold pro-sumer setup, I would start with a D80 and 18-200VR. This setup alone is cheaper than a D300.

 Well, those are some things to consider. As always, do NOT expect them to produce the level of quality that your dad's setup gives.


----------



## uppis

Thank you! That seem logical to me, but the noise on medium zoom at ISO 200 with indoors pictures made me wonder.. And milkpowder, D50/D70(s) have AF motor, and they are pretty cheap. D50 was just perfect camera, at least for me, to start photography as a hobby.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Initially, I had trouble controlling the depth of view, which required a surprising amount of skill and precision with the F-stop. I have never shot at lower than F/3.5 and never expected the focus to be so shallow at F/2.0. I didn't have a chance to verify this myself, but I felt that the same F-stop value on the 35mm produced shallower depth of view than on my dad's 18-200mm. Am I imagining things? Nevertheless, I enjoyed the 35mm's short minimum focussing distance._

 

If you put the 18-200VR on 35mm, and set them both to the same f stop, and shot at the same distance away from the subject, then you should get roughly the same DOF. Now, how each lens renders the out of focus part could be different, but the DOF should be roughly the same.

 This picture was shot using the 35mm lens at F/2.5, so I could have even gone shallower!!!




Full Size
 The DOF on this lens is crazy when you get close. And this lens can get close (especially seeing how it's not a true macro)!
 I think the DOF on this picture is about 2-3mm.


----------



## nineohtoo

Get a D50 and an 18-70mm(or an 18-135mm) and or prime like a 50mm 1.8 or 35mm f2. Use the zoom to figure out what focal lengths you'll mostly be using. Once you get a feel for what lengths you shoot, you can get a lens specifically suited for that length. I think the prime is nice to have just because of the optical quality, and the experience had when using a fixed focal length.


----------



## milkpowder

Thanks for the advice guys. I have a pretty good idea which focal lengths I need and the 18-200 covers 90% of those. I would get a 35mm prime for portraits and close-ups (incredible photo Towert7).

 My room mate back in high school had a D70 with kit 18-70 and the 'bog standard' 70-300. Actually, it took very decent photos.

 This photo was taken back in 2006 (when I actually had no idea about white balance, aperture, shutter speed, DOV, etc, ie a point and shoot shot or spray and pray
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) with his D70/18-70.





 Has anyone compared the normal 70-300 to the VR 70-300mm? The normal one sells for around the same price as the 50mm F/1.8 while the VR is around the $500 mark.


----------



## skyline889

I love my 70-300vr. Sure it's not the 70-200vr 2.8 I wanted but it was a third the price and offers great performance for what I do. It's tack sharp up to 200mm and pretty sharp all the way out to 300mm, there's little to no distortion at the wide nor the long end, and most important to me, there's little to no CA at any focal length. I don't think it was worth the $650 I paid (Ripped by Ritz of course but I needed it that weekend. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) when it first came out but for the $450-550 prices they go for used and new, it's hard to beat. Its too slow for most people in low light but if you don't mind boosting up the ISO, you can still take good shots in pretty low lighting conditions, so long as you do some PP. 

 My only problems with this lens so far has been that at 300mm it can mis-focus sometimes; its a pain but I usually shoot the same photo 3-4 times anyway and usually at least two of those are properly focused. Just something to keep in mind though, wasn't a deal breaker for me but might be for you. For daylight shooting its a great deal and a killer lens but if you're shooting say basketball games or some other fast moving, low light situation, you might want to look into the 80-200 2.8 Nikkor or one of the 70-200 2.8 offerings from Sigma or Tamron.


----------



## Towert7

I have the most basic version of the Nikon 70-300mm. For the price it is a real nice lens, but it is bested by the newer ones. My old one has a fair amount of chromatic aberration. The lack of VR makes it harder to take pictures, especially at the long end (needing 1/500 of a second or faster for consistent results).

 Short of getting the 80-200mm or 70-200VR, your best bet is the 70-300mm VR. And, you get an extended range (200-300 range). The old one is quite lite, but the newer one is a fair amount heavier and longer. Still, I would recommend it, especially for 480$ new.


----------



## milkpowder

Great info! I wasn't aware of the old and new VR version. So the new one is VRII right?

 Chromatic aberration is a new term for me. Having looked up the definition on wikipedia, I don't seem to have this problem with the 18-200, or maybe I just don't know what to look out for. How do you distinguish between CA and just blurring?


----------



## lan

There was a good link off the wiki about chromatic aberration.

Chromatic aberrations


----------



## milkpowder

Thanks. That's a superb website


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Great info! I wasn't aware of the old and new VR version. So the new one is VRII right?

 Chromatic aberration is a new term for me. Having looked up the definition on wikipedia, I don't seem to have this problem with the 18-200, or maybe I just don't know what to look out for. How do you distinguish between CA and just blurring?_

 

There are at least 3 versions of the Nikon 70-300. There is the oldest, 70-300G, the newer 70-300 ED, and the newest, 70-300VR.

 Chromatic aberration refers to incorrect colors recorded by the camera due to the lens. Purple, green, and blue fringing are all examples of this.


----------



## bloodydoorknob

I just recieved the 60mm afs micro nikkor at work and my first impression is "SHARP!"
 I'm planning on taking some flower shots with it this Thursday. So far, so good. 

 Here's the first test shot I took:
 This was shot at f8 in a studio with 2 versalight 500's. I shot a few inches away from the flower.


----------



## blessingx

Anyone else excited about the new CoolPix P80 announcement?

 27mm to 486mm / MSRP $399

 I may have just found my secondary camera.

Nikon intros the Coolpix P80, encourages you to zoom - Engadget


----------



## bloodydoorknob

A range of 27mm to 486mm and 13 fps is pretty impressive. I'm curious to see the image quality it produces.


----------



## skyline889

I'm going on a Photo trip at the end of April and I'm trying to decided between buying a D200 or saving money and buying a wide-angle zoom (i.e. 18-35/18-70mm/17-50mm/17-70mm). Any suggestions?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm going on a Photo trip at the end of April and I'm trying to decided between buying a D200 or saving money and buying a wide-angle zoom (i.e. 18-35/18-70mm/17-50mm/17-70mm). Any suggestions?_

 

It would probably help to state what you already have.


----------



## skyline889

Oh right, forgot about that. I don't really have much right now. I sold my D50 a while back to try a Canon 20D but I sold that as well and right now I'm borrowing my dad's D50/18-55. I have a 70-300mm VR right now and a few good AI lenses but obviously those don't meter with the D50 so it makes them nearly useless. Right now my options are buy glass and borrow the body till I leave for college than buy a new body, or buy the body now and use the glass I have or have access to. The D200 prices are great right now but I can still get a D50/SB-600/Tamron 17-50 combo for the same amount so I'm not really sure what I should do. I like the D50 but it does have it's limitations and the D200 would also let me use my AI glass, so right now I'm leaning towards the D200.


----------



## blessingx

Here's more information in the Nikon press release [via dpreview] on the P80.


----------



## dj_mocok

If I have access to a body, I'd buy my own glass first before I get the body. Unless I can find a D200 at ridiculously cheap price.


----------



## skyline889

The thing I like about the D200 is that I can use my 35 f1.4, 50 f/1.4, and 135 f/2.8 AI glass so it would save me some money in that respect. I have a chance at getting a D50 for $300 though, do you think I should take it or still just wait and pick up glass right now?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The thing I like about the D200 is that I can use my 35 f1.4, 50 f/1.4, and 135 f/2.8 AI glass so it would save me some money in that respect. I have a chance at getting a D50 for $300 though, do you think I should take it or still just wait and pick up glass right now?_

 

That's a choice only you can decide.


----------



## skyline889

Yeah I guess so. Out of curiosity, what's a good price on a D200 these days?


----------



## AudioNoob

750, dont get a d200, it wont give you mch in image quality, wait for the new sensor variety of d80


----------



## bigshot

I'm perfectly happy with my D200 and I see no point in upgrading yet. Too many lenses I need to buy first.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## ozz

Still happy with my d80 as bigshot said more lenses to be purchased
 before i would consider a new body.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah I guess so. Out of curiosity, what's a good price on a D200 these days?_

 

Body only models sell for around $800 - $900 US on eBay. I purchased a model with its battery grip for $915 in pristine condition; I imagine there are other similar deals available.


----------



## nineohtoo

I personally would stick with the D50 kit. I mean the D200 is cool and all, but I'd rather wait for the D3/D300 goodness to trickle down onto a consumer level body. Also, manually metering doesn't bother me, so I probably wouldn't even worry about using Ai/Ai-S lenses on a D50. ymmv on that one though.

 Would you sell the 35mm 1.4?


----------



## perplex

I'd love a D300 type of sensor in the D90. If it was a 10MP variety it would have even less noise than D300! But the D90 will have 12MP most probably.


----------



## Old Pa

Just unpacking this cute little puppy (body only) and getting a charged battery and a CF card installed. The manual appears to be at least twice as thick as my D200's. Got my Nikkor 70-200/2.8 hooked on and all appears well. Going to take some time to get all set up and organized, but what fun!


----------



## bigshot

I just ordered the tokina 11-16 that Ken Rockwell has been raving about. I think it's going to be the perfect complement to my 18-200 VR. Next up on the wish list is a whopper... the 400mm f2.8 VR. It's going to take a while to save up that much.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just ordered the tokina 11-16 that Ken Rockwell has been raving about. I think it's going to be the perfect complement to my 18-200 VR. Next up on the wish list is a whopper... the 400mm f2.8 VR. It's going to take a while to save up that much.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Ken Rockwell supposed to be some kind of joke in the photography world? (not to undermine the quality of the Tokina; I've read good reviews about it elsewhere).


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Ken Rockwell supposed to be some kind of joke in the photography world?_

 

Nope, his opinions are just as valid as anyone else's.
 In fact, he has a lot of very good advice for some people, myself included.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nope, his opinions are just as valid as anyone else's.
 In fact, he has a lot of very good advice for some people, myself included._

 

Very cool then. I must be thinking of someone else.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nope, his opinions are just as valid as anyone else's._

 

ROFLMAO! So much for any objective view of "opinions". That is exactly like saying any audio source is good.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ROFLMAO! So much for any objective view of "opinions". 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I don't see what's so funny. Maybe it's best that I don't?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is exactly like saying any audio source is good. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You think so?
 Hm.............


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

KR is ridiculed for going against the norm. I don't find him to be a fool, nor a genius. You must evaluate his opinion from a skeptical and detached position, as with anyone, and take what is or isn't relevant to yourself. I personally find the advice of Thom Hogan quite a bit more personally relevant, but YMMV.


----------



## AudioNoob

no motox you're right Ken Rockwell has lot's of junk in his website, the main problem is things that he serves on a plate as facts but in reality, they're mere opinions. He has some good things on there too but in general, he isn't reliable


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *AudioNoob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_no motox you're right Ken Rockwell has lot's of junk in his website, the main problem is things that he serves on a plate as facts but in reality, they're mere opinions. He has some good things on there too but so did hitler, in general, he isn't reliable_

 

And Godwin's Law is invoked. The Rockwell bashers have just lost the thread.

 Fact of the matter is, Rockwell pisses people off because he doesn't analyze tiny imperceptible technical differences in distortion and falloff - he goes out and shoots. Unless you're out shooting sports or birds, your equipment doesn't matter. And that pisses off the rest of the camera-reviewing world, who care more about equipment than photography. You could make some strong analogies to certain Head-Fi members with a lust for equipment over music.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I personally would stick with the D50 kit. I mean the D200 is cool and all, but I'd rather wait for the D3/D300 goodness to trickle down onto a consumer level body. Also, manually metering doesn't bother me, so I probably wouldn't even worry about using Ai/Ai-S lenses on a D50. ymmv on that one though.

 Would you sell the 35mm 1.4?_

 

Yeah I guess preference varies from person to person. For me, manual metering takes too long to get a shot exposed to my liking. If you're shooting stationery objects it's not so bad but if you or your subjects on the move, it's a bit of a hassle as I don't really remember how to calculate ev for different light conditions. I like the D300 but the only thing I really want from the D300/D3 would be the high ISO performance and to be honest, I really only shoot that high a couple times of year. For the most part, all my shots are done at ISO 200. About the 35mm, nope, I love this lens! It used to be my dad's and it is the primary reason why I was considering the D200. It took me a while to learn how to shoot at 1.4 (My first pictures with it were terrible) but the bokeh is so creamy, I love it!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Ken Rockwell supposed to be some kind of joke in the photography world? (not to undermine the quality of the Tokina; I've read good reviews about it elsewhere)._

 

Rockwell has some very good reviews, they are just extremely opinionated. I usually check out his reviews first when I'm shopping for new glass or a new body but he's not the only site I go to for info. Like any review, the thoughts inside need to be taken with a grain of salt, its just that for me, I usually take his words with a little more caution. Other than that, his reviews are generally very insightful and much less elitist than most reviewers who care only about bare performance specs and not price to performance, etc.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Fact of the matter is, Rockwell pisses people off because he doesn't analyze tiny imperceptible technical differences in distortion and falloff - he goes out and shoots._

 

That's what I do too, so his reviews work very well for me. He also does great comparison shots, like the ones in his comparison of the Nikkor wide zoom and the Tokina. His examples perfectly illustrated what I needed to know to make my decision.

 Here's the review, in case you're interested... Tokina 11-16mm

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## nineohtoo

Quote:


 And that pisses off the rest of the camera-reviewing world, who care more about equipment than photography. 
 

I wholeheartedly agree 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 People like that take the fun out of photography. IMO It's not about posting what tools you have, but the process in which you use whatever tools are at your disposal, and your end results. And by no means am I a KR fan, I just feel his opinions are no more absurd than the people who go out and shoot charts and stuff. 

 Nice equipment doesn't equal nice pictures. I'd think knowing how to use what you've got is much more important. I see so-so pictures all the time on flickr, or on other boards posted by people with bodies and lenses up into the thousands of dollars. 

 BTW, I also love your comment about the same applying for people on this board(not this post, just head-fi users in general). 

 skyline889, the D200 probably wouldn't be such a bad idea for you then. Especially at its current value. Weather sealed, metering with Ai/Ai-S lenses, more AF points, better AF tracking, etc.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You must evaluate his opinion from a skeptical and detached position, as with anyone, and take what is or isn't relevant to yourself._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *AudioNoob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the main problem is things that he serves on a plate as facts but in reality, they're mere opinions._

 

Somebody gets it.


----------



## AudioNoob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And Godwin's Law is invoked. The Rockwell bashers have just lost the thread.

 Fact of the matter is, Rockwell pisses people off because he doesn't analyze tiny imperceptible technical differences in distortion and falloff - he goes out and shoots. Unless you're out shooting sports or birds, your equipment doesn't matter. And that pisses off the rest of the camera-reviewing world, who care more about equipment than photography. You could make some strong analogies to certain Head-Fi members with a lust for equipment over music._

 

a) I don't agree, I honestly don't care or talk about equipment, you can make a good image with a point and shoot. but I know their limitations or errors. When you are doing professional enlargements or on the field as a photojournalist, certain things actually count

 b) I, as repeated below in a quote, already have told you what I find wrong about him and if you care to look, it wasn't anything about what you've said I would also argue that he isn't a good photographer but that's beside the point

 c)why is he bothering to review if he doesn't care?


----------



## bigshot

Opinions are not all created equal. Some are baseless and others have experience and research to back them up. It's pretty obvious that Ken Rockwell knows what he's talking about. He's a pro and he shares his experience on the internet. That's something to thank him for, not a reason to criticize him.

 The people that take shots at Rockwell are usually discussion forum know-it-alls who are speaking entirely from theory, not from practical experience. They get mad because all of their armchair quarterbacking gets blown away by someone who clearly knows his stuff. The criticism I've read about him says more about the person doing the criticizing than it does about Rockwell. People just react to his tone and totally miss the content.

 The review of the Tokina lens was brilliant. I don't know any other internet resource that provides info like that as clearly and puts it in better perspective than Ken Rockwell does.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *AudioNoob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_a) I don't agree, I honestly don't care or talk about equipment, you can make a good image with a point and shoot. but I know their limitations or errors. When you are doing professional enlargements or on the field as a photojournalist, certain things actually count_

 

Funny that you mention that.... Quote:


 b) I, as repeated below in a quote, already have told you what I find wrong about him and if you care to look, it wasn't anything about what you've said I would also argue that he isn't a good photographer but that's beside the point 
 

Come back when you can take anything nearly as good as these. And those aren't even his best. Quote:


 c)why is he bothering to review if he doesn't care? 
 

I never said he didn't care. I said he cared about the parts that actually make a difference in real-world performance, not the stupid technical arguments debated by people who only know equipment, not photography.

 Keep in mind that he has a degree in Engineering and has worked as an Engineer. He's capable of comprehending the technical points well enough to know what does and doesn't matter.


----------



## Towert7

[size=large]Guys and gals, STOP talking about kent rockwell.[/size]

 I, as well as many others, want this thread to be related to Nikon equipment, not a website owner. Create a new thread to discuss this.

 Dam I hate it when people bicker. whiny kids!


----------



## perplex

Hmmm when will Nikon release a 24 f1.4 and/or 35 f1.4 prime? Like Canon have had for a while now


----------



## GTRacer

Nikon don't need sissy primes when they have just-as-good zooms such as the 14-24mm f/2.8


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Hey guys - should I bother with a 17-55 f/2.8 upgrade? I've been taking a photo class recently, wherein I've been able to reevaluate the performance of both my 85 f/1.8 and 18-135 walk-around lenses - and the results are pretty obvious. To put it simply, the former lens is tack sharp and shows no distortions, whereas the 18-135 performs average at best, and mediocre at worst. 

 The only problem is, sometimes it's simply much more convenient to zoom out a little bit than take a few steps back - regardless of the differences in overall quality. So I'm pretty set now on replacing the kit lens with an upper end standard zoom; but don't know where to look. My dad, of course, likes to take the "don't fool around approach" to any dilemma and is keen on saving up for Nikon's pro-grade 17-55; yet I've read only mixed reviews for this lens, and would rather consider other options than plunk down over a grand for "so-so" quality. 

 What do you think?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nikon don't need sissy primes when they have just-as-good zooms such as the 14-24mm f/2.8 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It's 2 stop slower, heavy, expensive, and doesn't take filter. Great lens though if you can use it.


----------



## GTRacer

Yeah, it was all in jest, Nikon does need some fast, wide primes. 

 M0T0X: Have you considered Tamron's and Sigma's offerings? They're both pretty much equal in terms of IQ to the Nikkor, plus they're much cheaper and lighter. The Tamron seems more recommended, although I have the Sigma (HSM Macro version) and it doesn't have the problems other users were complaining about.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, it was all in jest, Nikon does need some fast, wide primes. 

 M0T0X: Have you considered Tamron's and Sigma's offerings? They're both pretty much equal in terms of IQ to the Nikkor, plus they're much cheaper and lighter. The Tamron seems more recommended, although I have the Sigma (HSM Macro version) and it doesn't have the problems other users were complaining about._

 

I've never really used both, but then again I've never been impressed by their build quality either. I know that when all boils down image quality is the deciding factor between a good lens and a bad lens, but after experiencing the solidity of the semi-pro 85, I think I'd be a little hesitant to "settle" for anything less. I mean, assuming price is taken out of the equation, is the Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina standard zoom really better than Nikon's 17-55?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've never really used both, but then again I've never been impressed by their build quality either. I know that when all boils down image quality is the deciding factor between a good lens and a bad lens, but after experiencing the solidity of the semi-pro 85, I think I'd be a little hesitant to "settle" for anything less. I mean, assuming price is taken out of the equation, is the Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina standard zoom really better than Nikon's 17-55?_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys - should I bother with a 17-55 f/2.8 upgrade? I've been taking a photo class recently, wherein I've been able to reevaluate the performance of both my 85 f/1.8 and 18-135 walk-around lenses - and the results are pretty obvious. To put it simply, the former lens is tack sharp and shows no distortions, whereas the 18-135 performs average at best, and mediocre at worst. 

 The only problem is, sometimes it's simply much more convenient to zoom out a little bit than take a few steps back - regardless of the differences in overall quality. So I'm pretty set now on replacing the kit lens with an upper end standard zoom; but don't know where to look. My dad, of course, likes to take the "don't fool around approach" to any dilemma and is keen on saving up for Nikon's pro-grade 17-55; yet I've read only mixed reviews for this lens, and would rather consider other options than plunk down over a grand for "so-so" quality. 

 What do you think?_

 


 If you can afford it, stick with Nikon lenses for the Nikon camera. Nikon know's what they are doing.

 I really like your dad's views. Save up and ploop down for the good one.
 Fixed Focal length lenses are great for times when you KNOW what focal length you want to use, and don't need much flexibility. For times when you need flexibility, a zoom is very helpful.

 You mention the need for a walk around lens.... but what range do you use when you 'walk around'? If you only ever use 17-55, then sure...... get it.
 If you use a wider range..... well you'll have to look at something else.

 I use the 18-200VR for a walk around lens, and then use primes or pro zooms for the other times when I can be more specific.
 The 18-200VR won't have as good clarity as the primes at certain focal lengths, but it's not far behind.

 If you need pro and can afford it, then:
 17-55mm,
 14-24mm
 24-70mm
 70-200mm

 If you can sacrifice a little image quality for more versatility, then:
 18-200VR

 For me the 18-200VR was a no brainer for a somewhat light and versatile walk around lens. I compliment it with pro zooms and Fixed focal lengths. Suites me.

 You just have to find what will suite you.


----------



## lan

I use the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and I think it's great. I'm a fan of that lens along with the 28-75 2.8 as walk around lenses as they are light. I havn't used the Nikon but read it's a little bit better but only at the wider end.

 I don't feel like the 17-55 is worth it since it's a DX lens. I would rather have the 24-70 on FX camera eventually.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_[size=large]Guys and gals, STOP talking about kent rockwell.[/size]

 I, as well as many others, want this thread to be related to Nikon equipment, not a website owner. Create a new thread to discuss this.

 Dam I hate it when people bicker. whiny kids!_

 

Seeing as you are neither a moderator nor the thread creator, your desires are no more important than the other posters in this thread, many of whom want to discuss Ken. Like it or not, Ken Rockwell is an integral part of any discussion of Nikon components online.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Funny that you mention that...._

 

I have an Olympus C-3030, which is the 3 megapixel verson of the camera he uses. It is an astounding little point and shoot, capable of taking great pictures. A friend of mine who is a musician wanted to print up publicity posters, and he used a shot I made with that camera. Blown up to 18 x 24 it was sharp as a tack and beautiful color saturation and skin tones.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you can afford it, stick with Nikon lenses for the Nikon camera. Nikon know's what they are doing._

 

That isn't necessarily good advice. I've got an old 43 to 86 Nikkor zoom that I've never liked much. Brand names aren't as important as performance.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That isn't necessarily good advice. I've got an old 43 to 86 Nikkor zoom that I've never liked much. Brand names aren't as important as performance.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

There are exceptions to everything in life.
 In general though, Nikon knows what they are doing for their bodies better than the rest. Same goes for Canon with their bodies. It can sometimes be as subtle as the brand name lens seeking less.


----------



## bigshot

And in general there are excellent third party lenses that work just as good on Nikon bodies... sometimes better as in the case of the Tokina I have on order. It's never a good idea to shop based on brand names alone. Anyone looking for lenses should consider the third party brands... unless they are putting together a collection of status symbols, in which case they should just go out and buy a Hasselblad that sits in a drawer and never gets used, like half the Hasselblad owners I know!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And in general there are excellent third party lenses that work just as good on Nikon bodies... sometimes better as in the case of the Tokina I have on order. It's never a good idea to shop based on brand names alone. Anyone looking for lenses should consider the third party brands... unless they are putting together a collection of status symbols, in which case they should just go out and buy a Hasselblad that sits in a drawer and never gets used, like half the Hasselblad owners I know!

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I haven't really heard of any 3rd party lenses that work better on nikon than the current nikkor equivalents.....
 You mention the one you just got..... but nikon doesn't have a F/2.8 equivalent... (best they have is the F/4 which is not comparable).
 Have any specifics that you would recommend?


----------



## bigshot

For this particular example, see Ken Rockwell's review here...

Tokina 11-16mm

 The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is wider, faster, sharper and has identical build quality and autofocusing speed to the Nikkor 12-24 f4. The only difference is the shorter zoom distance (which may not be an issue for most people like me, because 16mm comes close enough to the popular 18-200 VR) and the fact that it doesn't automatically snap to DX on a D3 (totally insignificant).

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For this particular example, see Ken Rockwell's review here...

Tokina 11-16mm

 The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is wider, faster, sharper and has identical build quality and autofocusing speed to the Nikkor 12-24 f4. The only difference is the shorter zoom distance (which may not be an issue for most people like me, because 16mm comes close enough to the popular 18-200 VR) and the fact that it doesn't automatically snap to DX on a D3 (totally insignificant).

 See ya
 Steve_

 

What did I just say in my last post?
 I said there is no nikon equivalent to the tokina. The Nikon is F/4, not F/2.8. Big difference.

 Well, if you happen across any other 3'rd party lenses that best the *equivalent* Nikkor's on the nikon body, let me know. I'm all ears. As of yet, I know of none.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I haven't really heard of any 3rd party lenses that work better on nikon than the current nikkor equivalents.....
 You mention the one you just got..... but nikon doesn't have a F/2.8 equivalent... (best they have is the F/4 which is not comparable).
 Have any specifics that you would recommend?_

 

Some of the third party lenses are just as good as Nikon's and are less expensive. Some of the them are inferior. Tamron makes a great 90mm macro lens that is just as sharp as Nikon's 105.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I haven't really heard of any 3rd party lenses that work better on nikon than the current nikkor equivalents._

 

The Tokina works better than the Nikkor equivalent. As I said, it's wider, faster, sharper, it focuses as fast and the build quality is the same. It isn't the same- it's *BETTER*. See the review for details.

 See ya
 Steve

 P.S. f2.8 is better than f4 if the lens is the same size and weight, and is as sharp or sharper, which the Tokina is.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The Tokina works better than the Nikkor equivalent. As I said, it's wider, faster, sharper, it focuses as fast and the build quality is the same. It isn't the same- it's *BETTER*. See the review for details.

 See ya
 Steve

 P.S. f2.8 is better than f4 if the lens is the same size and weight, and is as sharp or sharper, which the Tokina is._

 

Nikon has no equivalent. That makes 3 times now.... go ahead for 4, I'll laugh.
 F/4 and F/2.8 are not equivalent. I don't know how else to put it.............


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nikon has no equivalent. That makes 3 times now.... go ahead for 4, I'll laugh.
 F/4 and F/2.8 are not equivalent. I don't know how else to put it............._

 

That point is useless. Both lenses have the same purpose, to capture a wide angle of view. Therefore they target the same audience which in turn makes them equivalent.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That point is useless. Both lenses have the same purpose, to capture a wide angle of view. Therefore they target the same audience which in turn makes them equivalent._

 

No. Wrong.
 The Canon 85mm F/1.2 and Canon 85mm F/1.8 capture the same angle of view. From your argument it follows that: 'therefore they target the same audience which in turn makes them equivalent'.

 No, they do NOT target the same audience.
 F/1.2 is not equivalent to F/1.8

 Just as the 70-200mm F/4 is NOT equivalent to the 70-200mm F/2.8.
 Just as the wide angle F/2.8 is not equivalent to a wide angle F/4.

 In all cases, one is a better version of the other. Comparing the 'better version' to the 'worse version', you know who will win (in theory). Nikon does not have a 'better version' that is equivalent to the 11-16mm. If they did though, I would wager there is a greater than 50% chance that the Nikon would best the Tokina, and thus my argument stands that in general the equivalent nikkor is the better bet. As of yet, I know of no third party lens for nikons that works better than its equivalent nikkor, provided there is an equivalent.

 This ain't rocket science........... it's just logic.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, they do NOT target the same audience.
 F/1.2 is not equivalent to F/1.8_

 

For most people, it is, since most people shoot at sane apertures like f/4 or less to maintain sharpness. The f/1.8 is enough for even low-light shooters; the weight and bulk of the f/1.2 make it nothing more than a collector's piece; I don't know anyone who does real-world shooting with one.

 Heck, half the Canon portrait shooters I know use a Nikon 85 f/1.4 on their Canons for the Bokeh.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For most people, it is, since most people shoot at sane apertures like f/4 or less to maintain sharpness. The f/1.8 is enough for even low-light shooters; the weight and bulk of the f/1.2 make it nothing more than a collector's piece; I don't know anyone who does real-world shooting with one.

 Heck, half the Canon portrait shooters I know use a Nikon 85 f/1.4 on their Canons for the Bokeh._

 

Ah, but here's the thing. Even if you do not make full use of the F/1.2's lower f-stops, it should still give better image quality vs. the f/1.8 because it is an all around better lens optically (though it is larger and heavier).

 I think that's the reason behind lens maker's limiting the f-stop you can use. If you used a F/4 lens at a wider f-stop than F/4, you're probably not going to get ideal results, and so they limit you to F/4. For the lens maker to say the other lens is good down to F/2.8, they are saying that somehow it is better than the F/4 @ F/2.8 (Even if just size). It is a 'better' lens, for what ever reason, to warrant it able to be used open wider.

 That's why comparing the F/2.8 wide to the F/4 wide is, to me, not equivalent. Tokina is saying that lens is somehow good down to F/2.8, while nikon thinks their lens is only good to F/4 or so. So....... the tokina is the 'better' version. If nikon were to make a 'better' version, such as a F/2.8 then that would be a real comparison. Else, it's apples and oranges.

 The closest equivalent to the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 I can think of for nikon is their 14-24mm F/2.8, but they are almost entirely different ranges.


 The tokina is trying to fill the pro segment for their ultra wide angle. The only ultra wide zoom nikon has right now is a pro-sumer version. If nikon were to release a pro ultra wide zoom comparable to the tonika, my money would be on the nikon being an all around better lens.

 I hope that made sense...


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If nikon were to release a pro ultra wide zoom comparable to the tonika, my money would be on the nikon being an all around better lens._

 

It might very well be better (almost certainly in CA as comapred to Tokina's seemingly lacking coatings). However, a number of Nikon lenses are so expensive that they are very difficult to justify.

 Take for instance, that 12-24mm. Most sites give it only a narrow margin of image quality beyond the Tokina or Sigma equivalents. Add the fact that the Nikkor is the least well built of the three (at least IMO, having used all three) and paying double, essentially for a name, becomes a difficult proposition. See also the 17-55 /17-50 debate.

 Nikon may not offer an ultra-wide F2.8 DX lens, but given that their most similar offering to the 11-16 is MORE expensive despite being slower and less solidly built, it becomes quite hard not to compare the two.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah, but here's the thing. Even if you do not make full use of the F/1.2's lower f-stops, it should still give better image quality vs. the f/1.8 because it is an all around better lens optically (though it is larger and heavier)._

 

Dragging you back to the point... The Tokina wide zoom is SHARPER in resolution than the Nikkor at f4. It's a tiny bit softer at 2.8 at the edges than the Nikkor at f4, but the Nikkor is two clicks slower. The Tokina is clearly a better lens than the Nikkor. Read the article I linked.

 When you argue to win some sort of non-existent contest instead of arguing to make a clear point, you never win.

 Iron Dreamer: The Nikkor 12-24 is the lens we're discussing. On Ken Rockwell's site ( Tokina 11-16mm ) he has test images shot with the Tokina compared to the Nikkor, and the Tokina is sharper, both at the edges and in the center.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No. Wrong.
 The Canon 85mm F/1.2 and Canon 85mm F/1.8 capture the same angle of view. From your argument it follows that: 'therefore they target the same audience which in turn makes them equivalent'.

 No, they do NOT target the same audience.
 F/1.2 is not equivalent to F/1.8

 This ain't rocket science........... it's just logic._

 

The 85mms will share functions as portrait lenses and low light lenses.

 They don't target the same audience only for the fact that one is MUCH more expensive than the other. Usually only pros will buy the f/1.2 version.

 There is some science to all of this. All lenses work differently as they have different construction. Sometimes the faster lenses are optimized for their wide open apertures more. Stopped down, differences are less obvious. I think this is relevent to wideangle lenses which we are discussing. You'll be stopped down a bit in the daytime.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For most people, it is, since most people shoot at sane apertures like f/4 or less to maintain sharpness. The f/1.8 is enough for even low-light shooters; the weight and bulk of the f/1.2 make it nothing more than a collector's piece; I don't know anyone who does real-world shooting with one._

 

I still think it depends. The best lenses wide open are more than adaquetly sharp already and there's no need to stop down. f/1.8 is ok for some in lowlight. It depends on your situation. The 85 f/1.2 is such a situational lens. I used one as a walk around for sometime last year. It was an interesting experience. I really needed another camera for it though so ended up not keeping it.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah, but here's the thing. Even if you do not make full use of the F/1.2's lower f-stops, it should still give better image quality vs. the f/1.8 because it is an all around better lens optically (though it is larger and heavier).

 I think that's the reason behind lens maker's limiting the f-stop you can use. If you used a F/4 lens at a wider f-stop than F/4, you're probably not going to get ideal results, and so they limit you to F/4._

 

Maybe < f/2 on this special primes but >f/2, it's a wash. And if you talking wide angle used for mostly scenic stuff @ f/5.6-f/11, it's a wash.

 That Tokina lense is special as it's the only f/2.8 one. They had to design it with 2.8 in mind. You can't design something and say it didn't work well at 2.8 so let's make it f4 instead.

 Maybe people before didn't make a 2.8 because of price, weight, the technology wasn't good enough, or market wasn't there.


----------



## perplex

But they're not even the equivalent of each other, so you can't compare. That's like saying 70-200 f/2.8 is worse than the 200 f/2.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But they're not even the equivalent of each other, so you can't compare. That's like saying 70-200 f/2.8 is worse than the 200 f/2._

 

Well there is some overlap between the 2 zooms in question. You could compare them in the same ranges.

 People compare 70-200 f/2.8 vs 200 f/2 and 200 f/2 + 1.4x TC vs. 300 2.8 and 200 f2 + 2x TC vs. 200-400 f/4. It's always relevant for comparision if the range is useful to you because it's an option.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When you argue to win some sort of non-existent contest instead of arguing to make a clear point, you never win.
_

 

And that, my friend, is why you lost.
 ^_^


----------



## Towert7

Ah, I think my point is getting lost within the arguments and technicalities.

 I agree with Iron_Dreamer. When cost is a factor, a 3rd party lens can be a very nice alternative to the brand lens. Just look at how many people have a Sigma tele macro lens.

 If cost is not so much a factor, the brand lens is the better choice compared to a 3rd party lens more times than not (from what I've seen and heard). There are exceptions, and there are cases where it may be one subtle difference, but in general, I'd place my money on the brand lens.

 That's my main statement.

 It's silly really, because it doesn't have to be this way. However, that's how it seems to be.


----------



## bigshot

I agree with you that "more times than not" the Nikkor is the best choice. And the Nikkor 12-24 is a very good lens. If the Tokina wasn't a better lens in this case, I'd be buying the Nikkor and I'd be satisfied with it. But at the same settings (f stop and fielding) the Tokina is sharper. On top of that it's a full stop faster. It's a better quality lens than Nikkor's equivalent wide zoom, regardless of cost. Why pay more for a brand name lens that isn't as good? It pays to consider third party lenses.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## perplex

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well there is some overlap between the 2 zooms in question. You could compare them in the same ranges.

 People compare 70-200 f/2.8 vs 200 f/2 and 200 f/2 + 1.4x TC vs. 300 2.8 and 200 f2 + 2x TC vs. 200-400 f/4. It's always relevant for comparision if the range is useful to you because it's an option._

 

Sure but you have to specifically state you're talking about those ranges, and not just make a general statement that a certain lens is better than the other.


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 Why pay more for a brand name lens that isn't as good? 
 

Resale value might be considered a reason for some. Nikon lenses usually hold their value better ( sometimes considerably better ) than any third party manufacturer's lenses. 

 I agree with you however....most of my lenses are Nikon, but I do own and use the Tokina 12-24 and a Sigma EX 180 macro because I couldn't justify the additional expense of the equivalent Nikons vs. quality differences, and if this new ultra-wide Tokina is as sharp as it appears, IMO it would be a no-brainer over the slower and more expensive Nikon.

 IIRC, the founders of Tokina are all ex-Nikon people, by the way.


----------



## bigshot

Tell me about the Sigma EX 150. I'm lens shopping right now and that may be something I could use.

 Thanks!
 Steve


----------



## M0T0XGUY

So - assuming budget isn't an issue - I should go for the Nikon? Of course, I just now realized that the lens is of DX variety; which poses a potential problem as I plan to upgrade to a full frame DSLR sometime in the future. Still, I could settle for a cropped field of view (assuming future D3 like cameras have this feature) - but are there any full frame alternatives with a similar focal lenght? 

 P.S. I like the feel and image quality of the 24-70, but it's a little too expensive at its current price - and I don't think 28-70 is a particularly useful range on the D200.


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 Tell me about the Sigma EX 150. I'm lens shopping right now and that may be something I could use. 
 

Sorry, I meant 180mm. I don't do much macro shooting but what attracted me to this lens was it's 1:1 capability and the fact that unlike most macro lenses, you don't have to get as close to isolate your subject from it's surroundings. It's very solid and well built ( I like "heavy", although I know many people don't.). Also, it's an HSM model (internal motor) which provides quick and quiet focussing....although most macro shots would usually demand some manual tweaking.

Shutterbug: Sigma AF APO Macro 180mm f3.5 EX IF

FM Reviews - 180mm f3.5 EX APO Macro IF HSM

 Here's the very first shot I ever took with it. My recycle box on the back porch.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So - assuming budget isn't an issue - I should go for the Nikon? Of course, I just now realized that the lens is of DX variety; which poses a potential problem as I plan to upgrade to a full frame DSLR sometime in the future. Still, I could settle for a cropped field of view (assuming future D3 like cameras have this feature) - but are there any full frame alternatives with a similar focal lenght? 

 P.S. I like the feel and image quality of the 24-70, but it's a little too expensive at its current price - and I don't think 28-70 is a particularly useful range on the D200._

 

I don't think we will be seeing full frame sensors from Nikon in pro-sumer bodies under two grand for a while but I suppose only time will tell. If you have the money, I guess go with the Nikkor, but I don't think the 17-55mm is a particularly good buy as I know many who get results nearly as good with the Tamron 17-50. The 17-55 is built substantially better than the 17-50 however, you pay for that in bulk. It's not really a heavy lens but it is pretty big. One thing to keep in mind though, the Tamron does suffer from some pretty bad CA though, at least the one I tested did; so you'd have to use PS to edit that out. If it were me though, I'd skip the mid-range all together and go for a wide-angle.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I agree with you that "more times than not" the Nikkor is the best choice. And the Nikkor 12-24 is a very good lens. If the Tokina wasn't a better lens in this case, I'd be buying the Nikkor and I'd be satisfied with it. But at the same settings (f stop and fielding) the Tokina is sharper. On top of that it's a full stop faster. It's a better quality lens than Nikkor's equivalent wide zoom, regardless of cost. Why pay more for a brand name lens that isn't as good? It pays to consider third party lenses.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Aside from your use of the word equivalent, I agree with this.
 Always consider all the options, for sure!


----------



## Towert7

Darn Mbriant, why did you have to go and post that picture!
 I've been wanting a lens that can do 1:1 macro.

 800$ for that Sigma... ouch. Boy I wish I had more money.
 I was looking at either the Nikon 60mm or Tokina 100mm. Both are 400$.

 But as much as I want a macro lens, I would like a slightly better telephoto lens. my 70-300G just isn't cutting it.

 Expensive hobbies are rough when you're dirt poor.


----------



## skyline889

I don't know what I was on last night but I have a D200/12-24 Nikkor/18-70 Nikkor on my way to me! The glass will probably be gone after my trip though, too rich for my blood.


----------



## poo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think we will be seeing full frame sensors from Nikon in pro-sumer bodies under two grand for a while but I suppose only time will tell..._

 

Less than 1 month away. It will be a little over 2G, but I doubt there will be many complaints once it is announced.


----------



## lan

I got me a cheap Nikon extension tube. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm going to have a go at some flower macro shots. I don't feel like paying for a full time macro lens just yet. It looks like my 50 1.8 has a new function.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *poo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Less than 1 month away. It will be a little over 2G, but I doubt there will be many complaints once it is announced._

 

Thanks for the info. If this turns out to be true, I wonder how long until we see the 5D upgrade.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *poo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Less than 1 month away. It will be a little over 2G, but I doubt there will be many complaints once it is announced._

 

Where did you find this info? The Nikon D400 is fiction at best and there are no solid facts or remote release dates. Even if Nikon did come out with a pro-sumer/pro FF body to compete with the 5D, I can't imagine they'd release it at just over $2k this close after the D3 release. From a marketing perspective, I'd think they'd want to milk more out of their baby before they go mainstream.


----------



## poo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Where did you find this info? The Nikon D400 is fiction at best and there are no solid facts or remote release dates. Even if Nikon did come out with a pro-sumer/pro FF body to compete with the 5D, I can't imagine they'd release it at just over $2k this close after the D3 release. From a marketing perspective, I'd think they'd want to milk more out of their baby before they go mainstream._

 

D400 won't happen this year, but the Nikon version of the 5D will. Checked my info and it will in fact be in two months (the announcement) - sorry for the misleading 1 month I mentioned before.

 D3 is not all about full frame - the new model will strengthen their range and provide an aspirational model to prosumers for whom the D3 is out of reach.

 You can take this as the ignorant ramblings of another nobody with an internet connection if you choose, just thought I'd pass on what I know. Last I'll be saying on the matter.


----------



## perplex

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *poo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_D400 won't happen this year, but the Nikon version of the 5D will. Checked my info and it will in fact be in two months (the announcement) - sorry for the misleading 1 month I mentioned before.

 D3 is not all about full frame - the new model will strengthen their range and provide an aspirational model to prosumers for whom the D3 is out of reach.

 You can take this as the ignorant ramblings of another nobody with an internet connection if you choose, just thought I'd pass on what I know. Last I'll be saying on the matter._

 

Nooo... please tell us more 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . With the new D3 firmware update there have been intense rumours regarding a new body announcement near the D3 market segment, possibly higher.

 Most people had the impression that there will definately not be another full-frame body this year due to lack of manufacturing capacity.

 Personally what I want is a D90 using a tweaked D300 sensor but at 10MP so we can get D3 ISO performance 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . But the D90 will definately be around 12MP considering the 450D, so we can atleast hope for D300 ISO performance.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *poo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_D400 won't happen this year, but the Nikon version of the 5D will. Checked my info and it will in fact be in two months (the announcement) - sorry for the misleading 1 month I mentioned before.

 D3 is not all about full frame - the new model will strengthen their range and provide an aspirational model to prosumers for whom the D3 is out of reach.

 You can take this as the ignorant ramblings of another nobody with an internet connection if you choose, just thought I'd pass on what I know. Last I'll be saying on the matter._

 

Not at all, I think a Nikon competitor to the 5D is long overdue, I'm just surprised they chose to do it now. If they were going to do this, I would've expected them to release it at the same time as the D3 and the D300 but I guess their R&D was too saturated with the other two new bodies at the time? I figured that since they didn't release it at the same time, they were trying to play off the D3 for FF since I've seen a lot of people, who don't need anything close to the D3, step up to it simply because of the FX sensor. A 5D competitor would probably bring in enough sales that it wouldn't really matter though.


----------



## nineohtoo

A D90 w/very good high ISO, and a D3X are probably the only body updates that make sense. Otherwise Nikon's got all their bases covered. They just need to work on glass, like getting out some AF-S lenses, especially an 85mm 1.4 AF-S so someone can sell me there AF-D one for cheap 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 So I just traded my D70s for a D50+$75, and the high ISO's are ridiculously cleaner. Now all I need is a 85mm 1.4 to complete my low light trifecta.


----------



## Towert7

Just as canon has the 40D and 5D, nikon can easily have their D300 and ___ (Full frame). Price them right, and it will work out fine.

 I want a FF body that has the sharpness of the 5D and the ergonomics of the nikon. That would be so nice.


----------



## tnmike1

Folks I need help and don't want to troll thru 112 pages.

 Can someone recommend an entry-level Nikon digital SLR for someone moving up from the point-and-shoot?? Have looked at the D40, D40X and D60 but just don't know. Will be shooting mostly nature in the Smoky Mountains, lakes in Tennessee, that sort of thing. Also might buy an additional lens or two.

 Anyone have any input??? Thanks for any suggestions


----------



## dj_mocok

Basically you can't go wrong with any types of Nikon's current DSLRs really (picture quality wise).

 The thing you have to ask yourself is how much can you spend on the body, and how much money left for you to buy the lens. Also how does it feel in your hand, and how important it is for you to have more accessible hard buttons.

 So best way is go to the shop, try a few of the lines, and see which one you like the best. 

 If I still had to choose a camera now (starting from scratch), I'd probably still choose a D80 body over D300, and with the money left (D80 is less than 1/2 the price of D300), I'd buy a serious kick-arse lens to go with it.

 But then if budget isn't much of a concern, then by all means go for D300 since it's really awesome camera. It is not an entry level camera, but you will get used to it really quick considering how nice the camera is.


----------



## filipelli

Hey guys,

 I have a nikon d40 and I know that is a consumer camera...but I am considering selling it for p5100 for portability...and I don't feel safe carrying my huge bag in baltimore. What do you guys think of operability? Speed and operation in low light?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tnmike1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Folks I need help and don't want to troll thru 112 pages.

 Can someone recommend an entry-level Nikon digital SLR for someone moving up from the point-and-shoot?? Have looked at the D40, D40X and D60 but just don't know. Will be shooting mostly nature in the Smoky Mountains, lakes in Tennessee, that sort of thing. Also might buy an additional lens or two.

 Anyone have any input??? Thanks for any suggestions_

 

D80.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry, I meant 180mm. I don't do much macro shooting but what attracted me to this lens was it's 1:1 capability and the fact that unlike most macro lenses, you don't have to get as close to isolate your subject from it's surroundings._

 

Is it VR? I would think it would be hard to hold steady in lower light situations when you get that close with that long a lens.

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## mbriant

You're probably right but I would think a tripod and/or flash/fill flash would usually be in order for most macro shots anyway....especially in low light. Shooting tight macro shots in low light and handheld would make a wide aperture necessary with any focal length and therefore limit an already limited depth of field. But to answer your question, not VR.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tnmike1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can someone recommend an entry-level Nikon digital SLR for someone moving up from the point-and-shoot?? Have looked at the D40, D40X and D60 but just don't know._

 

As DJ said, the question is less "Which body?" than "Which lenses?". The choice of different lenses is what makes a DSLR better than a point and shoot. If you don't plan to get a lot of lenses, the D40 is probably the best choice because it is more limited as to which lenses you can use with it. If you think you might someday move up to a higher level camera, then the D80 is the best choice. Whatever you choose, you should make sure you don't overspend on the body and shortchange the lens budget. If you end up with just one basic lens, it isn't all that different from a really good point and shoot.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're probably right but I would think a tripod and/or flash/fill flash would usually be in order for most macro shots anyway....especially in low light. Shooting tight macro shots in low light and handheld would make a wide aperture necessary with any focal length and therefore limit an already limited depth of field. But to answer your question, not VR._

 

Are there any macro lenses that could double as a good portrait lens?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## mbriant

I'm not sure. Usually when a lens is specialized (such as macro, perspective control, etc.), it's never the best choice for other types of shots. But that shouldn't mean it would be terrible either. I would think the 180 would be good for certain head shots, but I've never tried.


----------



## poo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are there any macro lenses that could double as a good portrait lens?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

100mm macro (especially on a non full frame camera) will give you a pretty impressive portrait result.


----------



## lan

105VR could be used for portraits also.

 I got me a MB-D10 today 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It should help with a lot of vertical shots. I like that it weighs so little.


----------



## poo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If they were going to do this, I would've expected them to release it at the same time as the D3 and the D300 but I guess their R&D was too saturated with the other two new bodies at the time? I figured that since they didn't release it at the same time, they were trying to play off the D3 for FF since I've seen a lot of people, who don't need anything close to the D3, step up to it simply because of the FX sensor. A 5D competitor would probably bring in enough sales that it wouldn't really matter though._

 

R&D yes, but more because of release schedules and marketing plans. Pretty rare for any camera manufacturer to release its new flagship and its slightly lesser sibling at the same time. Too much for the market with the D300 release at the same time, and they would have missed out on sales. As you mentioned - many people stepped up to the D3 just for full frame - why introduce a cheaper alternative at the same time then?

 A bit of googling will reveal some details leaked through a recent firmware upgrade to the D3 for those who want a little more of what is to come - be aware that _alot_ of that info is misleading (like the 24 megapixel stuff - why would the D3 be replaced so early? And a new smaller brother with a higher MP sensor - yeah right!).


----------



## uppis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I got me a cheap Nikon extension tube. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I'm going to have a go at some flower macro shots. I don't feel like paying for a full time macro lens just yet. It looks like my 50 1.8 has a new function. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Have you tried reverse mounting ring for 52mm filter thread, works also nicely with 50 1.8 as macro. If I remember right its supposed to give 0.7x lifesize, only drawback is missing focus. But for 10$ I think it is just fine.
 But to my actual question, which tube you got, how close to lifesize it goes?
 And yes, MD-D10 is must have for D300.


----------



## bigshot

I've been doing some googling today, and I'm finding that Tokina makes a great line of lenses. Apparently, they're ex-Nikon lens designers who split off because Nikon was headed towards focusing on primes rather than zooms after the poor performance of the Nikkor 43-86 (which I have and it does indeed perform poorly).

 Tokina has two more lenses that I am considering... a 100mm f2.8 1:1 macro that apparently has slightly sharper optics than the Nikon equivalent, and the 300mm f2.8 tele that is $2,000 less than the Nikon with no less image quality (just 10% slower autofocus). I can live with that for 2 grand!

 I just ordered the 100mm. It should be here after Passover.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've been doing some googling today, and I'm finding that Tokina makes a great line of lenses. Apparently, they're ex-Nikon lens designers who split off because Nikon was headed towards focusing on primes rather than zooms after the poor performance of the Nikkor 43-86 (which I have and it does indeed perform poorly).

 Tokina has two more lenses that I am considering... a 100mm f2.8 1:1 macro that apparently has slightly sharper optics than the Nikon equivalent, and the 300mm f2.8 tele that is $2,000 less than the Nikon with no less image quality (just 10% slower autofocus). I can live with that for 2 grand!

 I just ordered the 100mm. It should be here after Passover.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Tokina seems to be one of the more respected 3rd party lens makes (compared to sigma and tamron).
 That 100mm Macro sure does look interesting. If I had a bit more money I would be considering it or the nikon 105VR right now.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are there any macro lenses that could double as a good portrait lens?_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *poo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_100mm macro (especially on a non full frame camera) will give you a pretty impressive portrait result._

 

My Tamron SP Di AF 90mm/f2.8 Macro 1:1 (135mm 35mm equivalent) works well in these capacities for me. The "stand off" distance you get helps with both macro and portrait. And it's bright.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *uppis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you tried reverse mounting ring for 52mm filter thread, works also nicely with 50 1.8 as macro. If I remember right its supposed to give 0.7x lifesize, only drawback is missing focus. But for 10$ I think it is just fine.
 But to my actual question, which tube you got, how close to lifesize it goes?
 And yes, MD-D10 is must have for D300.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Actually never thought about reversing the zoom ring.

 I got an old E2 tube which is about 14mm. It's pre AI or anything really (ancient 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) so I'm going full manual. There's a pin plunger to open up the aperture. I'll be using my 55-200VR. With auto ISO and live view it should be easy to work with.


----------



## uppis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually never thought about reversing the zoom ring.

 I got an old E2 tube which is about 14mm. It's pre AI or anything really (ancient 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) so I'm going full manual. There's a pin plunger to open up the aperture. I'll be using my 55-200VR. With auto ISO and live view it should be easy to work with. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Ok, I'm also interested in macro, but I decided to start with the cheapest possible way.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And full manual is actually not that bad at all, little more challenging but for me, its fun. Now I'm thinking about Kenkos tube set, Tokina 100m 2.8 macro, or Nikon 105mm non-VR..


----------



## lan

I don't do much macro work so don't really want to invest much. I'm rather particular about my prime lenses also and the common macro lenses are not focal lengths I would normally use.

 So today with my "zoom macro", I had a lot of fun. Here are some select photos below. I'm not sure I really used it as a macro lense since I didn't use 1:1 or 1:2 even but the extension tube reduced my working distance. The combo of the zoom and focus to control focus was an interesting experience.


----------



## uppis

Here is few quick macro shots with reversed 50 1.8. Both shot handheld without additional light in greenhouse, uploaded straight from camera.





 1/200 sec f5.6 ISO 200





 1/125sec f8 ISO 400


 Oh well, lets put one without reversing too.





 50mm 1/2000sec f2.8 ISO 560


 A little ad, I have SR325i's waiting for trade to Nikon gear.


----------



## nineohtoo

Quote:


 Apr 19--Current rumors out of Japan have Nikon introducing the D90, D3x, plus lenses, in the second week of June. I'm tightening my D90 (or whatever they decide to call it) prediction date to between May 12th and June 16th. - Tom Hogan 
 

Hmm. I'm really hoping for a D90 with better AF and ISO levels on par with a D300. I'm wondering, what the lenses are, and hoping their updates of some primes, so I can get the older ones on the cheap. 


 Here's to an 85mm 1.4 AF-S Nano


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm. I'm really hoping for a D90 with better AF and ISO levels on par with a D300. I'm wondering, what the lenses are, and hoping their updates of some primes, so I can get the older ones on the cheap. 


 Here's to an 85mm 1.4 AF-S Nano 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Was that quote taken from a website?

 If the rumors are true about a Pro-sumer Full Frame, I am very excited and hope Nikon puts out some revised Full Frame lenses. Should be interesting to see if they are Fixed or Zoom lenses.


----------



## perplex

If Nikon kept D90 at 10MP they could have D3 ISO performance with a crop sensor? However it will definately be atleast 12MP. It should have D300 ISO performance I would say.

 The news about lens is just as exciting. Everyone's crying for some fresh new wide primes like a 24mm & 35mm f1.4 AF-S.

 By the way, I think this is all beyond rumours now. Thom Hogan almost always knows what he's talking about and there have been almost the same rumour from multiple sources now.

 The D90 is a given, however it looks like there'll either be a 5D competitor or high resolution full-frame body too. This is weird because even Thom Hogan said that another full frame body wouldn't be feasable with Nikon's manufacturing capacity due to D3 being in such demand.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *uppis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_




 50mm 1/2000sec f2.8 ISO 560_

 

I like this picture! Very colouful.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm. *I'm really hoping for a D90 with better AF and ISO levels on par with a D300.* I'm wondering, what the lenses are, and hoping their updates of some primes, so I can get the older ones on the cheap. 


 Here's to an 85mm 1.4 AF-S Nano 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I'm excited
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Kinda difficult to choose between D90 and a couple lens or a HeadAmp KGSS though...


----------



## nineohtoo

It's Tom Hogan, so these should be a given. I personally don't see a FX pro-sumer yet. People are ponying up the cash for a D3, so I don't think Nikon would hurt their sales and give us something in between the D300 and D3 yet. The new lenses can be a huge thing for the used market. We finally start seeing some prices begin to drop(85mm 1.4 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




). But some wide fast primes, especially for the d40/d60 crowd would be nice. 

 To be honest, unless the D90 gives iso 3200 that looks like my D50's ISO 1600, I don't see to much advantage in upgrading. I'd like better and faster AF/AF tracking, and a bigger buffer, but it's rare that I tell myself, "if only my D50 could do this or that". Usually the problems are with my settings or my composition. 

 But then if we do get that tax check, I'd be hard pressed to choose between getting an 85mm 1.4, or boosting ISO's on a D90 to use my 85mm 1.8. 

  Quote:


 I'm excited Kinda difficult to choose between D90 and a couple lens or a HeadAmp KGSS though... 
 

Like some people have mentioned in this post, it hurts to have expensive hobbies and not much money lol. I've learned to just have good enough(and buy used) with all my hobbies(photo, music, surfing, gadgets), instead of digging myself into more debt by having the latest and greatest.


----------



## uppis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I like this picture! Very colouful._

 

Thank you! I would be buying new 85mm if Nikon decides to make one, though I may just get 85 1.8 now, I think it could work with 50 1.8 nicely..


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *uppis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thank you! I would be buying new 85mm if Nikon decides to make one, though I may just get 85 1.8 now, I think it could work with 50 1.8 nicely.._

 

The 85mm F/1.8 is a great lens, ESPECIALLY for the price!


----------



## Towert7

Nineohtoo, I'm with you. I have the D50, and it does almost everything I need. My biggest complaint is high ISO grain, small viewfinder, no D3/D300 CA correction, and FX size sensor.

 I'll be honest with you, if I could get everything that the D300 has with Full Frame sensor, I'd do it. That would be enough of an upgrade for me over my D50 to warrant a new purchase.

 In terms of lenses, Nikon has quite a few. There are a few Canon only type lenses that would be nice to have in the Nikon Kit though. A pro 70-200 F/4 would be cool at 600$ so I don't have to pony up for the 1600$ version.
 They could also benefit from a 24-70mm VR.

 I would be really sad to see more DX type lenses. I would say to myself, what a waste!


----------



## bigshot

I don't think DX is anywhere close to dead. They'll just continue to make sensors that have higher pixel counts, so it won't really matter if there's a little crop in. At this point, the resolution of my D200 is high enough that I can print any size I want anyway.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think DX is anywhere close to dead. They'll just continue to make sensors that have higher pixel counts, so it won't really matter if there's a little crop in. At this point, the resolution of my D200 is high enough that I can print any size I want anyway.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I think DX is close to dead.

 Nikon's no dummy. And while their consumer P&S may continue on the marketing road of 'more pixles = better', their pro-sumer DSLR's wont if no more gain is to be had.

 The DX sensor size can only capture so much info. After so many pixels you are no longer pixel limited. I forget where the theoretical limit is for DX censors, but I seem to remember it being below 20Mpixels. We are very close to it right now.

 Assuming you have a lens with good clarity, there comes a point where no more pixels can help. You need to go to a larger sensor size. This is why the 5D takes such wonderful pictures, even with the most modest of lens. We are very close, if not already at this point.

 The only way to improve is to go to a larger sensor size for more clarity. It is going to happen a lot sooner than the nay sayers want you to believe. That's why I would start selling off those DX lenses soon while you can still fetch a good $ for them.

 I want 5D clarity with D300 ergonomics!!!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think DX is anywhere close to dead. They'll just continue to make sensors that have higher pixel counts, so it won't really matter if there's a little crop in. At this point, the resolution of my D200 is high enough that I can print any size I want anyway.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I also wanted to point out something that you may have as a misconception.

 If, let us say, the theoretical limit of the DX sensor size is 16Mpixels. Adding more Mpixels will not allow for a better crop than that of the 16Mpixel sensor. It is a physical limit determined by the pixel size of the sensor. Now remember, the sensor size for DX is fixed. Adding more pixels does not increase the sensor size, but rather decreases the pixel size.

 Whether it is because you are becoming diffraction limited or whatnot, smaller pixels just won't cut it. That is why you need a larger sensor size.

 Hope this helps,
 ~Drew


----------



## nineohtoo

Quote:


 My biggest complaint is high ISO grain, small viewfinder, no D3/D300 CA correction, and FX size sensor. 
 

To be honest, I think the D50 is damn good when it comes to ISO noise and grain. I don't even need to bother with any sort of NR so far with ISO 1600.







 One of the first shots I took with it after I traded for it. Had that been with a prior D70s or D2H, I would have had to run some sort of NR and then lose some sharpness and color. I don't mind fixing CA in CS2. It would be nice to have it in camera though.

 The viewfinder does suck compared to when I used a D2H, and of course an FX sensor would be nice. 

 uppis, just buy the 85mm 1.8 if the 1.4 is out of your league. It's still an extraordinary lens, regardless of price compared to 85mm 1.4.

 BTW, anyoen have any broken or dismantled lenses lying around? I want to make a lens bracelet like the one that was on gizmodo.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To be honest, I think the D50 is damn good when it comes to ISO noise and grain. I don't even need to bother with any sort of NR so far with ISO 1600.

 One of the first shots I took with it after I traded for it. Had that been with a prior D70s or D2H, I would have had to run some sort of NR and then lose some sharpness and color. I don't mind fixing CA in CS2. It would be nice to have it in camera though._

 

Really? Hm...
 Do you have your camera set to max sharpness?
 I have mine set to max sharpness, and at ISO800 it is quite noticeable, and at ISO1600 it gets really annoying.

 I wonder if the sharpness setting has anything to do with it. I'll have to give that a try and put mine to default some time.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think DX is close to dead.

 Nikon's no dummy. And while their consumer P&S may continue on the marketing road of 'more pixles = better', their pro-sumer DSLR's wont if no more gain is to be had._

 

No more gain in pixel COUNT. Pixel quality can still advance quite a ways.

 Besides. 6MP is plenty. 20MP is obscene. I've made stunning 20x24 prints off shots from my D50 at ISO400. Take that to the next level and look at the pixel size and ISO performance of a D300. I literally have no idea who, other than landscape-types that should be using large-format film anyhow, would ever need more.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No more gain in pixel COUNT. Pixel quality can still advance quite a ways.

 Besides. 6MP is plenty. 20MP is obscene. I've made stunning 20x24 prints off shots from my D50 at ISO400. Take that to the next level and look at the pixel size and ISO performance of a D300. I literally have no idea who, other than landscape-types that should be using large-format film anyhow, would ever need more._

 

6MP on a DX sensor is still pixel limited. 12mp is much closer.

 I agree though, pixel quality is the real tough part, and where improvements are always welcome. The D300 has shown what better quality pixel sensor can do.

 For most internet usage, crop sensors are fine. For large prints though, or for instances when you want the best picture quality, a 35mm size sensor or larger is helpful. The weeding photographers who offer their customers the option of a very large print come to mind, as do almost any genre of photographer. All of photography can benefit from sharper images.
 It is sad when a canon 5D with a budget lens takes images with better clarity than a nikon DX with a real nice lens....... but that's the way it is.

 I don't know. Maybe you think I'm silly.
 All I know is that I want my pictures to be as clear as possible. If I were to sell my pictures, I would want to put forth the best image possible. That's why I got a D-SLR in the first place, I want the best images I can get, not just what will look good at small resolutions.

 Nikon can not afford to have the 5D go without competition. They *must* introduce a 5D competitor to maintain that market share.


----------



## skyline889

nineohtoo, are you sure you didn't have in camera NR turned on when you took that shot? I've taken shots at ISO 800 and ISO 1600 and I've never seen shots that clean. While the D50 performs pretty well at high ISOS, I see noise beginning to creep in in shadows from just ISO 400 (I admit, I'm a pixel peeper) and by ISO 1600, I'm definitely losing some detail.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_nineohtoo, are you sure you didn't have in camera NR turned on when you took that shot? I've taken shots at ISO 800 and ISO 1600 and I've never seen shots that clean. While the D50 performs pretty well at high ISOS, I see noise beginning to creep in in shadows from just ISO 400 (I admit, I'm a pixel peeper) and by ISO 1600, I'm definitely losing some detail._

 

Ah, good point. I too do not have NR on in-camera. Again, I'm a sharpness freak.


----------



## uppis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_uppis, just buy the 85mm 1.8 if the 1.4 is out of your league. It's still an extraordinary lens, regardless of price compared to 85mm 1.4._

 

After some reading and seeing some pictures, thats probably what I'm going to do. And 85 1.4 is little too much right now, right after D300, which maybe didn't turn out the best investment for a while. No that its a bad camera, no, not at all, its absolutely great. I just think I could have buy few nice lenses for the price and work with D50. Its really not that much worse compared to D300, D50 mostly just feels like a toy after D300 and the screen looks so tiny..
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But hey, does anybody know why newer lenses (AFS VR as far as I've seen) have ten pins, when bodies have just eight?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If, let us say, the theoretical limit of the DX sensor size is 16Mpixels._

 

Where are you getting 16 megapixels as the theoretical limit of the DX sensor? A few years ago, the limit was 6 megapixels. There's no reason to believe that a few years from now, it'll be 24 or 32 megapixels. Digital cameras are getting to the point where they have resolution to spare for most people's purposes. The main advantage of modern sensors is high ISO performance, not pixel count. Besides, Nikon has traditionally moved very slowly with abandoning formats entirely. Their lenses from the 80s still work the same on cameras today. DX lenses will continue to work just the same on full frame cameras regardless of whether there are new DX bodies coming out. Even so, I doubt that Nikon will stop making DX cameras entirely. There is an advantage to maintaining a difference between consumer and pro lines. And DX lenses are cheaper to design and build than full frame ones.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For most internet usage, crop sensors are fine. For large prints though, or for instances when you want the best picture quality, a 35mm size sensor or larger is helpful._

 

I printed an 18 x 24 poster off a 3 megapixel shot from an Olympus 3030 and it was razor sharp. How big a print are you talking about?

 Sometimes I wonder if too much is never enough for some folks. I remember shooting ASA 800 on my old F2 and getting grain up the wazoo even at 8x10. The high ISO performance of my D200 is stunning, and I can print huge and it still looks great. Not to mention the fact that the automation on my D200 kicks ass compared to the manual everything of the F2. That frees me up to think creatively and focus on finessing the fine adjustments instead of going through a laundry list of steps with each and every shot.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Where are you getting 16 megapixels as the theoretical limit of the DX sensor? A few years ago, the limit was 6 megapixels. There's no reason to believe that a few years from now, it'll be 24 or 32 megapixels. Digital cameras are getting to the point where they have resolution to spare for most people's purposes. The main advantage of modern sensors is high ISO performance, not pixel count. Besides, Nikon has traditionally moved very slowly with abandoning formats entirely. Their lenses from the 80s still work the same on cameras today. DX lenses will continue to work just the same on full frame cameras regardless of whether there are new DX bodies coming out. Even so, I doubt that Nikon will stop making DX cameras entirely. There is an advantage to maintaining a difference between consumer and pro lines. And DX lenses are cheaper to design and build than full frame ones.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

This is a good read if you haven't already.
The Full-Frame Advantage


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 85mm F/1.8 is a great lens, ESPECIALLY for the price!_

 

Do you find the large minimum focusing distance to be a problem? In that same price range you can get the Tamron 90 macro or Sigma 105 macro, which of course are quite a bit bigger, and lose 1.3 steps of light. Every time I look at that 85, the idea of being limited to a yard from my subject seems like it would be an annoyance. Heck, I'm often wishing my 180 could get closer than its' five foot limit. I guess the 35 F2 has spoiled me a bit!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you find the large minimum focusing distance to be a problem? In that same price range you can get the Tamron 90 macro or Sigma 105 macro, which of course are quite a bit bigger, and lose 1.3 steps of light. Every time I look at that 85, the idea of being limited to a yard from my subject seems like it would be an annoyance. Heck, I'm often wishing my 180 could get closer than its' five foot limit. I guess the 35 F2 has spoiled me a bit! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Most of the time I'm using my 85mm for people shots, and so I'm well beyond the minimum focusing distance. For times when I take pictures of my cat, I sometimes have to move back a little. I recently took a few pictures of some cherry blossoms and found the minimum focusing distance unacceptable. It most certainly is not a macro lens.

 This was the closest I could get with it:






 Same tree, cheap 70-300mm lens:





 No cropping on either.


----------



## nineohtoo

So "long exposure NR" was on. I didn't get a manual with my D50, so I don't know of any other way to turn it on/off. In camera adjustments were on normal, then I customized it to my liking and snapped this, with long exposure NR off:






 100% crop:






 Still no color noise, just grain which doesn't bother me. It's my friends birthday tomorrow, so I'll be able to test its lowlight abilities at BJs. Then Thursday Calvin Harris is playing over here and I'm gonna sneak my camera under my jacket lol.


----------



## perplex

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To be honest, I think the D50 is damn good when it comes to ISO noise and grain. I don't even need to bother with any sort of NR so far with ISO 1600.






 One of the first shots I took with it after I traded for it. Had that been with a prior D70s or D2H, I would have had to run some sort of NR and then lose some sharpness and color. I don't mind fixing CA in CS2. It would be nice to have it in camera though.

 The viewfinder does suck compared to when I used a D2H, and of course an FX sensor would be nice. 

 uppis, just buy the 85mm 1.8 if the 1.4 is out of your league. It's still an extraordinary lens, regardless of price compared to 85mm 1.4.

 BTW, anyoen have any broken or dismantled lenses lying around? I want to make a lens bracelet like the one that was on gizmodo._

 

Not bad but it's web sized and 1/160 shutter. Try again with an exposure around 1/30


----------



## skyline889

nineohtoo, you still have color NR is CS2 set to 25, that's why you're not seeing noise and just grain. It's a default for Camera Raw, along with brightness, contrast, black levels, and sharpening, so I always zero everything out and then work from there.


----------



## nickknutson

I'm thinking about buying a telephoto lens and I'm torn between the 70-200mm 2.8VR and the 80-200mm 2.8. Do you guys think it's worth the extra $600-$700 for the VR?


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nickknutson* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm thinking about buying a telephoto lens and I'm torn between the 70-200mm 2.8VR and the 80-200mm 2.8. Do you guys think it's worth the extra $600-$700 for the VR?_

 

I really like my 70-200/2.8VR. I started out with some Canon 15x50IS binoculars and it was clear that image stablization technology had arrived. The 70-200/2.8VR has a very useful zoom range, internal focusing, great brightness, nice bokah, and the VR buys you two to three stops; very useful if you usually hand hold. It's probably my favorite specialized lense. You should try it out on your camera body, as it has some weight and bulk with which you will have to see if you can deal. I have absolutely no "buyer's remorse" with this lense.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nickknutson* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm thinking about buying a telephoto lens and I'm torn between the 70-200mm 2.8VR and the 80-200mm 2.8. Do you guys think it's worth the extra $600-$700 for the VR?_

 

If you plan to shoot out at the 200 end, you will either need a tripod or VR. Take your choice. I would consider the extra money well spent myself.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you plan to shoot out at the 200 end, you will either need a tripod or VR._

 

A good working rule of thumb when handholding still cameras (as well as utilizing a good braced arm position) is to take the lens length used (corrected for 35mm equivalence) as the denominator of the shutter speed fraction of a second and use that shutter (or faster). That would make a shutter speed of 1/300 of a second or faster for a 200mm lense length on a digital SLR with a 1.5X 35mm equivalence factor. Sharpness, sharpness, sharpness.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *uppis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here is few quick macro shots with reversed 50 1.8. Both shot handheld without additional light in greenhouse, uploaded straight from camera._

 

Interesting. They look a bit soft though. To focus, you have to walk back and forth?


----------



## uppis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interesting. They look a bit soft though. To focus, you have to walk back and forth?_

 

Yep, they are little soft.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But handheld with short DOF, not going to be razorsharp with my hands, unfortunately I'm a shaker. And yes, with 50 1.8 you need to, because its not IF, so when you turn the focus ring reversed only the body of the lens moves, not the elements. Also, you need to choose the aperture from the wrong end of the lens, which takes little to get used to..


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A good working rule of thumb when handholding still cameras (as well as utilizing a good braced arm position) is to take the lens length used (corrected for 35mm equivalence) as the denominator of the shutter speed fraction of a second and use that shutter (or faster). That would make a shutter speed of 1/300 of a second or faster for a 200mm lense length on a digital SLR with a 1.5X 35mm equivalence factor. Sharpness, sharpness, sharpness._

 

This is quite true, but I don't see how it relates to the 70-200 vs. 80-200 debate. VR is meant to gain F-Stops by _decreasing_ shutter speed, and a tripod will only be useful (with a moving subject) so long as there remains enough light to maintain high-shutter speeds. 

 To nickknutson: What would you buy with the $600-$700 saved when purchasing the 80-200? Personally, I see no reason to avoid the pro-model unless you have some other withstanding debt or item on your wish list. Still, from an optical perspective, I think you'd be quite happy with either.


----------



## perplex

The 80-200 is actually a pro-model too.


----------



## skyline889

Like perplex said, the 80-200 is a pro lens; it was the pro telephoto that preceded the 70-200 VR. Optically, it's just as good as the 70-200mm and both are great buys. If you don't need the VR, than it's not worth it. I like having VR at the long end but if you have a steady hand, enough light, or will be shooting off a tripod, you technically shouldn't need it.


----------



## mbriant

You have to be careful that using VR doesn't lull you into a false sense of security sometimes. As some have mentioned, it can be very helpful in low-light situations, particularly with longer lenses, because it allows you to either close down the aperture for more depth of field if required, shoot at a lower ISO, or more commonly, slow down the shutter for more light. This is great for a motionless subject. However, if you slow down the shutter too much, a moving subject can introduce blur as well. VR only helps camera shake, it does nothing to help moving subjects ... only shutter speed can do that. Therefore, for action shots (like indoor sports or moving animals/children for example) VR isn't all that helpful. 

 Still, providing you're comparing two lenses with the same maximum wide aperture ( ie: not a f4 or f5.6 VR vs. a f2.8 non-VR), if you've got the extra cash, ( that $600 could buy you an additional lens ) the added flexibility of VR in certain circumstances is worth it.


----------



## nickknutson

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You have to be careful that using VR doesn't lull you into a false sense of security sometimes. As some have mentioned, it can be very helpful in low-light situations, particularly with longer lenses, because it allows you to either close down the aperture for more depth of field if required, shoot at a lower ISO, or more commonly, slow down the shutter for more light. This is great for a motionless subject. However, if you slow down the shutter too much, a moving subject can introduce blur as well. VR only helps camera shake, it does nothing to help moving subjects ... only shutter speed can do that. Therefore, for action shots (like indoor sports or moving animals/children for example) VR isn't all that helpful. 

 Still, providing you're comparing two lenses with the same maximum wide aperture ( ie: not a f4 or f5.6 VR vs. a f2.8 non-VR), if you've got the extra cash, ( that $600 could buy you an additional lens ) the added flexibility of VR in certain circumstances is worth it._

 

You make very good points. I'm looking at it from a few different ways...swaying me either way. One of my thoughts is that people were able to take great photographs without VR for 50+ years...and without it, maybe it will make me learn my craft better and not have to rely on technology. Another thought is that the extra $600 is an investment because the lens will last me many years. Last thought is that I could buy the 80-200/2.8 and a super-wide zoom (Tonika 12-24/4 or Sigma 10-20) for the same price as a 70-200/2.8VR.
 As I appreciate all of your thoughts, I'm still torn...as you can probably tell.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is quite true, but I don't see how it relates to the 70-200 vs. 80-200 debate. VR is meant to gain F-Stops by decreasing shutter speed, and a tripod will only be useful (with a moving subject) so long as there remains enough light to maintain high-shutter speeds._

 

Please note that the primary focus of my original post, which you did not quote, was my own experience and satisfaction with the Nikkor 70-200/f 2.8 VR lense. I don't believe any other comments in response to Nick's question evidence any such experience. Only later did I try to present the telephoto shutter rule of thumb.

 VR reduces "shake" motion, one of two causes of lack of image sharpness (the other being focus). Shake motion is literally magnified by lense length. The extra stops gained by the 70-200/f 2.8 optically and by VR can be used however the photographer elects in creating the image. Good braced hand holding, monopods and tripods are never used enough for their benefits to image sharpness and quality. And neither, in this day of automatic exposure and zoom lenses, is proper awareness of lense length and shutter speed. The VR and optical brightness just make for a lense more tolerant of the photographer's oversights. VR or no, it's always relevant.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nickknutson* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One of my thoughts is that people were able to take great photographs without VR for 50+ years...and without it, maybe it will make me learn my craft better and not have to rely on technology._

 

It's not a contest to see how stripped down and "manual" you can shoot. VR technology doesn't make you lazy. It makes it possible to capture shots quickly that would have required setting up a tripod in the old days. I've still got my old F3. I could go back to old school technology if I wanted. The dust on the camera bag tells how much I want to.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## ozz

I was told its about the moment having the right equipment to capture
 it no matter how auto it is.


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 It's not a contest to see how stripped down and "manual" you can shoot. VR technology doesn't make you lazy. It makes it possible to capture shots quickly that would have required setting up a tripod in the old days. I've still got my old F3. I could go back to old school technology if I wanted. The dust on the camera bag tells how much I want to. 
 

That's true, but you've obviously learned the "harder" way, already. Someone just starting out and gets used to creating some good shots by relying on all the auto functions may never bother to learn the basics .... which are still important if you want to excel. I've found that technology can ( not always of course ) make people, including myself, lazy. Yes, it can speed up the process, and sometimes even save the day by giving acceptable/good/excellent results quicker with less effort, but I've found that things like autofocus and autoexposure for example, can make you lazy and sloppy at times....because you might feel you're covered by technology and therefore don't even have to think at all about focus or exposure....just shoot like mad and see what happens. Next thing you know, you're relying on auto-everything and you've turned into a rapid point and shooter and forget about the subtlties that create above average photographs...photographs where the photographer knows in advance what he's trying to achieve and technically knows how to achieve it. I realize the argument is that these auto functions free up your time to concentrate on other things like framing the shot, but if they lull you into forgetting about lighting, depth of field, and even taking the time to brace the camera and softly hit the shutter (who needs to, I've got VR) ... chances are you'll get lazy on the other things as well. 

 When I used to shoot weddings outside for example, a tripod wasn't necessary. Not using one would have saved lugging it around, and the time it took to set it up. On the other hand however, by slowing me down a little, it gave me more time to think about the shot, and it allowed me to frame the shot(s) properly, level, and consistantly each time. I could look away and even walk away from the viewfinder, scan the scene with both eyes for posing, distracting background and foreground objects, give the subjects directions, bracket the shot, etc., as often as required without having to re-compose and re-focus the shot each time. Again, I agree that being able to stretch that exposure with VR without having to use a tripod can definitely be beneficial in certain situations, but my fear would be that a novice photographer may never bother to use a tripod or even have one with him ... just in case ... because he's under the impression it's not required with a VR lens. Just my opinion of course.

 While I'm arguing the negative side of VR, ( and I know there's a positive side) I should mention that it also becomes one more thing you might forget about while shooting ... either not having it turned on when you need it, or having it on when you don't. Also, VR drains the battery much quicker than normal.


----------



## Isao

For me the choice between the 70-200 vr and 80-200 af-d comes down to AF-S vs. AF-D not "VR". I need the faster focus speed of the 70-200 using AF-S technology instead of the screw driven AF-D. I know the faster focus is going to make a big difference in my sports shooting. That is the ONLY reason I'm saving up to upgrade from my 80-200. 

 I would also consider upgrading to a 80-200/2.8AF-S if I can find one used at a good price...


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Please note that the primary focus of my original post, which you did not quote, was my own experience and satisfaction with the Nikkor 70-200/f 2.8 VR lense. I don't believe any other comments in response to Nick's question evidence any such experience. Only later did I try to present the telephoto shutter rule of thumb.

 VR reduces "shake" motion, one of two causes of lack of image sharpness (the other being focus). Shake motion is literally magnified by lense length. The extra stops gained by the 70-200/f 2.8 optically and by VR can be used however the photographer elects in creating the image. Good braced hand holding, monopods and tripods are never used enough for their benefits to image sharpness and quality. And neither, in this day of automatic exposure and zoom lenses, is proper awareness of lense length and shutter speed. The VR and optical brightness just make for a lense more tolerant of the photographer's oversights. VR or no, it's always relevant._

 

Of course, of course. I misinterpreted the purpose of your post.


----------



## perplex

Do AF-S lens speed up with pro bodies? I'm wondering if if they do not so much then as bodies get stronger and stronger, then a AF-D lens could get close to the equivalent lens with AF-S in speed?


----------



## mbriant

AF-S lenses have an internal motor which is faster and quieter than the camera's motor. D lenses don't have their own motor, so rely on the motor in the camera. I believe the pro Nikon bodies have better ( stronger ) internal motors than the consumer versions, so are a little quicker, but AF-S lenses are always the fastest. The ability of the camera's autofocus sensors also come into play, as the better the sensor, the less searching the lens does while focussing ... making it also focus faster.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *perplex* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do AF-S lens speed up with pro bodies? I'm wondering if if they do not so much then as bodies get stronger and stronger, then a AF-D lens could get close to the equivalent lens with AF-S in speed?_

 

It also has a lot to do with the weight of the optics and distance of the focus path. A 50 f/1.8 lens, for example, will likely focus faster than an AF-S macro lens simply because the former has very few elements and a comparatively short minimum focusing distance. When comparing apples to apples, however, I think an AF-S lens will almost always be faster than an AF-D lens; regardless of the strength of the camera's motor.


----------



## lan

Not all AF-S are made the same either. I find my 55-200VR pretty slow. I guess that's why it's a cheap lens.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not all AF-S are made the same either. I find my 55-200VR pretty slow. I guess that's why it's a cheap lens. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The 18-55, 18-135, and 55-200 don't use a true ring motor like all the rest do. They're the only exceptions. Also, focus speed is largely the lens, not just the motor - how many turns from near to far, what the maximum aperture is (more light means faster focus), etc. You'll find that your 55-200 focuses just as fast as the old AF-D 70-300 and a lot faster than the plain old AF version, for instance.


----------



## milkpowder

I just wanna say thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. It has been the most informative and interesting thread I've read in a very long time!

 BTW, has anyone compared the 17-55 to 18-55? Is the 2.8 worth the extra price?


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just wanna say thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. It has been the most informative and interesting thread I've read in a very long time!

 BTW, has anyone compared the 17-55 to 18-55? Is the 2.8 worth the extra price?_

 

I'd check this site out for some objective advice: Welcome to Photozone! The reviews are concise, understandable, and feature all the photographic tests a lens buyer could ever want or look for. From a personal standpoint, however, I'd recommend compromising on build quality and image quality by buying the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - same f stop as the high-end Nikon, equal or better sharpness in most cases, and nearly a third of the price. It's a consumer grade lens in build for sure, but it ain't no 18-55 either.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just wanna say thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. It has been the most informative and interesting thread I've read in a very long time!

 BTW, has anyone compared the 17-55 to 18-55? Is the 2.8 worth the extra price?_

 

Without a doubt. The two are miles and miles apart in terms of quality. The larger f/stop is excellent and the faster focusing speed is nice, but the overall sharpness and contrast of the 17-55 is stunning, while the 18-55 is mediocre at best.


----------



## dj_mocok

Although I think 18-55mm produces better image quality than the overhyped 18-200mm.... Wahhh! /runs away...


----------



## Isao

Unless you are a pro.... you I don't think you'll see much difference between the tamron 17-55/2.8 vs the nikon 17-555/2.8 ....except the $800 difference.


----------



## milkpowder

The tamron 17-50/2.8 looks to be a great lens offering even better IQ than the pro-level nikkor. However, I've been reading around and it seems that the cheaper offerings from tamron and sigma exhibit some AF problems. Any related experiences?

 I'm basically planning what my rig should be. So far it looks to be a all-nikon setup: 17-55/F2.8 as a walk-around lens (as opposed to the 24-70/2.8, which is too long on a DX camera) and 35/2 for portraits, low-light indoors and close-ups (as opposed to the 50/1.4or1.8, which is also too long when x1.5).

 I still can't decide on a medium-power zoom lens. The 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR is very attractive, but tests done by Photozone suggest that it has very noticeable CA at full zoom. It also seems a bit slow. Again, is anyone experiencing poor CA at large focal lengths?

 Ideally, the 70-200/2.8 would be nice, but darn is it expensive. I don't think I shoot tele enough to be able to justify spending so much on it. Its size is also an issue since I tend to shoot whilst on-the-move. Having used my friend's 70-200/2.8, I found it far too long, bulky, heavy and unsubtle. An obvious alternative is the Sigma 70-200/2.8, which Photozone commented favourably on. It's also much cheaper too!


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The tamron 17-50/2.8 looks to be a great lens offering even better IQ than the pro-level nikkor. However, I've been reading around and it seems that the cheaper offerings from tamron and sigma exhibit some AF problems. Any related experiences?

 I'm basically planning what my rig should be. So far it looks to be a all-nikon setup: 17-55/F2.8 as a walk-around lens (as opposed to the 24-70/2.8, which is too long on a DX camera) and 35/2 for portraits, low-light indoors and close-ups (as opposed to the 50/1.4or1.8, which is also too long when x1.5).

 I still can't decide on a medium-power zoom lens. The 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR is very attractive, but tests done by Photozone suggest that it has very noticeable CA at full zoom. It also seems a bit slow. Again, is anyone experiencing poor CA at large focal lengths?

 Ideally, the 70-200/2.8 would be nice, but darn is it expensive. I don't think I shoot tele enough to be able to justify spending so much on it. Its size is also an issue since I tend to shoot whilst on-the-move. Having used my friend's 70-200/2.8, I found it far too long, bulky, heavy and unsubtle. An obvious alternative is the Sigma 70-200/2.8, which Photozone commented favourably on. It's also much cheaper too!_

 

While it is true that third party lenses often exhibit more QC problems than first party lenses (think focus hunting, back focusing / front focusing) I think at least Tamron, Sigma and Tokina are getting better about this in general; and to specifically mention the Tamron 17-50, I know that a new version is due out with a built in AF motor, which - in theory - should be faster and more accurate than the camera driven version.

 Without going much further, it would also be helpful to know whether you plan on buying a new camera body (and what that body would be) or whether you're set on using your dad's D300 (not a bad choice if you ask me). Obviously this is meant to determine whether or not your camera will auto focus with non AF-S lenses, as I'm sure you're well aware. 

 Knowing the camera model will also come in handy in recommending a zoom lens - the D300, for example, having exceptional high ISO performance, will generally forgive a lens' low maximum aperture to an extent; while something like a D40 will require a faster lens to maintain a lower usable ISO. 

 As for your telephoto recommendation, I definitely suggest the 70-200 or 50-150 from Sigma - as they're built well, don't break the bank, and have a relatively large constant aperture. VR is nice and comes in handy, but personally I don't find it a good substitute for a good-old-fashioned large aperture. If you like taking photos of still subjects at long distances / focal lengths, however, VR will definitely improve sharpness and reduce hand held camera shake. 

 Overall, I definitely think you'll have an amazing setup which will cover just about all grounds of normal photography. 

 Good luck,
 Nick


----------



## milkpowder

Thanks for the valuable insight.

 I live away from home during term time so the my dad's camera is basically out of my reach most of the time. I'm definitely going to get a body with AF motor, either a used/new D80 or its replacement, sometime during the summer holidays. Sure, it won't shoot as quick or noise-free photos, focus as fast & precisely or meter as accurately as the D300, but I should be more concerned with refining my technique.

 I really don't care much about which body it is, reason being I've seen a heck of a lot of spectacular photos shot with D40/D40x/D50/etc so the D80 can't be all that shabby
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Everyone I've asked or whose opinion I've read has said that glass comes before body. Having said that, I wonder if a D40 w/ a 24-70 will shoot nicer pictures than a D300 w/ a 18-55 AT LOW ISO
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 With the 17-55 and 70-200 setup, will I be missing much by leaving out 55-70 (effective 82.5-105)?


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the valuable insight.

 I live away from home during term time so the my dad's camera is basically out of my reach most of the time. I'm definitely going to get a body with AF motor, either a used/new D80 or its replacement, sometime during the summer holidays. Sure, it won't shoot as quick or noise-free photos, focus as fast & precisely or meter as accurately as the D300, but I should be more concerned with refining my technique.

 I really don't care much about which body it is, reason being I've seen a heck of a lot of spectacular photos shot with D40/D40x/D50/etc so the D80 can't be all that shabby
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Everyone I've asked or whose opinion I've read has said that glass comes before body. Having said that, I wonder if a D40 w/ a 24-70 will shoot nicer pictures than a D300 w/ a 18-55 AT LOW ISO
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 With the 17-55 and 70-200 setup, will I be missing much by leaving out 55-70 (effective 82.5-105)?_

 

I really doubt it. Lenses - to an extent - are defined more by their intended purpose than their focal length; so as long as you have a lens or 2 which covers a particular area of photography (i.e. portraiture, landscape) you won't miss the 15 mm in between.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Although I think 18-55mm produces better image quality than the overhyped 18-200mm.... Wahhh! /runs away..._

 

I prefer the 18-200VR for wide shots vs. the kit lens in terms of better image quality. I own both.


----------



## milkpowder

So many darn low-power zooms I'm starting to get a bit confused
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 IQ-wise (from a bit of reading)
 18-55 < 18-70 < 18-135 ~ 18-200 < 16-85 ~ 17-55


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The tamron 17-50/2.8 looks to be a great lens offering even better IQ than the pro-level nikkor. However, I've been reading around and it seems that the cheaper offerings from tamron and sigma exhibit some AF problems. Any related experiences?

 I'm basically planning what my rig should be. So far it looks to be a all-nikon setup: 17-55/F2.8 as a walk-around lens (as opposed to the 24-70/2.8, which is too long on a DX camera) and 35/2 for portraits, low-light indoors and close-ups (as opposed to the 50/1.4or1.8, which is also too long when x1.5).

 I still can't decide on a medium-power zoom lens. The 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR is very attractive, but tests done by Photozone suggest that it has very noticeable CA at full zoom. It also seems a bit slow. Again, is anyone experiencing poor CA at large focal lengths?

 Ideally, the 70-200/2.8 would be nice, but darn is it expensive. I don't think I shoot tele enough to be able to justify spending so much on it. Its size is also an issue since I tend to shoot whilst on-the-move. Having used my friend's 70-200/2.8, I found it far too long, bulky, heavy and unsubtle. An obvious alternative is the Sigma 70-200/2.8, which Photozone commented favourably on. It's also much cheaper too!_

 

Ok, first things first! Have you actually used the 35mm for portrait? Unless you want full body photos with a lot of the background/forgound in the picture, you'll need a longer lens (either that, or you'll be 2 feet away from the subject all the time).

 To be honest with you, it can help to space yourself from the subject. When you are closer to them, they are more likely to focus on the camera and be less fluid. I would be at least 5 feet away from the subject. And so a 50mm, or even a 85mm on my DX can give me nice 3/4 portraits and head photos. Some people actually prefer the 105mm or 135mm range for portrait.
 Bottom line: for the 35mm, you'll either need to be real close, or be taking pictures with a lot of the environment in it.

 For 3/4 and head photos, I would spring for the 85mm F/1.8 again in a heart beat. For full body, 50mm to 35mm would do good (though 35 is a little on the wide side for my tastes). 


 Now, for the tele. The 70-200VR is pricey. Too bad Nikon doesn't have a 70-200 F/4 for 560$us like canon does. I would jump on that one.
 I have the 70-300G, not the 70-300VR. The VR has improved a lot of things, though I have a hunch that the G version has better bokeh (the bokeh on this lens is simply amazing!!!!!). If you wanted to put most of your money into a a walk around lens, and then get the 70-300G for 134$us, that would sound like a good setup. It won't give you the level of quality of the 70-200, but on the other hand it is much smaller, much MUCH lighter, and much cheaper (134$us vs. 1600$), and you get the full 200-300mm range not offered in the 70-200VR. If you wanted to zoom in past 200mm on the 70-200mm, you'll need a teleconverter (~400$). 1600+400 = 2000... yikes!

 Though, the 70-300VR has VR, has sharper pictures, less CA, and IF. I would really like the 70-300VR for 480$, but I'm afraid of giving up my dreamy bokeh with my 70-300G. I use it for a lot of flower / animal photos at the moment.



 If I were to take photos considerably more at the wide-normal range, I would get a good lens in this range and just the cheap 70-300G. It'll give you the range to hone your skills without lugging around some massive lens that makes you look strange.
 If you were to use the mid range and tele range equally, I would look into the 70-300VR and the 18-200VR or 24-70mm, 28-70mm, or 17-55mm.

 If it were me, and I was strapped for money, I'd get the 70-300G again. For the price, you just gotta have it (134$, I mean... come on!).
 I've found that I can take *most* of the pictures that I want with my: 35mm F/2, 50mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, and 70-300G. The 20mm F/2.8 and a micro lens are next on my agenda.


 On a related note: I have a D50, and I am able to take nice pictures. The D80 and above make it 'easier' to take better pictures, if that makes sense. The lens choice should be equally as important as the body, if not more so.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So many darn low-power zooms I'm starting to get a bit confused
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 IQ-wise (from a bit of reading)
 18-55 < 18-70 < 18-135 ~ 18-200 < 16-85 ~ 17-55_

 

It is not clear cut always, and depends on what you put more importance on in terms of image quality.

 For example, my 18-55 was really nice in terms of CA, but my 18-200VR has more CA. Though I find the 18-200 to give an image with more clarity vs. the 18-55. You know, give and take, give and take. Be careful about classifying lenses in terms of absolutes, which is better than another. People's opinions vary.

 And hey, if you just can't decide, make use of a lens rental service. Pick a nice week, rent a few of them, and compare. Within a week you should formalize your opinions. You may spend 100$ or so, but it'll give you the peace of mind that you made the right choice.


----------



## milkpowder

Points noted!

 New D80 for $900, or well used D200 for $800-1000?


----------



## stuartr

Have you considered whether you need a zoom and whether or not you would be better served by a prime lens? The 70-200 VR and 80-200 f/2.8 zooms are really big, heavy, and intimidating to the person you are photographing (if you are photographing a person). Sure, they have great image quality, but in most cases no better than the prime lenses...usually worse when you consider things like distortion. Nikon makes some great telephotos -- the 105mm f/2 DC is superb, as are the 180/2.8 and 85/1.4 (or 1.8). All of them are substantially smaller than the zooms, have equal or better image quality, and are cheaper to boot (yes, I know that getting all three would be more). I just got into Nikon with the D3, and I picked up two zooms -- the 17-35 and the 24-70, but for the telephoto end I am sticking with the 105mm for now. I think it will be all I need for now...perhaps I will add a 300mm f/4 later. Don't get me wrong, there is a place for the 70-200 zooms, but it is less often needed in my opinion. That said, I am renting one today to shoot a fashion show, so there's that. I would have to rent it 37 times to make it worth buying it though...


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Points noted!

 New D80 for $900, or well used D200 for $800-1000?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

New D80 for 730$ at bhphoto.com


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Points noted!

 New D80 for $900, or well used D200 for $800-1000?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

As noted, you can get a new D80 for much cheaper; and a _mint_ D200 will barely run you $875 these days.


----------



## milkpowder

Unfortunately, us Brits are pretty screwed as far as prices go (even used prices)...

 Buying from the US is actually more expensive when you take into account import duties (anywhere from 1-20%, depending on the mood of the customs officer) + VAT (17.5%) + courier brokerage fees.

 I suppose I could pick up gear when I'm back in Hong Kong around August, but I don't want to wait until then! The weather is absolutely gorgeous in Edinburgh atm. Perfect for taking photos!


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So many darn low-power zooms I'm starting to get a bit confused
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 IQ-wise (from a bit of reading)
 18-55 < 18-70 < 18-135 ~ 18-200 < 16-85 ~ 17-55_

 

I'd be curious where you've been reading. I've used all those lenses except the 16-85, and from my use and the reviews I've read, I'd put it at:

 18-55 = 18-135 < 18-70 = 16-85 = 18-200 <<<<< 17-55.

 My first and foremost concern is sharpness, followed by distortion/aberration, followed by maximum aperture and focus speed.

 The 16-85 can't even begin to touch the performance of the 17-55, so I'm not sure who in their right mind would rate it as anywhere near equal.


----------



## milkpowder

I think it was from dpreview, tom hogan and Photozone. There are some pretty heated debates regarding the 16-85 eg high price, ordinary specifications, etc...

 When I said IQ, what I really meant was sharpness. I didn't take into account other stuff like distortion or CA. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'd be curious where you've been reading. I've used all those lenses except the 16-85, and from my use and the reviews I've read, I'd put it at:

 18-55 = 18-135 < 18-70 = 16-85 = 18-200 <<<<< 17-55.

 My first and foremost concern is sharpness, followed by distortion/aberration, followed by maximum aperture and focus speed.

 The 16-85 can't even begin to touch the performance of the 17-55, so I'm not sure who in their right mind would rate it as anywhere near equal._

 

I really disagree. Last weekend I had the opportunity to borrow a friend's 17-55 f/2.8, and nothing save build quality impressed me. Distortions are fine; they aren't overly field relevant but do show in a few architectural shots; chromatic aberrations are fine; nothing spectacular, but nothing un-correctable in Photo-shop; and sharpness - my and your foremost concern - is nothing to rave about either; the center is great throughout the range but borders rarely catch up before f/6.3 or above.

 Now, I haven't been able to demo the 16-85, but just looking at the cold hard numbers, the lens seems to tie or beat every measurable aspect of the 17-55; save for aperture of course. 

 Bottom line for me: the 17-55 is nice - pro quality construction, decent performance, and a relatively large aperture - but nothing spectacular or worth $1100 US. Granted, the 16-85 is no saint of a lens either, but it can't be called a disaster, or very far off performance wise from the 17-55.


----------



## RYCeT

Hi guys, I know I should probably get a macro lens for this kind of pics but can I get away with my nikon 35 f/2? 























 Btw, I'm currently looking to buy this lightbox from ebay It's for $165.00, Any other alternatives guys?


----------



## Towert7

RYcet. The 35mm F/2 can get fairly close, though not true 1:1 macro. The 35mm F/2 is about 300$, and the nikon micro 60mm is about 400$. Close enough in price.


----------



## stuartr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi guys, I know I should probably get a macro lens for this kind of pics but can I get away with my nikon 35 f/2? 
 It's for $165.00, Any other alternatives guys? 
_

 

Unless you are going to be shooting macros all day everyday, why not just make it out of shirt cardboard, foam core or mat board...they are all white, easy to cut into shape and cheap. 165 dollars (excluding shipping I assume) seems like a lot of money what is essentially a box with some holes in it. 

 As for getting away with your 35mm lens, what do you intend to do with these shots? For less than the cost of the box thing you can get a 55mm manual focus macro lens...I am not sure if it will work on your camera, but there are certainly cheap options out there...you will not need AF to shoot this style of subject, nor will you need the clearance of a 105mm lens. The lens is certainly more important than the box. Check out www.keh.com if you are interested in looking at used equipment...they are very reliable.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I really disagree. Last weekend I had the opportunity to borrow a friend's 17-55 f/2.8, and nothing save build quality impressed me. Distortions are fine; they aren't overly field relevant but do show in a few architectural shots; chromatic aberrations are fine; nothing spectacular, but nothing un-correctable in Photo-shop; and sharpness - my and your foremost concern - is nothing to rave about either; the center is great throughout the range but borders rarely catch up before f/6.3 or above.

 Now, I haven't been able to demo the 16-85, but just looking at the cold hard numbers, the lens seems to tie or beat every measurable aspect of the 17-55; save for aperture of course. 

 Bottom line for me: the 17-55 is nice - pro quality construction, decent performance, and a relatively large aperture - but nothing spectacular or worth $1100 US. Granted, the 16-85 is no saint of a lens either, but it can't be called a disaster, or very far off performance wise from the 17-55._

 

Sounds like your friend got a bad sample; there were some QC issues in the first few years it was out. There were plenty of people who upon testing the lens had to return it for a new one once or twice. A good sample of it, however, is as good as any lens Nikon's ever made.

 Also, technical measurements mean exactly 0 in real-world use.


----------



## lan

That box seems ok given that it has it's own lights. It has the cons of being small and the lights are not flexible meaning you can't change their angle nor the brightness. It has the pro of being easy to use and portable.

 You could make something yourself but you'd need lights. Sometimes it's ugly or too much to setup a bunch of stuff and it might not be as portable.

 I use a light tent as a middle ground and multiple flashes. This is the one I use. Photekusa.com The smallest size is like <$50. Pros are that it's portable, you can use your own backgrounds, you can mess with your lighting. With this particular tent, I can orient vertical or horizontal, light from different sides including bottom.

 As for the lens, you can use your cheap zoom if you have one and if you have working distance. See how it works out for you at first.

 If you're going to shoot jewerly in particular, it's hard. They reflect everything. I'm trying to learn it myself right now. Here's some images I took tonight.






 edit: hmm there's something off with this image but I'm not fixing it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's just a test image.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Does anyone have an idea how much an 18-135 should go for second hand (in australia if that makes a difference)?

 Im thinking about selling my 18-135, to get a 18-200 to go with my D50 for a walkabout all purpose lens. Ill probably use this to take some shots at my mothers wedding comming up in a few months, so the extra zoom might be fun for the lunch candid shots.

 Ive heard plenty of stuff about getting a more suitable lens for the wedding, but i cant see myself investing money into a lens specifically for events/gatherings. I may bring my 50 1.8, but i really dont see myself swapping lenses on the day.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sounds like your friend got a bad sample; there were some QC issues in the first few years it was out. There were plenty of people who upon testing the lens had to return it for a new one once or twice. A good sample of it, however, is as good as any lens Nikon's ever made.

 Also, technical measurements mean exactly 0 in real-world use._

 

Interesting. I've never heard of specific QC issues with that lens, but keeping that in mind, perhaps it's worth a purchase afterall?


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interesting. I've never heard of specific QC issues with that lens, but keeping that in mind, perhaps it's worth a purchase afterall?_

 

Do it


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_RYcet. The 35mm F/2 can get fairly close, though not true 1:1 macro. The 35mm F/2 is about 300$, and the nikon micro 60mm is about 400$. Close enough in price._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Unless you are going to be shooting macros all day everyday, why not just make it out of shirt cardboard, foam core or mat board...they are all white, easy to cut into shape and cheap. 165 dollars (excluding shipping I assume) seems like a lot of money what is essentially a box with some holes in it. 

 As for getting away with your 35mm lens, what do you intend to do with these shots? For less than the cost of the box thing you can get a 55mm manual focus macro lens...I am not sure if it will work on your camera, but there are certainly cheap options out there...you will not need AF to shoot this style of subject, nor will you need the clearance of a 105mm lens. The lens is certainly more important than the box. Check out KEH Camera: Used Cameras, Digital Cameras, Film Cameras, Laptop Computers and More. if you are interested in looking at used equipment...they are very reliable._

 

Thank's towert7 & stuartr, I'll see what I can get w/ my 35 f/2 or canon 50 1.8? If I'm not satisfied, I probably splurge on tamron 90sp 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That box seems ok given that it has it's own lights. It has the cons of being small and the lights are not flexible meaning you can't change their angle nor the brightness. It has the pro of being easy to use and portable.

 You could make something yourself but you'd need lights. Sometimes it's ugly or too much to setup a bunch of stuff and it might not be as portable.

 I use a light tent as a middle ground and multiple flashes. This is the one I use. Photekusa.com The smallest size is like <$50. Pros are that it's portable, you can use your own backgrounds, you can mess with your lighting. With this particular tent, I can orient vertical or horizontal, light from different sides including bottom.

 As for the lens, you can use your cheap zoom if you have one and if you have working distance. See how it works out for you at first.

 If you're going to shoot jewerly in particular, it's hard. They reflect everything. I'm trying to learn it myself right now. Here's some images I took tonight.






 edit: hmm there's something off with this image but I'm not fixing it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's just a test image._

 

That's pretty good, the lighttents seems better than that ebay lightboxes. How do you setup to take that pic? How many lights, positions, external flash, camera, lenses? Can I get away w/ my d300 internal flash?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's pretty good, the lighttents seems better than that ebay lightboxes. How do you setup to take that pic? How many lights, positions, external flash, camera, lenses? Can I get away w/ my d300 internal flash?_

 

For thin objects or something where I want side definition, I like to light from both left and right sides. It adds some dimensionality.

 I use 2 flashes although I'd prefer a third from the front sometimes for a little fill if the object is larger. You just have to experiment. Here I was using my Canon XTi w/ hotshoe PC sync, 24-105L lens from f/8 to f/11, 580EX w/ hotshoe PC sync, Vivitar 285HV w/ Wein peanut optical slave. You can do it with any camera or lens combo.

 No you can't get away with the internal flash. The advantage of the external flashes is that you can control their setting all manually. You want the camera on manual also.

 Here's another photo set but with the 2 flashes inside the tent to the sides of the objects firing up. I had to block the light coming toward the lens or I'll get some flare.


----------



## The Monkey

I have a D50 with the stock 18-55 and 55-200. I also have the 50mm f/1.8D AF and SB 800. I'd like another good, versatile, fast lens that won't break the bank. Probably would be used most for indoor shots like holiday gatherings and CanJam, etc. But I'll consider all "must haves." Your guidance is appreciated. Thanks!

 P.S. I am an advanced beginner--at best.


----------



## skyline889

If you need a fast indoor lens, you might want to try looking into the 85 1.8. It's not as fast as the 1.4 obviously, but it's a good performer and much, much cheaper. I'd also say 35mm 1.4 or Sigma 30mm 1.4 but it depends on what kind of inside shots you're planning on doing. 

 On another note, I got my D200 combo in last week and wasn't that impressed. I love the wide end of the 12-24 and will definitely be picking a super wide angle zoom up in the future, but the build didn't seem that great to me and it's much smaller in person than it appears online, in actuality it doesn't feel much bigger than the 18-70 kit lens. I also wasn't pleased with the amount of noise that the D200 exhibits, ISO 1600 is completely unusable compared to that of my D50. All in all it doesn't matter since I had to send the camera back anyway (It wasn't as described 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) but I'm not sure if I'm still going to be looking for a D200 anymore.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *The Monkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a D50 with the stock 18-55 and 55-200. I also have the 50mm f/1.8D AF and SB 800. I'd like another good, versatile, fast lens that won't break the bank. Probably would be used most for indoor shots like holiday gatherings and CanJam, etc. But I'll consider all "must haves." Your guidance is appreciated. Thanks!

 P.S. I am an advanced beginner--at best._

 

I'll echo the recommendation for the Nikon 85mm F/1.8.
 With this lens, and a Nikon 20mm F/2.8, I can take almost any picture I would ever want at a headphone meet. A flash becomes optional unless you have very dim lighting. The 85mm is great for people 3/4 - 1/4 people shots, and for tight gear shots. the 20mm is nice for wide angels to capture the whole picture.

 I'm not sure how you use your camera and flash, but the default of 1/60 of a second for flash shots is going to be too slow for the 85mm. You would just have to bump it up to a faster shutter speed. Your D50 can sync up to 1/500 of a second.

 You really can't go wrong with most of the current nikon fixed focal length lenses.

 You just need to decide what focal length you want.
 The 35mm F/2 is also a great lens for holiday gatherings.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On another note, I got my D200 combo in last week and wasn't that impressed._

 

Exactly what were you expecting? Didn't you read reviews and seen many photos people took with it?


----------



## skyline889

Well I wasn't expecting much more but from the reviews I read, I was expecting better noise performance than what I got. I knew high ISO performance wasn't the D200s strong point but I didn't expect it to be substantially worse than the D50.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well I wasn't expecting much more but from the reviews I read, I was expecting better noise performance than what I got. I knew high ISO performance wasn't the D200s strong point but I didn't expect it to be substantially worse than the D50._

 

Wow, I never really read up on the D200...... so this comes as a shock to me.
 So, going to upgrade to the D300?


----------



## lan

I think 6MP was the sweet spot for APS-C sized sensors. Yeah the megapixel race sucks.

 There were no reviews of D50/D70s vs. D80 high ISO?


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 I was expecting better noise performance than what I got. I knew high ISO performance wasn't the D200s strong point but I didn't expect it to be substantially worse than the D50. 
 

I've never been overly pleased with anything over 800 ISO on my D2H cameras, but I've found that if you're able to perfectly nail both White Balance and more importantly exposure, it's greatly improved. Even slight under-exposure really increases the noise level. Using a light meter helps ... as does bracketing.


----------



## bigshot

The difference in noise is most likely due to onboard processing in the D50. The D200 doesn't automatically apply noise reduction. You have to specify the noise reduction you want, or apply it as post-processing in Photoshop. The D50 has a fixed setting that can't be adjusted.

 See...

Nikon D200 Noise Performance

 and...

Nikon D200 High ISO Noise Reduction

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## skyline889

I know Nikon tweaks the noise algorithms every time they update their line (That's why the D50 performs better in terms of noise than the D70) however, neither the D50 nor the D200 uses any in camera processing to my knowledge. Both cameras have to have NR enabled through the menu to have the noise processed out. I don't ever shoot with in camera NR turned on since I edit it out through CS3.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On another note, I got my D200 combo in last week and wasn't that impressed. I love the wide end of the 12-24 and will definitely be picking a super wide angle zoom up in the future, but the build didn't seem that great to me and it's much smaller in person than it appears online, in actuality it doesn't feel much bigger than the 18-70 kit lens. I also wasn't pleased with the amount of noise that the D200 exhibits, ISO 1600 is completely unusable compared to that of my D50. All in all it doesn't matter since I had to send the camera back anyway (It wasn't as described 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) but I'm not sure if I'm still going to be looking for a D200 anymore._

 

To echo the others, you're seeing both the D200's weaker in-camera noise reduction and the effects of too many pixels in too little space (arguably). I don't mind the D200's ISO1600, I tend to try for slight overexposure which I can correct in ACR, minimizing the noise as best as possible. ISO 3200 is pretty bad, but you can still get a usable pic if absolutely necessary.

 When I first visited a shop to check out the ultra-wides, I was really shocked by how dinky and low-quality the Nikkor 12-24 felt, especially for the price. The Tokina 12-24 is a much better built lens, if you don't mind the extra CA and lack of AF-S.

 I went for the Sigma 10-20mm, and I so glad I did, as I have been using 10mm quite a lot. The outer materials are not as nice as the Tokina, but much better than the Nikkor, and it feels very solid. HSM (i.e. AF-S) is also nice to have, even if it isn't as useful in a wide-angle lens. I officially love the crud out of this lens, though. CA is negligible, at all but the corners only when used at 10mm, sharpness is very good for me at all reasonable apertures, and there is very little optical distortion, except at the very edges at 10mm.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To echo the others, you're seeing both the D200's weaker in-camera noise reduction_

 

It isn't weaker... it's turned off by default. If he went in and set the in-camera NR settings, it would look exactly the same as the D50, which has built in high ISO noise reduction. (Meaning you can't turn it off.) The D300 has better high ISO performance, but the D50 should be exactly the same.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## The Monkey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you need a fast indoor lens, you might want to try looking into the 85 1.8. It's not as fast as the 1.4 obviously, but it's a good performer and much, much cheaper. I'd also say 35mm 1.4 or Sigma 30mm 1.4 but it depends on what kind of inside shots you're planning on doing. _

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'll echo the recommendation for the Nikon 85mm F/1.8.
 With this lens, and a Nikon 20mm F/2.8, I can take almost any picture I would ever want at a headphone meet. A flash becomes optional unless you have very dim lighting. The 85mm is great for people 3/4 - 1/4 people shots, and for tight gear shots. the 20mm is nice for wide angels to capture the whole picture.

 The 35mm F/2 is also a great lens for holiday gatherings._

 

Thanks to you both. Which of these lenses is easiest to find for a good price? Or are they all expensive? Also, can I go with non-Nikon, or should I stick with Nikkor?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *The Monkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks to you both. Which of these lenses is easiest to find for a good price? Or are they all expensive? Also, can I go with non-Nikon, or should I stick with Nikkor?_

 

Nikon is an optics company, just like canon. If you buy a nikon or a canon, you are buying it for their optics (among other things). In general you'll find the brand name lenses better than 3'rd party lenses. That's my experience. There may be exceptions.

 BHphoto.com has some of the best prices. New the 85mm goes for 400$us, the 35mm for 320$us.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It isn't weaker... it's turned off by default. If he went in and set the in-camera NR settings, it would look exactly the same as the D50, which has built in high ISO noise reduction._

 

Hmm, it was always set to "low" in my camera, by default, which I have set to none for relevant use. I prefer what I can do with NR in RAW processing anyway. But I think we both essentially meant the same thing, and I didn't quite sum it up properly before. Anyway, I doubt the D200 will ever produce exactly the same results regarding noise as the D50, given the MP difference.


----------



## bigshot

"High" is for long time exposures. It doesn't involve the same kind of high ISO noise, it corrects for a purple haze in the corners you get from long exposures. Ken Rockwell has examples of this on his D50 page. The D200 has no noise reduction at all as the default. That's why it appears noisier as a raw image. But once you post process in photoshop, the amount of noise is comparable to the D50.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Edwood

I'm going back to Prime lenses. 

 Anyone want to buy my Nikon AF-S 18-200mm VR lens? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## stuartr

Ed -- take a look at the Zeiss ZF line of primes. The 100/2 is supposed to be astonishing. I am reviewing it for another site next week. Here are a few samples from a photo forum -- they have it all (well, other than AF): sharpness, bokeh, contrast, great color...
Sunday morning with Nikon D3 + ZF 100/2 - The GetDPI Workshop Forums


----------



## Edwood

Very nice. But I need AF. I'm just not fast enough manual focusing for a fast moving target (read, 1 yr old daughter)

 Otherwise, I'd have stuck with Pentax and their Limited Prime Lenses. Loved their primes. Their bodies, no so much.

 -Ed


----------



## The Monkey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Anyone want to buy my Nikon AF-S 18-200mm VR lens? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 -Ed_

 

Do you like that lens, Ed?


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *The Monkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you like that lens, Ed?_

 

Love it, very fast and accurate AF, excellent for outdoors shooting, but I shoot mostly indoors in low light, so it's too slow for me. I need at least f/2.8, and I mostly shoot f/2 with primes. 

 That I just love the corner to corner sharpness of primes, and the ability to have a very nice bokeh with the more wide open apetures.

 But of course that means I'll have to carry around a lot of lenses. As handy as it is to carry only one lens (the 18-200mm VR), I don't really take my D80 around with me everywhere I go.

 -Ed


----------



## stuartr

One thing you will find shooting primes is that you do not necessarily need tons of different focal lengths. I shoot a lot of film, 90% of it on manual focus, prime lens-based systems like Leica M or medium format cameras. Using the Leica M, I generally shoot with a 2 or 3 lens kit...a 35/1.4, 75/1.4...if I need another lens, it is something between 18-25mm. To be honest, I also shoot with just a 35/1.4...you can do a lot with it, making something look wide, or close. Primes are very versatile if it is a good lens of a moderate focal length...the rest you can do with your feet and on the strength of your composition. 
 For example, these are all 35mm shots:


----------



## Edwood

Great, photos, Stuart. 

 It's a shame that pretty most companies like Nikon have abandoned primes. 

 -Ed


----------



## stuartr

Thanks Ed. Actually, looking at that last one, it was probably with a 25mm, not a 35mm...too much wide angle-ishness in the corners. It is a shame that prime lenses are not as popular with the manufacturers these days...they are usually smaller, lighter, faster and better in every way than the zooms. Not always, but often. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate zooms -- I use the 24-70 on the D3 and it is great, but coming from primes, f/2.8 is SLOW, there is also much more distortion than with good primes. And it is very large and heavy. But for quick reaction, events, and times when it is not possible to change lenses, it can't be beat.


----------



## Tuarreg

Stuart

 I am intrigued with the Leica mystic and was wondering how you would compare the M8 with current crop of top DSLRs like the Nikon D3 strictly in terms of image quality, as opposed to functionality.

 Thanks

 Tuarreg


----------



## stuartr

Tuarreg -- I have not really had the D3 for that long, so I cannot give you a complete comparison, but I would say that at base ISO, the image quality is relative to the lens you are using, rather than the camera. The difference between 10mp 1.3 crop and 12mp full frame is not really significant in terms of resolution, but it does make a big difference in noise. I find that at ISO 160 (the M8's base) and 320, the M8 will generally take equal or better images to the D3. at 640 and above, the D3 is way ahead. The D3 at 3200 is probably close to the M8 at 640. 

 All that said, in terms of use in normal lighting conditions, it is the lenses that determine the image quality, and 90% of the Leica lenses are better than the Nikon lenses. This is what you are paying for in the M8 -- the ability to use the Leica lenses. If you could bolt Leica lenses on the D3 (even the Leica R lenses), then it would be a different story. 

 But for the most part, Leica primes are way ahead of the Nikon lenses. The exceptions would be the 14-24 and the 24-70, but even here, the Leica lenses are ahead -- particularly in speed, performance wide open, lack of distortion and size. 

 For me, the D3 is about getting the job done. It does this unbelievably well. Point it at something, press a button, and you will get a good photo. It is not the sort of thing I carry around with me unless I have a specific reason to...the M8 and a single lens is a lightweight, small kit that can slip in a small bag or even a trench coat pocket if you have a small enough lens. The D3 (or the 1DsMkIII) is a tool for getting work done. It is brilliant at it. I am not saying it can't do "fine art" or street photography or whatever else -- it is just not something you can have with you all the time without a particular reason -- unless you are a masochist. It's like walking around with a KGSS strapped to your back and Omega II's in order to listen to your iPod. The M8 is more like RS-1's unamped into it. They are different -- both are excellent, but in different ways.


----------



## Tuarreg

I understand the advantages of not drawing attention to the camera, from being able to catch more candid shots to safety from theft. The less attention the camera draws on itself the better. This brings me to the Sigma DP1 which I was interested in it for its diminutive size and its intriguing Fovean sensors that some say rival images of the M8 for a fraction of the price. I seriously doubt it, but it seems to be causing a stir. Further down the line in IQ would be the Leica dLux 3 which is also very interesting.

 Check out Jim Radcliffe's Leica dlux3 and Sigma dp1 galleries: Leica D-Lux 3 Photography by Jim Radcliffe which just shows you that in the hands of a skilled photographer, anything is possible!

 Enjoy!

 Tuarreg


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Tuarreg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Check out Jim Radcliffe's Leica dlux3 and Sigma dp1 galleries: Leica D-Lux 3 Photography by Jim Radcliffe which just shows you that in the hands of a skilled photographer, anything is possible!

 Enjoy!

 Tuarreg_

 

Wow! Just wow! I have the el-cheapo Panasonic version of the DLux-3 and I didn't even think photos of such _quality_ were even possible. If he had said those pictures were taken with a Leica M8 or Nikon D3, I would've still believed him.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow! Just wow! I have the el-cheapo Panasonic version of the DLux-3 and I didn't even think photos of such quality were even possible. If he had said those pictures were taken with a Leica M8 or Nikon D3, I would've still believed him._

 

Further proving that good pictures come from good photographers; not necessarily good cameras.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Hey guys - how much do you think a mint condition Nikon 80-200 F/2.8 is worth nowadays on the used market? I have an opportunity to grab the latest 2 ring version for around $800, but am wondering whether or not I should just purchase the lens new for such a low price differential. Obviously, I realize that the push-pull D version is significantly cheaper, but overall I enjoy handling the newer model to a much greater degree. Basically, I'm wondering whether I should jump on this "deal," or wait for a more reasonably priced model to show up on E-bay.


----------



## Arainach

Definitely not at 800; the warranty's more than worth the price difference. I usually see them go for about 700 on eBay, which is still less difference from new than what I'd personally want, but it's incredibly rare to ever see a 2-ring go lower.


----------



## Edwood

Really wish Nikon would do a modern remake of their legendary 28mm f/1.4 

 Prices on eBay are just stupid. I would really be happy if they made a 35mm f/1.4 with some serious glass. You would think with the D3, that there would be more interest.

 -Ed


----------



## stuartr

I think we will see it at Photokina...at least, I assume they will bring out some new primes made for the FX/film format.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think we will see it at Photokina...at least, I assume they will bring out some new primes made for the FX/film format._

 

I really hope so. My dad is thinking of getting a D3. I'm sure the availability of new FX format primes will help in his decision.

 -Ed


----------



## nineohtoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Further proving that good pictures come from good photographers; not necessarily good cameras._

 

I really can't agree anymore. I see so much money squandered on equipment, only to see dull and uninspired photos. I know art is subjective, but it's surprising to see some of the pictures that really stand out to me aren't made on pro cameras, etc. Some are on consumer DSLRs, or even basic point and shoots. I think people are more fascinated with having the latest and greatest then actually going out and taking pictures. 

  Quote:


 Primes are very versatile if it is a good lens of a moderate focal length...the rest you can do with your feet and on the strength of your composition. 
 

I wholeheartedly agree. Unless you're getting paid, I think you can really save yourself money, and enjoy shooting more by using primes. 

 I personally enjoy shooting with my old film cameras more, but its more costly and time consuming, whereas with my D50, I can just pull out my eeepc and start seeing results and tweaking. 

 Here's to Nikon updating their primes. Give me an affordable DX wide to normal length 1.4 lens to compete with the Siggy 30mm(my most used lens).


----------



## Edwood

No more DX lenses for me. I want to keep them around for when I eventually upgrade to full frame.

 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No more DX lenses for me. I want to keep them around for when I eventually upgrade to full frame.

 -Ed_

 

It is true. DX is dead.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Further proving that good pictures come from good photographers; not necessarily good cameras._

 

Absolutely! It helps to be proficient at post-processing too
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I doubt the RAWs (or whatever Leica likes to call them) looked as colourful or 'contrasty' straight out of the camera.

 What I am most surprised by is how noise-free the pictures are. This Leica and most of its Panasonic equivalents have extremely high noise levels at relatively low ISOs, making them super difficult to shoot with in low-light conditions. Is it possible to remove noise via post processing?

 I got bored revising
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 - _'Notes on ulcerative colitis'_




 [size=xx-small]Camera: Panasonic DMC-FX9, 6mm F/2.8 1/25 ISO100; Post processing: Picasa 2[/size]

 and another version which I like a lot more:




 [size=xx-small]Camera: Panasonic DMC-FX9, 6mm F/2.8 1/25 ISO100; Post processing: FastStone Image Viewer[/size]

 The camera used is the Panasonic DMC-FX9, the older cousin of the Leica C-Lux 2 (lacks the wide-angle lens and is 6MP vs Leica's 7.2MP). Pictures look fine touched-up and resized, but the direct-off-camera JPEGs are pretty abysmal @ 100%.


----------



## dj_mocok

Those images from Leica ones are the result of the mastery of both photography and post processing skill. There is no way you can create that kind of image without the skills of Photoshop. 

 A long time ago at photo.net, there was one 'photographer' who got so many excellent pictures in his portfolio, and then he got busted for stealing images from other photographs and photoshopped it, mixed it with other bits and pieces and created a great picture. At first he denied it, but after evidence was presented, he couldn't say anything anymore. What he did basically was just taking other people's work and combining them together, and didn't really take the images himself.

 There is no doubt that he got serious skills in photoshop and creative sense of creating a nice image, but sometimes you wonder if this kind of people is still considered as photographer, not image creator...

 PS: Darn it Milk, if you wanna create such a nice, elegant picture of fountain pen, can't you at least write something nice, not diarrhoea & mucus discharge?


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Those images from Leica ones are the result of the mastery of both photography and post processing skill. There is no way you can create that kind of image without the skills of Photoshop. 

 A long time ago at photo.net, there was one 'photographer' who got so many excellent pictures in his portfolio, and then he got busted for stealing images from other photographs and photoshopped it, mixed it with other bits and pieces and created a great picture. At first he denied it, but after evidence was presented, he couldn't say anything anymore. What he did basically was just taking other people's work and combining them together, and didn't really take the images himself.

 There is no doubt that he got serious skills in photoshop and creative sense of creating a nice image, but sometimes you wonder if this kind of people is still considered as photographer, not image creator..._

 

It really depends on the product. There are far too many pictures I've seen posted on photography forums which have been over-edited: over-saturated colours, over-aggressive sharpening, etc... Jim Radcliffe's photos are no doubt heavily post-processed, but they still retain a very genuine, non-pretentious quality which really appeals to me.

  Quote:


 PS: Darn it Milk, if you wanna create such a nice, elegant picture of fountain pen, can't you at least write something nice, not diarrhoea & mucus discharge? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 

Haha! Having been inspired by Jim Radcliffe's photos (LOL!), I decided to see what my Panasonic FX-9 (a cousin of the Leica C-Lux 2) is capable of. To my dismay, it is even more basic than I had imagined and lacks any sort of manual adjustment. Post processing was done via some messing around in Picasa 2 with fill light, highlights, shadows, sharpening and a shadow gradient. I had a good laugh tweaking that picture though since I only noticed _afterward_ what was in the foreground


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Definitely not at 800; the warranty's more than worth the price difference. I usually see them go for about 700 on eBay, which is still less difference from new than what I'd personally want, but it's incredibly rare to ever see a 2-ring go lower._

 

OK, good. I put in a bid for $800 before having second thoughts about the value of a warranty - but the lens is already up to $810 and with $25 shipping.

 EDIT: $830 with $25 shipping! These people really are nuts.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

As an aside, are there any free (preferably legal) NEF converters available on the web? This one is always at the top of my search list on Google, but I'm really not sure I trust the website or the program. What's your opinion?


----------



## milkpowder

I'm using FastStone Image Viewer to do my post-processing at the moment. It can batch convert/rename, etc almost any file. The wonderful "save as" preview function has proven to be exceptionally useful too.

FastStone Image Viewer - Powerful and Intuitive Photo Viewer, Editor and Batch Converter


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm using FastStone Image Viewer to do my post-processing at the moment. It can batch convert/rename, etc almost any file. The wonderful "save as" preview function has proven to be exceptionally useful too.

FastStone Image Viewer - Powerful and Intuitive Photo Viewer, Editor and Batch Converter_

 

Looks good - I'll give it a try.


----------



## Towert7

You know what I have a hard time understanding, is just how finicky the kit 18-55mm lens is (the older one).

 I just took this picture the other day, and I can not get over how sharp it came out (even at full size!).






 What bothers me is that I can use this lens at different distances and focal lengths and get results ranging from this all the way to complete junk.
 It seems this lens does better near its far end...
 Real finicky.


----------



## milkpowder

Geez nice shot! Do you mind posting (or linking to) a larger or resampled photo so that the whiskers aren't so jagged. Pretty please! I want to have a copy if you don't mind.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You know what I have a hard time understanding, is just how finicky the kit 18-55mm lens is (the older one).\


 What bothers me is that I can use this lens at different distances and focal lengths and get results ranging from this all the way to complete junk.
 It seems this lens does better near its far end...
 Real finicky._

 

Yeah, that's the problem with zoom lenses. Never really consistent across the focal length range. With prime lenses there is only one to contend with, and it's always the same quality. For better or worse.

 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Geez nice shot! Do you mind posting (or linking to) a larger or resampled photo so that the whiskers aren't so jagged. Pretty please! I want to have a copy if you don't mind.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Sure thing.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2300/...e22c30e3_o.jpg
 If the page does not work let me know and I'll see what I can do.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, that's the problem with zoom lenses. Never really consistent across the focal length range. With prime lenses there is only one to contend with, and it's always the same quality. For better or worse.

 -Ed_

 

It's just the nature of lenses in general and it takes time to learn all the qualities of a lens. Even a prime will behave differently at different f-stops and sometimes focus distances.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Tuarreg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Check out Jim Radcliffe's Leica dlux3 and Sigma dp1 galleries: Leica D-Lux 3 Photography by Jim Radcliffe which just shows you that in the hands of a skilled photographer, anything is possible!_

 

Thanks for this link. Portfolios like Radcliffe's have always been really inspiring to me as a photographer. To see his use of composition and lighting elements in simple yet powerful combination is exactly the kind of thing that gets my eye working better. We can learn; we can grow and improve.


----------



## Towert7

Well, I had a lot of free time today so I decided to try out my 18-200VR again.

 It is pretty nice at it's max telephoto focal length, but the pictures I took at the wide end where horribly blurry. Nothing like what I could expect from my other lenses. Colors were also lacking quite a bit.

 Wow........ These new primes have really spoiled me. I remember when my 18-200VR was the best I had.

 In other news, I'm having fun using the nikon 60mm micro. It's darn sharp, which I love! Like others have said, you do have to get very close to do macro, which can be a pain.... especially when you don't like bees all that much. ^_^


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Yeah, it can be tough to use the 18-200 when there are better lenses about. Although I took it to Can Jam with me, I only found one use for it, in the 100+ shots I took, namely capturing a shot in Mikhail's amazingly dark room. Other than that VR-needing situation, it just sat. It's hard for me to use it on outdoor (i.e. good light) pictures any more, as it's only marginally sharper than my digicam (Fuji E900). I almost certainly will replace the 18-200, but I just can't decide on what to replace it with.


----------



## lan

You have a gap from 36-179mm right?

 I like the 55-200VR. It's cheap, light, small, and pretty good. But it's a cheaply built lens and some people may not like that.


----------



## bigshot

If you can't take a great picture with an 18-200 VR, there's something wrong somewhere. Mine is nice and sharp with great color. I've shot in a bunch of different situations with it with no problems at all.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you can't take a great picture with an 18-200 VR, there's something wrong somewhere._

 

Well.............................................. .
 All of my primes just give me a much sharper picture vs. the 18-200VR. I don't know, but I personally really like sharp pictures. I also love colors, and again the primes just give me better results, which doesn't make sense to me but........... it seems to be the case.

 I took some similar shots today with my 60mm, so I'll have to compare sharpness and color.


----------



## GTRacer

Well primes will usually give better results compared to zooms... It's a tradeoff between versatility and image quality.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You have a gap from 36-179mm right?

 I like the 55-200VR. It's cheap, light, small, and pretty good. But it's a cheaply built lens and some people may not like that._

 

Yeah, as crazy as it sounds, that's my gap at the moment, not counting the 18-200, lol. It works for what I do though, as the 180 is good for sports and portraits, the 35 for product and general photography, and the 10-20 is now my meat & potatoes scenic lens. Perhaps the simplest tweak to my kit would be adding an 85 1.8 for another perspective control outdoors, and looser portraits. I'm pondering that among other options. The Sigma 50-150 looks intriguing.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you can't take a great picture with an 18-200 VR, there's something wrong somewhere. Mine is nice and sharp with great color. I've shot in a bunch of different situations with it with no problems at all._

 

My issue with it is that I feel the shots I take with it could have been better looking than they result (inc. PP). It was a fun lens to learn my preferences with, and the VR can come in handy, but it seems somewhat pointless to use when there are so many lenses available with fewer optical compromises, unless one needs to avoid changing lenses at all costs.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It was a fun lens to learn my preferences with, and the VR can come in handy, but it seems somewhat pointless to use when there are so many lenses available with fewer optical compromises, unless one needs to avoid changing lenses at all costs._

 

Same feelings here.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well.............................................. .
 All of my primes just give me a much sharper picture vs. the 18-200VR._

 

How big are you printing them out?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it seems somewhat pointless to use when there are so many lenses available with fewer optical compromises, unless one needs to avoid changing lenses at all costs._

 

I find the most valuable thing about equipment is having the right lens at the right time. Many pictures last for only a second. If you have to reach in your bag and swap lenses, a lot of them would be gone. I can see avoiding the 18-200 for studio portrait work or architectural or wide landscapes you shoot on sticks, but for a ton of purposes beyond that, it's invaluable. I can't see any difference between primes and zooms unless I shoot grids and blow them up huge in photoshop. (I admit, I don't do that a lot.) With normal photos printed out at normal sizes, there's absolutely no difference at all.

 Personally, I wouldn't be without my point and shoot Olympus 3030 either. There are certain situations where a tiny difference in optical quality isn't as important as being able to quickly and inconspicuously get a shot. The equipment has to serve me as a photographer. I'm not interested in coddling equipment for the sake of stuff you can't see unless you really look for it. If you have an 18-200 and you aren't using it, sell it, because there are plenty of photographers who will get great use out of it.

 That said, I have seen some bad lenses. My old 43-86 is a mess. But the 18-200 is one of the best designed zooms I've ever seen. I haven't been as excited about a new zoom since the old Vivitar series one 70-210 macro back in the late 70s.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I find the most valuable thing about equipment is having the right lens at the right time. Many pictures last for only a second. If you have to reach in your bag and swap lenses, a lot of them would be gone. I can see avoiding the 18-200 for studio portrait work or architectural or wide landscapes you shoot on sticks, but for a ton of purposes beyond that, it's invaluable. I can't see any difference between primes and zooms unless I shoot grids and blow them up huge in photoshop. (I admit, I don't do that a lot.) With normal photos printed out at normal sizes, there's absolutely no difference at all.

 Personally, I wouldn't be without my point and shoot Olympus 3030 either. There are certain situations where a tiny difference in optical quality isn't as important as being able to quickly and inconspicuously get a shot. The equipment has to serve me as a photographer. I'm not interested in coddling equipment for the sake of stuff you can't see unless you really look for it. If you have an 18-200 and you aren't using it, sell it, because there are plenty of photographers who will get great use out of it.

 That said, I have seen some bad lenses. My old 43-86 is a mess. But the 18-200 is one of the best designed zooms I've ever seen. I haven't been as excited about a new zoom since the old Vivitar series one 70-210 macro back in the late 70s.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Damn it all to heck Steve! I agree 100% with the above (assuming all lens elements and assembly are of same quality). And, yes, I totally grok your Vivitar analogy.

 Yes, yes, yes, above all: get the shot.

 -m


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How big are you printing them out?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

usually 4x6'in.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_With normal photos printed out at normal sizes, there's absolutely no difference at all._

 

For you maybe..... for me........ there is a night and day difference. The 18-200VR is rubbish compared to some of my primes (in my opinion, of course. ^_^ ).


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_usually 4x6'in._

 

If you can see a night and day difference printed out at 4x6 inches, there is something seriously wrong with your lens. Perhaps the autofocus is a bit wonky or the VR isn't working right. The only way you should be able to see a difference is on a computer screen with the magnification up to a tiny fraction of the image, and off in the corner at that. (Not a very easy way to appreciate a composition!) I've shot thousands of pictures with the 18-200 VR and in good light shots are sharp as a tack, even blown up four times the size you're printing out at.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you can see a night and day difference printed out at 4x6 inches, there is something seriously wrong with your lens.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Can't you ever say yes for once?
 Man.

 And you always take things so literal. You ask a question, I answer your question, and then you 'deduce' the wrong conclusion from it. Always the wrong conclusion Steve!


 You think I'm printing my pictures at 4x6", NO, come on! I view them on my computer monitor.


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can't you ever say yes for once?
 Man.

 And you always take things so literal. You ask a question, I answer your question, and then you 'deduce' the wrong conclusion from it. Always the wrong conclusion Steve!


 You think I'm printing my pictures at 4x6", NO, come on! I view them on my computer monitor._

 

Well instead of jerking his chain all the time why not simply give him a straight answer instead of deliberately misleading him?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you can see a night and day difference printed out at 4x6 inches, there is something seriously wrong with your lens. Perhaps the autofocus is a bit wonky or the VR isn't working right._

 

You know this argument works both ways also. Perhaps your primes are subpar.

 In terms of resolution, I'd agree that in 4x6 it might be hard to see differences. In terms of distortion or unevenness in various qualities it is possible to see.

 18-200VR doesn't work at f/2.8 or faster so in that regard, it's use can be different and not comparable.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well instead of jerking his chain all the time why not simply give him a straight answer instead of deliberately misleading him?_

 

Hm...
 If you find out the answer to that, let me know.
 (I think a Ph.D in psychology is needed for this one!)


----------



## Gautama

Is there a photog forum similar to head-fi any of you recommend?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ou think I'm printing my pictures at 4x6", NO, come on! I view them on my computer monitor._

 

On a computer monitor, there's even *less* chance of seeing the difference between a Nikkor zoom lens and a fixed length lens. In order to view a complete 10 megapixel image on a computer screen at full resolution you would need a monitor more than four feet wide and three feet tall. I seriously doubt you can see the difference in a custom photographic print at 11x14, much less the size of the images you post to the web for viewing on a computer monitor.

 Sure you *might* be able to see a difference under certain circumstances if you blow up a corner of the image so big you're looking at or above the resolution of your CCD, but who looks at pictures that way? If you find that you often need to crop images that much to make your photos work, you should either get a longer lens and a tripod, try to compose in on the center of the screen; or better yet, get yourself a large format view camera.

 When you compare things, you have to have a sense of scale. If it doesn't make a difference when you print your pictures out- even at very large sizes- it doesn't make a difference. In the grand scheme of things, the difference between a good Nikkor zoom like the 18-200 VR and a fixed length Nikkor lens is a long way from "night and day". It doesn't even qualify as a molehill.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hm...
 If you find out the answer to that, let me know.
 (I think a Ph.D in psychology is needed for this one!)_

 

Sorry I ain't Sigmund Freud!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On a computer monitor, there's even *less* chance of seeing the difference between a Nikkor zoom lens and a fixed length lens. In order to view a complete 10 megapixel image on a computer screen at full resolution you would need a monitor more than four feet wide and three feet tall. I seriously doubt you can see the difference in a custom photographic print at 11x14, much less the size of the images you post to the web for viewing on a computer monitor.

 Sure you *might* be able to see a difference under certain circumstances if you blow up a corner of the image so big you're looking at or above the resolution of your CCD, but who looks at pictures that way? If you find that you often need to crop images that much to make your photos work, you should either get a longer lens and a tripod, try to compose in on the center of the screen; or better yet, get yourself a large format view camera.

 When you compare things, you have to have a sense of scale. If it doesn't make a difference when you print your pictures out- even at very large sizes- it doesn't make a difference. In the grand scheme of things, the difference between a good Nikkor zoom like the 18-200 VR and a fixed length Nikkor lens is a long way from "night and day". It doesn't even qualify as a molehill.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I also find the colors on the 18-200VR are lacking when I compare to my fixed lenses. No matter what size I print or view, the colors bother me.
 With my setup, I always seems to get consistently more vibrant colors with my primes (all of them). The 18-200 on the other hand is very picky. Once in a while it'll give me nice colors. Most of the times though, they just seem dull. I find I have to do a LOT more post processing with the 18-200VR, and even if I bump up the colors I'm still not very happy. With my other lenses though, I never feel the need to bump up the colors.

 Those are my 2 biggest complaints. The sharpness and the colors.
 On a side note, I think my copy works fine.


 It's a real shame too, because I love the versatility of the 18-200VR!!!


----------



## OverlordXenu

Since when has a lens affected color? (Outside of a defective or tinted one, that is.)


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Gautama* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is there a photog forum similar to head-fi any of you recommend?_

 

Nikon Cafe has a similar feel to Head-Fi of several years ago. Most of the others I've found are a bit too similar to Head-Fi of the present, and/or are quite pretentious.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Since when has a lens affected color? (Outside of a defective or tinted one, that is.)_

 

There's no such thing as a perfect lens. Some are slightly tinted but that doesn't matter if you shoot raw and edit digitally. Flare and chromatic abberations affect color but you can work around them also. Under more ideal / controlled conditions, some lenses are just duller than others when comparing color. It could be said the contrast is lower.


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Gautama* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is there a photog forum similar to head-fi any of you recommend?_

 

I like fredmiranda.com, their poster seems more knowlegeable than other photo forums.


----------



## bigshot

I get great color with the 18-200 VR...



















 See ya
 Steve


----------



## laxx

Other than the first pic, it looks like you over saturated your pictures.


----------



## bigshot

The complaint was that the 18-200 VR had dull colors. Now it's oversaturated. Believe it or not, colors in the middle of the Mohave desert on a clear Spring morning actually are that bright. (The third shot is a time exposure taken in the spill light of a Las Vegas neon marquee.)

 In any case, the 18-200 is sharp enough to print very large at any f-stop or zoom position, and it's perfectly capable of capturing vivid colors.

 By the way, the colors here are set for viewing on a Macintosh Cinema Display. If you're viewing on a PC the colors will be slightly higher contrast.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In any case, the 18-200 is sharp enough to print very large at any f-stop or zoom position, and it's perfectly capable of capturing vivid colors._

 

Well then, we agree to disagree. Either way though, you are lucky that you find the 18-200VR acceptable. I'm seriously considering selling mine while I can still get a good $ for it (especially if DX goes obsolete).


----------



## bigshot

DX won't go obsolete. I have thirty year old lenses that still work on my D200. Nikon is very good about backwards compatibility.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 (especially if DX goes obsolete). 
 

That will be a while. Not everyone upgrades their bodies to the latest and greatest. People still actually use film cameras. Nikon has 1 full frame camera right now that is what $5000? I think it is safe to say, DX will be around for years to come.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Well I just traded my 18-200 for a super-sharp macro lens. See you on the prime side of the moon! LOL


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well I just traded my 18-200 for a super-sharp macro lens. See you on the prime side of the moon! LOL_

 

Which is what lens? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







 I don't think DX will be going obsolete either. It's a matter of economics. Full frame would be too expensive and a lot companies have invested much in making DX lenses.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Which is what lens? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Tamron 90mm f/2.8, and quite a bit of cash. I wasn't completely sure if I wanted to get this or the Nikon 85 1.8, but this trade opp came up, and it was actually a lot easier and a bit more advantageous than selling it would have been anyway.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_DX won't go obsolete. I have thirty year old lenses that still work on my D200. Nikon is very good about backwards compatibility.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Unless they pull a "Canon" on us


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tamron 90mm f/2.8, and quite a bit of cash. I wasn't completely sure if I wanted to get this or the Nikon 85 1.8, but this trade opp came up, and it was actually a lot easier and a bit more advantageous than selling it would have been anyway._

 

A prime (pun intended) exchange, Peter.

 Now you can capture dust and metal filings on all our gear. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Should do as a medium tele in addition to macro duties. Have fun with it ... I know you will.


----------



## bigshot

I recently got the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro, but I haven't had a chance to put it through its paces yet. I think it's going to prove to be pretty useful.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_DX won't go obsolete. I have thirty year old lenses that still work on my D200. Nikon is very good about backwards compatibility.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I agree. I might be wrong of course but I can't see Nikon making FX their mainstream format for a while and even once they do, I would imagine they would introduce a crop format program like on the D3 for a few years after the stop of DX production.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Okay, ive got my girlfriend heading back HK again and im thinking of upgrading my 18-135. 

 I have a wedding coming up in August and i was thinking to just get an 18-200 as a run about lens, but using this with my SB600 to shoot some shots at the wedding. Are there any quicker lenses that wouldnt break a $700 AUD or so budget?


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay, ive got my girlfriend heading back HK again and im thinking of upgrading my 18-135. 

 I have a wedding coming up in August and i was thinking to just get an 18-200 as a run about lens, but using this with my SB600 to shoot some shots at the wedding. Are there any quicker lenses that wouldnt break a $700 AUD or so budget?_

 

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It certainly lacks the zoom of the 18-200, but for most wedding shots I'd be more concerned with a faster F-Stop than a longer focal length. Just watch out for sample variations, as third party manufacturers aren't exactly known for their consistency.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That will be a while. Not everyone upgrades their bodies to the latest and greatest. People still actually use film cameras. Nikon has 1 full frame camera right now that is what $5000? I think it is safe to say, DX will be around for years to come._

 

I wasn't aware that film isn't as great as digital. I didn't know that digital could match the contrast that I get with Rollie ATP (or the resolution for that matter, 35 theoretical megapixels).

 What kind of stupid comment is that to make about film? It costs about the same as digital (more or less, depending on different factors), sure it takes longer to get processed, and you might have to get your hands dirty (god forbid, right?). Digital is fast and clean. That's pretty much its only pro over film. You can't get the kind of contrast that you can with film.

 You can get a good medium-format film outfit for less than $800. Digital medium format backs go for $30,000. And that is just the back, not the body or the lens or anything. There really isn't a digital large format.

 I mean, really...What an absolutely ignorant comment to make.

 In the end though, it is the photographer that matters. Not the medium, equipment, or the amount of money that you spend.


----------



## Edwood

Unless you're shooting high end Medium and Large format, film is pretty much dead. And the so-called better contrast you think you're getting with film is often crushed blacks. A lot of film, depending on the ISO shot, is actually lacking in dynamic range of the best CMOS sensors out there. Now, color rendition is a whole 'nother story. I've professionally retouched many many photos in a past life, and have seen the crappiest photos shot in high end film, and absolutely phenominal pics shot with a point and shoot digicam. 

 One of the things people don't take into consideration with film (if you don't develop and print from your own film) is the retouching work that is done by the lab. With digital, much of that work is now in the photographer's hands. While you are saving a lot of time by not having to deal with a print lab, you are trading that in for doing the lab work up front on your computer.

 But in the end, all the high end printers deal with a digital file. So even film ends up being digital. Albeit with a very expensive drum scanner in the middle.

 But, yeah the person behind the camera is the most important part of photography.

 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I mean, really...What an absolutely ignorant comment to make.
_

 

Sorry Overlord, but you are starting to show your age and/or ignorance.
 Digital is vastly superior for some people, myself included. I'm surprised you can't see that.

 If I spent 8$ for a roll of film (or slides), and 8$ to develop that roll, I would have spent over 3333$us on film/developing costs alone. Many of which would be totally pointless prints/negatives because I'm still learning. That 300$ price premium I paid to buy a DSLR vs. SLR was more than worth it for the money I saved in developing / film costs. You didn't consider this?

 Being poor, with digital I don't have to worry about making that one shot count. I can take a few shots to help insure I get at least one that came out nice. I'm surprised you never thought of this.
 I also feel more free to experiment with some silly and often times stupid ideas. Many of them never turn out nice, but it helps me progress as a photographer. Would I do that same if I was strapped for money and using film? No.

 Loading film / slides is a pain in the arss, especially when a lot of action is happening at once. Even with 2 cameras slung around yourself, you'll be wasting a fair amount of time changing film. I'm doubly surprised you didn't consider this.

 Why didn't you consider these wonderful points? Any sane person having known full well these benefits of digital would never make such a foolish statement saying film is better. Of course it's not better! They both have their pros and cons. Can't you see that! Life is usually not black and white. There are many subtleties and gradations.

 Wow, some people................


----------



## OverlordXenu

I never meant to say that film was better. And I shoot slides--no color-correction at the lab for me.

 It is hardly, worse. More of a pain, maybe. But you can get effects with it that you can't with digital. It is simply, different.

 And learning on digital? I find that appalling, honestly. Knowing that you would have to waste all those proof sheets (etc.), you would more carefully choose what you shot. And having an automatic camera just make your exposure correct?

 It is much more rewarding to start with an all-manual film camera than it is with a digital camera. With one, you have penalties for your mistakes, which is important. You learn the ins and outs of photography.

 Learning with digital (or rather, a fully automatic camera, like my F100) is like learning to parallel park a car with one that does it for you!

 And if you didn't have the freedom to shoot $3,000 worth of film, you wouldn't.

 I spent a day at MoMA in NYC. I went through one roll of film, that entire trip. I would consider nearly every one of those photos good ones, and maybe one or two "great" (for me, I suppose). When I was there, I saw tons of people with DSLR's, just snapping away. Do you think that they have 30 good pictures, or lots and lots of medicore ones and a few good ones? I can't say that someone didn't go and take 300 amazing shots that day, but I doubt that they did.

 Saying digital is better because you can shoot more is like saying...Digital is better because you can shoot more. I'm not a pro photographer, I shoot for myself. I suppose you could call it "fine art." Ha. I don't need to take 300 pictures every day.

 I'm a poor, destitute student with next to no money, and I manage to spend $10 to buy a roll of film, and $20-$25 to develop each roll. It would probably be much less if I did it myself, but I'm lazy. I don't go crazy shooting, I carefully contemplate every shot I take.

 Oh, and another fine point of film-grain. With digital, you have none (you do have noise, though). I can choose a super-slow, super-fine grain film (Velvia50, Tech Pan, etc.) if I don't want any grain, or I could go get some 6400 ISO film and crop aggressively if I want lots of grain. That's something you can't do with digital.

 And yes, some film does actually have more contrast. Film is still the best medium for black and white.

 Oh, and many labs still print optically. I'm getting ready to send some of my films over to the UK to get some Ilfochromes done.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is hardly, worse. More of a pain, maybe. But you can get effects with it that you can't with digital. It is simply, different._

 

Good, that's all I wanted to hear you say.

 I refuse to let anyone go around saying film is better. It is not better, they are just different. It all comes down to personal preference.


----------



## OverlordXenu

I never meant to say anything else. I was honestly offended when meat implied that digital was better. I just wanted to defend film. 

 I always thought it was funny that I liked film so much, when I don't care for vinyl (in regards to listening to the vinyl vs. transferring it to a PC or just buying the CD or something).


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I never meant to say anything else. I was honestly offended when meat implied that digital was better. I just wanted to defend film. _

 

Funny how we read things. I didn't read meat01's comment as implying anything was better than anything else. To me he was merely stating that film is still being used. It has not been made obsolete and by that token neither will DX.


----------



## fureshi

speaking of DX, i still don't think DX is dead. nikon wouldn't still be coming out with DX lenses if they were about to kill it. compared to full frame or FX lenses, DX lenses are still cheaper for the amateur. lower cost of entry gets more people in the door and interested in photography.


----------



## dj_mocok

The thing I like about film is they (certain camera and film) take gorgeous black&white pictures. Oh and the optical viewfinder.


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 And learning on digital? I find that appalling, honestly. Knowing that you would have to waste all those proof sheets (etc.), you would more carefully choose what you shot. And having an automatic camera just make your exposure correct?

 It is much more rewarding to start with an all-manual film camera than it is with a digital camera. With one, you have penalties for your mistakes, which is important. You learn the ins and outs of photography.

 Learning with digital (or rather, a fully automatic camera, like my F100) is like learning to parallel park a car with one that does it for you!

 And if you didn't have the freedom to shoot $3,000 worth of film, you wouldn't. 
 

As someone who shot 35mm and medium format film for many years, I tend to agree with much of this. When I used to shoot weddings with medium format, economics ( how much the couple spent for their photo package) would limit the number of shots I could take. So I learned to make every one count. And with experience, like you, I'd never wind up with many, if any, unusable shots. However, having been using digital for a few years now, I can see some real benefits....especially for pro shooters. For one thing, not having to worry about cost of film and developing, with action shots, you can rapid-fire multiple sequence shots whenever you want, which gives you several choices instead of just one for that perfect "basketball dunk" or "bride throwing the bouquet" picture. The same holds true for regular posed shooting as well. Take group shots for example. With film, I could only afford to take perhaps one "just in case" shot for each pose. Sometimes, especially in group shots, despite my best efforts, both shots would wind up with someone having their mouth wide open in mid-speech or eyes droopy or closed. With digital and few extra seconds, you can take several shots without financial penalty ... increasing the chances of getting a good one. This sort of thing is extremely advantageous with shoots like weddings and sports events, where you don't have a second chance to go back and re-shoot. Which leads to a related benefit of digital ... the opportunity to see what you've got on the spot. Finding out that something went wrong right away, when you can still reshoot, is way, way, better than finding out when the proofs come back. Being able to take more than 12 or 24 shots without having to change film can be a big advantage as well. Also, with the financial restraints of film shooting, you're less likely to experiment, IMO.

 Yes, I find it annoying when someone who really doesn't understand the technicalities of exposure, composition, depth of field, focus, etc., machine guns 500 digital frames, pulls out 2 or 3 that luckily turned out good, and thinks of themself as a great photographer. As you indicated, spending $20 to $35 on film and development, only to find out you have a pile of out of focus, heads chopped off, underexposed material for the recycle bin, is great incentive to learn the craft quicker and keeps your ego grounded. But just as with film, you can choose to study and learn from your mistakes, or simply throw them away and forget they ever happened. Since it's not really hurting anybody, and it gives everyone from newbie to pro a better chance at creating good photos, it's hard to not like digital.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As someone who shot 35mm and medium format film for many years, I tend to agree with much of this. When I used to shoot weddings with medium format, economics ( how much the couple spent for their photo package) would limit the number of shots I could take. So I learned to make every one count. And with experience, like you, I'd never wind up with many, if any, unusable shots. However, having been using digital for a few years now, I can see some real benefits....especially for pro shooters. For one thing, not having to worry about cost of film and developing, with action shots, you can rapid-fire multiple sequence shots whenever you want, which gives you several choices instead of just one for that perfect "basketball dunk" or "bride throwing the bouquet" picture. The same holds true for regular posed shooting as well. Take group shots for example. With film, I could only afford to take perhaps one "just in case" shot for each pose. Sometimes, especially in group shots, despite my best efforts, both shots would wind up with someone having their mouth wide open in mid-speech or eyes droopy or closed. With digital and few extra seconds, you can take several shots without financial penalty ... increasing the chances of getting a good one. This sort of thing is extremely advantageous with shoots like weddings and sports events, where you don't have a second chance to go back and re-shoot. Which leads to a related benefit of digital ... the opportunity to see what you've got on the spot. Finding out that something went wrong right away, when you can reshoot, is way, way, better than finding out when the proofs come back. Being able to take more than 12 or 24 shots without having to change film can be a big advantage as well. Also, with the financial restraints of film shooting, you're less likely to experiment, IMO.

 Yes, I find it annoying when someone who really doesn't understand the technicalities of exposure, composition, depth of field, focus, etc., machine guns 500 digital frames, pulls out 2 or 3 that luckily turned out good, and thinks of themself as a great photographer. As you indicated, spending $20 to $35 on film and development, only to find out you have a pile of out of focus, heads chopped off, underexposed material for the recycle bin, is great incentive to learn the craft quicker and keeps your ego grounded. But just as with film, you can choose to study and learn from your mistakes, or simply throw them away and forget they ever happened. Since it's not really hurting anybody, and it gives everyone from newbie to pro a better chance at creating good photos, it's hard to not like digital._

 

I completely agree with every single last thing you said. If I were a pro (which I never honestly want to be...I think the stress would ruin the fun of photography for me), I would be mostly digital (eg. D3 for stuff in the field, digital Hasselblad back for the studio), but with some film (you really can't beat 4x5, 8x10, and ULF in some situations).

 I am really proud that I learned with the same camera that my mother learned with, decades and decades ago. A Pentax K1000. It still works great, aside from the broken light meter.


----------



## meat01

*OverlordXenu, Please tell me where I said film was better!*

  Quote:


 Not everyone upgrades their bodies to the latest and greatest. People still actually use film cameras. 
 

I *never* said film or digital was better. I said some people still shoot with film cameras. Is this not correct? How is that offensive? I was trying to explain that DX lenses will not become obsolete anytime soon, because some people do not always use the newest technology. Please read posts before you start bashing people.

  Quote:


 What kind of stupid comment is that to make about film? 
 

Uuh, that would be the truth that people actually take pictures with film cameras.

  Quote:


 I mean, really...What an absolutely ignorant comment to make. 
 

Not as ignorant as you accusing me of things I never said and going off on me for no reason.


----------



## bigshot

I see the point that film is a good way to learn... and that's where I learned with both 35 and medium format- both B&W and color darkroom work. But I've never found that restrictions and difficulties lead to a better grade of thinking. They just slow thinking down. Sitting there with my stopwatch and bucket of water at the precise temperature taught me nothing. Neither did having to wait several days to see what I had shot. I learn a lot more when I'm shooting and reviewing pictures than I do when I'm thinking out all the settings.

 I've shot since I was a teenager, and the things I've learned that are the most important involve composition, lighting and how to be in the right time and place to push the button. Those things are infinitely more complex than depth of field, reciprocity or adjusting color balances subtractively.

 Cameras have progressed from something you have to think and labor over to tools that fit your workflow so seamlessly, they make the adjustments you would make a hundred times faster than you would be able to. I think that's a great thing, because it frees the photographer up to do the thing that machinery will never be able to do... capture light in a beautiful way.

 The difference between film and digital is an entirely different story though. If you are a professional shooting landscape, high end studio or architectural shots, you won't be using digital. Nothing can touch medium and large format view cameras for that sort of thing. Digital is more of a replacement for amateur uses and news photographers.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a wedding coming up in August and i was thinking to just get an 18-200 as a run about lens, but using this with my SB600 to shoot some shots at the wedding. Are there any quicker lenses that wouldnt break a $700 AUD or so budget?_

 

Weddings move so fast, you don't have time to be changing lenses while the cats get herded. The 18-200 is perfect for that. As for faster lenses that do similar things... not at the price you are looking at. Add a fill flash. That will be as flexible a rig as you could hope for.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 Cameras have progressed from something you have to think and labor over to tools that fit your workflow so seamlessly, they make the adjustments you would make a hundred times faster than you would be able to. I think that's a great thing, because it frees the photographer up to do the thing that machinery will never be able to do... capture light in a beautiful way. 
 

 I've never been a fan of reflective metering. IMO, even with lots of experience in compensating, it's difficult to get it exactly right unless you use a grey card which defeats an auto/internal meter's main benefit ... convenience. It would be a great thing if someone were to develop/include, an incident meter into the camera body. I've found that in most situations, the light falling on the back of the camera ( as long as the photographer isn't shading it), is the same as the light falling on the subject ... and if it's not, it's usually not too difficult to walk up the subject and take an incident reading there. Having the incident meter built into the camera and it's internal exposure computer would make both auto and manual exposure that much more accurate, IMO.


----------



## stuartr

A lot of the earliest cameras with meters featured incident meters rather than reflective ones. You could get a metering knob for the old hasselblads. Yes, the film winding knob actually contained the meter, and it was an incident. Today, you can get a PME prism (either 45 degree or 90 degree) that has an incident meter built on top...it also features TTL metering. All that said, I think reflective metering can be quite effective if you use something consistent and you pay your dues getting used to how it meters. I have used Leicas for awhile, and the strongly center-weighted metering is very consistent and very accurate. Once you learn what tones give you an accurate exposure, just point it at those tones and fire away. The same goes for the Hasselblad 203FE -- it has a similar center-weighted meter that is incredibly accurate if you point it at an appropriate tone. It's really about the photographer knowing the correct tone to point it at. 

 All that said, I have found the matrix metering in the D3 and F6 to be superbly accurate. It can get tricked in certain backlit situations, but even in those, it generally gives you a usable exposure...perhaps not the optimal one, but one that you can work with. 

 On the digital versus film thing, it is really about your preferences, intended output and experience with the given cameras. For me, the camera I find most enjoyable to work with and shoot is the Leica MP. It just disappears and all I think about is the image I am trying to create. The camera I would trust to get the shot no matter what would be the D3. As long as you press the button at the correct time, it will make an excellent image. The camera that I think makes the best de facto image is the Mamiya 7II (6x7cm). I like this even more than 4x5 cameras because you get more depth of field, wider angle lenses with less vignetting, much more real-world usability, and astoundingly good lenses. 

 Here are images from all three...I hope the Nikon thread will forgive me that only one is with a Nikon:

 MP:





 D3:




 Please forgive the fact that the D3 shot is worse than the others...I have not had a chance to take too many with the D3 yet...I have only gotten it recently. Take solace in the fact that that is a largely unmodified ISO 2000 jpg, right from the camera. No other camera that I know of can yield a file like that. 

 Mamiya 7II:


----------



## kevin gilmore

warning: large
http://gilmore.chem.northwestern.edu/squirrel.jpg

 D3, 400mm f5.6 VR iso 800
 Shot thru a glass door from 35 feet away handheld 
 (next time tripod for sure)

 None of my film cameras would have a chance at doing this.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kevin gilmore* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 None of my film cameras would have a chance at doing this._

 

I took a look at the picture.
 Out of curiosity, what about it would be hard with film?


----------



## Arainach

Something about crystal-clear ISO800 is something film's never been any good at.


----------



## stuartr

Focus is more important than lack of grain. Film is not bad at 800 or 1600...it's above that where things get bad. Don't get me wrong, modern APS-C and full frame DSLR's will usually strongly outperform film at high ISO's, but modern films still do reasonably well...and when they go bad, they just get grainy...when digital fails, you get things like banding, ugly mottled noise, and color noise.

 ISO 800 film:










 This is 1600 film:










 Anyway


----------



## dj_mocok

I love grain on B&W and sometimes on coloured night shots. I don't know why some people look at grain like it's contagious.


----------



## kevin gilmore

Not fair to compare iso 1600 B&W with iso 1600 color.
 High speed color is almost always messed up, and roll to
 roll variation is huge.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Weddings move so fast, you don't have time to be changing lenses while the cats get herded. The 18-200 is perfect for that. As for faster lenses that do similar things... not at the price you are looking at. Add a fill flash. That will be as flexible a rig as you could hope for.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Cheers. I keep thinking to get a Tamron 24-70 2.8 but i really dont see me using this lens outside of events (general walkabout). Maybe when i have more money i can get something decent. But for now i geuss its an upgrade to a 18-200 since im not expecting to get the main shots from the wedding anyway


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WhatMACHI* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cheers. I keep thinking to get a Tamron 24-70 2.8 but i really dont see me using this lens outside of events (general walkabout). Maybe when i have more money i can get something decent. But for now i geuss its an upgrade to a 18-200 since im not expecting to get the main shots from the wedding anyway _

 

In all honesty, if you are on a tight budget and need a fast lens for a DX camera, I would probably go with the 85mm for 400$us. It is pretty fast, and nice for tight shots of people at close distances, or body shots at far distances. For a wedding on a budget, the 50mm and 85mm F/1.8 would be a cheap way to go for getting some really nice pictures.

 The typical pro wedding setup is one camera with a 70-200 F/2.8, and another camera with a 24-70mm F/2.8. That's typical.


----------



## bigshot

A 24-70 wouldn't be a bad choice for mingling at close quarters at the reception, but you might need something longer for the ceremony itself. They usually stick you up in the choir loft if you're packing. A fixed length long fast lens would be ideal for shooting from the boonies. But for the grab shots at the reception, a zoom is important. Do you have a good flash? You'll need that for the grab shots too.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## OverlordXenu

Whoops, double post.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I see the point that film is a good way to learn... and that's where I learned with both 35 and medium format- both B&W and color darkroom work. But I've never found that restrictions and difficulties lead to a better grade of thinking. They just slow thinking down. Sitting there with my stopwatch and bucket of water at the precise temperature taught me nothing. Neither did having to wait several days to see what I had shot. I learn a lot more when I'm shooting and reviewing pictures than I do when I'm thinking out all the settings.

 I've shot since I was a teenager, and the things I've learned that are the most important involve composition, lighting and how to be in the right time and place to push the button. Those things are infinitely more complex than depth of field, reciprocity or adjusting color balances subtractively.

 Cameras have progressed from something you have to think and labor over to tools that fit your workflow so seamlessly, they make the adjustments you would make a hundred times faster than you would be able to. I think that's a great thing, because it frees the photographer up to do the thing that machinery will never be able to do... capture light in a beautiful way.

 The difference between film and digital is an entirely different story though. If you are a professional shooting landscape, high end studio or architectural shots, you won't be using digital. Nothing can touch medium and large format view cameras for that sort of thing. Digital is more of a replacement for amateur uses and news photographers.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I find that film allows me to consider the composition more. I really need to focus more on lighting, but I just don't have the money for a commander and more flashes so I can use some off-camera light.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*OverlordXenu, Please tell me where I said film was better!*_

 

"Not everyone upgrades their bodies to the latest and greatest. People still actually use film cameras."

 I took that to mean that film bodies are not as "great" as digital bodies. (I suppose that's correct, they're not as technologically advanced.) I did overreact, and I'm sorry for that.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kevin gilmore* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_warning: large
http://gilmore.chem.northwestern.edu/squirrel.jpg

 D3, 400mm f5.6 VR iso 800
 Shot thru a glass door from 35 feet away handheld 
 (next time tripod for sure)

 None of my film cameras would have a chance at doing this._

 

A chance at doing what, exactly? Auto-focusing on the wrong subject and taking a mediocre snapshot?

 I hand-hold 50 ISO film (and slower) in NYC and do mostly street photography.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A chance at doing what, exactly? Auto-focusing on the wrong subject and taking a mediocre snapshot?
_

 

That's what had me perplexed. I couldn't see anything special about it. Maybe he was talking about the built in light meter in the camera??? No idea. Let us know Kevin what you meant by that. I'm very interested.


----------



## WhatMACHI

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The typical pro wedding setup is one camera with a 70-200 F/2.8, and another camera with a 24-70mm F/2.8. That's typical._

 

If this is the case, i may lean towards the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 since i will only really be using this pre and post ceremony.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_but you might need something longer for the ceremony itself. They usually stick you up in the choir loft if you're packing._

 

I wont be shooting during the ceremony so that reduces my need for any significant zoom, it just seems that a little zoom is convenient to save me moving around, and allows me to grab some middle range candid shots.

 I've got an SB-600 which im still getting used to but im fairly certain for the ametuer shots ill be taking that it should be fine.

 Final thoughts to replace my 18-135:

 NO: Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Maybe better for weddings, but definately not enough zoom for my everyday walking.

 MAYBE: Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Better for event shooting than the 18-200VR

 MAYBE: Nik 18-200VR slower, but more versatile...

 Bah, why cant things be easy.


----------



## bigshot

The way I've handled it is in my main digital kit, I have the 18-200 VR, the Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro for portraits and close up, and on order I have the new Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 ultra wide zoom for landscape. Aside from a fast telephoto for sports, this should cover most everything. My bag full of fixed length lenses sits with my 35mm body in a bag.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kevin gilmore

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's what had me perplexed. I couldn't see anything special about it. Maybe he was talking about the built in light meter in the camera??? No idea. Let us know Kevin what you meant by that. I'm very interested._

 

Yeah next time the focus will be in the right place. 
 Combined weight of camera and lens well over 10 lbs.
 hand held getting the focus right and no jitter at the
 same time, not so easy when you are my age.
 Even on a heavy duty tripod just hitting the shutter button
 at 400mm causes jitter. Shooting thru a glass door does
 not help with the autofocus.

 If i did the same thing with the F5, the whole thing would
 have been out of focus due to jitter. Probably not a fair
 comparison as the F5 came before the VR stuff. But many
 i have talked to say the F6 still does not do as well when
 compared to the digital.

 The next time i need to get serious, i'll take my 50 lb tripod, rent
 a mamiya medium format camera with the kodak 40mp back and
 take hours and get it right. Don't think i will be doing that again
 for a while.


----------



## stuartr

You realize that VR works on the F5 and F6 as well, don't you? I have an F6 and the VR seems to work the same on it as it does on digital.


----------



## Tuarreg

Check this out!!


Nikon 24 mm f/3.5 PC-E Nikkor ED

 Tuarreg


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You realize that VR works on the F5 and F6 as well, don't you? I have an F6 and the VR seems to work the same on it as it does on digital._

 

Correct. VR is lens-based, not camera-based, so on any camera with coupling capable of powering it (F5 or F6, any digital) it'll work perfectly. And as far as I know the only reason it can't work on the F2 through F4 is that they can't take G lenses and all of the VR lenses are G (i.e. no aperture ring).


----------



## perplex

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kevin gilmore* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_..._

 

So you finally got your Nikon full frame


----------



## M0T0XGUY

I just picked up an 80-200 f/2.8 (2 ring) and a 35 f/2 from eBay - both of which should be here quite soon. Did I overspend at 750 for the former and 265 for the latter? (Regardless, I've seen the capabilities of both these lenses, and at this point I don't really care about the prices).


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just picked up an 80-200 f/2.8 (2 ring) and a 35 f/2 from eBay - both of which should be here quite soon. Did I overspend at 750 for the former and 265 for the latter? (Regardless, I've seen the capabilities of both these lenses, and at this point I don't really care about the prices)._

 

265$us for a used 35mm F/2 seems like not such a good deal when the new one can be had for 320$ which insures it is brand new, working flawlessly, and comes with a full 5 year warranty. That's just me though.

 You are right though, they are 2 very nice lenses. I wish I had a pro 70-200mm type lens.


----------



## stuartr

The 70-200 and 80-200 are big and heavy, but nice image makers. That said, I never really found the longer focal lengths all that interesting. They can be very useful, but I would say that 90% of my photography is 105mm or shorter. Rather than a 70-200, I went with a 105/2. Don't get me wrong, the long zooms can be very useful for events, sports and so on, but they are not worth the bulk for me. I would rather one good prime.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 70-200 and 80-200 are big and heavy, but nice image makers. That said, I never really found the longer focal lengths all that interesting. They can be very useful, but I would say that 90% of my photography is 105mm or shorter. Rather than a 70-200, I went with a 105/2. Don't get me wrong, the long zooms can be very useful for events, sports and so on, but they are not worth the bulk for me. I would rather one good prime._

 

To each his own I guess. I started taking an unofficial "low key" photo class around a month ago, and I've found that for portraits, nothing beats the 80-200 range for isolating a subject or adding drama to an otherwise uninteresting scene. For whatever reason, my composition at longer focal lengths is much better than at wide angle; perhaps that shows my weakness as a photographer, but in general I just think it's a personal preference.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_265$us for a used 35mm F/2 seems like not such a good deal when the new one can be had for 320$ which insures it is brand new, working flawlessly, and comes with a full 5 year warranty. That's just me though.

 You are right though, they are 2 very nice lenses. I wish I had a pro 70-200mm type lens._

 

Oh well, it is what it is at this point.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Hmmm, my proposed trade for a Tamron 90mm macro didn't go through. But I did manage to sell my 18-200 at a nice rate anyway.

 I was innocently strolling through Best Buy on Monday, and mozied on over to play with some of the P&S cameras (really like that Canon G9). I happened to notice some Tamron lens boxes in the lockup. Sure enough they have the 17-50 2.8, for Nikon, and at a competitive price. The 12% off coupon in my wallet pushed me over the edge, and I took one home.

 Some test shots couldn't reveal any focus problems, TTL-BL overexposure, or decentering. so I took the lens out with me to the top of Half Dome. It seems to perform its' best at 50mm, with a few pics I took at that setting coming out very sharp, edge to edge. It certainly doesn't stack up to my Sigma 10-20 at the low end though. I'm not blown away by this lens so far, but I've got another few weeks before I need to decide whether or not to return it.

 BTW this is the "new" version with focus motor in the lens. It makes a rather odd, but not overly loud sound when focusing, and is not overwhelmingly quick to focus either.


----------



## milkpowder

I'm on the brink of purchasing a camera, but can't quite decide what to go for. I went to the camera store today and had a go with a few cameras. In the end, I was rather impressed by the D80, preferring its ease-of-use versus the Canon 40D.

 My currently dilemma is what to get.

 I can either get D80 w/ 18-70 kit + another lens or two

 OR 

 a D300 but with just a 50 1.8 (for the time being)

 Can't decide...


----------



## Arainach

Now, normally, I would without exception say 'put your money into glass'. The D80 is an excellent camera and won't limit you unless you spend a few years and develop godlike skills or decide to go into professional sports photography. However, the D300 is an entire generation ahead of the D80 (which is essentially a watered-down D200), and its High-ISO performance and cleaning and live preview abilities would make me at least think about it. In the end, I'd probably go for the D80 + lenses, but it's admittedly a tough choice.


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm on the brink of purchasing a camera, but can't quite decide what to go for. I went to the camera store today and had a go with a few cameras. In the end, I was rather impressed by the D80, preferring its ease-of-use versus the Canon 40D.

 My currently dilemma is what to get.

 I can either get D80 w/ 18-70 kit + another lens or two

 OR 

 a D300 but with just a 50 1.8 (for the time being)

 Can't decide... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Well, it's a clear cut choice for me, I'll take D300 w/ 50 1.8
 50 1.8 is a very good lens, very sharp, (at least that's what I got for my canon) you'll be spoilt. When I start this hobby, I got a rebel xt and 50 1.8 for the first 3 months. Then I add canon 17-55 2.8 is, eventhough the range is perfect however, I've been too spoilt w/ 50 1.8 sharpness and bokeh. Everytime I look at 17-55 result, I can't justify the price and a bit disappointed. Nevertheless, 50 1.8 stayed on that body most of the time. Now, with a bit more experience, I can appreciate that 17-55 a little bit, the pic and color rendition is very good, but my 50 1.8 is a touch better.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm on the brink of purchasing a camera, but can't quite decide what to go for. I went to the camera store today and had a go with a few cameras. In the end, I was rather impressed by the D80, preferring its ease-of-use versus the Canon 40D.

 My currently dilemma is what to get.

 I can either get D80 w/ 18-70 kit + another lens or two

 OR 

 a D300 but with just a 50 1.8 (for the time being)

 Can't decide... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It's really a tough call, as you can imagine. Personally, I think Arainach is completely right; the D300 is essentially a generation ahead of the D80, and niceties such as live view and exceptional high-ISO performance do make the former a more attractive camera in general. However, even in its old(er) age, the D80 will likely never be a limiting factor for you as a photographer, whereas a single, 50mm lens has the possibility of leaving you wanting a bit more range in both telephoto and wide angle directions. In the end, then, I'd evaluate your most used focal-lengths, purchase a D80, and sink your leftover cash into a lens or two that best covers those focal lengths; I doubt you'll regret it.


----------



## bigshot

Spend it on lenses. The D80 is a great camera.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## milkpowder

Thanks for the suggestions. My photography piggy-bank will be totally empty for a very long time to come (maybe at least half a year or so) so it really boils down to whether I can live with just a 50/1.8 for that period of time. Maybe it will make me a better photographer, relying less on zoom to compose my shots. On the contrary, the type of shots I can take will be rather limited too... High ISO performance would be very nice though. I'll report back when I have my 'precious'
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 EDIT: I was wondering whether the D80 has the AF-ON button? I'm planning on getting used to separating focus from the shutter if the facility is present.


----------



## fureshi

the camera definitely isn't the limiting factor so that D80 should do you well. extra money spent on lenses is the way to go but that being said, it's hard not being sucked into the wow factor of the D300. i was in the same boat as you. i've had a D50 for two years now and spent some money on a few lenses but in the end, the draw of the D300 was hard to turn away from. somehow i got lucky on amazon and they had a open box D300 with the 18-200vr for $1560. it was too good of a price to turn down. the D50 was never the limiting factor for me though and i intend to keep it as a back up. 

 by the way, i think if you shoot only with the 50/1.8, it'll teach you a lot about composition. you no longer have the zoom so it forces you to think more about how to compose the shot better. i've learned a lot from a borrowed 5D from work which only had a 50/1.8 on it.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the suggestions. My photography piggy-bank will be totally empty for a very long time to come (maybe at least half a year or so) so it really boils down to whether I can live with just a 50/1.8 for that period of time. Maybe it will make me a better photographer, relying less on zoom to compose my shots. On the contrary, the type of shots I can take will be rather limited too... High ISO performance would be very nice though. I'll report back when I have my 'precious'
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 EDIT: I was wondering whether the D80 has the AF-ON button? I'm planning on getting used to separating focus from the shutter if the facility is present._

 

It doesn't.


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It doesn't._

 

You can assign the AE-L/AF-L button to AF on in the custom functions.


----------



## Towert7

I've got over 18,000 pictures on my D50, and the real limiting factor for me was the lens I was using. Having used lenses like the 85mm F/1.8 and the 60mm F/2.8 Micro, I can fully appreciate the ability to which the D50 can take a picture.

 My parents have the D80, and I have had a lot of fun using it. Certainly a wonderful camera.

 If it were me, the D80 would be the perfect entry point DSLR for me, especially if you are strapped for money. Spend the rest on some good lenses, and the only thing holding you back is your own creativity.

 Oh, and by the way, I don't apply to the: stickin with 50mm will make you a better photographer. It may, and it may not, but the simply fact that you are so limited is the real bummer. I've had a lot of shots at wide angels that would not have been possible with the 50mm.

 Knowing what I know now, I would probably start off with the 50mm F/1.8 and the 35mm F/2. Also, since the 70-300G is so darn cheap (100$), I would throw that in JUST so I would have that focal range covered and so you could learn how to use telephoto. Those three lenses would be a great starting set, and each is quite light. Or, you could just get the 18-200VR if you are willing to sacrifice a little image quality for convenience and greater focal range. I started off with the kit lens and then upgraded to the 18-200VR, and that upgrade was very nice.

 Keep us posted on what you do.

 In the end, this speculating of which would be better for you is a little moot. Don't spend too much time trying to decide. Better to just get something, and start learning!.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can assign the AE-L/AF-L button to AF on in the custom functions._

 

Oh nice then.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_~snip~_

 

I tried the new 60mm and it's quite some lens. Minimum focusing distance is a mere few centimeters away! I also put a 17-55 on D80 just to see what the weight balance would be like it it is certainly acceptable. The 17-55 wasn't quite as heavy or large as I thought it would be but it's beyond what I can spend anyway so I didn't spend much time with it. The zoom ring is _very_ stiff though so no lens creep for sure!

 Just how "bad" is the build quality of the 50/1.8? I like holding the camera by the lens instead of it have it hang around my neck
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I realise the 50mm on its own will be rather limiting, but like you said, the 70-300G amongst some other basic zooms are quite affordable (18-70, 18-55VR) so I could get those maybe two or three months down the line. Having read reviews and used the 18-200, I think I would rather walk around with a 18-70 and 70-300(VR?). If I were to get the D80/18-70 kit, it would be cheaper to have both lens than if I were to buy the 18-200 separately.


----------



## bigshot

It would be cheaper because it's not as convenient to have two lenses that do the job of one. But what you say is true. The 18-200 VR is a pretty heavy lens. If that bothers you, a lighter, shorter zoom would be better.

 Everyone always thinks about the long end, but I find that wide angles are much more useful than telephotos for most of my shooting. The 18-70 would be a great all around lens, but I'd add a superwide to that before I got the 70-300.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I tried the new 60mm and it's quite some lens. Minimum focusing distance is a mere few centimeters away! I also put a 17-55 on D80 just to see what the weight balance would be like it it is certainly acceptable. The 17-55 wasn't quite as heavy or large as I thought it would be but it's beyond what I can spend anyway so I didn't spend much time with it. The zoom ring is very stiff though so no lens creep for sure!

 Just how "bad" is the build quality of the 50/1.8? I like holding the camera by the lens instead of it have it hang around my neck
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I realise the 50mm on its own will be rather limiting, but like you said, the 70-300G amongst some other basic zooms are quite affordable (18-70, 18-55VR) so I could get those maybe two or three months down the line. Having read reviews and used the 18-200, I think I would rather walk around with a 18-70 and 70-300(VR?). If I were to get the D80/18-70 kit, it would be cheaper to have both lens than if I were to buy the 18-200 separately._

 

The build quality of the 50 isn't bad by any means, but there's certainly little chance of it supporting the camera's weight alone - a necessary side effect of its small size. Still, I think it would be quite wise of you to purchase a used D80 and 17-55 (or perhaps the 70-300) rather than a D300; as I think the overall image quality of the former combo will best that of a D300 and a 50 f/1.8. Think about it: unless you plan on shooting mostly nighttime or poorly lit indoor subjects, the D80 is every bit as good as the D300 from an image quality perspective, and _very_close from a build quality perspective.

 EDIT: Wow, I somehow managed to skip over the part where you mentioned the 17-55 being too expensive. Still, many large aperture standard zooms and tele-zooms are available for less than the combined cost of a D300, and will still likely yield better "field" quality.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I tried the new 60mm and it's quite some lens. Minimum focusing distance is a mere few centimeters away! I also put a 17-55 on D80 just to see what the weight balance would be like it it is certainly acceptable. The 17-55 wasn't quite as heavy or large as I thought it would be but it's beyond what I can spend anyway so I didn't spend much time with it. The zoom ring is very stiff though so no lens creep for sure!

 Just how "bad" is the build quality of the 50/1.8? I like holding the camera by the lens instead of it have it hang around my neck
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I realise the 50mm on its own will be rather limiting, but like you said, the 70-300G amongst some other basic zooms are quite affordable (18-70, 18-55VR) so I could get those maybe two or three months down the line. Having read reviews and used the 18-200, I think I would rather walk around with a 18-70 and 70-300(VR?). If I were to get the D80/18-70 kit, it would be cheaper to have both lens than if I were to buy the 18-200 separately._

 

For me, I'd go with the D300 and 50 1.8. Having learned on primes (35/50/135) and an F2, it helped me ease into photography and teach me a little about composition instead of just relying on the zoom of my lens. Not everyone needs this but it helped me a lot especially since I was coming from a monster 12x Panny zoom P&S. This is just me, but if it was between older gen tech, I would rather have the D200 over the D80. I had the chance to test out a D80 for a while and would rather just pay the extra $200 for the D200. The D200 feels much better in my hand, the build quality is better, and I like the AF and metering accuracy on the D200 better even though the ISO performance may not be quite as good as the D80. Also, since the D200/300 meters with old AI glass, you can pick up some older Nikon primes for really cheap; you'll just have to mf them.

 If I wanted to invest in glass though and save for a body later, I'd still pick up a D50 used for $300 and buy a Tokina 12-24mm, and a Sigma 50-150 2.8. Maybe add a 18-55 in there just to cover the mid-range gap. I'd skip over the 18-55 VR since VR is more of a marketing ploy in that zoom range anyway and you lose the ED element. The 18-70mm is also a good budget mid-range but the zoom at least on the two copies I've had has been extremely stiff and I'm not set on the duo-cam zoom action. The 70-300VR is a nice lens but the range is a bit specialized so unless you know you'll be shooting in that range, I'd skip over it until you have superfluous funds.


----------



## milkpowder

I can realistically stretch about $2.2k on a rig and intend to purchase it in the UK even though everything is little more expensive. It's rather unfortunate, but I'd prefer not to go "grey market" for warranty reasons. I guess I could claim 17.5% VAT off when I next leave the UK.

 The D300 is just under $2k on its own and $2,320 w/18-70. That leaves $200 for lens, maybe a lil' more if I can get a good bargain from the camera store. It'll just about get me a 50/1.4...

 The D80 is just under $1k on its own and $1,150 w/ 18-70. That leaves ~$1k for additional lens, and likewise, a bit more if I can get a bargain. The D80 + 17-55 @ $2.7k is over budget and would require a bit more saving up...


 Like most of you, the D80 option seems like a no-brainer to me... _if only there weren't so many rumours circulating around regarding the imminent release of the D90 (and of course the highly anticipated D3x
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)._ To get a D80 now would be like buying a first generation iPhone knowing that the second generation is just around the corner. While I do understand that a good camera always remains a good camera, I would hate to miss out on whatever additional D300-like functions the D90 would have (eg higher-res CMOS, sensor dust removal, better ISO performance, live view, etc...)


 It's easy to just say "quit thinking and just get it", but to actually put word into action is a whole different story... Don't you hate it when money dictates what you can and cannot buy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 Hi Skyline889, thanks for the advice. It took me a very long time to write my reply so I missed your post. Funnily enough, I didn't really miss the handling quality of the D300 when I held the D80. I didn't play around with the D80 long enough to notice any performance differences, but it certainly didn't feel cheap unlike the Canons which I handled. I'll give it some more thought.


----------



## OverlordXenu

I've been thinking of getting a digital body to make getting my lighting set up easier, anyone got any recomendations? All I really need is a way to chimp the pic and histogram.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Like most of you, the D80 option seems like a no-brainer to me... if only there weren't so many rumours circulating around regarding the imminent release of the D90
_
_


There's always a "newer and better" model on the horizon. Buy what makes sense at the time you're buying and use the hell out of it to get your money's worth out of it.

 See ya
 Steve_


----------



## milkpowder

Well I got a camera today. It's a Nikon!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well I got a camera today. It's a Nikon! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yes, but the bigger question:
 Do you have any lenses?
 must be asked.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well I got a camera today. It's a Nikon! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

D300?? :drool:


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_D300?? :drool:_

 

You guessed correctly! How did you know
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I also got a 18-70 because I figured a 50mm wouldn't be sufficient. Before that I had another go with the Canon 40D but I just couldn't get past the slightly tacky feel of it. I'm sure the IQ would've been near indistinguishable from the D300 but various _physical_ things didn't seem right about it, eg screen wasn't as nice, buttons weren't as tactile, body didn't feel as solid, etc... All in all it didn't seem as well-polished as the D300. I probably would've took a D80 over the 40D just on the basis of the build. Yes, the handling matters that much to me; I'm that shallow.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You guessed correctly! How did you know
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I also got a 18-70 because I figured a 50mm wouldn't be sufficient. Before that I had another go with the Canon 40D but I just couldn't get past the slightly tacky feel of it. I'm sure the IQ would've been near indistinguishable from the D300 but various physical things didn't seem right about it, eg screen wasn't as nice, buttons weren't as tactile, body didn't feel as solid, etc... All in all it didn't seem as well-polished as the D300. I probably would've took a D80 over the 40D just on the basis of the build. Yes, the handling matters that much to me; I'm that shallow.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Congrats on the D300. Would be the body for me if I went Nikon. Just used to Canon and the $500 difference gets me the killer Tamron 17-50.

 Good luck with the D300 though, it is a special body.


----------



## lan

Welcome to the D300 club. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Did you get the 18-70 used? If new, I just would've payed a bit more for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Welcome to the D300 club. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Did you get the 18-70 used? If new, I just would've payed a bit more for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8._

 

I read somewhere that the "newer" copies of the 17-50mm were having issues on Nikon bodies.


----------



## lan

Ah yes. Forgot there were newer 17-50s with motors built in. What were the issues?


 I got me a used Tokina 100-300f4 pretty cheap. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I tried a used Tokina 80-200 2.8 but it just wasn't very good with too much chromatic aberration. I didn't feel like spending 1000+ for the Nikon 80-200 AF-S especially since I have 3 lenses that cover that range already. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The 100-300 is pretty good I'd say. Granted the motor is slow but it's totally useable at f4.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah yes. Forgot there were newer 17-50s with motors built in. What were the issues?
_

 

I think the issues were AF related. I need to check FM's forum I guess.


----------



## lan

The D300 has AF fine tune. One thing that I'm tired of is AF issues on either Canon or Nikon. This feature has saved me the hassle of finding a good AF copy or sending it in and recalibrating.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D300 has AF fine tune. One thing that I'm tired of is AF issues on either Canon or Nikon. This feature has saved me the hassle of finding a good AF copy or sending it in and recalibrating._

 

Nice feature among many others on the D300. Just trying to justify the cost over a 40D which is almost an $800 premium. I am just so comfortable with Canon too. The D300 is pretty sweet though.


----------



## milkpowder

Yeah perhaps the tamron would've been better value in terms of distortion and speed, but it has very high levels of CA.

 Just casually shooting around with the 18-70 just now, I do find that the slowness can -just- about be compensated by increasing ISO. However distortion and vignetting are both very obvious ta the wide end, rendering the 18mm almost unusable. Fortunately, both aspects improve hugely (almost non-existing vignetting) at a few mm towards the long end. I also miss the VR of the 18-200, which I'm finally beginning to "understand"now that I don't have it.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice feature among many others on the D300. Just trying to justify the cost over a 40D which is almost an $800 premium. I am just so comfortable with Canon too. The D300 is pretty sweet though._

 

It's funny that you mention that. The 40D sounds like such a nice camera, and looks really nice. I was expecting a lot from it. Two days ago I got a chance to use one for a few minutes, and it felt like a big square box........... No where near as comfortable as my D50, which shocked me. I wouldn't want to carry that thing around all day. Too bad too, because canon has some nice lenses.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice feature among many others on the D300. Just trying to justify the cost over a 40D which is almost an $800 premium. I am just so comfortable with Canon too. The D300 is pretty sweet though._

 

Since there's no Nikon equivalent of 70-200 f4, it shouldn't be much of a choice if that's a lens you're really into.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah perhaps the tamron would've been better value in terms of distortion and speed, but it has very high levels of CA.

 Just casually shooting around with the 18-70 just now, I do find that the slowness can -just- about be compensated by increasing ISO. However distortion and vignetting are both very obvious ta the wide end, rendering the 18mm almost unusable. Fortunately, both aspects improve hugely (almost non-existing vignetting) at a few mm towards the long end. I also miss the VR of the 18-200, which I'm finally beginning to "understand"now that I don't have it._

 

I don't think the Tamron has very high levels of CA. But everybody has their own thresholds of what's low, medium, and high.

 You can use auto ISO to compensate for lens shake also. Just set the minimum shutter speed high enough.


----------



## vagarach

So, I think I've decided on getting the Nikon 50mm f/1.8. I like the fact that for $150 CDN I can get some superb quality optics without spending much money. 

 After seeing the behemoth that is the 70-300, I seriously doubt I'd have a use for such a thing, it's like a telescope mounted on a camera! Usually due to price constraints in the zoom lenses I end up looking at Sigmas, which are FULL of little quirks and oddities optics and usability wise. (I read that the focus ring direction is reversed compared to Nikon lenses!).

 50mm is the standard for 35mm cameras, but is the 75mm equivalent length on the D50, etc just as useful? I was thinking of playing it safe and getting the 35mm f/2, but that would give the ability to use a larger aperture at ~50mm than on the kit lens, as well as closer focusing and higher image quality, but still a focal length I'm used to shooting at.


----------



## bigshot

In general use, I find more use for wide angles than I do telephotos.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah yes. Forgot there were newer 17-50s with motors built in. What were the issues?_

 

Hmmm...the 17-50 I have is the A16-II type with the built-in motor. I have had no focus issues so far, and tested carefully for front and back focus at 4 different FL's. I also dragged the sucker up 5000 feet of mountain on 'er first day out, so I doubt any issues are going to pop up all of a sudden. I will say it's not the quickest or fastest focus around, and the noise is a funny chirping sort of a sound that is not exactly confidence inspiring.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think the Tamron has very high levels of CA. But everybody has their own thresholds of what's low, medium, and high._

 

The 17-50 certainly has noticeable CA at certain FL/Ap combos, but rarely enough to be annoying, or enough to make me bother correcting it. After the the 18-200, which had noticeable CA in most shots, it's a definite improvement, but not like my Sigma 10-20 whose CA has been consistently negligible.


----------



## milkpowder

I've got a question about a shot I took today.

 Here the resized but otherwise untouched photo:





 It was a pretty grey, downcast day so I set WB to "cloud". Whacked on aperture priority F/5.6, ISO 800, lined up and shot. Why is the background (and actually most of the picture) so hazy? I think I should use a smaller aperture next time because quite a bit of the photo is out of focus. It doesn't help that I don't have a particularly steady hand
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 The 18-70 is quite prone to CA too: 24mm F/4.5, 100% crop of the top right hand side:





 Barrel distortion is also rather ridiculous at the wide end.


----------



## GTRacer

Don't get so hung up on the little niggles your lens has, you have a great bit of kit as it is so put it through its paces.


----------



## fureshi

i wouldn't worry so much about the CA either unless you really enjoy pixel peeping and look at your pictures at 100% crop. i've had the tamron 17-50mm without motor for over a year now and it's been my main lens on the D50 and i'm still planning on using it as my main lens on the D300. can't say that i've had any problems with CA but then i don't look for it either. composition is probably more important than the little niggles.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_




 Why is the background (and actually most of the picture) so hazy?_

 

Because it probably was hazy.............................
 Am I missing something here?

 If you don't like haze, try a UV/Haze filter.


----------



## milkpowder

Not as hazy as that
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll try a UV filter, but I was under the impression that all digital cameras already have some sort of UV filtering. Nevertheless, I'm still trying to come to terms with the whole "filters" business. It seems that Hoya are a popular brand? My dad's lens came with a 'free' Hoya UV filter.

*GTRacer & fureshi:* Oh I wasn't complaining at all and didn't intend to sound like so... I am actually very satisfied by the results so far.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I never ever look at pictures at 100% anyway. Because my screens are no bigger than 1680x1050, I usually resize to around that size at which point CA is near impossible to see.

 I am intrigued by the Tamron 17-50, but will probably get a nice fast prime and/or a macro first for taking flower pictures.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The new Nikkor 60mm was impressive: fast AF, very close minimum focus distance and as far as I could tell very sharp too.

 Has anyone used the Sigma 50/2.8 macro. The build quality is terrific but its autofocus pretty lack luster: lots of searching before focus lock when focussing at distance (even when set to focus only on distant objects). Maybe macro lens are like this...


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not as hazy as that
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll try a UV filter_

 

That isn't UV. That is moisture in the air. The reason you don't see it when you view the scene in person is because your eyeballs have a MUCH wider dynamic range than your camera. Eyes adjust for things like that.

 The haze in the background is what creates the feeling of depth in your picture, and it frames the one point perspective you've got going there, making the silhouettes of the trunks stand out. It's a good thing, not a bad one.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Speaking of little niggles, have any 80-200 users noticed a rather severe drop in center quality towards the 200 end of the range? Between 80mm and 135mm, resolution and contrast are fantastic and leave little to be desired - but past that point, resolution across the frame seems to drop dramatically, and there's an eerie ghosting effect in out of focus areas. It's not necessarily a deal-breaker, since the problems usually arise at 75% or greater magnification, but I am slightly curious considering the lens' reputation for being prime-sharp. 

 I'll try and get some sample shots up soon to demonstrate the issue.


----------



## Arainach

I haven't used that lens, but it's quite common for zoom lenses to be better at one end or the other. And stuff at 75% resolution is crazy big, so I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I haven't used that lens, but it's quite common for zoom lenses to be better at one end or the other. And stuff at 75% resolution is crazy big, so I wouldn't worry about it._

 

Yeah, I guess it's fine anyway.


----------



## milkpowder

It was sunny today... no more haze! The camera loves good light and takes rather vibrant photos. Here are some of the better ones, straight off the camera
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Mildy processed ones are thumbnail-ed.

 Statue on George Street, Edinburgh




 [size=xx-small]processed:[/size] 



 Upwards at the Balmoral Hotel, Edinburgh




 [size=xx-small]processed:[/size] 



 Looking through some leaves into the azalea garden. I get really confused looking at this photo because I try and figure out the different layers (there are at least 5).






 Random tree near where I live




 [size=xx-small]processed:[/size] 



 Tree, branches & leaves (?!)




 [size=xx-small]processed (the stock photo already looked quite nice, so here we go
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




):[/size] 



 Small caterpillar on my jeans




 [size=xx-small]processed:[/size] 



 Street lamp




 [size=xx-small]processed:[/size] 



 My little experiment... which ended with me covered in a myriad of different bugs...


----------



## M0T0XGUY

The gorgeous weather here in Westchester absolutely begs me to put the 80-200 through its paces - so I have. 

 Check out some of these samples and tell me what you think. 

 [Uploaded to Photobucket]




 [Uploaded to Imageshack]





















 The last one was obviously processed, but the rest are straight-out-of camera.

 EDIT: Does anyone know if Photobucket somehow changes the upload quality when using their bulk uploader? These shots above are nowhere near as sharp as the JPEG's sitting on my computer, and it seems as if overall the resolution has significantly decreased. I'm going to try another site - Imageshack - and compare the results to Photobucket.

 EDIT: Perhaps it has to do with the disproportional resizing imposed by Photobucket? I just realized that the 800X600 setting doesn't actually maintain the correct aspect ratio of the original photo, whereas the 894X600 dimensions of the Imageshack photo remain in proportion. It's a small difference, but a difference nonetheless.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Yeah, I like the fact that imageshack doesn't mess with your files, EXIF data included.


----------



## Towert7

Other than the fact that they are soft (which you found out why), they are nice. I bet that's a real nice lens. Wish I had a pro 70-200 range lens myself.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Other than the fact that they are soft (which you found out why), they are nice. I bet that's a real nice lens. Wish I had a pro 70-200 range lens myself._

 

Thanks man. Yeah, I haven't taken the lens off my camera since its arrival 2 days ago, most certainly due to its stunning contrast and confidence-inspiring feel. Overall, I'm quite satisfied with my investment.


----------



## milkpowder

I tend to use imageshack because they don't mess with your files. You can also use Picasa to host and they don't mess with anything either.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_



_

 

I thought for a split-second that your dog was munching on a real hand!
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_



_

 

Nice shot. Very pleasant background blur too!

 I've just been looking over some of the shots I've taken with the 18-200VR and they are consistently sharper than what I can achieve at the moment. It's proof that VR works like magic! The photos also look more three dimensional. If primes are even better...


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Shoot, milkpowder, I wish we had buildings like that around here! Get yourself a polarizer and those shots will really pop! Or you can just fiddle the sky in post to somewhat simulate the polarized look.


----------



## milkpowder

Thanks for the suggestion. I notice that most of my photos need a little extra contrast and saturation. I'll get a polariser later, but they are so expensive! $100+ for a single piece of glass?!

 I am truly blessed with such beautiful surroundings. Mind you not all of Edinburgh looks like that (how I wish that were true)...


----------



## 2deadeyes

Can any Nikonians recommend a good UV/polarizer filter for the 18-200mm VR lens? I received a free 72mm UV filter with my kit but doesn't seem to fit the lens.


----------



## milkpowder

THogan recommends B+W (B&W) ones but they are very pricey. Then again, you might need a top quality one...


----------



## Towert7

I have a B+W 72mm circular polarizer (remember, circular is important). I like it. The old adage, the more expensive the piece of glass the harder it is to keep clean, applies here. It attracts dust like nobodies business. It works though, and is made very solid. Slides right in to my nikon lenses, and turns very smooth.

 Yea, it cost more than my 50mm F/1.8, but I'm willing to pay a little more for things that say 'made in Germany' on them.

 My only wish is I had got a 77mm (pro size) and used a 72mm to 77mm step up ring.


----------



## milkpowder

How do you clean the glass (both filter and lens)? Is a bit of moisture + eyeglass cloth gentle enough?


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How do you clean the glass (both filter and lens)? Is a bit of moisture + eyeglass cloth gentle enough?_

 

Yep. Front elements are very hard wearing.


----------



## Towert7

I use a clean cloth made for lenses for all of my lenses. For my Polarizer, which has a special coating on the front and back, I need to apply lens cleaner and wipe it off with the cloth.

 A special blower-brush made for lenses is nice for getting the dirt off of lenses, but I can not use it for the polarizer (it scratches the coating).


----------



## M0T0XGUY

3 more from today:


----------



## milkpowder

Very nice! The purple in the last picture is incredibly deep and vibrant.

 How many 80-200 have there been and which particular model is the one that people rave on about? The model which is still available is the old version and Nikon discontinued the newer AF-S one right?


----------



## OverlordXenu

I use 77mm Hoya filters and step-up rings on lenses that don't support 77mm.

 That means that you essentially only have to buy filters once.

 I have a circular polarizer, UV/Haze filter, and an orange filter (for black and white).


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Very nice! The purple in the last picture is incredibly deep and vibrant.

 How many 80-200 have there been and which particular model is the one that people rave on about? The model which is still available is the old version and Nikon discontinued the newer AF-S one right?_

 

Apparently all AF versions of Nikon's 80-200 use the same basic optical design, and thus have the same optical quality - which is certainly a plus, considering the non-D version can be had for around $500 in decent condition. The AF-S model was discontinued to combat the price tag of the nearly $2000 AF-S 70-200 f/2.8; a wise choice in my opinion, since the regular AF version leaves little to be desired in terms of focusing speed and accuracy, yet remains considerably cheaper than its silentwave counterpart.

 If you're looking into purchasing any of the versions, I'd say go for it (just based on the crazy contrast levels straight out of camera) but beware of sample variations - resolution at 200mm, for example, is plain atrocious wide open in my copy, yet overall the lens is renowned for its consistent performance across the focal range.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I use 77mm Hoya filters and step-up rings on lenses that don't support 77mm.

 That means that you essentially only have to buy filters once.

 I have a circular polarizer, UV/Haze filter, and an orange filter (for black and white)._

 

That makes sense. Does the polariser make the lens hood redundant? I'm wondering whether a 77mm filter would fit on my lens w/ lens hood (67mm).

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Apparently all AF versions of Nikon's 80-200 use the same basic optical design, and thus have the same optical quality - which is certainly a plus, considering the non-D version can be had for around $500 in decent condition. The AF-S model was discontinued to combat the price tag of the nearly $2000 AF-S 70-200 f/2.8; a wise choice in my opinion, since the regular AF version leaves little to be desired in terms of focusing speed and accuracy, yet remains considerably cheaper than its silentwave counterpart.

 If you're looking into purchasing any of the versions, I'd say go for it (just based on the crazy contrast levels straight out of camera) but beware of sample variations - resolution at 200mm, for example, is plain atrocious wide open in my copy, yet overall the lens is renowned for its consistent performance across the focal range._

 

I see. I'm thinking of the Sigma 100-300, which has had numerous positive reviews backed by rather impressive technical specs. It's a slower F4 though, but performs better in MTF charts than Sigma's own but much more expensive F2.8 120-300. It's less than $800 new in Hong Kong and also has a nicer looking MTF chart than the AF 80-200 2.8D.

 Sigma 100-300 F4








 Sigma 120-300 F2.8








 Nikon 80-200 F2.8D







 [size=xx-small]80mm--------------------------------200mm[/size]

 Of course, the Sigma was at F4, so maybe the Nikon measures considerably better when stopped to F4 too...


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That makes sense. Does the polariser make the lens hood redundant? I'm wondering whether a 77mm filter would fit on my lens w/ lens hood (67mm)._

 

First things first, if you can pull any information off of those charts, you're a better man than I am. I've been told by a few people that the charts are often times pointless......... but who knows, I don't use them.


 As to your other question.
 It depends on how the lens and lens hood are made. Chances are though, if you use a step up ring, the lens hood won't work. And no, a polarizer with step up ring will not substitute for a lens hood. In fact, if you get a cheap polarizer, it may make lens flare even more pronounced sadly.

 Also, when you use a polarizer, you will find yourself turning it a lot (that's the whole point of the polarizer). A lens hood would get in the way of you being able to turn the polarizer. So, sadly, when using a polarizer you are usually left with using your hand to shield the sun. But then again, a polarizer does very little good pointed into the sun. ^_^!!!


----------



## vagarach

That shot looking up at the leaves on the tree is stunning, milkpowder. Very simple, but it works very well.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Towert7;4273923Also said:
			
		

> The only lens hoods I see being a major problem for polarizer use are the very deep, bayonet kind, that come with most super-telephoto lenses, and a few others (Nikkor 17-55 comes to mind). The shallower bayonet hoods found on most wide and normal lenses aren't so deep that you can't stick your finger in and turn the side of the filter with the hood fully installed (at least this is my experience with the 18-200, 17-50, 10-20, etc.) And screw-in type hoods can just be fitted to the outer threads of the filter, so that turning the hood turns the filter (I find this really handy).


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That makes sense. Does the polariser make the lens hood redundant? I'm wondering whether a 77mm filter would fit on my lens w/ lens hood (67mm).


 I see. I'm thinking of the Sigma 100-300, which has had numerous positive reviews backed by rather impressive technical specs. It's a slower F4 though, but performs better in MTF charts than Sigma's own but much more expensive F2.8 120-300. It's less than $800 new in Hong Kong and also has a nicer looking MTF chart than the AF 80-200 2.8D.

 Sigma 100-300 F4ttp://www.sigmaphoto.com/images/LensesMtf/68_big.gif

 Sigma 120-300 F2.8
 [://www.sigmaphoto.com/images/LensesMtf/69_big.gif[/IMG][IMtp://www.sigmaphoto.com/images/LensesMtf/70_big.gif[/IMG]

 Nikon 80-200 F2.8D
 [IMttp://imagicom/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/zoom80-200mmf_28d/img/pic_002.gif[/IMG] [IMaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/zoom80-200mmf_28d/img/pic_003.gif[/IMG]
 [size=xx-small]80mm--------------------------------200mm[/size]

 Of course, the Sigma was at F4, so maybe the Nikon measures considerably better when stopped to F4 too..._

 

I think the key is indeed in the larger maximum aperture of the Nikon. With that said, the performance of my 80-200 isn't at all consistent across the range, and based on sample shots, I can say that the Sigma likely outperforms the Nikon at 200mm - even at comparable apertures. It is a bit scary thinking of sample variation, however.


----------



## Schubie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Nevertheless, I'm still trying to come to terms with the whole "filters" business. It seems that Hoya are a popular brand? My dad's lens came with a 'free' Hoya UV filter._

 

i love hoya filters, great prices and even their entry level filters are coated.

 hey, thought i would drop in, new to the forums, i have a nikon d70s with 18-200mm lens, nikon n80 with my kit 118-55mm lens, and another old nikon prime 50mm f2.4 lens


----------



## milkpowder

I was wondering what I could do to avoid ghosting and flare?

 Eg:


----------



## dj_mocok

Well the obvious answer is lens hood, but when you shoot like that, I doubt lens hood will totally eliminate all. But flare also depends on the type of lens too - some lens are more prone to flare than others.


----------



## Towert7

When you point into the sun like that, the flare / ghosting just depends on the lens equipment. Be careful of your eyes and sensor.

 If you demand that angle / perspective and don't NEED the sun in the picture, either wait for some clouds, or a different time of day when the sun is not in the image.


----------



## stuartr

Moderate speed prime lenses tend to flare less than zoom lenses. I could be wrong, but that type of ghost looks like it is from a consumer zoom lens -- lots of elements, no fancy exotic glasses or coatings designed to reduce flare. Also, make sure you are not using a filter on your lens. Filters really can increase flare, and ghosting in particular. In this sort of situation, the only thing that will truly save you is a well designed lens. You would be better off with the prime 20mm or 24mm.


----------



## 2deadeyes

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was wondering what I could do to avoid ghosting and flare?

 Eg:
 ...
_

 

Sorry if I missed it but what lens are you using with your D300?


----------



## Arainach

If you shoot directly into the sun like that, you'll always get SOME flare. Depending on the lens, not usually that much, but it'll always exist.


----------



## milkpowder

Thanks guys. A "consumer lens" indeed - 18-70. I'm using a lens hood, but they're obviously useless if you're shooting straight into the sun.

 Now I need some other advice: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I'm going to a friend's birthday party tonight. It's probably going to be quite dim, but I don't have, won't be able to obtain and don't know how to use an external flash. The whole event is very casual and just a typical university piss-up/get-together, but I don't want to miss any notable moments. I'm particularly worried about the lack of lighting and most likely me over-compensating with the pop-up flash. I'm not a great fan of flash as I find it very anti-social. Any suggestions? Methinks high ISO 800-1600, shutter faster than 1/60 and flash when needed... Meanwhile I'm going to read the camera manual's "Flash Photography" section


----------



## vibin247

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...but I don't have, won't be able to obtain and don't know how to use an external flash._

 

Give Calumet Photographic a call. There's one in Edinburgh and they should be able to help you out. You can rent lenses, batteries, flashes, etc. for your D300. One thing is that you'll need a deposit for full replacement value of the equipment or insurance to cover any damage, loss, or theft. They'll show you the basics on how to use the equipment as well.


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks guys. A "consumer lens" indeed - 18-70. I'm using a lens hood, but they're obviously useless if you're shooting straight into the sun.

 Now I need some other advice: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I'm going to a friend's birthday party tonight. It's probably going to be quite dim, but I don't have, won't be able to obtain and don't know how to use an external flash. The whole event is very casual and just a typical university piss-up/get-together, but I don't want to miss any notable moments. I'm particularly worried about the lack of lighting and most likely me over-compensating with the pop-up flash. I'm not a great fan of flash as I find it very anti-social. Any suggestions? Methinks high ISO 800-1600, shutter faster than 1/60 and flash when needed... Meanwhile I'm going to read the camera manual's "Flash Photography" section
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You can always dial down the power of the pop up flash so that it won't be too strong. You'll have to play with the amount of power reduction to get the right amount for light for the distance that you'll be shooting your subject at.


----------



## GTRacer

Drag the shutter. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Use ISO800 and a slow shutter speed like 1/30... It'll balance the light form the flash with the ambient light.


----------



## bigshot

Adorama has shipped my new Tokina 11-16 ultra wide zoom. I should get it Tuesday. I can't wait to play with it. I love wide angles.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## flashnolan

I bit the bullet and recently purchased a D40 with two lenses. I took over 1200 pictures when I went to Austria. Is there an especially good site to post some of these hq pictures on? I know of some of the major ones, but it seems some of my friends would never upload to some of them. Any recommendations?

 p.s. This is quite a leap from my previous camera. My last one was a super cheap 4.0MP HP camera that I purchased for my brother refurbished. He dropped it in the ocean and immediately tried to use it. When I purchased it off of him the camera was dead. I managed to resurrect it to the point where I had no flash, but the rest "worked". Now I have an SLR D40 and it takes "slightly" better photos then the HP one


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Adorama has shipped my new Tokina 11-16 ultra wide zoom. I should get it Tuesday. I can't wait to play with it. I love wide angles._

 

Don't forget to report back! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I might have given this lens a spin, but I like my Sigma 10-20 too much to bother changing.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Adorama has shipped my new Tokina 11-16 ultra wide zoom. I should get it Tuesday. I can't wait to play with it. I love wide angles.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

please post impressions as I am looking at this lens to handle the wide end on my Canon.


----------



## milkpowder

Went to camera store today and tried the following:

 Nikon 70-300VR
 Nikon AFS 60/2.8
 Sigma 100-300/4



 I had already made my mind up to get the 70-300VR even before I tried it having read good reviews so I left with one bolted onto my camera. It's very solid and makes my rattly 18-70 feel like a toy
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I haven't really had the opportunity to use it much but here are some I snapped an hour ago.

 70mm, F4.5:




 (a tad soft, but that's because of my unsteady hands at 1/15
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It really doesn't work that well indoors.)

 300mm, F5.6:




 (just a tad soft, but perfectly usable if resampled to smaller resolution)

 Again, very pleased with how the AFS 60/2.8 performs. Here's a picture I took with it @ F3.5:




 It searches a little but still locks on fairly quickly. Build quality is superb. As you can see, it is very sharp too. This will almost definitely be my next lens. I love taking photos of food so it'll be _perfect_!!! Now I need to save for it...




 Then the Sigma 100-300/4 caught my eye. Boy is it large. I don't think it is as heavy as the 70-200, but it looks every bit the part. Build quality is probably just as good. The zoom ring is on the stiff side. Very sharp, but horrendously difficult to shoot hand-held at 300mm. I apologise for the boring subjects, but these were all that I had to work with
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 100mm, F4, ISO 1000:





 300mm, F4:





 100% crop of same picture:


----------



## bigshot

Are the corners soft on that Sigma? It looks like the sign is in focus up high, but in the corner it mushes up a bit.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## milkpowder

Hmm.. everything is quite blurry to me. This lens needs to be used on a tripod
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If anything, I think this lens has a bit of off-centre focus? Why is the lower centre crop so soft?

 left corner crop





 right corner crop





 upper centre crop





 lower centre crop


----------



## lan

Auto ISO. AF fine tune. Do you use them?

 If you are not totally flat with the subject and/or the object isn't flat, how can you judge the lens if things are potentially at slightly different depths?

 Also stop looking at 100% crop.


----------



## milkpowder

I only put the last three up because bigshot might've been interested. If you've been stalking my posts
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, you might've noticed that this is only my first time posting 100% crops (unless I've been going on subconscious bouts of posting). I understand that pixel peeping _can be_ informative but of little real-world value considering I never even post pictures in 100%, nor do I ever print my photos billboard sized.

 It's more or less flat. I've walked pass the scaffolding more times than I can remember. That said, you do make a good point, one which hadn't crossed my mind!...

 I didn't use auto ISO even though I do normally have it on at max ISO=1600 and min shutter=1/15. I set ISO at 200 on purpose because I did a few at 1000 though. Here's one, 1/1250 F4 300mm and accidental +0.7EV:





 Re: AF tuning
 1) I have no idea how it works
 2) Haven't had the time to learn how it works
 3) Didn't have the charts to do it
 4) Don't think I could've realistically done an effective AF tune-up right there and then in the shop

 I'll read up on it in due course.


----------



## vagarach

In all my researching on which is a good 'next lens' after the standard 18-55mm kit lens, I've found that most of these high power tele lenses get slightly soft zoomed all the way in, and you're also shooting at f/4, not, say, f/11. 

 100% crop in such a situation is bound to disappoint, but just look at the resized picture, it's not that bad! Also, it may have been the case that some other factor was affecting sharpness.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vagarach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In all my researching on which is a good 'next lens' after the standard 18-55mm kit lens,_

 

What have you decided on?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


 I've found that most of these high power tele lenses get slightly soft zoomed all the way in, and you're also shooting at f/4, not, say, f/11. 
 

Most objective reviews agree with you! I've also noticed the same at 200 on the 18-200VR and 300 on the 70-300VR. The Sigma 100-300 is meant to be able to hold its sharpness throughout its range though.


  Quote:


 100% crop in such a situation is bound to disappoint, but just look at the resized picture, it's not that bad! Also, it may have been the case that some other factor was affecting sharpness. 
 

That "some other factor" was 'tremor'. No way are my hands steady enough to get a good 300mm handheld shot at 1/125s.


----------



## vagarach

I've kinda decided on the Nikon 50mm f/1.8, it's nice and cheap, but it has superb optics and allows for low-light, low iso, flash-less photography. 

 I might look also at the Tokina 12-24, as I like taking wide angle shots, and it's reasonably priced, at around the same as the 70-300VR. 

 Finding the right lens is rather daunting, I've found, so many factors to consider. At least with the 50mm, it seems to be universally loved, and very shallow DOF is another thing I enjoy making use of.

 How has the 70-300 been so far? Is all that zoom useful or do you end up shooting at the wider end more often?


----------



## milkpowder

I was gonna pick up a 50/1.8 today but they are surprisingly hard to come by in Edinburgh
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Like you, I also want something fast, light and most importantly _cheap_





. ISO isn't really a problem because the D300 is surprisingly usable all the way up to 1600 before anything really starts to suffer. I resize to around 1280 max so noise is generally well masked.

 The only thing I'm worried about is the focal length on a crop sensor. 50 ~> 75 on a Nikon DX, which is far too long for indoors (where I'll most likely be using it for low-light, flash-less, etc). The 35/2 would be ideal, but much more expensive and slower. That said, I've shot with a 35/2 on a friend's D300 and even that is too long for confined spaces. It's also surprisingly difficult to shoot in focus at large apertures due to the wafer thin depth of focus.

 I've only had the 70-300VR for 12 hours. Haven't even had a chance to really shoot with it at all. Will update when I take it out for a walk over the next few days


----------



## bigshot

There's a Tokina 35mm but it isn't cheap.


----------



## dj_mocok

Milk, if that's what you want (low light indoor without flash), grab a Sigma 30mm 1.4. 
 I don't have one but I've seen tons of pictures created by that lens and I have to say they are damn good. Not really cheap though, but the thing is you buy this kind of lens to last you for many many years, so don't skimp and just get one that you really like when you can afford it instead of buying several so-so lenses.

 If I was in a market for something like Nikon 50mm 1.4, I'm pretty sure I'd get a Sigma one instead with just a tad more money.
 With your Nikon the and the crop factor, that 30mm will be pretty close to 'real' 50mm feel. You're in HK, so I assume you have the luxury of buying lenses with less price compared to say, here in Australia.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Does anyone have the 17-35mm f/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S? I'm thinking of forgoing some strobist gear and instead selling my 24-120mm VR and getting the above. I honestly can't think of anything I shoot that would benefit more from some off-camera flash than one of those lenses.


----------



## dj_mocok

If you don't mind the weight of those 2 combined and especially the price, why not? Those 2 are among Nikon's best.

 The difference from 24mm to 17mm is a lot. So you may be happy with it because it gives you much wider view, or you may be annoyed because it's so limited unlike your 24-200mm.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's a Tokina 35mm but it isn't cheap._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Milk, if that's what you want (low light indoor without flash), grab a Sigma 30mm 1.4. 
 I don't have one but I've seen tons of pictures created by that lens and I have to say they are damn good. Not really cheap though, but the thing is you buy this kind of lens to last you for many many years, so don't skimp and just get one that you really like when you can afford it instead of buying several so-so lenses.

 If I was in a market for something like Nikon 50mm 1.4, I'm pretty sure I'd get a Sigma one instead with just a tad more money.
 With your Nikon the and the crop factor, that 30mm will be pretty close to 'real' 50mm feel. You're in HK, so I assume you have the luxury of buying lenses with less price compared to say, here in Australia._

 

I'll look into the two. Lens are quite cheap in HK. With my exams behind me now (just got my results
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), I may be able to convince my parents to buy me an af-s 60mm, failing that, a Nikon _or Sigma_ prime
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Not the perfect day for photography, but I got some decent results with my brand new 70-300VR and a basic CPL:


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does anyone have the 17-35mm f/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S? I'm thinking of forgoing some strobist gear and instead selling my 24-120mm VR and getting the above. I honestly can't think of anything I shoot that would benefit more from some off-camera flash than one of those lenses._

 

I've never really used the 17-35, but I know that in terms of contrast, at least, the 80-200 is quite hard to be beaten. Its performance may not be perfectly even across the range (I've never really gotten any serviceable pictures at 200), but assuming you get a good sample, I'd certainly recommend it. 

 Assuming your camera has screw-drive AF, you can even save a few bucks (and by few i mean few hundred) by buying the 2 ring AF-D version in place of the AF-S version - as autofocusing speed and accuracy are about the same.


----------



## mistat0m

I used to have the 80-200 f/2.8 but I just sold it. By far, it is probably the best piece of glass I ever owned, but I only used it once. It just doesn't fit the style that I use (fast and light), so now I'm using it to fund a nikon d300 purchase (I only need $400 now, sold some other lenses too).


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Yeah, I'm still a little disappointed because I purchased the lens off of eBay, and obviously got a poor sample. Even without looking at my photos with 100% magnification, it's pretty clear that something is amuck with the 200mm setting - and really, my primes beat out its resolution across the board, even wide open. Still, for indoor shooting of sports and other moving subjects, its worth keeping around.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

I hate to hop on the rumor mill (and perhaps hi-jack this thread), but Engadget has a possible rendering of Nikon's answer to the 5D here. No specs or other information given; just a picture.


----------



## ezkcdude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hate to hop on the rumor mill (and perhaps hi-jack this thread), but Engadget has a possible rendering of Nikon's answer to the 5D here. No specs or other information given; just a picture._

 

It bothers me when people cite Engadget or Gizmodo for stories that they post. *Photography Bay* posted the story originally, not Engadget. Get it straight! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Oh, and I don't believe it. It would be awesome, but would immediately kill the market for the D3 - why would Nikon want to do that?


----------



## lan

If that were true, I'd sell my 5D and D300 now. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 In other news. I feel like getting the SB800. I think I'm going to get rid of my Canon 580EX to do that.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, I'm still a little disappointed because I purchased the lens off of eBay, and obviously got a poor sample. Even without looking at my photos with 100% magnification, it's pretty clear that something is amuck with the 200mm setting - and really, my primes beat out its resolution across the board, even wide open. Still, for indoor shooting of sports and other moving subjects, its worth keeping around._

 

Will Nikon recalibrate it if you send it in?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hate to hop on the rumor mill (and perhaps hi-jack this thread), but Engadget has a possible rendering of Nikon's answer to the 5D here. No specs or other information given; just a picture._

 

A 'D3x', prosumer FX and 'D90' would really make things interesting. I wonder where the "D10" nomenclature came from?


----------



## poo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If that were true, I'd sell my 5D and D300 now. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Depends what you mean by 'true'...

 The camera is coming, and it will be formally announced soon, but the image is BS.

 If you can be without a camera for a month or two, sell up


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Will Nikon recalibrate it if you send it in?


 A 'D3x', prosumer FX and 'D90' would really make things interesting. I wonder where the "D10" nomenclature came from?_

 

I'm not actually sure what recalibration does. My guess is they couldn't / wouldn't fix the original optics unless something was severely out of line with their factory specifications. As for the new Nikon, I honestly think the pictures so far have just been (above average) Photoshop jobs - so I wouldn't worry about the odd naming here. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ezkcdude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It bothers me when people cite Engadget or Gizmodo for stories that they post. *Photography Bay* posted the story originally, not Engadget. Get it straight! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Oh, and I don't believe it. It would be awesome, but would immediately kill the market for the D3 - why would Nikon want to do that?_

 

I hear you, but I wasn't actually citing a source, so much as providing a link. If I had been visiting Photography Bay on a daily basis and came across this story there, you'd just see a different link with the same intent.


----------



## bigshot

I read a lot of folks online who said that they didn't see a need for a fast ultra wide, because they didn't do architectural shooting at night... so I took my new Tokina 11-16 f2.8 out and shot this night architectural shot...





 Full resolution: http://www.animationarchive.org/pics...de01-jumbo.jpg

 I also abused my friends by taking portraits of them five inches from their noses. You can see the results on my blog... late night coffee shops

 I'll try the lens out with more suitable conditions soon.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## dj_mocok

Everyone wants a fast ultra wide. They are just saying that because they can't afford it or jealous. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 That very lens you own (Tokina 11-16mm 2.8) was right on top my 'to buy list' a few months ago until I suddenly got hit by a 'buying a new tv' bug. 

 The story began when I asked my partner who was going to Japan to grab me that Tokina, but she thoguht it's too much hassle for her and asked me to get something else from here instead of asking her to buy stuff from Japan. I ended up using close to 4 grand to buy a Plasma and PS3 and Bluray discs. lol.

 But at least she can also appreciate it unlike the lens which I'll be the one using it. But my next lens purchase is defenitely that Tokina though. After that, I am done for awhile in terms of lenses.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I read a lot of folks online who said that they didn't see a need for a fast ultra wide, because they didn't do architectural shooting at night... so I took my new Tokina 11-16 f2.8 out and shot this night architectural shot...





 Full resolution: http://www.animationarchive.org/pics...de01-jumbo.jpg

 I also abused my friends by taking portraits of them five inches from their noses. You can see the results on my blog... late night coffee shops

 I'll try the lens out with more suitable conditions soon.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Is that with no flash? That lens is at the top of my list specifically for night time city usage. Supposed to be the best fast wide for Canon bodies.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *poo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Depends what you mean by 'true'...

 The camera is coming, and it will be formally announced soon, but the image is BS.

 If you can be without a camera for a month or two, sell up 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Unless something is proven and not buggy, I'm not switching to anything. I also have to like the image quality so I need to see enough of people's photos.

 ------------------

 I went to the store to try the SB400, 600, and 800. I didn't find the Nikon flashes all that powerful when bouncing compared to my Canon flashes. I'm still using all my current flashes in full manual mostly so I won't be using the Nikon creative lighting system yet and I like the portability / stealthness of the SB400 so I went with that. It's really cute. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Here's some sample photos in normal and bounce mode using my new Tokina 100-300 f4 at 100mm and 300mm both at f4. Overall I'm pleased with this lens especially since I got it cheap. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Weighs like a brick though. Sorry for the not so exciting subject. Hopefully I'll go see some live music tomorrow outside and I can get some good ones.











 Here's something shot with the 300mm f/2.8 through a glass. I need to work out more to hand hold this.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is that with no flash?_

 

I hope that's a rhetorical question 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Of course, assuming you use a tripod, you don't necessarily need an F/2.8 lens for such a shot, not that it doesn't make it easier, though.


----------



## bloodydoorknob

Here's my latest walk-around rig, the d300+24-70. This combo is massive, but I really like the IQ, especially at f2.8. I've stopped doing shrugs at the gym because of this rig.


----------



## lan

Nice combo.

 I got rained out this weekend so no pics. I wish I had my weather resistant rig.


----------



## 2deadeyes

D700? Anyone think this will materialize?

Nikon D700 ... - FM Forums


----------



## milkpowder

Who knows. First the D10, now the D700. All we know is that eventually, there will be a prosumer Nikon FF DSLR. The question is when. I'm putting my money on a 24.4MP D3x and a D90 release in the very near future. The D90 is long overdue and a D3x entry is apparently already present in the newest firmware. Maybe Nikon has the funds to develop and/or possess the manufacturing capacity to deal with the sudden surge of orders for three new bodies, all of which will definitely sell very well.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bloodydoorknob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's my latest walk-around rig, the d300+24-70. This combo is massive, but I really like the IQ, especially at f2.8. I've stopped doing shrugs at the gym because of this rig. 



_

 

Oh my, what a nice rig. I already feel very self conscious carrying around my D300/70-300VR with lens hood on.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Do you ever feel insecure walking around with such a substantial rig? I always think it attracts too much unwanted attention, but maybe I'm too vain


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *2deadeyes* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_D700? Anyone think this will materialize?

Nikon D700 ... - FM Forums_

 

Yeah, I've been reading that thread too. It will be a nice complement to my D300, I can see myself carrying D700 w/ 24-70 and D300 w/ 70-200. Nice.


----------



## stuartr

If there is a D700 with a smaller body than the D3, but the same sensor, I will probably sell the D3 and go with that. The D3 is an AMAZING camera, but it is a monster. It really is huge, and I would be very willing to sacrifice several fps for a smaller and lighter body, as long as it maintained the same professional feature set. I would be completely happy with a D300 with the D3 sensor...that is the only reason I didn't just go with a D300.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Alright, I think I've settled what I will buy.

 17-35mm and 14mm. I'll get a tele eventually.

 I would honestly rather get the 14-24mm, but no room for filters is a deal-killer for me, and I'm not walking around with a hacked filter on the front (they look terrible).

 Once Nikon releases a direct competitor to the 5D, I think I may switch to digital (for 35mm). 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well, I'm off to troll ebay...


----------



## stuartr

What camera are you using? I missed your question...I use the 17-35mm on film and the D3, and I think it is a great lens. That said, the 14-24mm is supposed to be a game changer for zooms in those focal lengths. What filters are you using that you can't do without? I am just curious, as I have never really found much use for filters in my work...


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Alright, I think I've settled what I will buy.

 17-35mm and 14mm. I'll get a tele eventually.

 I would honestly rather get the 14-24mm, but no room for filters is a deal-killer for me, and I'm not walking around with a hacked filter on the front (they look terrible).

 Once Nikon releases a direct competitor to the 5D, I think I may switch to digital (for 35mm). 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well, I'm off to troll ebay..._

 

I'm not sure which 14mm lens you're looking at specifically, but I know that the current AF-D version doesn't accept filters either...


----------



## Shizelbs

Just bought a used D40x. Need a lens. Rec a good starter lens anyone?


----------



## meat01

How much do you want to spend?

 There is the 18-200, the 18-70 or the 18-135.

 I think any of these is a good place to start.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shizelbs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just bought a used D40x. Need a lens. Rec a good starter lens anyone?_

 

Tamron just released a 17-50 f/2.8 with built-in AF motor specifically aimed at the D40 / D60 series. The range is fairly standard, but compared to the kit lens, you're left with tack sharp image quality, a wider aperture for better low-light shots without flash, and better build quality all around. It's around $400 new. If you're looking for more range and can sacrifice a bit of image quality and aperture size, the 18-135 is a pretty solid choice with good resolution throughout its focal lengths; plus, at around $250, its cheap.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What camera are you using? I missed your question...I use the 17-35mm on film and the D3, and I think it is a great lens. That said, the 14-24mm is supposed to be a game changer for zooms in those focal lengths. What filters are you using that you can't do without? I am just curious, as I have never really found much use for filters in my work..._

 

F100. Orange walking-around filter for B&W, red filter for some landscapes. Plus a circular polarizer at the longer focal lengths.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure which 14mm lens you're looking at specifically, but I know that the current AF-D version doesn't accept filters either..._

 

Gel slot in back.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_F100. Orange walking-around filter for B&W, red filter for some landscapes. Plus a circular polarizer at the longer focal lengths.



 Gel slot in back._

 

Ah, my bad.


----------



## stuartr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_F100. Orange walking-around filter for B&W, red filter for some landscapes. Plus a circular polarizer at the longer focal lengths.



 Gel slot in back._

 

Fair enough. I have generally found that I prefer shooting black and white without filters. I can pretty much always get the tonal relationship I want in the darkroom, through a mix of things like split-grade printing, burning/dodging, flashing and if necessary, bleaching. It can be more work, but I like the control it gives you over the filters, which act equally on every part of the image. They are certainly easier though in some cases. But if you have not really shot without a filter for awhile, just try shooting without it and printing at a grade 3.5 or 4 instead of a grade 2. You may find that the difference is not that great for you.


----------



## bloodydoorknob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh my, what a nice rig. I already feel very self conscious carrying around my D300/70-300VR with lens hood on.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Do you ever feel insecure walking around with such a substantial rig? I always think it attracts too much unwanted attention, but maybe I'm too vain
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 I actually keep the rig in a lowepro stealth aw300 camera bag with the flap unbuckled so I can pull out the rig whenever I need to take a shot. I'm sort of clumsy, so keeping around my neck all day just invites trouble, as I'm likely to bang the lens into something. As for attacting unwnanted attention, I recently went out to take some night shots by myself when I started being approached by a bunch of shady looking guys. I quickly broke down my tripod and got im my car and drove off. I've been mugged before, so I always stay wary when I'm out alone.


----------



## Towert7

My D50 has a lot of sensor dust since I change lenses a lot.

 Anyone have good experience using any sensor dust removers? I see a lot of them are designed to make contact with the sensor (!!!!!). Scary! I was wondering if using something that makes compressed air would work...


----------



## stuartr

Compressed air is a bad solution. Those canned air things have far too much force. It can also induce a charge at the sensor which will actually INCREASE the amount of dust on your sensor. The most basic thing you can use is a bulb blower (the giottos rocket blowers are good), but they mostly just blow the dust around. The best things to use first the bulb blower, and then specially made sensor cleaners or sensor brushes like the ones from Visible Dust. They have a lot of information on cleaning at their site: VisibleDust - DSLR Camera Sensor Cleaning 
 They work really well. The downside is that they are quite expensive. The upside is that they are cheaper than replacing your sensor! 

 But don't be too worried about the tools that touch the sensor...if you do it carefully, it is fine. It is covered in glass, which is rather sturdy stuff.


----------



## Towert7

Thank you very much Stuartr. I just ordered the rocket blower. If that does not remove enough dust, I'll proceed to the sensor brushes.


----------



## Csidinim

about visible brush- many believe (and performed comparison tests to show) it is simply a nylon bristle brush, flat edge, identical to one that you can purchase at any art store for under 10 bucks. since it is plastic, giving it a few blasts of air with a bulb blower will naturally build a static charge on the bristles which vd markets as some sort of unique feat. what you would need to do to prepare it though, is clean it thoroughly with dish soap to remove manufacturing contaminants. a sensor brush helps, but you shouldn't need to perform contact cleaning all that often so set expenses accordingly.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I am really liking the Sigma 24-60 I got recently from Cameta's dirt-cheap clearence. It makes for a nice standard range on the D200 (36-90), and has sharper corners, faster focus, and better build quality than the Tamron 17-50 I returned to Best Buy. I'm not so sure I'll keep my 35f2 with this lens around, as I rarely feel the need to swap out lenses for only one more f-stop. Perhaps if it were a 1.4....


----------



## milkpowder

I stumbled across a gem of a camera shop today whilst walking around. They had a lot of very nice discontinued gear. I was like a kid in a toy shop for the first time! So I quickly asked to try a few lens: 50/1.8 AI, 50/1.8 AI-S, 50/1.4 AI, 35/2 AI-S, 28/2.8 AI-S and last but not least the 35/2 AF-D.

 I was immediately put off by the cheap build of the 35/2 AF-D. Having used one before, I don't recall it being as plasticy as this. Next to the AI-S and AI, the AF-D feels like a toy. How I wish Nikon would build lens the same way... Optically and cosmetically, all of them were in very good condition. There was no way for me to test them so I made a calculated gamble and took the 50/1.8 AI home with me. The reason I didn't get the AI-S was because the AI-S has a plastic focussing ring whilst the AI is full metal. The 50/1.4 AI was a couple times more expensive and I've read that it isn't as good as the F/1.8. The 28/2.8 AI-S is tad too slow but it was the price which put me off. The 35/2 AI-S was completely mint and felt very nice, but again it was quite pricey. I wasn't quite ready to shell out $300 on a old lens just yet!
_
 Initial impressions:_
*Towert7*, you've been harping on about how sharp primes are. Now I believe you!!! Wide open, it's as soft as cotton but there is a major improvement at F/2 and onwards.
I love how well built it is. The focus ring is a bit stiff but isn't really a problem. Let's just call it "aggressively dampened"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


It doesn't give aperture, focal length data to EXIF.
Only does spot metering? (camera info and brief shooting/experimentation confirms this) IMO a waste of the D300's advanced metering sensor.
Manual focus is challenging but made easier by the "aggressively damped" focus ring
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Getting a perfectly in-focus shot becomes a very rewarding experience!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


Very visible CA wide-open. Haven't really tested extensively at other apertures but it seems improve somewhat when stopped down.
I love the aperture ring; I finally understand how to use the DOF button! That said, I'm still learning how to control DOF. I never knew F/2.8 and smaller apertures had such a shallow focus.

 Conclusion? I've really fallen in love with the build quality, aperture ring, contrast and sharpness. The 60/2.8 AF-S is still on my really-WTB list, but since today, I find myself really wanting the 35/2 AI-S. My wallet is empty though and won't be replenished until at least two months time. I'm praying that the 35/2 AI-S will still be there because I really want one! Does anyone know if the AI-S can focus as closely as the AF-D?


 Here's a snapshot taken on the way home. I apologise for the out of focus bits, but I can't quite judge DOF accurately just yet, especially when it was so dark!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 There are a 'hundred things' wrong with the photo not counting the poor focus, but I am really amazed at how great the detail and contrast is! The bits in-focus look so crisp and life-like! If the light was better I'm sure the results would've even been better...




 [size=xx-small]*Click to Enlarge. 1600x1200*
 [/size]


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Yeah, that shot looks pretty sharp to me. I'm assuming, based on your assessment of the wideopen quality, that it was taken around f/2.8? Either way, it's cool that you chose to go with a manual-focus only lens. I've been meaning to check out some older, cheaper AI and AI-S lenses, but I don't think I have the skill level yet to walk away with consistently sharp shots; regardless of focus indicator. 

 For what it's worth though, I don't mind the build quality of the 35 AF-D and other's like it. It's not an all metal tank like some of the older lenses, but it gets the job done at the end of the day; and the focus ring is as smooth as butter on mine.

 EDIT: After you shoot with it some more, can you give a general assessment on its ability to control flare? It seems strange that such an indirectly lit subject would cause such an issue, but then again I've seen worse things in this respect.


----------



## stuartr

One thing you will probably notice with use is that older high speed lenses tend to be sharper at a distance when they are wide open. Your shot does not look particularly sharp to me, but that is probably the fact that you are not using the lens for what it was designed for. The old 50/1.4's are going to be soft at close focus when wide open. The aberrations in the lens multiply at the closest distances and it will lead to softness. This is why they created things like floating elements, aspherical elements and "Close Range Correction". If you try it at 2m or greater, you will probably find it to be significantly sharper. 

 Build quality is what it is...it is nice to have, but it is not always directly related to image quality. Some old Nikon lenses are vastly superior in build quality to new Nikon lenses, but most of the new lenses are better optical performers. If you really want to see build quality, take a look at the old Nikon rangefinder lenses. Or Leica lenses from the same era...or C series Hasselblads for that matter. The ultimate build quality in cameras are with pretty esoteric companies like Alpa and Linhof.


----------



## Towert7

Glad to see you are enjoying your new 50/1.8 AI. I've never used the older AI or AI-S lenses, though I have had experience with the way they feel from other companies.

 You're right, the metal vs. plastic lenses have their pluses and their minuses. Bring an old lens out on a typical winter day, and you'll soon realize one plus for the new lenses (no fluids to freeze up). The new ones are lighter, the old ones are stronger in some respects. 

 I've been very impressed by my 35mm F/2 AF-D. Very light, focus is smooth as butter, snaps onto the camera with ease, etc etc. The 50mm F/1.8 AF-D feels cheap when I snap it onto the camera, but to be honest with you that is the only lens that I didn't like the build quality of out of all of my Nikkors (excluding the kit 18-55).

 The 85mm F/1.8 AF-D has the same build quality of the 35mm AF-D, and that works like a dream too. In fact, it's some of the older lenses that I didn't like the feel of. My old 35-70mm push pull is a pain to work with, and the M-A ring on the 60mm F/2.8 is a pain.

  Quote:


 Towert7, you've been harping on about how sharp primes are. Now I believe you!!! Wide open, it's as soft as cotton but there is a major improvement at F/2 and onwards. 
 

Glad to see you are enjoying it. I've never worked with the older ones, so I don't know what you can expect from it, but the newer Nikkor primes are sharp and I wouldn't expect the AI's and AI to be far behind, if at all. 
 My 60mm F/2.8 makes me think I have a 5D full frame after seeing how sharp it is. For 400$, it's a steal if you want to work in 60mm!


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, that shot looks pretty sharp to me. I'm assuming, based on your assessment of the wideopen quality, that it was taken around f/2.8? Either way, it's cool that you chose to go with a manual-focus only lens. I've been meaning to check out some older, cheaper AI and AI-S lenses, but I don't think I have the skill level yet to walk away with consistently sharp shots; regardless of focus indicator._

 

I guess it comes with practice. There's no doubt it is incredibly difficult... I'll be 'focus-bracketing' just in case
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 For what it's worth though, I don't mind the build quality of the 35 AF-D and other's like it. It's not an all metal tank like some of the older lenses, but it gets the job done at the end of the day; and the focus ring is as smooth as butter on mine. 
 

Oh, the 35/2 AF-D is very well built. It just doesn't _feel_ as robust. I would have no quirms with owning one considering the amazing reviews.

  Quote:


 EDIT: After you shoot with it some more, can you give a general assessment on its ability to control flare? It seems strange that such an indirectly lit subject would cause such an issue, but then again I've seen worse things in this respect. 
 

Sure thing.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One thing you will probably notice with use is that older high speed lenses tend to be sharper at a distance when they are wide open. Your shot does not look particularly sharp to me, but that is probably the fact that you are not using the lens for what it was designed for. The old 50/1.4's are going to be soft at close focus when wide open. The aberrations in the lens multiply at the closest distances and it will lead to softness. This is why they created things like floating elements, aspherical elements and "Close Range Correction". If you try it at 2m or greater, you will probably find it to be significantly sharper.

 Build quality is what it is...it is nice to have, but it is not always directly related to image quality. Some old Nikon lenses are vastly superior in build quality to new Nikon lenses, but most of the new lenses are better optical performers. If you really want to see build quality, take a look at the old Nikon rangefinder lenses. Or Leica lenses from the same era...or C series Hasselblads for that matter. The ultimate build quality in cameras are with pretty esoteric companies like Alpa and Linhof._

 

Thanks for the advice! I've noticed the 50/1.4 is able to resolve finer details than my 18-70. It's almost a let down whenever I view downsized photos because the very fine details are lost. It's a field day for 100% pixel peepers
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're right, the metal vs. plastic lenses have their pluses and their minuses. Bring an old lens out on a typical winter day, and you'll soon realize one plus for the new lenses (no fluids to freeze up). The new ones are lighter, the old ones are stronger in some respects._

 

That has never crossed my mind. Hong Kong will never be cold enough for anything to really freeze but it does get quite chilly in Edinburgh during the winter. 

  Quote:


 I've been very impressed by my 35mm F/2 AF-D. Very light, focus is smooth as butter, snaps onto the camera with ease, etc etc. The 50mm F/1.8 AF-D feels cheap when I snap it onto the camera, but to be honest with you that is the only lens that I didn't like the build quality of out of all of my Nikkors (excluding the kit 18-55). 
 

I'm not crazy about my 18-70's build quality. The front is slightly loose and that was part of the original design. I would say the 35/2 AF-D is much better built and if the 85/1.8 is similar then there's nothing 'wrong' with it either.

  Quote:


 I've never worked with the older ones, so I don't know what you can expect from it, but the newer Nikkor primes are sharp and I wouldn't expect the AI's and AI to be far behind, if at all. 
 My 60mm F/2.8 makes me think I have a 5D full frame after seeing how sharp it is. For 400$, it's a steal if you want to work in 60mm! 
 

I considered AISs & AIs because of Bjørn Rørslett's reviews. It seems like he has a liking and at times, a preference for the older versions. Of course, the lack of support matrix metering, auto-focus, various shooting modes, etc may prove to be too basic or lmiting for some... That said, don't people tend to manually focus macros anyway?


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Glad to see you are enjoying your new 50/1.8 AI. I've never used the older AI or AI-S lenses, though I have had experience with the way they feel from other companies.

 You're right, the metal vs. plastic lenses have their pluses and their minuses. Bring an old lens out on a typical winter day, and you'll soon realize one plus for the new lenses (no fluids to freeze up). The new ones are lighter, the old ones are stronger in some respects. 

 I've been very impressed by my 35mm F/2 AF-D. Very light, focus is smooth as butter, snaps onto the camera with ease, etc etc. The 50mm F/1.8 AF-D feels cheap when I snap it onto the camera, but to be honest with you that is the only lens that I didn't like the build quality of out of all of my Nikkors (excluding the kit 18-55).

 The 85mm F/1.8 AF-D has the same build quality of the 35mm AF-D, and that works like a dream too. In fact, it's some of the older lenses that I didn't like the feel of. My old 35-70mm push pull is a pain to work with, and the M-A ring on the 60mm F/2.8 is a pain.



 Glad to see you are enjoying it. I've never worked with the older ones, so I don't know what you can expect from it, but the newer Nikkor primes are sharp and I wouldn't expect the AI's and AI to be far behind, if at all. 
 My 60mm F/2.8 makes me think I have a 5D full frame after seeing how sharp it is. For 400$, it's a steal if you want to work in 60mm!_

 

Not that this matters much, but I actually think the 85's build quality is slightly superior to the 35's. Something about the matte finish on the 85 is a little bit more appealing, and the IF design (or pseudo-IF at least) makes the lens feel like a solid chunk regardless of the focusing distance. With that said, I'll agree that I've found few Nikon lenses (and only 1 prime - the 50 f/1.8) which feel sub par in terms of build quality. Even my consumer grade 18-135, for example, felt solid with its decent plastic construction, smooth controls and lack of zoom creep or wobbling, although I'll agree that the M/A ring on any old AF-D lens is no fun to use. 

 As an aside: has anyone read reviews for the new AF-S 60mm Macro? I had a chance to try out the 105 VR, and its absolutely spectacular in every respect; but I'd love to save a few bucks and go with the 60mm if the performance is near equal.


----------



## stuartr

Quote:


 You're right, the metal vs. plastic lenses have their pluses and their minuses. Bring an old lens out on a typical winter day, and you'll soon realize one plus for the new lenses (no fluids to freeze up). The new ones are lighter, the old ones are stronger in some respects. 
 

For what it's worth, I have never had this problem. I shoot primarily with metal lenses (Leica, Hasselblad and Rollei), and none of them have ever frozen up on me. They get a bit stiffer, but still work beautifully. And I have lived in cold places...Iceland, Russia, Hokkaido, Vermont...

 Metal lens:




 Metal lens:




 Metal lens:





 I guess my point is that I don't think that is a real world issue. Also, plastic lenses still have lubricants just like metal ones. HOWEVER, metal transmits the cold a lot better than plastic so when it gets cold you need to wear gloves when using metal cameras or you will freeze the heck out of your fingers.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For what it's worth, I have never had this problem. I shoot primarily with metal lenses (Leica, Hasselblad and Rollei), and none of them have ever frozen up on me. They get a bit stiffer, but still work beautifully. And I have lived in cold places...Iceland, Russia, Hokkaido, Vermont...


 I guess my point is that I don't think that is a real world issue. Also, plastic lenses still have lubricants just like metal ones. HOWEVER, metal transmits the cold a lot better than plastic so when it gets cold you need to wear gloves when using metal cameras or you will freeze the heck out of your fingers._

 

I see. I guess that is a testament to those lenses you have used. I've heard some horror stories of older lenses becoming too stiff to use on cold days. From what I gather, people use to put their lenses in the freezer to see how they would work.

 I also thought some of the new Nikon plastic lenses were free of lubricants dealing with focusing. I don't know where I got that impression from though.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As an aside: has anyone read reviews for the new AF-S 60mm Macro? I had a chance to try out the 105 VR, and its absolutely spectacular in every respect; but I'd love to save a few bucks and go with the 60mm if the performance is near equal._

 

Just as a heads up though, despite how wonderful the nikon 60mm macro lenses are, you have to get very close to small subjects. I can certainly see where a 105mm or a 180mm would come in handy. That being said, the older AF-D is a great lens, and I wouldn't expect the new AF-S to be anything less.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I considered AISs & AIs because of Bjørn Rørslett's reviews. It seems like he has a liking and at times, a preference for the older versions. Of course, the lack of support matrix metering, auto-focus, various shooting modes, etc may prove to be too basic or lmiting for some... That said, don't people tend to manually focus macros anyway?_

 

A lot of the macro work I do is in manual focus mode.
 For me, with my little D50, the viewfinder is small. This makes manual focusing a PITB. On something like a D80, D300, D3, manual focusing is much easier because you can see the subject better.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just as a heads up though, despite how wonderful the nikon 60mm macro lenses are, you have to get very close to small subjects. I can certainly see where a 105mm or a 180mm would come in handy. That being said, the older AF-D is a great lens, and I wouldn't expect the new AF-S to be anything less._

 

Well, my 35 f/2 can focus down to .25m and the AF-S 60 can focus down to .22m; so not the biggest difference. Still, I see your point - for some subjects its just more convenient to hold your distance (although the opposite is true in some cases).


----------



## hembergler

All right, I need some advice.

 (First off, I'm sorry if this question has been asked thousands of times in this thread already, but at 1500 posts, there's a lot of information to sift through! And besides, I'm sure you guys are just dying to help out a newbie.)

 So I finally snagged a summer job, and have enough money to buy a DSLR. Now, I've never been a hugely active photographer, but anytime I've needed to snap a photo I've always been a control freak about every changeable aspect, even on my P&S Sony DSC-W1. Furthermore, I'm going to Singapore later this summer, and I've decided that I want to archive my trip while simultaneously learn about photography.

 I've almost committed entirely to the idea of a Nikon D40 + kit lens + something else? I talked with a few of my photo-savvy friends, and they all thought the D40 would serve me well. Considering the relative price, I'm rather forced to agree (while I have money, I don't have _that_ much). 

 My options: 
 1) Buy D40+18-55mm for $450, and possibly add the 55-200mm VR later on for ~$200.
 2) Buy the D40+18-55mm+55-200mm VR for ~$600 all upfront.

 Options #2 saves me money in the long run, but only if I chose to add the 55-200mm in option #1. 

 I understand that whether or not I need/want/use a 55-200mm entirely depends on the type of photos I take, but my problem is that I simply _don't know_ what I would like to take. I would like to be able to capture Singapore to the best of my abilities, and having never been on such a mission, I do not know what kind of photos I would need to take (if that makes any sense)! (Also, this Singapore thing is just an excuse to buy a DSLR)

 So for you veterans of the photographic world, if you were given the same goal, what would you go with: spend the $600 for both lenses; or stick with one and wait it out, and if necessary, spend more in the long run? And this is also under my assumption that the 55-200mm VR would be my main secondary lens, although the 18-200mm range overall between the two seems more than adequate, and thus a relatively smart decision.

 Finally, some key points: $600 is as much as my budget can possibly stretch, and I prefer buying new gear [I don't have time to hunt around craigslist/ebay, and especially for cameras I want something new]

 And further-finally, I apologize for my longwinded convoluted post. To make it up to you for reading through this, here are some pretty pictures: 

56 Awe Inspiring Creative Photographs
92 More Must See Creative Photographs

 Thanks Nikon-Fi!
 Paul


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hembergler* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Finally, some key points: $600 is as much as my budget can possibly stretch_

 

If you MUST limit your budget to sub 600$, then the D40 is the only thing really. It'll work.
 Something like this gives you the camera and 2 lenses:
Nikon | D40 SLR Digital Camera Kit with 18-55mm & | 9420

 Personally, I think it would be a shame to not consider the D80....... but that's just me. There are some things that the D80 does much better than the D40/60. If I were to start photography and enter the DSLR world, the D80 would be where I would start if I was on a budget. Nice little camera.

 Should be interesting to see what you end up getting. Keep me posted.


----------



## Blueiz

Hembergler....

 First time DSLR user couldn't find a much better option than the D40 with the TWO lenses... you will want the extra range... See Ken's review at the following site... off the wall reviews, but the guy just tells it as he sees it....

KenRockwell.com

 Another good review site: Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ


----------



## Braver

I was in the same boat, and went with just the kit so that I could figure out if I needed the longer reach. Well, what I found was that more would've been nice, but I never felt like I missed shots and probably wouldn't have changed lenses for those moments I felt I could use the 200mm. Especially when you're on the go, it makes much more sense to get a zoom that goes from 18 to as far as you need. 70, 135 or 200.
 I say save the money for now, and figure out what you really need. For me that was fast glass (like a 50mm 1.4), not longer focal length.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Braver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was in the same boat, and went with just the kit so that I could figure out if I needed the longer reach._

 

Same here. However since you (hembergler) don't know what you will be taking photos of, I would suggest getting the kit plus the 55-200. It's better being safe than sorry, ie missing shots because you don't have the appropriate lens for the moment.


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_~~~ snip ~~~

 As an aside: has anyone read reviews for the new AF-S 60mm Macro? I had a chance to try out the 105 VR, and its absolutely spectacular in every respect; but I'd love to save a few bucks and go with the 60mm if the performance is near equal._

 

I have the new 60mm AF S Micro, and think it is a fabulous lens. Perhaps the sharpest in my bag, quick to focus, and very flexible on a crop body (D300). Can double as a "long" normal lens and "short" portrait. Colors and contrast are superb - one of my favorite lenses.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just as a heads up though, despite how wonderful the nikon 60mm macro lenses are, you have to get very close to small subjects. I can certainly see where a 105mm or a 180mm would come in handy. That being said, the older AF-D is a great lens, and I wouldn't expect the new AF-S to be anything less._

 

Very true - would be a problem if I shot nervous or excitable creatures, but for still life (flowers, coins, watches, plants, etc), I don't have any problem getting close.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, my 35 f/2 can focus down to .25m and the AF-S 60 can focus down to .22m; so not the biggest difference. Still, I see your point - for some subjects its just more convenient to hold your distance (although the opposite is true in some cases)._

 

You may want to recheck your sources ... the 60mm AF S Micro close focus distance is 0.185M, 0.6Ft, 7.2", and that's from the focal plane. No rap on the 35 f/2, as that is a terrific, over the top value for money lens, but just keeping you honest. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Plus, at those distances, I'll wager that the 60mm Micro is a tad sharper.


----------



## hembergler

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you MUST limit your budget to sub 600$, then the D40 is the only thing really. It'll work.
 Something like this gives you the camera and 2 lenses:
Nikon | D40 SLR Digital Camera Kit with 18-55mm & | 9420

 Personally, I think it would be a shame to not consider the D80....... but that's just me. There are some things that the D80 does much better than the D40/60. If I were to start photography and enter the DSLR world, the D80 would be where I would start if I was on a budget. Nice little camera.

 Should be interesting to see what you end up getting. Keep me posted._

 

Earnest question, why the D80? I know the main technical differences, but I much prefer to hear your own opinions, I can only look at specs for so long!

 Thanks for the comments thus far all of you.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agile_one* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have the new 60mm AF S Micro, and think it is a fabulous lens. Perhaps the sharpest in my bag, quick to focus, and very flexible on a crop body (D300). Can double as a "long" normal lens and "short" portrait. Colors and contrast are superb - one of my favorite lenses.


 Very true - would be a problem if I shot nervous or excitable creatures, but for still life (flowers, coins, watches, plants, etc), I don't have any problem getting close.


 You may want to recheck your sources ... the 60mm AF S Micro close focus distance is 0.185M, 0.6Ft, 7.2", and that's from the focal plane. No rap on the 35 f/2, as that is a terrific, over the top value for money lens, but just keeping you honest. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Plus, at those distances, I'll wager that the 60mm Micro is a tad sharper._

 

Oh yeah, you're right; I guess I was thinking about the 105mm. Still, it's good to hear how sharp the 60 is. I desperately need a macro and for $450 this seems like the obvious choice so far.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hembergler* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Earnest question, why the D80? I know the main technical differences, but I much prefer to hear your own opinions, I can only look at specs for so long!

 Thanks for the comments thus far all of you._

 

The (very short answer): AF drive pin. The D40 and D60 are great cameras when lenses are taken out of the equation, but the issue remains that most AF-S lenses for the lower-end Nikon's are either too expensive for what they do, or too cheap for what they should do. If you step up to the D80, you can start to mess around with primes (fix focal length lenses) and older, cheaper, but better zoom lenses; without the learning curve of manual focusing. As the saying goes, after all, a camera is only as good as the lens attached to it; and in the case of the D80, you gain the ability to use exceptional glass with a low price tag and in a conventional manner. 

 Outside of that, the D80 also gives you a wider range of AF points (more useful than you might imagine for framing awkwardly located subjects) and Depth of Field Preview - a fancy term for a button which simply stops the lens down to the selected aperture, so you can get a rough idea of how much of your shot is in focus.

 Obviously, in the end you definitely shouldn't stretch your budget to an uncomfortable level, but in my opinion the lens flexibility alone certainly makes the D80 a good upgrade over the lower-end models.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hembergler* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Earnest question, why the D80? I know the main technical differences, but I much prefer to hear your own opinions, I can only look at specs for so long!

 Thanks for the comments thus far all of you._

 


 You will be much less likely to upgrade over the D80 than you would with the D40/60.

 The D40 will suite at first, but if we take a lesson from our audio hobby, we are usually quick to upgrade.

 The biggest things you will wish you had with the D40:
 1) A larger viewfinder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can not stress that one enough.
 2) The ability to use many more lenses. Most of your primes will only work in manual mode with the D40. Manual metering, manual focus, etc. To the best of my knowledge, there are no Full Frame lenses that work fully on the D40/60 series.
 3) More AF points

 Numbers 1 and 2 would be enough for me not to even consider the Nikon D40/40x/60.

 I guess you have to decide what you want a camera for. Do you want a larger P&S that will take better pictures in auto mode (no joke, some people do just that), or do you plan to use some really nice lenses in the future? That'll answer the question as to what camera is better suited for your long term needs.


----------



## milkpowder

50mm f/1.4 AI photos!! 

 I decided to play around with *B&W*.


----------



## milkpowder




----------



## milkpowder




----------



## milkpowder




----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Well, the other day I saw a deal so good for a 35-70 F2.8, that I couldn't *not* buy it. Seems like a pretty nifty lens thus far, though I'm not sure I prefer it to the Sigma 24-60 for everday shooting. The AF is pretty sluggish by comparison. The faux-macro mode is very cool though, and much better than I had expected (I figured it would be an afterthought, toss-on feature).


----------



## dj_mocok

Milk: 

 I am glad that you enjoyed the 50mm 1.4 Ai. 
 It's a totally different feeling from shooting with auto lens like 18-70mm isn't it? 

 It makes you appreciate photography more and when you create a nice picture out of it, it feels better than creating it from an AF lens. I would love to get my hands on a nice third-party manual lens for my Nikon but the price is astronomical.


----------



## laxx

@Milkpowder - The only problem I have with black and white pictures is that 99% of the time, it comes out boring. I feel people have to really pick and choose which pictures they want to transition into b&w, and throughout your set, I liked 2 or 3 of them. =T

 I don't know if other people feel that way, but that's how I am about b&w. It needs to be 10x (random number) better of a picture than their color counterpart or else it's just flat/boring.


----------



## stuartr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_@Milkpowder - The only problem I have with black and white pictures is that 99% of the time, it comes out boring. I feel people have to really pick and choose which pictures they want to transition into b&w_

 


 That's the same way I feel about color!


----------



## milkpowder

@Iron_Dreamer:
 That's a very nice shot. Very creamy bokeh!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Milk: 

 I am glad that you enjoyed the 50mm 1.4 Ai. 
 It's a totally different feeling from shooting with auto lens like 18-70mm isn't it? 

 It makes you appreciate photography more and when you create a nice picture out of it, it feels better than creating it from an AF lens. I would love to get my hands on a nice third-party manual lens for my Nikon but the price is astronomical._

 

Zeiss? Some day, some day...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_@Milkpowder - The only problem I have with black and white pictures is that 99% of the time, it comes out boring. I feel people have to really pick and choose which pictures they want to transition into b&w, and *throughout your set, I liked 2 or 3 of them.* =T

 I don't know if other people feel that way, but that's how I am about b&w. It needs to be 10x (random number) better of a picture than their color counterpart or else it's just flat/boring._

 

I'm glad you managed to find a few acceptable ones... could've been worse
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Truth to be told, I too think that some of the pictures I posted were in the *yawn* category
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 However, it's not always that colour is better. There are some shots in that series that are very flawed in colour and much nicer in B&W (eg 2nd, 8th picture). Vice versa (eg 1st, 5th shot)! I have to admit the 4th shot in the series is particularly poor in B&W
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Some colour versions:





















 And to keep this thread on topic - "Nikon Stuff"


----------



## hembergler

Thanks for the comments Towert7/M0T0XGUY

 As much as I'd like the D80, I think it would be unwise to put so much money into a hobby that I have minimally experienced. I have no doubt that in the (far?) future--if I stick with this--I will want to upgrade from what I get. However, given that I have never really done much photography, and $600+ will still be more than anything I've ever purchased (I'm still young, give me time), the D80 is out of my reach. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So I'm probably going to go with the D40 + 18-55mm AF-S + 55-200mm AF-S VR, but I'm not quite sure yet. Again, thanks for the help.


----------



## milkpowder

I didn't even have $600 in the world when I was your age


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hembergler* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the comments Towert7/M0T0XGUY

 As much as I'd like the D80, I think it would be unwise to put so much money into a hobby that I have minimally experienced. I have no doubt that in the (far?) future--if I stick with this--I will want to upgrade from what I get. However, given that I have never really done much photography, and $600+ will still be more than anything I've ever purchased (I'm still young, give me time), the D80 is out of my reach. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So I'm probably going to go with the D40 + 18-55mm AF-S + 55-200mm AF-S VR, but I'm not quite sure yet. Again, thanks for the help._

 

The old 18-55 AF-S is decent, but I'd think it wise to shop around for a D40 kit with the newer 18-55 AF-S VR. It's not necessarily the best example of a VR implementation, but in terms of optical performance its much improved over the older kit lens. 

 I also wouldn't necessarily limit yourself to Nikon's entry level models. With the XSi and almost certainly with the Rebel XS, I think Canon has surpassed Nikon in terms of value and performance - at least in certain cases. Plus, the new Canon kit lens is actually quite good and slightly superior to Nikon's equivalent; and I know that the Rebel XS kit at least will sell for less than $600. Don't get me wrong, the D40 is a spectacular camera; I just think Canon's new models are, arguably, around a generation ahead of Nikon's.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The old 18-55 AF-S is decent, but I'd think it wise to shop around for a D40 kit with the newer 18-55 AF-S VR. It's not necessarily the best example of a VR implementation, but in terms of optical performance its much improved over the older kit lens. 

 I also wouldn't necessarily limit yourself to Nikon's entry level models. With the XSi and almost certainly with the Rebel XS, I think Canon has surpassed Nikon in terms of value and performance - at least in certain cases. Plus, the new Canon kit lens is actually quite good and slightly superior to Nikon's equivalent; and I know that the Rebel XS kit at least will sell for less than $600. Don't get me wrong, the D40 is a spectacular camera; I just think Canon's new models are, arguably, around a generation ahead of Nikon's._

 

It is a VERY tough question, canon or nikon, if you can only afford to buy into one kit. I've seen one person say they liked nikon better for their lenses, but canon seems to have more lenses. I'm sure others like the canon lenses better. For me though, the biggest thing that swayed me was the ergonomics of the camera. My D50 is a joy to hold. I can use it for hours on end with no strain. The Rebel XT felt more box like and the controls where not where I wanted them. It also didn't feel as sturdy. I tried the 40D recently, and it was horrible! It is huge, and flat. There is no comparison between the ergonomics for the D80 and D300 vs the 40D and 5D.

 So, it is a tough choice between the two brands, and there may be times when you wish you went with the other brand, but in the end there is usually a special quality to one that just makes taking pictures a better experience. For me, it was the feel of the Nikons.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hembergler* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the comments Towert7/M0T0XGUY

 As much as I'd like the D80, I think it would be unwise to put so much money into a hobby that I have minimally experienced. I have no doubt that in the (far?) future--if I stick with this--I will want to upgrade from what I get. However, given that I have never really done much photography, and $600+ will still be more than anything I've ever purchased (I'm still young, give me time), the D80 is out of my reach. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So I'm probably going to go with the D40 + 18-55mm AF-S + 55-200mm AF-S VR, but I'm not quite sure yet. Again, thanks for the help._

 

If the D40 is the best you can afford, there is nothing wrong with that. If that is the case, get it and start having fun! 

 The 18-55 and 55-200 will give you a decent range, and it will be a good way for you to fool around with the range and see what you prefer or what you end up using more. From there, you can look into better, more specific, lenses.

 I looked on bhphoto, and couldn't find the D40 (or D40x) body alone, and they only come with the kit 18-55mm. The D60 comes with a kit 18-55mm VR.
Nikon | D60 SLR Digital Camera Kit with 18-55mm VR Lens | 25438
 That would be a nice budget DSLR kit, especially if what M0T0XGUY says about the new 18-55VR vs. the older 18-55mm is true.


----------



## milkpowder

Every time I pick up a Canon, I'm underwhelmed. Like Towert7, I don't 'get' their ergonomics. It's like holding a plastic shell. The Nikons I've used all have a fuller grip and feel more substantial.


----------



## ozz

They are both great brands but the feel of the D80 won me over.


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, the other day I saw a deal so good for a 35-70 F2.8, that I couldn't *not* buy it. Seems like a pretty nifty lens thus far, though I'm not sure I prefer it to the Sigma 24-60 for everday shooting. The AF is pretty sluggish by comparison. The faux-macro mode is very cool though, and much better than I had expected (I figured it would be an afterthought, toss-on feature).




_

 

Peter ... nice pickup. How close does the Macro (Micro, in Nikon speak) mode let you get, and what magnification? Can it do 1:1? If so, that is quite a gem, and you should have a lot of fun with it.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agile_one* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have the new 60mm AF S Micro, and think it is a fabulous lens. Perhaps the sharpest in my bag, quick to focus, and very flexible on a crop body (D300). Can double as a "long" normal lens and "short" portrait. Colors and contrast are superb - one of my favorite lenses._

 

Hm? Did you jump ship back to Nikon? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Or are you in both camps now?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agile_one* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Peter ... nice pickup. How close does the Macro (Micro, in Nikon speak) mode let you get, and what magnification? Can it do 1:1? If so, that is quite a gem, and you should have a lot of fun with it._

 

The macro mode (not called micro in this case) on the 35-70mm is 'ok', but it is not true 1:1 macro. You can get pretty close though, since you are in 35mm. My old kit 18-55mm did better macro work at 55mm though.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Zeiss? Some day, some day...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Not Zeiss. Kinoptik.


----------



## nineohtoo

Anyone have a D50 they want to dump for cheap? I dropped mine during a trip last week, and my command dial doesn't work now. No more short cuts for me, and now I'm stuck shooting at f1.4. It's cool for the most part since I shoot wide open usually, but I would like to stop down a little on occasions where I don't need to capture that much light. I don't want to be w/o a dslr while its out in service 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 OR I can wait till Tues and find out who's announcing their next camera, and make a decision off that. 

 My options are either to wait for a D50 to come up on craigslist for cheap, or go pick up a d40/d60 and sell my screw drive lenses(50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8), or wait for D80 successor(d300 sensor? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




). I'm not against getting a d40/d60 because I mostly use my Sigma 30mm 1.4(has HSM), and I'm planning on getting the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 HSM so I can have a zoom again. I use my Nikkor 50mm for shows a lot, but I can always get the Sig 50mm(if its anything like their 30mm, I dont care if it costs more than the Nikkor). Or I can keep my lenses and then just get the next mid level consumer model that should give us some better AF, and cleaner high ISOs. In the end though, I'm gonna end up with 30mm 1.4, and an 18-50mm 2.8(or wide to mid equiv zoom) for lenses, because those are the lengths and apertures I use.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the D40 is the best you can afford, there is nothing wrong with that. If that is the case, get it and start having fun! 

 The 18-55 and 55-200 will give you a decent range, and it will be a good way for you to fool around with the range and see what you prefer or what you end up using more. From there, you can look into better, more specific, lenses.

 I looked on bhphoto, and couldn't find the D40 (or D40x) body alone, and they only come with the kit 18-55mm. The D60 comes with a kit 18-55mm VR.
Nikon | D60 SLR Digital Camera Kit with 18-55mm VR Lens | 25438
 That would be a nice budget DSLR kit, especially if what M0T0XGUY says about the new 18-55VR vs. the older 18-55mm is true._

 

That's very true: you're buying a camera to _use_ as much as you're buying a camera to admire its pictures. As a young kid, I actually didn't mind the Rebel's button placement and ergonomics, although I agree that the 40D underwhelmed me in comparison to the D200 / D300.

 In terms of lenses, it's impossible to say for sure which brand has the superior selection. There are a few Canon lenses I'd love to have in a Nikon equivalent (70-200 f/4 / f/4 IS, 17-40 f/4) but by the same token, I'd hate to have a Canon camera without Nikon's superior 35 f/2.

 Sometimes, I wonder why I didn't buy a Canon 40D instead of a D200 (they'd be the same price), but looking at the lenses I have, the pictures I've taken, and the relative ergonomics of the two, I'm glad I stuck with Nikon.


----------



## stuartr

Sad to say it, but Canon's 35/1.4L runs rings around the Nikon 35/2. The 28/1.4...well, that's another story. I am hoping that Nikon starts updating their primes now that they finally have a full-frame body. I would love a good, modern 35/1.4 for the D3. Hopefully their will be some updated AFS primes at Photokina.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sad to say it, but Canon's 35/1.4L runs rings around the Nikon 35/2. The 28/1.4...well, that's another story. I am hoping that Nikon starts updating their primes now that they finally have a full-frame body. I would love a good, modern 35/1.4 for the D3. Hopefully their will be some updated AFS primes at Photokina._

 

That would be wonderful if they did. Can always use some good wide angle lenses.

 For me, I'm still waiting for a full frame D300/D80 type camera. I imagine that will take truly fantastic pictures compared to the typical APS sensors. 
 Let the DX dark ages end already I say!


----------



## dye1337

wow, this is my first time coming into this part of the forum and im so happy to see a nikon thread!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And, in terms of macro anything less than 1:1 is technically not macro, although manufacturers seem to be getting away with what is technically macro more often. If you wanna get really close and i mean REALLY close.... what I sometimes do is take my 150 2.8, couple that with a 50 1.8, add 25mm of extension tubes (the more the better) and a 2x and a 1.4 teleconverter... you can get down to something like 40:1 that way


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dye1337* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_you can get down to something like 40:1 that way_

 

LOL. Can you take a photo of this contraption of yours? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You must lose like 5 to 7 stops of light.


----------



## dye1337

I need to find a photo that I had taken with that setup, I lost my coupling and step down rings (WOOPS, gonna order new ones in a few days if i cant find my old ones) so I cant take a new one, but I know someone took a photo of it before. It's almost as long as my 300 2.8 lol (including the hood)

 This photo was taken with that setup, but without the teleconverters, and ya you lose about 5-7 stops of light, a flash is a must, no question about it


----------



## Towert7

Anyone '*take pictures from the hip*'?
 If so, any preference for focal length?


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That would be wonderful if they did. Can always use some good wide angle lenses.

 For me, I'm still waiting for a full frame D300/D80 type camera. I imagine that will take truly fantastic pictures compared to the typical APS sensors. 
 Let the DX dark ages end already I say!_

 

It depends. I'd love, for example, to lose the crop factor on my lenses, and take advantage of the lower pixel density of a 35mm sensor; but the larger area of the sensor requires even better lenses than I already own, and frankly I don't think most are disappointed by the image quality they get from an APS DSLR.


----------



## stuartr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone '*shoot from the hip*'?
 If so, any preference for focal length?_

 

Generally, something between 24mm and 35mm is a good choice. (on full frame). These lenses give you a broad enough field of view to make up for some inaccuracies in framing, and they have a decent amount of depth of field. It generally depends on how close you intend to be. Unless you plan on being extremely close, any wider than this and the subject can get lost in the frame.


----------



## dj_mocok

I nominate StuartR to be the first victim... er.... volunteer to buy the D700 and let us know how it's like.


----------



## stuartr

I'd be happy to if you will buy my D3! In fact, I am a bit annoyed, as I only got the D3 at the end of April, and had the D700 been available, I would have gone for that. I don't need 9fps, audio notes and things like that....I would have much preferred a smaller, lighter body frame. If I can sell the D3 and get a D700 without losing a lot of money, I will do so.


----------



## lan

My problem is I don't have any FX lenses. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I won't buy sight unseen. I'll need to see many photos from this new camera. Also I need to know the difference if this cam is more D300 or D3 ish. I'd prefer a mini D3.


----------



## kevin gilmore

full review here
Nikon D700 plus hands-on preview: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Towert7

Haha, I laugh at all the naysayers who said Nikon would not release a D300 type Full Frame camera!

 Better sell those DX lenses, and quick!


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Haha, I laugh at all the naysayers who said Nikon would not release a D300 type Full Frame camera!

 Better sell those DX lenses, and quick!_

 

DX is not dead, nor will it be dead for quite some time. Nikon has two full frame bodies in its lineup currently, and both cost about $3000 or greater; I'll presume the DX format to be dying once a D80 equivalent carries an FX sensor and a sub $1000 price tag.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_DX is not dead, nor will it be dead for quite some time. Nikon has two full frame lenses in its lineup currently, and both cost about $3000 or greater; I'll presume the DX format to be dying once a D80 equivalent carries an FX sensor and a sub $1000 price tag._

 

ah, I say it's dead. But then again, I have a forward thinking attitude.
 I know I personally would not buy another DX lens.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nikon has two full frame lenses in its lineup currently, and both cost about $3000 or greater;_

 

Actually, I think they have over 25 full frame lenses still being made new. I personally have at least 6 myself.
 I think they currently have about 45 FF lenses.


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, I think they have over 25 full frame lenses still being made new. I personally have at least 6 myself.
 I think they currently have about 45 FF lenses._

 

i think that number gets higher if you count the older ai and pre-ai lenses. 

 anyhow, i don't think that any of us were saying that there won't ever be a FX sensor in a Dx00 body. there are a lot of cost advantages to the DX sensor that Nikon can't ignore especially when the amateur/enthusiast market is such a large part of their bottom line. it's not something a company that is trying to make a profit can ignore.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, I think they have over 25 full frame lenses still being made new. I personally have at least 6 myself.
 I think they currently have about 45 FF lenses._

 







 I was thinking of a 24-70 f/2.8 on eBay when I wrote that. I meant that Nikon only has two full frame _bodies_, each costing greater than $3K. Nice catch, though.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_





 I was thinking of a 24-70 f/2.8 on eBay when I wrote that. I meant that Nikon only has two full frame bodies, each costing greater than $3K. Nice catch, though._

 

Ah, ok, that makes more sense now. ^_^
 Perhaps within 1 or 2 more generations we will have 800$ FX bodies.


----------



## stuartr

Well, the professional sector is clearly going back to full frame...it is what pros have wanted since the beginning -- to have their lenses act like they did in the film era (which was not that long ago for many of them). In general bigger sensors have better signal to noise ratios, more light gathering ability, and are more forgiving of lens performance. That said, I don't see DX going anywhere any time soon. Nikon and Canon have put lots of money into designing and building DX bodies and lenses, and it would not make sense to just dump them when they are clearly still being bought. 

 I must say I am very surprised by the D700 though. It does not seem to fit to me. Why make a camera that is so close to the D3 and D300 without replacing either? It really is the unholy spawn of the D3 and the D300...the D3 sensor in the D300 body. It would seem to severely undercut the sales of both the D3 and the D300...


----------



## Edwood

They needed a competitor for the Canon 5D. The D3 is going to suffer sales loss a lot more than the D300 will.

 I am very tempted by the D700. Although, I am more tempted by the impending price price plummet for D200's and D300's. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

Canon's had this type of a market segment now for a few years. Pro-sumer, pro-sumer FF, professional.

 I assume Canon will release their new 5D soon, and so the prices will be competitive.

 I trust Nikon knows what they are doing. I also feel they are progressing to a better format, even if it means their DX lenses will go obsolete. Nikon is a camera company, and the reason you buy either a Nikon or a Canon is for nice image quality and optics. 

 It's unfortunate they spent so much effort developing their DX lenses to ditch them after only 4-5 years, but in the end the only way for Nikon to stay competitive is to develop cameras that will take the best pictures within their market segment. They can not afford to stand still and stagnate with their DX line and let canon move ahead by implementing FF in all of their bodies.

 It's evolution. To remain the same requires constant change in business. To stagnate while others progress is to admit defeat. And I don't expect Canon to stand still!


----------



## stuartr

The difference is that the D700 is a professional sensor in a professional body. The 5D is a professional sensor in a prosumer body. The D700 has the top of the line image processing pipeline, weather sealing, top of the line AF, metering and so on. The 5D's body, while very nice, has more in common with the 20/30D than with the 1D series bodies. The difference is that the D700 is pro-full frame (normal sized) and the D3 is pro-full frame (gargantuan).


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, the professional sector is clearly going back to full frame...it is what pros have wanted since the beginning -- to have their lenses act like they did in the film era (which was not that long ago for many of them). In general bigger sensors have better signal to noise ratios, more light gathering ability, and are more forgiving of lens performance. That said, I don't see DX going anywhere any time soon. Nikon and Canon have put lots of money into designing and building DX bodies and lenses, and it would not make sense to just dump them when they are clearly still being bought. 

 I must say I am very surprised by the D700 though. It does not seem to fit to me. Why make a camera that is so close to the D3 and D300 without replacing either? It really is the unholy spawn of the D3 and the D300...the D3 sensor in the D300 body. It would seem to severely undercut the sales of both the D3 and the D300..._

 

Honestly, I think the D300 is in a safe market position; I agree, however, that the D3 is in jeopardy. Most pro's I talk to love the D3, for example, but would kill to package its features and performance into a D300 type body. In fact, apart from sports shooting, I see no reason at this point to choose the D3 over the D700 - its hard to justify an $1800 premium when all it nets you is an extra couple FPS. 

 On the other hand, the D700 is almost twice the price of the D300, and that, I think, will keep the two from competing in the market. After all, the D300 really is a pro-level camera in more ways that one, and I think even many advanced amateurs would purchase the D300 over the D700, knowing they'd have $1400 extra for lenses.

 Still, it's certainly an interesting, if not risky move on Nikon's part; and it will be even more interesting to see Canon's response in the next 5D upgrade.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 It's unfortunate they spent so much effort developing their DX lenses to ditch them after only 4-5 years, but in the end the only way for Nikon to stay competitive is to develop cameras that will take the best pictures within their market segment. 
 

Who says anything about Nikon ditching their DX lenses? People still buy the D40 and D60 when the D80 and DX00's have been out. Not everyone will be willing to pay for a full sensor and I don't see a full sensor body for $300 any time soon. Nikon sells a DSLR without a lens motor. Do you really think they are going to go sell FX sensors on all of their DSLR bodies any time soon?

 I still have my D70s, even though the D80, D200, D300 and D700 have come out. It still works great and I can't justify the cost of the newer bodies. Maybe when an FX body is $500 I will switch, but who knows it may not have a lens motor.

 I have nothing against the D40. It is a capable camera and I like the form factor. It is a great way for people to get into DSLRS.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Do you really think they are going to go sell FX sensors on all of their DSLR bodies any time soon?_

 

Yes.
 I expect it will be no more than 2 generations away. Excluding the D40 type of DSLR, which may be dropped in the future in favor of something more streamlined... 
 Of course, this is all fluff at this point, but it is what I expect from market trends and demands.


----------



## stuartr

I really don't think this will happen soon (i.e. not within 4-5 years). We have not seen a (new) full frame camera under 2500 dollars yet, and part of that is the sheer cost of the sensors...we are not going to see a D40 market level camera with a full frame chip for quite awhile. Part of this is a factor of silicon wafer manufacture -- the bigger the sensor, the higher the rejection rate and the fewer sensors can be made from a single wafer. This is why the tiny sensors in cell phones are practically given away as an afterthought, why point and shoots can be extremely cheap, why aps is cheaper than full frame, and why a 22mp medium format digital back costs 20,000 and while the 1Ds MkIII's 35mm sized 22mp sensor costs only 8000 (with a body) And frankly, there is no call for it. APS-C offers very good image quality, smaller cameras and lenses and cheaper overall costs. For the amateur and casual market, those are very important factors. Keep in mind that there are still a lot of people using disposable film cameras out there...DX is not going anywhere in the next few years.


----------



## lan

What? No chat about SB900? LOL.

 The D700 if it has AF speed of D3 is perfect for me. I like uber speed AF and accuracy. The best thing about D300 is the full coverage of the AF points from left to right.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

The only nits I can find to pick with the D700 are the lack of a release mechanism for the CF card door (the spring-loaded jobbie on the D200/D300 is very nice), and the 95% viewfinder coverage (though an understandable trade-off for the built-in flash).

 The SB900 looks as though it will have much more convenient controls than the SB800 (which is a bit of a PITA in that way). If I had the cash to blow, I'd get it just for less menu hunting. I guess we will have to see if the added zoom range, and other technical improvements are that noticeable over the 800. It does sound nice to get quicker recycle time without the silly 5th battery add-on of the 800.


----------



## milkpowder

It's D3-level ISO performance would be a major attraction too. The thought of being able to shoot at 3200+ w/ minimal IQ deterioration is simply mind boggling. Alas, its $4k UK MSRP is just a tad expensive
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 What is the price difference between the 800 and 900? I might need a flash...


----------



## Arainach

You're better off with the 600 unless you're a full-time pro anyhow; more shots per charge (presuming you don't use the disposable battery packs).


----------



## dj_mocok

Honesltly, I'd rather have more pro grade / exotic glass than getting the D700. 3 grand I could use it to finally get my dream Kinoptik. I'll trade my soul for one of those beauty lenses.

 It can produce these kind of pictures. and these. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I am very familiar with my 85mm 1.4 which is considered one of Nikon's best bokeh offerings, but there is no way in hell I could produce that swirly bokeh no matter which way I bend.


----------



## Enthusia

I am not seeing the beauty your seeing mocok, the kinoptik lense seem to be distorted the background and just focusing on the object. Can't you just do something like that on photoshop?


----------



## milkpowder

Enthusia, it's called bokeh
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The "distortion", that is areas which are out of focus, is done on purpose to isolate the subject. I don't believe you can replicate it on Photoshop to the same extent. I'm sorry if you genuinely meant distortion as in "pincushion/barrel distortion" and hence this being an insult to your intelligence!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Anyhow, the Kinoptik's bokeh is interesting, but not to my liking. I prefer the more buttery smooth to the detailed, high contrast look. The latter makes the picture a little tiring to look at.

 Eg.





 I can't remember where I got this picture from, nor can I remember the model of the lens!


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Same, the Kinoptic isn't really doing anything for me.


----------



## laxx

Buttery smooth bokeh is my liking as well. 85 1.2... drool.


----------



## Towert7

If a smooth bokeh is what is desired, then the kinoptic that was linked is not the ideal choice. The 100$ nikon 70-300G has a smoother bokeh:





_(In the background is a sidewalk on top and grass on the bottom)_

 compared to: http://www.jadecastle.net/lenscatego...340024_std.jpg

 On the other hand, it does seem like a fairly sharp lens (at the cost of washed out bokeh), which can be a nice thing to have.


----------



## dj_mocok

If you cant see the beauty, that's good, you just save yourself close to 2 grand, heheh..

 I don't want smooth bokeh like usual, but if you notice the bokeh it's very different altogether, that's why I love it. I will gladly trade my 85 for a Kinoptik 75mm f/2 if someone is dumb enough to do so. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What you called distorted background for me is my dream bokeh.


----------



## skyline889

Milkpowder, that was shot with a 58mm 1.2 Noct Nikkor!


----------



## Enthusia

I do not dislike the out of focus look, it just doesn't entice me, but that bench looks quite wonderful Milkpowder.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If a smooth bokeh is what is desired, then the kinoptic that was linked is not the ideal choice. The 100$ nikon 70-300G has a smoother bokeh:

 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3110/2454736439_d3cee97083.jpg[img]
 [i](In the background is a sidewalk on top and grass on the bottom)[/i]

 compared to: [url=http://www.jadecastle.net/lenscategory/75/kinoptik7520/85340024_std.jpg]http://www.jadecastle.net/lenscatego...340024_std.jpg[/url]

 On the other hand, it does seem like a fairly sharp lens (at the cost of washed out bokeh), which can be a nice thing to have.[/i]
 [/td] [/tr] [/table]


 Quote:

 [table] [tr] [td]  Originally Posted by [b]dj_mocok[/b] [url=/forum/post/4417059][img]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/url] 
If you cant see the beauty, that's good, you just save yourself close to 2 grand, heheh..

 I don't want smooth bokeh like usual, but if you notice the bokeh it's very different altogether, that's why I love it. I will gladly trade my 85 for a Kinoptik 75mm f/2 if someone is dumb enough to do so. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What you called distorted background for me is my dream bokeh. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



_
_


I think somewhere in between is good. A total blur is IMO just as undesirable as a bokeh with a lot of overexposed highlights. It seems like the character of the bokeh depends a lot on the background. Some lens are better at 'smudging' certain types of backgrounds than others.

 Pictures taken by Mr. Paul Lindqvist using a Zeiss 100/2 makro on a D2x. Note the difference in bokeh depending on the background. All three were taken at F2. 













 Some more photos taken by Mr. Patrick Colpron with a Nikkor 30/1.4 AI-S. Again, note the difference in bokeh.









  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
Milkpowder, that was shot with a 58mm 1.2 Noct Nikkor!

 

That certainly rings a bell! Judging by how crazy some people are about large aperture Nikon primes, I think the 58/1.2 is just as expensive, if not even more so than the Kinoptik in question.

 I found the thread on NikonCafe from which I 'borrowed' the photo from: Bokeh...guess which lenses... - NikonCafe.com

 This picture taken with the 58/1.2 Noct was also posted and it's just more proof of how background-dependent some lens are.



_


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you cant see the beauty, that's good, you just save yourself close to 2 grand, heheh..
_

 

If I may ask then, what is it about the bokeh that you like? I am very interested to know.


----------



## dj_mocok

I am not sure how to explain this, it's like explaining a sound. But you notice how in some pictures the little leaves sort of gelled together tidily? 
 That one I really like and I will never able to do that with my lens. It's just a little thing I know but it's a lot of difference for me. The bokeh is painting like. 

 Milk: 
 Of course I know bokeh is background/object/distance dependent - and focal length dependent too - too many variables, but some lenses just produce different characteristics altogether due to difference in lens design/quality.

 Let's use these for example:

 The first 2 pictures are the ones I took (actually my partner took it) using my Nikon, I know it can produce beautiful result, but the bokeh is just different altogether compared to Kinoptik one (the 3rd picture *owner of 3rd picture is Loveada in case he is reading this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)

 The first 2 are pictures of family members that's why I edited out the faces.

 Picture 1 (Nikon)





 Picture 2 (Nikon)





 Picture 3 (Kinoptik)





 PS: I don't know how much is the street price for Noct now, but I think the last time I saw it, it went for 3 grand?


----------



## Towert7

Oh ok, now I see what you mean.
 The background in the bottom left really does look painted. Cool.


----------



## milkpowder

The effect is growing on me
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. I have to say the effect doesn't quite work in its favour (IMO) in every situation.

 This one's from the Chinese photography forum:





 It's a fantastic shot, but the flowers are just a tad too punctuated. I don't like it when the background draws too much attention from the subject itself.


 This one, however, is just superb!


----------



## dj_mocok

I think I can do as the second picture you mentioned, well at least close to it, but I don't think I can produce image even close to those grass pictures I mentioned.

 I actually liked the background better on the 1st picture, I guess it's really subjective and depends on each person's taste huh? haha...


----------



## stuartr

If bokeh is really important to you, you should give up on this Nikon digital business and either go to Zeiss and Leica lenses or go to medium format. For whatever reason, they just seem to do it better than most of the Canon and Nikon versions. Leica also has a 75/2 apo and a 75/1.4 that have a similar look to that kinoptic, though they look to be sharper and not quite as swirly in the bokeh. Their particularly swirly lens is the 50mm f/1


----------



## stuartr

That said, a lot of older lenses tend to have that Kinoptic look. Spherical aberration is one of the causes (spherical aberration makes bokeh look better...usually). Another option would be to get either the 105/2 DC or 135/2 DC. Both these lenses have superb bokeh, and you can even control it with the DC function.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am not sure how to explain this, it's like explaining a sound. But you notice how in some pictures the little leaves sort of gelled together tidily? 
 That one I really like and I will never able to do that with my lens. It's just a little thing I know but it's a lot of difference for me. The bokeh is painting like. 

 Milk: 
 Of course I know bokeh is background/object/distance dependent - and focal length dependent too - too many variables, but some lenses just produce different characteristics altogether due to difference in lens design/quality.

 Let's use these for example:

 The first 2 pictures are the ones I took (actually my partner took it) using my Nikon, I know it can produce beautiful result, but the bokeh is just different altogether compared to Kinoptik one (the 3rd picture *owner of 3rd picture is Loveada in case he is reading this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)

 The first 2 are pictures of family members that's why I edited out the faces.

 Picture 1 (Nikon)
 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/dj_mocok/sample1.jpG]

 Picture 2 (Nikon)
 [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/dj_mocok/sample2.j/G]

 Picture 3 (Kinoptik)
 [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/dj_mocok/sample3.jpMG]

 PS: I don't know how much is the street price for Noct now, but I think the last time I saw it, it went for 3 grand?[/i]
 [/td] [/tr] [/table]


I see what you're going for in the last comparison, but to be fair, I don't think the "normal" Nikon lens on the right has the best bokeh to begin with. As has been said, however, bokeh is dependent on many different factors, and in some cases the Kinoptic effect seems to work quite well._


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Bokeh looks really nice, the Kinoptic effect looks really cool.

 And oh btw: Nikon rocks just got my first Nikon DSLR and it is the D80 plus a Nikkor 24-120mm lense. Sweet combination. 
http://img.techpowerup.org/080703/fistnikon651.jpg 56k killer!

 Forgive me for the image first time messing around with a Nikon camera :/


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If bokeh is really important to you, you should give up on this Nikon digital business and either go to Zeiss and Leica lenses or go to medium format. For whatever reason, they just seem to do it better than most of the Canon and Nikon versions. Leica also has a 75/2 apo and a 75/1.4 that have a similar look to that kinoptic, though they look to be sharper and not quite as swirly in the bokeh. Their particularly swirly lens is the 50mm f/1_

 

Hehe... I know, but my wallet doesn't agree to my taste of lenses. Yeah I also love those Leica Noctilux lenses (Particularly the one I would love to have is the 50mm f/1 Noctilux for Leica rangefinder), I don't know why Nikon can't make those kind of lenses... But anyway, if they did, it would be out of my price range anyway.


----------



## milkpowder

Are any of the Leica lens compatible with Nikon?


 Congrats FrederikS|TPU. I had a good half an hour with a friend's D80/18-135 the other day and it's a joy to use!


----------



## dj_mocok

If I'm not mistaken, you can use some old Leica lenses with your Nikon but you have to use adapter. I'm not sure exactly which one, the reason I have no idea now is maybe because I found out it was too much hassle or too costly, hehe...


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

That Knoptix does have some very interesting bokeh, and I can see why one might want such a tool. No different than an instrument that has a particular sound, it might not be universally appealing, but if one can find the right way to apply it, more power to them.

 FWIW I really like the flower bokeh behind the woman, whereas the bokeh behind the man does look a bit more generic.


----------



## hembergler

I got my D40 a few days ago. I've been playing around with it incessantly. Here's one photo that makes me giggle every time. (it's just begging for an lolcats-esque caption, but I haven't thought of anything good yet)






 Suffice to say, I've been having fun.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hembergler* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's one photo that makes me giggle every time._

 

I had exactly the same reaction as I scrolled down and that picture came into view! How funny. Enjoy the D40!


----------



## dj_mocok




----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are any of the Leica lens compatible with Nikon?_

 

Probably not, since they use different mounts. There may be an adapter that allows a switch between one (extension), but people seem to find adapters reduce image quality. I know you can use nikon lenses on canon's with an adapter, but you can't use canon lenses on a nikon. Most people won't do this though, because an adapter is needed which people claim reduces the image quality of the lens.

 Leica lenses are bloody expensive to boot!


----------



## stuartr

Leica lenses will not fit on Nikon mount with a glassless adapter. The problem is that Leica M lenses (the rangefinder lenses) are designed to be about 27.75mm from the flange to the film/sensor. Nikon F mount flance to film/sensor distance is 46.5mm, so you could put a Nikon lens on a Leica, but not a Leica lens on a Nikon. If you did, you would only be able to focus extremely close up. Leica SLR lenses work on Canon, but not on Nikon. The reason is that Leica SLR's film to flange distance is 47mm, which is too close to Nikon to machine a durable adapter...it would have to be .5mm thick. Canon film to flange is 44.0mm, which is enough to machine an adapter. 

 Assuming it is properly made (this can be difficult...they need to be highly precise), the adapters have no effect on optical quality. You will have to use stop-down metering though, since the adapters are generally simple mechanical couplings that cannot stop down the lens or control the iris. This also limits you to using only lenses that have an aperture ring (all Leica lenses do, luckily). 

 Anyway...that's why you can't use Leica lenses on Nikon (unless you rip the mount out of your Nikon camera and put in a Leica R mount...something people have done before.)


----------



## M0T0XGUY

I wasn't aware that you could use Nikon's lenses in a Canon mount, even with an adapter. Do they retain any electronic coupling after they've been modified?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wasn't aware that you could use Nikon's lenses in a Canon mount, even with an adapter. Do they retain any electronic coupling after they've been modified?_

 

A place to start reading:
Roxsen Nikon - Canon Lens Converter


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Leica lenses are bloody expensive to boot!_

 

Wow I had no idea they were so expensive! $6k for a 50mm f/1 with an average price of around $3-4k
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Geez. At least Zeiss lens are relatively affordable...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Leica lenses will not fit on Nikon mount with a glassless adapter. The problem is that Leica M lenses (the rangefinder lenses) are designed to be about 27.75mm from the flange to the film/sensor. Nikon F mount flance to film/sensor distance is 46.5mm, so you could put a Nikon lens on a Leica, but not a Leica lens on a Nikon. If you did, you would only be able to focus extremely close up. Leica SLR lenses work on Canon, but not on Nikon. The reason is that Leica SLR's film to flange distance is 47mm, which is too close to Nikon to machine a durable adapter...it would have to be .5mm thick. Canon film to flange is 44.0mm, which is enough to machine an adapter. 

 Assuming it is properly made (this can be difficult...they need to be highly precise), the adapters have no effect on optical quality. You will have to use stop-down metering though, since the adapters are generally simple mechanical couplings that cannot stop down the lens or control the iris. This also limits you to using only lenses that have an aperture ring (all Leica lenses do, luckily). 

 Anyway...that's why you can't use Leica lenses on Nikon (unless you rip the mount out of your Nikon camera and put in a Leica R mount...something people have done before.)_

 

Thank you very much for the technical explanation.


----------



## stuartr

Much of it is the euro versus dollar exchange rate. A lot of these cameras and lenses were dramatically cheaper before Bush took office. Since then, the dollar has collapsed and with it the price of european goods has skyrocketed. In 2001, the 50mm f/1 was 3500 or so (it was cheaper than Canon's 50mm f/1), and they could be found on the used market for 1500 dollars or so. Now used ones are 5000, since they are discontinued. The other lenses used to between 1000-2000, but now they are usually between 3000 and 4000. The lenses themselves have made a pretty good investment if you bought them awhile ago. I bought most of my Leica kit in 2002-2003, and it is all worth a lot more now than when I bought it, even taking in consideration that I bought some new stuff that is now used.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I bought most of my Leica kit in 2002-2003, and it is all worth a lot more now than when I bought it, even taking in consideration that I bought some new stuff that is now used._

 

The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Yay!


----------



## milkpowder

I certainly wouldn't be in the position to buy any Leica lens/cameras then, at least not for another decade (or three!). I'll be content with a healthy stable of Zeiss ZF (in particular the 2/35, 1.4/50, 2/50 Makro, 1.4/85) and a few Nikon AF/AI(-S) primes
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Stuart, you have some great gear. Which do you use the most often?

 I'm using my 50/1.8 AI more than my 18-70 and the 70-300VR is collecting dust. I've clicked the shutter button about 4500 times and it seems like I need a few fast lens in the 18-50mm range more than anything else. I've never ever been in the situation where I wanted more zoom than 50mm, but have more than once found it too long! I envision a few fast primes replacing my 18-70 in the forseeable future.

 I'm also pleased to say I'm really getting better at manually focussing. However, the viewfinder of the D300 really isn't the greatest for MF_, eg too small and not quite bright/clear enough_; and the focus indicator is not all that useful_, eg sometimes flashes like mad or unpredictably in low light *and* at other times remains on even after the focus ring has been turned thus falsely indicating a range of in-focus pictures._ I can get around this by focus bracketing, ie taking photos from when the focus indicator light turns on and stopping at the point where it turns off. Sure, I don't _have to_ rely on the focus indicator light but it sure helps in low-light.

 Long story cut short, some have recommended I get something called a Cateyez. I have been on their website and am not to confident about installing it myself (being UK-based, sending my camera to the US would be a silly proposition). I'm also not too enthusiastic about the "modification" tampering with my light meter's accuracy for lens slower than F2.8 when put into spot metering. Guess I'll just have to make do... or get a D700 or D3(x). [size=xx-small]*only joking*




 [/size]


----------



## RYCeT

Milkpowder, if you love the 50 1.8, get 35 2.0
 35mm is the best range for D300. When I use my 50mm, I have to step back, w/ 35mm I don't need to do that which make it perfect to work indoor. It's sharp, fast and have a good bokeh. I use it more than my tamron 17-50


----------



## Towert7

The 35mm F/2 AF-D is a great little lens! A must have on a budget.
 Speaking of which, I think from the small collection of lenses that I have, I will try and use my 35mm when I try 'shooting from the hip'. Frame may be a little tight on a 1.5x, but I'll still give it a shot. Should prove to be fun.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I certainly wouldn't be in the position to buy any Leica lens/cameras then, at least not for another decade (or three!). I'll be content with a healthy stable of Zeiss ZF (in particular the 2/35, 1.4/50, 2/50 Makro, 1.4/85) and a few Nikon AF/AI(-S) primes
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Stuart, you have some great gear. Which do you use the most often?

 I'm using my 50/1.8 AI more than my 18-70 and the 70-300VR is collecting dust. I've clicked the shutter button about 4500 times and it seems like I need a few fast lens in the 18-50mm range more than anything else. I've never ever been in the situation where I wanted more zoom than 50mm, but have more than once found it too long! I envision a few fast primes replacing my 18-70 in the forseeable future.

 I'm also pleased to say I'm really getting better at manually focussing. However, the viewfinder of the D300 really isn't the greatest for MF, eg too small and not quite bright/clear enough; and the focus indicator is not all that useful, eg sometimes flashes like mad or unpredictably in low light *and* at other times remains on even after the focus ring has been turned thus falsely indicating a range of in-focus pictures. I can get around this by focus bracketing, ie taking photos from when the focus indicator light turns on and stopping at the point where it turns off. Sure, I don't have to rely on the focus indicator light but it sure helps in low-light.

 Long story cut short, some have recommended I get something called a Cateyez. I have been on their website and am not to confident about installing it myself (being UK-based, sending my camera to the US would be a silly proposition). I'm also not too enthusiastic about the "modification" tampering with my light meter's accuracy for lens slower than F2.8 when put into spot metering. Guess I'll just have to make do... or get a D700 or D3(x). [size=xx-small]*only joking*




 [/size]_

 

It's too bad that you find the D300's viewfinder small for MF, as its among the biggest and brightest of DX size DSLR's. Any reason why you don't use live view with zoom to manually focus?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's too bad that you find the D300's viewfinder small for MF, as its among the biggest and brightest of DX size DSLR's. Any reason why you don't use live view with zoom to manually focus?_

 

The D3 viewfinder is a dream! It's just that milkpowder has very high expectations and requirements. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## ozz

Is there anything to be concerned about doing a firmware update using
 osx 10.5.4 on the D-80.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's too bad that you find the D300's viewfinder small for MF, as its among the biggest and brightest of DX size DSLR's. Any reason why you don't use live view with zoom to manually focus?_

 

I hold the camera most steadily with it braced against my face. I guess I could use Live View if I was shooting at high shutter speeds.

 Oh, the D300's viewfinder really isn't that terrible
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D3 viewfinder is a dream! It's just that milkpowder has very high expectations and requirements. Nothing wrong with that._

 

Well I've never used a D3 so I wouldn't know
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I don't want to know either. Ignorance is bliss
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 35mm F/2 AF-D is a great little lens! A must have on a budget.
 Speaking of which, I think from the small collection of lenses that I have, I will try and use my 35mm when I try 'shooting from the hip'. Frame may be a little tight on a 1.5x, but I'll still give it a shot. Should prove to be fun._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Milkpowder, if you love the 50 1.8, get 35 2.0
 35mm is the best range for D300. When I use my 50mm, I have to step back, w/ 35mm I don't need to do that which make it perfect to work indoor. It's sharp, fast and have a good bokeh. I use it more than my tamron 17-50_

 

I will get a 32/2 AF-D when I'm back in Hong Kong.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I must also find out where the second hand camera stores are. The ones in the UK charge a hefty premium for relatively cheap and common-place AI(-S) lenses like the 50s and 35s. It would be nice if I could grab the 50/1.4 AI-S and 35/2 AI-S... They're at least $300 each in one camera store in Edinburgh. I could almost get a Zeiss 1.4/50 for that kinda money.


----------



## stuartr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Yay!_

 

This is not the case for me, I assure you. The Leica stuff going up is small consolation for the past 8 disastrous years. The collapse of the dollar has hit me a lot harder than most because I make most of my money in the US, but live most of the year in Europe. Anyway, I was just trying to make the point that Leica gear (and other European camera gear) is artificially expensive at the moment due to the state of the dollar, certainly not to rub anyone's face in it or the fact that I am lucky enough to afford nice camera equipment.

 Also, for what it's worth, you can get a nice Leica and lens for a lot less than the cost of a D300. They have made Leicas for 80 years, and the present M7 is extremely close to the M3 which came out in 1954...lots of people still use M3's every day. 

  Quote:


 Stuart, you have some great gear. Which do you use the most often? 
 

For technically difficult work (i.e. dodgy lighting, fast moving people/objects), I use the D3 most. For travel and landscape photography, I mostly use a Mamiya 7II. I use the Leica for daily carry, street photography and everything else. I mix it up a lot.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well I've never used a D3 so I wouldn't know
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I don't want to know either. Ignorance is bliss
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

My mistake. I did mean the camera you had though, the D300.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is not the case for me, I assure you. The Leica stuff going up is small consolation for the past 8 disastrous years. The collapse of the dollar has hit me a lot harder than most because I make most of my money in the US, but live most of the year in Europe. _

 

Oh, reading what you wrote before made me think about the current state of the US economy. I was commenting on how inflation is killing the lower and middle class. Nothing directed to you.
 The rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also, for what it's worth, you can get a nice Leica and lens for a lot less than the cost of a D300. They have made Leicas for 80 years, and the present M7 is extremely close to the M3 which came out in 1954...lots of people still use M3's every day._

 

I can't be bothered to mess around with film to be honest. My poor consistency means that I'll be going through rolls of film like there's no tomorrow.

  Quote:


 For technically difficult work (i.e. dodgy lighting, fast moving people/objects), I use the D3 most. For travel and landscape photography, I mostly use a Mamiya 7II. I use the Leica for daily carry, street photography and everything else. I mix it up a lot. 
 

Cool. Would a D700 be able to partially replace the Leica (iirc you have the M8) for daily carry? It's considerably smaller than the D3, but probably wouldn't fit in a trenchcoat jacket pocket.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's also cheaper to replace if it gets stolen/lost


----------



## stuartr

Probably not. It looks like it is about the same size as a D300 or an F6. Both of those are still considerably larger than the M8...mostly with respect to lenses and body width. Also, the M8 still has better image quality than the D3 at base ISO and ISO 320 (it has no AA filter, so despite being fewer megapixels, it is still sharper)...and at 10mp+, the lenses are the most important part of the imaging chain. So no, the D700 would not replace the M8, but it would mean that I could bring it to more situations than the D3, which is really a beast. The D3 is bigger and heavier than most medium format cameras I have used...but it does not cease to amaze me with respect to how well-designed and capable it is. Everything is laid-out superbly and it really just gets the job done in a way that no other camera I have used can do. The AF speed and accuracy, the metering, the frame rate, battery life, white balance...everything just works perfectly. I cannot say as much for the Leica.


----------



## milkpowder

Fair enough. If anything the D700 will be a bit taller than the D300 because of the larger viewfinder.

 I do a lot of shooting indoors and in low-light so I rarely use the base ISO. I crave the D700 because of its low-light performance: practically noise free up to around 3600 (vs 1600 max on the D300) and AF sensitivity/accuracy in the dark.


----------



## Tuarreg

I am old school Nikon/Hasselblad film photographer who recently decided to get back in by purchasing the D300. Wonderful camera indeed! One of the reasons I did was because I was able to maintain the older lenses like the AF lenses which includes: 300 f4, 80-200 f2.8, 35-70 f2.8, 24 f2.8 and manual lenses like: 18mm f3.5, 105 uv f4.5. All of these seem to work well with the D300, but now I am reading about the DX/FX lenses that are designed for Nikon dslrs and how you can't fully take advantages of the D300, D3 and D700 unless you use the new DX/FX lenses. Is this true and if so, why?

 Thank you in advance for your help.

 Tuarreg


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Tuarreg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am old school Nikon/Hasselblad film photographer who recently decided to get back in by purchasing the D300. Wonderful camera indeed! One of the reasons I did was because I was able to maintain the older lenses like the AF lenses which includes: 300 f4, 80-200 f2.8, 35-70 f2.8, 24 f2.8 and manual lenses like: 18mm f3.5, 105 uv f4.5. All of these seem to work well with the D300, but now I am reading about the DX/FX lenses that are designed for Nikon dslrs and how you can't fully take advantages of the D300, D3 and D700 unless you use the new DX/FX lenses. Is this true and if so, why?

 Thank you in advance for your help.

 Tuarreg_

 

All of Nikon's DSLR's and the more recent film SLR's take advantage of distance information provided by D and G type lenses to assist in exposure and better gauge flash performance; although there might be additional benefits as well. All DX lenses are type-G, and all new FF lenses are type-G as well. 

 There are many versions of the lenses you have, but it's easy enough to check whether or not you have a D lens: it'll be printed after the aperture value (i.e. f/2.8D). For what it's worth, I've used many non-D and G type lenses with my D200 and can't discern any ill-effects in terms of flash and non-flash exposure - I wouldn't fret as long as you're satisfied by the results you're getting.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Tuarreg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am old school Nikon/Hasselblad film photographer who recently decided to get back in by purchasing the D300. Wonderful camera indeed! One of the reasons I did was because I was able to maintain the older lenses like the AF lenses which includes: 300 f4, 80-200 f2.8, 35-70 f2.8, 24 f2.8 and manual lenses like: 18mm f3.5, 105 uv f4.5. All of these seem to work well with the D300, but now I am reading about the DX/FX lenses that are designed for Nikon dslrs and how you can't fully take advantages of the D300, D3 and D700 unless you use the new DX/FX lenses. Is this true and if so, why?

 Thank you in advance for your help.

 Tuarreg_

 

There is no 'FX' type lens. There are however DX lenses, which are designed for the 1.5 crop APS sensors in most nikon D-SLR's. Your D300 is a 1.5 crop sensor, so DX lenses were designed to work with your camera, though to be honest they are perhaps not nikon's best efforts. You will get iffy results if you use a DX lens on a full frame DSLR sensor, such as with the film bodies.

 Your D300 can use all of the older 'non-DX' lenses. 
 More info to read: Crop Factor


----------



## Tuarreg

*There is no 'FX' type lens.*

 I meant FF? 

 My question is whether there are any inherent advantages of the DX lens and the FF lenses to the PRE-Digital lenses that Nikon made. So, to take full advantage of what a D300, D700 or D3 can do in terms of image quality, should I buy DX lenses and FF digital lenses?

 Thanks,

 Tuarreg


----------



## bigshot

Nikon's DSLRs will automatically adjust to DX lenses. The older film bodies will undercrop, but the digital ones won't. DX lenses are compatible with all the Nikon cameras made since the introduction of DX, and they likely always will be.

 Tuarreg, It's hard to generalize, because just about all Nikon lenses are good. But when it comes to the quality of zoom lenses, the more modern ones will likely be a bit better than the older ones. The main difference between new and old lenses involves features like VR and automatic focusing.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_AF-S lenses have an internal motor which is faster and quieter than the camera's motor. D lenses don't have their own motor, so rely on the motor in the camera. I believe the pro Nikon bodies have better ( stronger ) internal motors than the consumer versions, so are a little quicker, but AF-S lenses are always the fastest. The ability of the camera's autofocus sensors also come into play, as the better the sensor, the less searching the lens does while focussing ... making it also focus faster._

 

The D300 and D3 (and probably the upcoming D700) have a more powerful autofocus motor, so it racks the autofocus faster apparently. 

 Argh! I'm so tempted by the D700. Good thing it's going to be $3K. If it was closer to $2K it would be much easier for me to justify. Just maybe.

 But I think I'll be happier spending that much on some headphone gear in the near future. I've been quite negligent in the Headphone spending lately. I must make amends. Heheh. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Tuarreg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*There is no 'FX' type lens.*

 I meant FF? 

 My question is whether there are any inherent advantages of the DX lens and the FF lenses to the PRE-Digital lenses that Nikon made. So, to take full advantage of what a D300, D700 or D3 can do in terms of image quality, should I buy DX lenses and FF digital lenses?

 Thanks,

 Tuarreg_

 

With all else equal, an older pre-digital lens won't yield a loss of image quality compared to a modern, DX or recent FF lens. With all else equal, of course. 

 As Towert has stated, in other words, most of the current DX lenses are tailored to the consumer market, and while the D300 isn't exactly a boutique item it's certainly a cut above the D40 and D60 in terms of image quality. In that sense, it's almost an advantage to have older, film optimized lenses - as the crop factor on modern DSLR's eliminates some of the resolution deterioration that occurs at the lens's borders, and DX lenses, afterall, are designed to be cheaply manufactured and packaged.

 On the other hand, most of Nikon's recently announced FF zoom lenses are indeed better than comparable lenses of the film era. In this case, modern technology does play a role in creating a more consistent performance - especially in areas of resolution. 

 However, you've built up a good assortment of zoom and prime lenses, and I see no reason to go out and purchase a whole new lineup when most comparable DX items are actually worse in many areas.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Tuarreg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 My question is whether there are any inherent advantages of the DX lens and the FF lenses to the PRE-Digital lenses that Nikon made. So, to take full advantage of what a D300, D700 or D3 can do in terms of image quality, should I buy DX lenses and FF digital lenses?

 Thanks,

 Tuarreg_

 

The one thing you should try and avoid is using a 'DX' lens on a film camera body, or the new FX camera bodies (D3, D700).

 Your D300 is a DX camera body, so you can use DX lenses on it. The DX lenses were designed for the DX camera body, but that does not mean they will be better than your typical lenses.

 The way I see it, the only thing the DX lenses have going for them is the fact that they are new, and Nikon has been improving things like ghosting, or chromatic aberration. Some things, like image quality and build quality, are not so good.

 Features like VR are NOT specific to DX lenses.

 So, bottom line, your D300 can take both types of lenses, the typical and 'DX' lenses. The better lens will produce better images with your D300, and you may find the older lenses produce much better images than the DX lenses.

 Your D300 is a 1.5 crop sensor, so your 300mm F/4 will have the field of view of a 450mm F/4 lens on the older Nikon cameras (or the new D3 or D700 FF). Just a heads up.

 By the way, you have some nice Nikkors to start off with!


----------



## Tuarreg

Ok, so if I stick with the D300, my film lenses are just fine, but if I want to step up to D700 or D3, I might want to pickup some of the new FF lenses.
 Got it! Thanks guys. I'm glad I didn't sell my Nikon gear! Anyone need a F4s, FM2 or 8008s body?

 Tuarreg


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D300 and D3 (and probably the upcoming D700) have a more powerful autofocus motor, so it racks the autofocus faster apparently. 

 Argh! I'm so tempted by the D700. Good thing it's going to be $3K. If it was closer to $2K it would be much easier for me to justify. Just maybe.

 But I think I'll be happier spending that much on some headphone gear in the near future. I've been quite negligent in the Headphone spending lately. I must make amends. Heheh. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed_

 


 Yeah the D700 looks reeaallly nice. Of course, to get the most out of it, I'd want a 14-24 2.8. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Outside of the Smyth system, what could you possible be going after headphone wise these days?


----------



## Braver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Tuarreg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ok, so if I stick with the D300, my film lenses are just fine, but if I want to step up to D700 or D3, I might want to pickup some of the new FF lenses._

 

No, those film lenses will be fine on a D3 or D700 as well, more than fine even. It's the DX lenses that'll only work on the D300 as they create an image that's smaller than you'd need on film or the FX (FX=FF) sensors of the D3/700 as they have the same size as film. I get the feeling the marketing-speak is confusing you 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 New or old really shouldn't matter that much. Just buy the lenses you think you need, but if you ever want to use them on film or FX (D3/700), don't buy DX lenses.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah the D700 looks reeaallly nice. Of course, to get the most out of it, I'd want a 14-24 2.8. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Outside of the Smyth system, what could you possible be going after headphone wise these days?_

 

That would pretty much be it. Well, along with a better front end for the home theater. And perhaps that vibration platform. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Braver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, those film lenses will be fine on a D3 or D700 as well, more than fine even. It's the DX lenses that'll only work on the D300 as they create an image that's smaller than you'd need on film or the FX (FX=FF) sensors of the D3/700 as they have the same size as film. I get the feeling the marketing-speak is confusing you 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 New or old really shouldn't matter that much. Just buy the lenses you think you need, but if you ever want to use them on film or FX (D3/700), don't buy DX lenses._

 

Couldn't you just crop the image you get from using a DX lens on a FX sensor? The pixel density will be lower than say the image from a DX sensor, but wouild it be noticeable for internet viewing purposes (eg 1920x1200 max)? The D3/700 do have better S/N ratio so maybe it wouldn't be totally silly to use DX lenses however unlikely this may be...


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Couldn't you just crop the image you get from using a DX lens on a FX sensor? The pixel density will be lower than say the image from a DX sensor, but wouild it be noticeable for internet viewing purposes (eg 1920x1200 max)? The D3/700 do have better S/N ratio so maybe it wouldn't be totally silly to use DX lenses however unlikely this may be..._

 

This crop is actually done automatically on D3. For internet purposes, it doesn't matter much as it's still higher resolution if that's all you were considering.

 It would take me a while to get FX lenses so I'd use the DX mode still.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Couldn't you just crop the image you get from using a DX lens on a FX sensor? The pixel density will be lower than say the image from a DX sensor, but wouild it be noticeable for internet viewing purposes (eg 1920x1200 max)? The D3/700 do have better S/N ratio so maybe it wouldn't be totally silly to use DX lenses however unlikely this may be..._

 

The D3 and D700 do that already. But, lets be honest, you got the D300 to take the best pictures you could. To crop off 50% of the image seems like a waste.


----------



## milkpowder

I see. 5.1MP won't be that great for cropping either...


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I see. 5.1MP won't be that great for cropping either..._

 

It is, however, more than you need for a lot of other applications.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Tuarreg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ok, so if I stick with the D300, my film lenses are just fine, but if I want to step up to D700 or D3, I might want to pickup some of the new FF lenses._

 

DX lenses will be perfectly usable on a D700 or D3. The camera will automatically sense that it's a DX lens and apply the crop.

 The amount of pixels required to print a good picture is vastly overstated by some folks. I had a shot that I took on a 3 mp camera blown up to 18x24 and it looked perfect. A DX lens on a FF body would still produce superb results.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D3 and D700 do that already. But, lets be honest, you got the D300 to take the best pictures you could. To crop off 50% of the image seems like a waste._

 

These cameras are about handling and features also not just image quality. It makes a difference to me and some other people. Sometimes you have no choice but to crop if you don't have enough telephoto range.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I see. 5.1MP won't be that great for cropping either..._

 

There are some people who don't need to crop and frame correctly right from the start.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is, however, more than you need for a lot of other applications._

 

Exactly. I would love a high speed crop mode. It let's me take more high speed shots and not use a lot of memory. I don't need a lot of res in these types of shots.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_These cameras are about handling and features also not just image quality. It makes a difference to me and some other people. Sometimes you have no choice but to crop if you don't have enough telephoto range.



 There are some people who don't need to crop and frame correctly right from the start.



 Exactly. I would love a high speed crop mode. It let's me take more high speed shots and not use a lot of memory. I don't need a lot of res in these types of shots._

 

Keep in mind though that the D700 doesn't have a high speed crop mode. It's 5 / 8 FPS regardless of whether a DX or FF lens is attached; as far as I know only the D3 changes its frame rate in response to the lens.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_These cameras are about handling and features also not just image quality. It makes a difference to me and some other people. Sometimes you have no choice but to crop if you don't have enough telephoto range._

 

I know.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Keep in mind though that the D700 doesn't have a high speed crop mode. It's 5 / 8 FPS regardless of whether a DX or FF lens is attached; as far as I know only the D3 changes its frame rate in response to the lens._

 

8FPS is good enough for me.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_8FPS is good enough for me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

True, true. Only thing is, just like the D300 you can only get to 8 FPS with a battery grip, and frankly, there's little sense in buying a D700 unless you're going to keep the grip off; else you might as well buy a D3 (cost is a factor though).


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_True, true. Only thing is, just like the D300 you can only get to 8 FPS with a battery grip, and frankly, there's little sense in buying a D700 unless you're going to keep the grip off; else you might as well buy a D3 (cost is a factor though)._

 

The grip is very light weight and I love it's feel. Plus I already own it. I use it regularly without any batteries. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I also don't want a D3 for the permanent size and weight.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The grip is very light weight and I love it's feel. Plus I already own it. I use it regularly without any batteries. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I also don't want a D3 for the permanent size and weight._

 

Well never mind then. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Unfortunately I've never been able to demo the D300's battery grip, but I will say that I'm totally unimpressed by the D200's proprietary grip. It creaks, it rattles, its fairly unergonomic (the dual command dials are recessed, making their movement difficult) and frankly the plastic feels less solid that that found on the D40. I assume Nikon's heavily revised their grips but honestly, anything is better than the one I own.


----------



## OverlordXenu

If you have to crop, you're not getting close enough.

 Damn people...Get a good art/photography book instead of another lens or a good camera! Don't lose site of what really matters...


----------



## dj_mocok

Honestly, for me at least, getting the perfect crop straight out of camera is actually quite difficult - might be because of environment, lack of time to compose, etc.. or maybe I just plain fussy when it comes to final result. 

 But cropping is something that I often do, even if it's just a little bit. I think instead of cropping, I consider it as 'tidying up' the picture a bit.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_but I will say that I'm totally unimpressed by the D200's proprietary grip. It creaks, it rattles, its fairly unergonomic (the dual command dials are recessed, making their movement difficult)_

 

Yeah I've heard the D200 grip isn't great and that the D300 one is vastly improved. That's a shame since these things aren't that cheap.

 ---------------------------

 While I believe it's just best to get everything done while in camera, everybody works differently, there maybe financial restraints, and there might not be time in some cases.

 Going out to 200mm is normal and cheaper to do but let's say you want to go out to 300 or 400. It might be financially possible but you wouldn't use it enough so it may not be worth it. In those cases you have to crop. Also some people might need more than 400mm and in that case, there's hardly any cheap and good options.

 There are sometimes fleeting moments where there's no time to compose and move to a better position. Either with animals or a person's posing or doing a facial expression, etc.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But cropping is something that I often do, even if it's just a little bit. *I think instead of cropping, I consider it as 'tidying up' the picture a bit.*_

 

Exactly! Cropping is about as "destructive" to the photo as changing the contrast, black/white levels, etc... I can imagine people saying, "Why didn't you get the exposure and lighting perfect in the first place?"
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I was at a camera shop with a friend a while ago. My friend was considering a alpha350, 450D and D60. The subject of lenses came up and I quite blankly said there are more lenses available to Nikon and Canon than Sony. The salesperson didn't agree with that and went on to talk about how Sony has every focal length covered, etc. My knowledge of Sony lenses is very limited, but was there any truth in what the salesperson said?


----------



## lan

If you consider old lenses, sure there are hundreds of lenses for Minolta/Sony mount. That is including all 3rd party lenses. Nobody will really consider hundreds of lenses on any system though. Most average people don't own that many lenses. I think a lot of things can be done with about 6 (walkaround, telephoto, macro, wide, lowlight, and some other variation of above). If that is the case then any of the system are just fine. Lens selection isn't as big of a deal for general photography IMO.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Exactly! Cropping is about as "destructive" to the photo as changing the contrast, black/white levels, etc... I can imagine people saying, "Why didn't you get the exposure and lighting perfect in the first place?"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was at a camera shop with a friend a while ago. My friend was considering a alpha350, 450D and D60. The subject of lenses came up and I quite blankly said there are more lenses available to Nikon and Canon than Sony. The salesperson didn't agree with that and went on to talk about how Sony has every focal length covered, etc. My knowledge of Sony lenses is very limited, but was there any truth in what the salesperson said?_

 

Sony has a decent selection of new lenses, but nothing particularly exciting outside the Zeiss series of primes and zooms. From a marketing perspective, though, the salesperson is correct - Sony has new wide-angle lenses, many a standard zoom, and a few telephotos. 90% of these lenses are, however, strictly consumer grade; whereas Nikon or Canon lineups feature the same cheap walk-around type lenses, as well more exotic and professional models. 

 Personally, unless your friend is looking to spend a $1700 on a solid Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8, I think Canon and Nikon's systems are still a better value overall.


----------



## Towert7

Sony is not a photography company. Nikon and Canon are.
 In terns of lenses in our current age, it seems best to stick with Nikon, Canon, and Leica.

 I have a friend who purchased a Pentax and loves the little camera, but the poor guy has no choices in lenses. He can try and find old USED lenses, but I like the feeling and piece of mind I get in owning a brand new lens (I pamper my equipment).

 Let's be honest, you're getting a SLR for the lenses. I wouldn't consider any kit other than those 3. For the common hobbyist photographer, Nikon and Canon are the logical 2 choices. I wouldn't touch the sony kit with a 10 foot stick.


----------



## Edwood

Funny thing is I love Pentax lenses more than Nikon or Canon. Pentax's Limited series of Primes are simply awesome. But, that said, Pentax bodies are quite lacking. Even the K10D and the current K20D just weren't enough to keep me from going Nikon.

 I do still have my Pentax *ist DS.

 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Funny thing is I love Pentax lenses more than Nikon or Canon. Pentax's Limited series of Primes are simply awesome. But, that said, Pentax bodies are quite lacking. Even the K10D and the current K20D just weren't enough to keep me from going Nikon.

 I do still have my Pentax *ist DS.

 -Ed_

 

That's nice to hear that the Pentax Limited lenses were good. I checked on bhphoto and found 3 different types of Limited lenses. Do they have more that you know of? I would assume so.


----------



## milkpowder

Thanks for the info. The Canon 18-55IS feels like a joke by the way and the focus "ring" was clearly an afterthought 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 On the other hand the Sony 18-70 felt the best out of the three kit lenses (third lens: Nikon 18-55VR).

 Isn't VR on a 18-55mm lens a bit of a gimic?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The Pentax Limited lenses look very nice, a bit like Leica and Zeiss.


----------



## Edwood

The 31mm and 77mm Limited lenses are the ones to get. The 43mm one is just too close to the much cheaper and excellent 50mm f/1.4. 
 Although, If I had to pick only one, I'd probably get the 77mm, and pick the 35mm f/2 which is cheaper,

 -Ed


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sony is not a photography company. Nikon and Canon are.
 In terns of lenses in our current age, it seems best to stick with Nikon, Canon, and Leica.

 I have a friend who purchased a Pentax and loves the little camera, but the poor guy has no choices in lenses. He can try and find old USED lenses, but I like the feeling and piece of mind I get in owning a brand new lens (I pamper my equipment).

 Let's be honest, you're getting a SLR for the lenses. I wouldn't consider any kit other than those 3. For the common hobbyist photographer, Nikon and Canon are the logical 2 choices. I wouldn't touch the sony kit with a 10 foot stick._

 

Sony isn't a photography company, but Konica-Minolta is; and a damn good one at that. I totally agree though that, at least for now Nikon and Canon's lens lineups are the most comprehensive in the business, even if Pentax has some great primes.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Funny thing is I love Pentax lenses more than Nikon or Canon. Pentax's Limited series of Primes are simply awesome. But, that said, Pentax bodies are quite lacking. Even the K10D and the current K20D just weren't enough to keep me from going Nikon.

 I do still have my Pentax *ist DS.

 -Ed_

 

I'm surprised you hated Pentax bodies so much. I've only briefly used one but it felt comparable to my D200 (if a little slower all around), and they get pretty good reviews on all the camera sites I see. Anything particularly off-putting in the K20D which made you switch?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

The only Pentax experience I have is with Ed's, and the main bitch I can see is the very slow AF, even with a fast prime.


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

I just realized that I need a macro lens for my Nikon for my review shots. The ones with the 24-120 Nikkor are OK but I really miss some detail and it is a pain to setup the shots with the camera at least .5 meter away. So if you guys can recommend me a good (preferably cheap) macro lens that would be awesome. 

 I have no one else to ask and the you guys here on Head-Fi are always kind enough to help 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My camera is a Nikon D80.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FrederikS|TPU* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just realized that I need a macro lens for my Nikon for my review shots. The ones with the 24-120 Nikkor are OK but I really miss some detail and it is a pain to setup the shots with the camera at least .5 meter away. So if you guys can recommend me a good (preferably cheap) macro lens that would be awesome._

 

I've been pretty happy with my Tamron AF 90mm/f2.8 Macro 1:1 SP Di, which an authorized Nikon dealer recommended over the Nikkor macro offerings. I use it with a D70, a D200, and a D300, so you will have to make sure it works with a D80. Sharp, light, fast, and (relatively) inexpensive.


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Old Pa how close can you get with the lens to the object you are focusing of with the 90mm?


----------



## stuartr

I would dispute that Sony is not a photography company. They may only have made slr bodies in the last couple of years, they have long supplied the sensors to Nikon, Pentax and others. They made the sensor in the D2x and the would-be D3x is rumored to have the 24mp sony full-frame sensor. And as Motox guy mentioned, they took over Konica-Minolta. Konica was one of the oldest photography companies ever....1873...it was older than Kodak! So even if Sony itself is not strictly a photography company, they have a great deal of know-how.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FrederikS|TPU* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Old Pa how close can you get with the lens to the object you are focusing of with the 90mm?_

 

I just threw mine on my D70 and closest focus was @10cm off front on lense body. I've also got Tamron's AF 180/f 3.5 Macro 1:1 SP Di for when I want more standoff distance.


----------



## DaMavs

I think good and cheap macro lenses are mutually exclusive.

 I love the Tamron 90mm Macro though & last time I checked it was at least cheaper than the comparable Nikon lens. That is a full frame lens though so there may be a cheaper Dx alternative around...


----------



## Pecker

I have a Nikon S200 and now feel quite inadequate looking through this thread


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just threw mine on my D70 and closest focus was @10cm off front on lense body. I've also got Tamron's AF 180/f 3.5 Macro 1:1 SP Di for when I want more standoff distance._

 

Thanks for the info much appreciated, just what I need to know. Is there is a good lens shop on the web you can recommend, maybe even one that takes paypal?

 And how much did you pay for yours?

 Thanks once again!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would dispute that Sony is not a photography company. They may only have made slr bodies in the last couple of years, they have long supplied the sensors to Nikon, Pentax and others. They made the sensor in the D2x and the would-be D3x is rumored to have the 24mp sony full-frame sensor. And as Motox guy mentioned, they took over Konica-Minolta. Konica was one of the oldest photography companies ever....1873...it was older than Kodak! So even if Sony itself is not strictly a photography company, they have a great deal of know-how._

 

Making sensors takes 10 geeks with Ph.D's. Making a full camera designed for photographers takes photographers.

 No offense, but I don't consider Sony a photography company. More like a mass market conglomerate.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FrederikS|TPU* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is there is a good lens shop on the web you can recommend, maybe even one that takes paypal?

 And how much did you pay for yours?_

 

Sigma4Less.com, whom I have dealt successfully with in the past, has the Tamron AF 90mm/f2.8 Macro for Nikon for $359.95 plus ship. I do not know if they take PayPal. I can't remember what I paid for mine a couple of years ago, but it was in that range. Good luck.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FrederikS|TPU* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the info much appreciated, just what I need to know. Is there is a good lens shop on the web you can recommend, maybe even one that takes paypal?

 And how much did you pay for yours?

 Thanks once again!_

 

bhphoto.com

 I'd recommend the Nikon Nikkor 60mm Micro for 400$us.
 If you do not need the distance that the extra focal lengths give you, I'd recommend this 60mm. Makes me think I have a FF camera!


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would dispute that Sony is not a photography company. They may only have made slr bodies in the last couple of years, they have long supplied the sensors to Nikon, Pentax and others. They made the sensor in the D2x and the would-be D3x is rumored to have the 24mp sony full-frame sensor. And as Motox guy mentioned, they took over Konica-Minolta. Konica was one of the oldest photography companies ever....1873...it was older than Kodak! So even if Sony itself is not strictly a photography company, they have a great deal of know-how._

 

Very true. I'd also point out that the majority of Sony DSLR's hold their own against the competition's offerings - the A700, particularly, can take some fantastic pictures; and features like the Dynamic Range Optimizer are more useful than you might think. More people would be inclined to purchase Sony DSLR's, I think, if their selection of new lenses wasn't as sparse (it's growing, though).


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Very true. I'd also point out that the majority of Sony DSLR's hold their own against the competition's offerings - the A700, particularly, can take some fantastic pictures; and features like the Dynamic Range Optimizer are more useful than you might think. More people would be inclined to purchase Sony DSLR's, I think, if their selection of new lenses wasn't as sparse (it's growing, though)._

 

If you were given a Sony DSLR or a Nikon DSLR (or Canon), you would willing take the Sony assuming they had the same lens offering?

 I don't know..............

 I certainly wouldn't.


----------



## stuartr

I think you are being a bit flippant. Regardless of how big Sony is, there are obviously a lot of good, talented people in their camera division. As Motox guy and I said before, they brought in the photo imaging section from Konica Minolta. Konica arguably made the best lenses of ANY Japanese manufacturer (If you don't believe me, try a Hexar AF or RF). Canon makes photo copiers, calculators and electronic dictionaries, Zeiss sells sunglasses and Leica sells mining equipment. Brands are very diverse these days with very few doing just one thing. Sony is still just coming into their own in the SLR market, but there is no reason to think that they are significantly worse than similarly priced and placed offerings from the other makers. In fact, the ability to make their own sensors and their partnership with Zeiss puts them in a potentially better position than even Canon or Nikon. Zeiss arguably has the most lens-making experience of any company in the world, and Sony has huge financial resources. If they decide to bring out some giant killer product, they certainly have the resources and experience to do it.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you were given a Sony DSLR or a Nikon DSLR (or Canon), you would willing take the Sony assuming they had the same lens offering?

 I don't know..............

 I certainly wouldn't._

 

For the money, the A700 is a good deal. I can't promise that I'd ever buy one, but if lens choice wasn't a primary factor, then the A700 would be on my shortlist.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think you are being a bit flippant. Regardless of how big Sony is, there are obviously a lot of good, talented people in their camera division. As Motox guy and I said before, they brought in the photo imaging section from Konica Minolta. Konica arguably made the best lenses of ANY Japanese manufacturer (If you don't believe me, try a Hexar AF or RF). Canon makes photo copiers, calculators and electronic dictionaries, Zeiss sells sunglasses and Leica sells mining equipment. Brands are very diverse these days with very few doing just one thing. Sony is still just coming into their own, but there is no reason to think that they are significantly worse than similarly priced and placed offerings from the other makers. In fact, the ability to make their own sensors and their partnership with Zeiss puts them in a potentially better position than even Canon or Nikon. Zeiss arguably has the most lens-making experience of any company in the world, and Sony has huge financial resources. If they decide to bring out some giant killer product, they certainly have the resources and experience to do it._

 

Again, no offense..... but I'll take the Nikon.
 Just like I'll take the BMW over the honda. In my mind, it's the same type of choice.


----------



## stuartr

But would you take a 135i over an NSX? That's the real question 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. I think all these companies are capable of producing killer cameras, it's just for whatever reason, they decided to market themselves in the specific positions that they have.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Again, no offense..... but I'll take the Nikon.
 Just like I'll take the BMW over the honda. In my mind, it's the same type of choice._

 

It's a bit more complicated than that, because a camera is as much a lens as it is a sensor and other technology. Using your analogy, you have to separate the lens and camera itself as different components of a car; the entire package, if you will, makes the automobile.

 Making analogies is not my forte, but assume for a minute that a lens is like an entire car sans its engine; and a camera the engine itself. Right now, Sony's lens lineup isn't quite as varied or filled as that of Nikon, so one can consider the Sony "car" to have a poor fit and finish, a cheap feel, and generally lackluster performance in comparison to Nikon's "car." I say _generally_ lackluster because the engines (actual cameras) of Nikon and Sony are actually quite comparable in features and in performance.

 Now, take lens selection out of the equation, by assuming that both brands eventually carry a similarly priced lineup of equally similar quality. Here, you're left with two generally luxurious automobiles; both retaining a high-quality feel with top-notch suspension systems and cabin technology, and _both carrying the same comparably performing engines as before._ In that case, you're left with two excellent cars / camera systems, at two very different price points. 

 Again, I can't guarantee that I'd ever buy into a Sony system, but I think time and reviews have shown that Sony DSLR's are every bit as capable as those from Nikon; at a generally cheaper price.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think all these companies are capable of producing killer cameras, it's just for whatever reason, they decided to market themselves in the specific positions that they have._

 

Now that's a very interesting point. I really wish I knew why a company markets it's products to certain demographics when they could, with a little effort, go into different markets.

 A person once said they thought 3'rd party lenses could, if they wanted, make lenses up to par with the big names, or better...... but for some reason they continue to make lenses for people on a budget. I guess there is a lot of psychology behind a name and their reputation. Maybe they feel they simply can't sell a product better than their name's reputation will provide them.

 Now that I think about it, it's funny that you bring up the Honda NSX. Now there's a car that was aimed to compete with the other super cars, but no one really wanted it. The mind set was: why buy a Honda when you can have a _porsche_, _lambo_, or _Ferrari_ (etc). It appears there's a lot to a 'name'. I'm the same way. I'd probably pick the F430 over the NSX, because....... well...... it's a Ferrari!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's a bit more complicated than that_

 

I know, I know.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now that's a very interesting point. I really wish I knew why a company markets it's products to certain demographics when they could, with a little effort, go into different markets.

 A person once said they thought 3'rd party lenses could, if they wanted, make lenses up to par with the big names, or better...... but for some reason they continue to make lenses for people on a budget. I guess there is a lot of psychology behind a name and their reputation. Maybe they feel they simply can't sell a product better than their name's reputation will provide them.

 Now that I think about it, it's funny that you bring up the Honda NSX. Now there's a car that was aimed to compete with the other super cars, but no one really wanted it. The mind set was: why buy a Honda when you can have a porsche, lambo, or Ferrari (etc). It appears there's a lot to a 'name'. I'm the same way. I'd probably pick the F430 over the NSX, because....... well...... it's a Ferrari!_

 

Sigma makes mostly budget lenses because people buy mostly budget lenses. Yes, Sigma could probably direct its resources towards R&D of true quality lenses if it wanted to, but they simply wouldn't be able recoup their losses if the company did so. 

 Think about it in the mind of a consumer. Truth be told, most aren't aware that lenses, and not cameras, have the greatest impact on image quality in today's 10MP+ market. Likely, a first time DSLR buyer will put 80%-90% of their budget towards an actual camera, leaving a meager 10%-20% for the more vital lens. Sigma knows this, and thus accents the low price of their lenses as a one true selling point. In reality, though, it does make sense. Given that consumers shop for lenses based on cost above pretty much all else, how would Sigma gain market share if it were to increase the quality and thus cost of their products? It's difficult to advertise image quality anyway without introducing complicated diagrams, and given that consumers like to buy equipment from one manufacturer, it makes sense to assume that Sigma would rapidly lose market share if it decided to rival Nikon and Canon's lenses in quality and price.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sigma makes mostly budget lenses because people buy mostly budget lenses. Yes, Sigma could probably direct its resources towards R&D of true quality lenses if it wanted to, but they simply wouldn't be able recoup their losses if the company did so. 

 Think about it in the mind of a consumer. Truth be told, most aren't aware that lenses, and not cameras, have the greatest impact on image quality in today's 10MP+ market. Likely, a first time DSLR buyer will put 80%-90% of their budget towards an actual camera, leaving a meager 10%-20% for the more vital lens. Sigma knows this, and thus accents the low price of their lenses as a one true selling point. In reality, though, it does make sense. Given that consumers shop for lenses based on cost above pretty much all else, how would Sigma gain market share if it were to increase the quality and thus cost of their products? It's difficult to advertise image quality anyway without introducing complicated diagrams, and given that consumers like to buy equipment from one manufacturer, it makes sense to assume that Sigma would rapidly lose market share if it decided to rival Nikon and Canon's lenses in quality and price._

 

Yup. I agree with this.


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_bhphoto.com

 I'd recommend the Nikon Nikkor 60mm Micro for 400$us.
 If you do not need the distance that the extra focal lengths give you, I'd recommend this 60mm. Makes me think I have a FF camera!_

 

I am going to check out some 60mm and 90mm offerings to see which suits my needs the best. Thanks for all the help


----------



## lan

I'm going to go out and mess with the D700 now. I'll see if it's worth getting rid of both my D300 and 5D.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm going to go out and mess with the D700 now. I'll see if it's worth getting rid of both my D300 and 5D._

 

Even used, I think the D700 is about as much as a 5D and D300 combined. Personally, unless you're willing to give up all your great Canon lenses, I think it makes sense to stick with the two fantastic cameras you already own.


----------



## agile_one

Used D700 ???? You may want to rethink that one ... at this point there aren't even any *unused* D700s out there. It isn't officially on sale until July 25th, and then will be in extremely tight supply.

 Good point re: lan's Canon lens collection, but if he decides to let the 5D go, there are willing buyers to be found. I will be most interested in your reaction to the D700, lan, and what you decide to do.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Even used, I think the D700 is about as much as a 5D and D300 combined. Personally, unless you're willing to give up all your great Canon lenses, I think it makes sense to stick with the two fantastic cameras you already own._

 

I have 3 other DSLRs so I wouldn't be losing anything.

 D700 seems ok. I need to look at the pics now.


----------



## laxx

Did they have one at B&H? I was just there yesterday, but didn't pay attention since I was there to look at P&S with a friend. =[


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have 3 other DSLRs so I wouldn't be losing anything.

 D700 seems ok. I need to look at the pics now._

 

I wasn't aware that you owned other DSLRs 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . In that case, the D700 may be worth a look - as I imagine it replacing your D300 and 5D for most applications.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Did they have one at B&H? I was just there yesterday, but didn't pay attention since I was there to look at P&S with a friend. =[_

 

Nikon rep was making his rounds. One was at J&R. Unfortunately I shot raw and there's no program capable of reading it yet. Oops.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nikon rep was making his rounds. One was at J&R. Unfortunately I shot raw and there's no program capable of reading it yet. Oops._

 

LOL! I guess you just have to enjoy staring at those RAW files on your CF card for the next few weeks or months. Oops. Anything else to report?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anything else to report?_

 

We couldn't get the cam to shoot at high speed. Not sure why. That's my main grip again D300 but I hope this isn't the case with D700 and it's more like the D3. I'll need to checkout other units to tell.


----------



## milkpowder

I would love to get my paws on a D700, even if just to play around with for an hour or two.

 I recently got my saliva going having a rough and tumble with these lenses:











 The 24-70 has lightning-quick autofocus!

 I can dream, can't I?


----------



## fureshi

i've never seen it in person yet but i'm surprised at the 24-70mm's size. by the way, what's the wrist strap that you're using on the d300 milkpowder?


----------



## stuartr

The hood makes it look huge (it's big anyway, but the hood is gigantic). I have not found the hood necessary...it is very flare resistant.


----------



## lan

Yeah I was messing with the D700 with the 24-70. Of course it depends where you're coming from but I don't find the lens that big or heavy. I still like to use hood for protection somewhat as I don't use filters.

 I can't believe the D700 kit lens is the 24-120VR.


----------



## stuartr

I am normally a hood over filter guy too, but the Nikon hoods are just so huge! So instead, I just got a B+W MRC uv filter and said the hell with it. They are very flare resistant and tend to repel dust and fingerprints well. One thing I like about the Leica lenses is that most of them have the hoods built in -- you just slide them out. They are probably not as effective, but they are so much more convenient.


----------



## Towert7

Those lenses are huge!


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i've never seen it in person yet but i'm surprised at the 24-70mm's size. by the way, what's the wrist strap that you're using on the d300 milkpowder?_

 

The lens itself isn't so big. The hood is about half the length of the lens and quite a bit wider. The 70-200VR hood is even longer and wider though
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I don't use a wrist strap on my own camera but probably will do so. That d300 is my friend's and the strap is great, much better than using the Nikon strap. I also don't really like the fact that the Nikon strap advertises the model of the camera...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah I was messing with the D700 with the 24-70. Of course it depends where you're coming from but I don't find the lens that big or heavy. I still like to use hood for protection somewhat as I don't use filters.

 I can't believe the D700 kit lens is the 24-120VR._

 

I imagine you're not happy with the 24-120. Reviewers don't like it much either...
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am normally a hood over filter guy too, but the Nikon hoods are just so huge! So instead, I just got a B+W MRC uv filter and said the hell with it. They are very flare resistant and tend to repel dust and fingerprints well. One thing I like about the Leica lenses is that most of them have the hoods built in -- you just slide them out. They are probably not as effective, but they are so much more convenient._

 

At least Nikon _used to_ make collapsible rubber and (built-in) metal hoods 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My next door neighbour has a 135mm/2.8 AI and it has a collapsable metal hood.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Those lenses are huge!_

 

The 70-200VR was so darn heavy my arm hurt after 15 minutes of holding it up. Imagine that, plus a SB900 and a MB-D10. How ridiculously heavy would the rig be?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Look at what I found today! It turns out my next door neighbour used to be an avid photography during her student days. She's got a Nikon F2, motor drive and a bunch of AI lenses and 500mm Sigma mirror too. But _this_ is a thing of beauty! Apart from the brassing, the optics are in perfect condition. Absolutely no dust, scratches, mold or fungus!

*Photos taken with a AF-D 35mm f/2. A superb lens indeed!*


























 It turns out there are many of my parent's friends who used to be avid photographers when they were young. I'm hoping I can stumble on some nice AI(-S) lenses
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_(looking for 35/1.4 and 28/2!)_


----------



## bloodydoorknob

That's one awesome find Milk.


----------



## stuartr

Man, those gold Leicas are ghastly! The late 70s/early 80s were not a great time for design, were they...it will take great pictures though.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Man, those gold Leicas are ghastly! The late 70s/early 80s were not a great time for design, were they...it will take great pictures though._

 

It looks tailor-made to be a part of "pimp my ride." A more pompous and all-out silly camera, I could hardly imagine. If I saw someone actually out taking pictures with that, I'd probably laugh 'til my pants fell off!


----------



## dj_mocok

Your white balance is way off on those Leica shots Milk.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It looks tailor-made to be a part of "pimp my ride." A more pompous and all-out silly camera, I could hardly imagine. If I saw someone actually out taking pictures with that, I'd probably laugh 'til my pants fell off!_

 

You'll be surprised to know that this camera was actually used. Rather that than stuck in its wooden box 100% of the time, right?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your white balance is way off on those Leica shots Milk. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Cut me some slack, will ya?


----------



## screwdriver

question here : 
 when the nikon D200 was first introduced it was about $1699 (body)and now they are sellng like $979.

 i have a nikon D70 and i can snap up a nikon D200 body right now but im not at that point where i need the upgrade yet 

 im wondering how long before we see the nikon D300 go lower as to price of a body sat $1000-$1200


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_question here : 
 when the nikon D200 was first introduced it was about $1699 (body)and now they are sellng like $979.

 i have a nikon D70 and i can snap up a nikon D200 body right now but im not at that point where i need the upgrade yet 

 im wondering how long before we see the nikon D300 go lower as to price of a body sat $1000-$1200_

 

Gotta wait for the next D300 style with an FX sensor.
 6-12 months?


----------



## ozz

Now I have heard it all Nikon has a flash that firmware upgradable the
 sb-900.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_question here : 
 when the nikon D200 was first introduced it was about $1699 (body)and now they are sellng like $979.

 i have a nikon D70 and i can snap up a nikon D200 body right now but im not at that point where i need the upgrade yet 

 im wondering how long before we see the nikon D300 go lower as to price of a body sat $1000-$1200_

 

Well, as cameras have now effectively become computer technology, there will always be a "next big thing" to wait for, and prices on "outdated" gear will be dropping. Trying to get the best of the situation, one would end up never buying anything.

 Depending on what you shoot, the difference between a D200 and D300 would be quite significant, or marginal at best. Either will be a large upgrade from a D70 (I used to use a D70s). You just have to ask yourself if you'd rather have a D200 now, or a D300 in 12-18 months at the same price.


----------



## bigshot

The difference between the D70 and D200 is mostly build quality and features. The image quality will be pretty much the same. The D200 is a great camera. That's what I shoot with.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## tldoxmf87

I always loved the Nikon FM2N and F3 film cameras.. I once owned them but had to let them go to buy my first DSLR.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The difference between the D70 and D200 is mostly build quality and features. The image quality will be pretty much the same. The D200 is a great camera. That's what I shoot with.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

The D40, D50, D70, etc. use the same sensor, but the D80/200 sensor is different enough that I think a quality difference would be noticable. You'd get MORE of a difference investing in glass as always, but there'd be a difference nonetheless.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D40, D50, D70, etc. use the same sensor_

 

Are you 100% sure of that?


----------



## nineohtoo

If it is that's weird. I think the D70's sensor sucks at high ISOs. I sold my D70s for a D50 because of it.


----------



## Braver

I believe the image processor (signal amplifiers, noise reduction circuits, etc) has more to do with the IQ when it comes to ISO performance. I don't think Sony would have actually designed different 6MP sensors. Rather, the sensors may very well be the same (as in, bought from Sony in a huge batch), but they may be tweaked differently. There are other brands using the same sensors, but even the RAW data will be different because they tweak them differently, put slightly different UV/IR/antialias-filters on top, etc. 
 Still, I don't have any evidence they're the same, but that's what I got from reading around


----------



## nineohtoo

^Makes sense. Nonetheless I shoot Canon now. My story is in the Canon post.


----------



## Towert7

Didn't the D50 have one of the last Nikon sensors before they switched over to Sony? I thought I read that somewhere. Maybe I'm wrong?


----------



## Braver

"Sensor manufacturer Sony " according to DPreview. Then again, manufacturing is not the same as designing. Does it really matter though? The stuff they put into these things come from all over the place and it's hard to tell which factory belongs to which brand.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Braver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I believe the image processor (signal amplifiers, noise reduction circuits, etc) has more to do with the IQ when it comes to ISO performance. I don't think Sony would have actually designed different 6MP sensors. Rather, the sensors may very well be the same (as in, bought from Sony in a huge batch), but they may be tweaked differently. There are other brands using the same sensors, but even the RAW data will be different because they tweak them differently, put slightly different UV/IR/antialias-filters on top, etc. 
 Still, I don't have any evidence they're the same, but that's what I got from reading around 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yeah, I thought the D100, D70, D50, D70s, and D40 all used the same basic 6MP sensor, just with different supporting casts.


----------



## coolshot

is there an equivalent to the 100-400L for nikon?


----------



## lan

The 80-400VR?


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 80-400VR?_

 

I haven't used the 100-400 but the 80-400 from Nikon isn't all that special really. In the end it gets the job done; its just not a _great_ lens.


----------



## lan

Well they cost about the same, both have image stabilization, both around the same zoom range, and are the same speed (4.5-5.6). So I consider them equivalents.

 As for actual performance, I've never used either so can't comment on them.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I haven't used the 100-400 but the 80-400 from Nikon isn't all that special really. In the end it gets the job done; its just not a great lens._

 

I wonder how fast it auto-focuses. Moving heavy glass from 80 to 400 can't be an easy task for any AF motor.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wonder how fast it auto-focuses. Moving heavy glass from 80 to 400 can't be an easy task for any AF motor._

 

Hm? Your hand moves things from 80 to 400mm. It's 4.5-5.6 which is not really heavy glass. All the mega primes and something like 200 2.0 all are very fast in AF. The 80-400 is kind of old though. 5.6 also doesn't help the AF system which needs to think longer as opposed to a 2.8 lens.


----------



## milkpowder

Oh yeah. I've mixed things up haven't I


----------



## Ruahrc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *coolshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_is there an equivalent to the 100-400L for nikon?_

 

Nikon has a 200-400mm f/4 VR. It's a gold-ring lens (sort of equivalent to Canon's L line) but I think it is very expensive. However it's a fantastic lens from what I hear.

 Ruahrc


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ruahrc* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nikon has a 200-400mm f/4 VR. It's a gold-ring lens (sort of equivalent to Canon's L line) but I think it is very expensive. However it's a fantastic lens from what I hear.

 Ruahrc_

 

I always read that the 200-400 is amazing, but it's also >$5,000.


----------



## Ruahrc

Yeah thinking back on it I think the previous posters are correct, the 80-400 f4.5-f5.6 VR is really the equivalent of Canon's 100-400L, with the 200-400 f/4 being in the class above. The speed and price of the 100-400L and 80-400VR are equivalent.

 Despite what some here have said, I believe the 80-400 is a very good lens, the only drawback with it being that it is not AF-S which means it does not have the silent autofocusing and instead uses the screw drive to focus the lens.

 The noise is not so much the issue but rather the screw drive. This makes it slower and so if you're trying to shoot very fast action it might not keep up. There have been many a cry from Nikon enthusiasts to upgrade this lens to AF-S.

 Ruahrc


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ruahrc* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 The noise is not so much the issue but rather the screw drive. This makes it slower and so if you're trying to shoot very fast action it might not keep up. There have been many a cry from Nikon enthusiasts to upgrade this lens to AF-S.

 Ruahrc_

 

Just as a heads up, some screw drive systems are _very_ fast. Don't knock it just because it's screw drive, because that means nothing.


----------



## Arainach

SOME screw-drives are fast. The 80-400 is not. It's unbearably slow, really.


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Anyone got experience with the old Sigma 90mm macro APO lense? I am wondering whether it is a good purchase second hand.

 I want to get a macro lense for my review shots because the 24-120 nikkor I have is a PITA to use for close ups.

 Thanks!


----------



## bigshot

I don't have that Sigma, but I have Tokina's 100mm f2.8 macro and it's great. If you run across one, give it a try. It doubles as a portraiture lens.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## meat01

Most of the fixed macro lenses are very sharp.


----------



## kugino

so i've seen pics and rumors on the d90...any guess on the price?


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Thanks for the quick replies guys, I think I am going to take him up on his offer.


----------



## Hayduke

Hi guys

 I'm planning to buy a DSLR, but not for a few months at least. In the meantime, I'm trying to do some research to decide what I want. So I have a question for the folks on this thread...

 Why did you choose Nikon?

 My understanding is that Nikon is highly regarded due to the huge number of high quality lenses available. It seems to me however, that their bodies are more expensive with less features when compared to Canon or Olympus.

 I used to use a Canon 35mm film SLR, but I don't have any "good" lenses. So I'm open to any manufacturer. I've been using a little Nikon P&S for a couple years, but it just can't do the things I want it to do. I'm missing the control I had with my SLR. I hated dealing with film, so I want to regain the functionality of the SLR with the convenience of digital.

 Nikon has a good reputation in the photography world, but when I start looking at the products, I don't understand why. I'm not trying to knock them or anything. I'm just trying to understand why I would want to buy a Nikon instead of Canon (or maybe Olympus).

 Thanks in advance for your advice


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kugino* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_so i've seen pics and rumors on the d90...any guess on the price?_

 

My guess:
 If it has an FX sensor, 1800$us.
 If it has a DX sensor, 1000$us.

 Of course, it's always hard to get new bodies the first couple of months after their release.


----------



## kugino

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My guess:
 If it has an FX sensor, 1800$us.
 If it has a DX sensor, 1000$us.

 Of course, it's always hard to get new bodies the first couple of months after their release._

 

i'm guessing it will have a DX sensor...but with all these video features, etc., you think it will be "only" $1000? i've held off on grabbing the d300...though a step below the d300, the d90 would be more commensurate with my skill level and uses, methinks.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm just trying to understand why I would want to buy a Nikon instead of Canon (or maybe Olympus)._

 

Ken Rockwell points out on his site that Nikon's are designed for quick shots using automatic settings- the sorts of things news and adventure type photographers need; while the Canon is set up for more static sorts of photography where you have the time to tweak your settings and go for the ultimate image quality.

 My point and shoot is an Olympus and my DSLR is a Nikon. But I'm sure I would have been just as happy with Canon. There are a lot of great cameras. The best reason to buy one over another is if you already have lenses.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ken Rockwell points out on his site that Nikon's are designed for quick shots using automatic settings- the sorts of things news and adventure type photographers need; while the Canon is set up for more static sorts of photography where you have the time to tweak your settings and go for the ultimate image quality.

 My point and shoot is an Olympus and my DSLR is a Nikon. But I'm sure I would have been just as happy with Canon. There are a lot of great cameras. The best reason to buy one over another is if you already have lenses.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

The D300 was on the top of my wishlist (well, other than the D3, and now the D700), but was simply out of my budget. I went first with a Canon XSi and then switched that out for a Canon 40D. I _love_ the 40D, and have many basics still to learn about composition and camera, but can't deny that I still drool at the thought of the D300 (and D700).

 Some cat at the Highland Games was shooting next to me with a D3 this past weekend, and I was probably staring more at his camera than taking photos with mine. LOL.


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ken Rockwell points out on his site that Nikon's are designed for quick shots using automatic settings- the sorts of things news and adventure type photographers need; while the Canon is set up for more static sorts of photography where you have the time to tweak your settings and go for the ultimate image quality._

 

Ken Rockwell is lying. That simply isn't true.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ken Rockwell points out on his site that Nikon's are designed for quick shots using automatic settings- the sorts of things news and adventure type photographers need; while the Canon is set up for more static sorts of photography where you have the time to tweak your settings and go for the ultimate image quality.

 My point and shoot is an Olympus and my DSLR is a Nikon. But I'm sure I would have been just as happy with Canon. There are a lot of great cameras. The best reason to buy one over another is if you already have lenses.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Thanks for the response! I'll have to lookup his site. Never heard of him 

 I have a couple lenses for my Canon 35mm SLR, but I don't think they are anything special. Certainly not enough to influence a brand decision. It has a 50mm (probly kit lens) and a big zoom that I always thought took mediocre pictures, but that could have been me 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D300 was on the top of my wishlist (well, other than the D3, and now the D700), but was simply out of my budget. I went first with a Canon XSi and then switched that out for a Canon 40D. I love the 40D, and have many basics still to learn about composition and camera, but can't deny that I still drool at the thought of the D300 (and D700).

 Some cat at the Highland Games was shooting next to me with a D3 this past weekend, and I was probably staring more at his camera than taking photos with mine. LOL._

 

So you had the XSi and like the 40D better? Right now, the XSi is at the top of my list, but I don't plan to buy anything for a couple months, so that will likely change 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ken Rockwell is lying. That simply isn't true._

 

So then why should I buy a Nikon?

 I've heard it's because they have the best optics, but it seems to me that the high end lenses from other brands are as good or better. The other good reason I've heard to get a Nikon is the availability of rental gear. So I would have a better chance of being able to rent a lens for a special occasion. Nobody where I live rents camera equipment (at least that I have been able to find).


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So then why should I buy a Nikon?_

 

The same reason why you should buy into any camera system - their ergonomics and lens line-up. Nikon have hundreds of lenses available for their F-mount and the ergonomics are simply top notch.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So then why should I buy a Nikon?
_

 

Ha!
 Make up your own mind for what to buy.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ken Rockwell is lying. That simply isn't true._

 

It is true in my opinion also. Nikon's better metering, better flash, auto-iso = better auto camera.

 Hayduke,

 If you take a look at specs, it doesn't actually mean anything. The performance of the camera depends on your ability to push yourself and it to the limits and your own personal take on what's "good".

 Do you know your photographic intentions? That can dictate what tools you should use.


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My guess:
 If it has an FX sensor, 1800$us.
 If it has a DX sensor, 1000$us._

 

I'm thinking it will be a DX sensor, but would love it if it were a FX sensor.

 Both Canon and Nikon are going that way and I imagine it would be easier to design and support one sensor size. It would be nice if Nikon made a bold advance over Canon and start the switch to full frame. We shall see what they have planned at Photokina.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mightyacorn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm thinking it will be a DX sensor, but would love it if it were a FX sensor.

 Both Canon and Nikon are going that way and I imagine it would be easier to design and support one sensor size. It would be nice if Nikon made a bold advance over Canon and start the switch to full frame. We shall see what they have planned at Photokina._

 

My hunch, if I know Nikon ( 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ), is that the D90 will be DX. Their upgrade to the D90 though, will be FX. The D60 type I do not see switching over to FX, especially since they don't put an AF motor in the body.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ken Rockwell is lying. That simply isn't true._

 

A lie is something that someone knows isn't true, but they say anyway. Exactly what does Ken Rockwell saying that he knows isn't true?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A lie is something that someone knows isn't true, but they say anyway. Exactly what does Ken Rockwell saying that he knows isn't true?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

That Nikon's are more optimised for action shots - auto modes are pretty much identical across both brands.. What the hell are all those pros sports photogs doing with their Canon 1D's then?


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is true in my opinion also. Nikon's better metering, better flash, auto-iso = better auto camera.

 Hayduke,

 If you take a look at specs, it doesn't actually mean anything. The performance of the camera depends on your ability to push yourself and it to the limits and your own personal take on what's "good".

 Do you know your photographic intentions? That can dictate what tools you should use._

 

I primarily like to take nature shots. I am an avid hiker. My dogs and I head out into the forest almost every evening. A couple times a year I like to go on multi-day backpacking trips. Usually we head to the mountains--although we're heading into the giant hole north of here(Flagstaff, AZ) in September--so large landscapes are a pretty common subject for me. I also enjoy stitching together many shots into large panoramas using the computer. Here is an example: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I realize I lost a little on the corners, but I didn't want to crop it any further. It looks really good printed on paper 28" tall. I think it's about 9 ft long 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My reason for wanting a DSLR is because that's about all this CoolPix can do well. I really want to do macro photography and nice wide angle shots from unusual angles and such. I try them with the P&S, but they never come out like what I'm envisioning. P&S cameras don't offer any control over DoF or exposure.

 Another interest is HDR images. This area seems like it would fit well with the aspects of photography I like. The shots are usually a landscape/cityscape of some kind, and then there is post processing work on the PC. Some of the examples I've seen are stunning.

 Of course I'll also want to be able to take portraits, but I realize that different subjects need different lenses. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Basically I'm trying to figure out why when I compare equivalent Nikon and Canon DSLR bodies, the Nikons are more expensive. While I don't believe that more expensive is _always_ better, most of the time there is a reason they cost more (let's not bring Bose into the discussion please hehe). Nikon must be offering something to justify the higher prices. Is it the lenses available?

 In regards to lenses then, is there really a big difference between them? My plan is to save up some money and buy higher quality lenses, ie fast (2.8 at least), fixed aperture, sharp, low aberration etc. So if I'm buying the high end lenses for either brand of camera, are they really any different?

 My plan is to buy a decent DSLR body and then start collecting nice lenses. Once I have most of the lenses, flashes, other "stuff" I find myself needing, I'll consider upgrading the body. My theory is the lens technology won't change as much as the body. I always hear people saying how much they love their Nikons, but when I read reviews, the Canons seem to offer more for the money.

 Nikon has "better metering, better flash, auto-iso". How can it have a better flash? I thought Canon did better then Nikon with high ISO digital imaging. I like the idea of good metering. Even though I want more control over the picture, I tended to shoot my 35mm camera in AP mode mostly. I liked to play with DoF, but I can't do that with the P&S.

 Sorry to sort of hijack this thread and make all these long posts, but I figure this is the group that should know why I should choose Nikon over Canon. I know these sorts of loyalties can get sensitive, so please don't take any offense to anything I say. Most likely it is just coming out of my own ignorance


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That Nikon's are more optimised for action shots - auto modes are pretty much identical across both brands.. What the hell are all those pros sports photogs doing with their Canon 1D's then?_

 

Sports is only one type of photography and not as challenging as the other ones.

 I believe people chose the 1D's because of the lenses. Canon's mega telephotos with IS are excellent, cheaper, and more available.

 There's plenty more to action than sports and we're not only talking only the pro body range.

 Auto modes are not identical and that is from my experience.


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sports is only one type of photography and not as challenging as the other ones._

 

Sports photography involves changing lighting conditions. If Canon's auto modes were inferior to Nikon's (metering plays a large role in this), then Canon wouldn't be #1 in that area - regardless of their lens lineup. Canons practically perform every bit as well as Nikons and vice versa. What Ken Rockwell said was very inaccurate and it's sites like his that lead to many myths being perpetuated.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I primarily like to take nature shots.

 I really want to do macro photography and nice wide angle shots from unusual angles and such.

 Another interest is HDR images.

 Basically I'm trying to figure out why when I compare equivalent Nikon and Canon DSLR bodies, the Nikons are more expensive.

 In regards to lenses then, is there really a big difference between them?

 Nikon has "better metering, better flash, auto-iso". How can it have a better flash? I thought Canon did better then Nikon with high ISO digital imaging._

 

Canon's body's tend to have better high ISO and better detail retention. For nature, that can be nice to have. But that means little as you're dealing with a system. If you're underexposed, the image will the noisy regardless when pushed up. If your lens isn't focal aligned perfect, you won't be getting maximal detail either.

 If you like wide, the Canon 5D is nice and it's the lowest full frame option. Although it's an old camera, you don't need much for nature shots or macro as everything is manual and/or slow paced. Of course how wide you want to go is up to you. Any of the zoom lenses which start at 10 to 12mm is fine for many people on crop bodies in case 5D is still too expensive.

 When I say better flash I mean flash metering not literally the unit.

 HDR can be done with any camera that you have full manual control of.

 I believe Nikon has better stabilization in their lenses. As for the lenses themselves, I wouldn't worry THAT much about them unless you're willing to spend a LOT. I think Nikon's latest zooms are excellent, 14-24 and 24-70. There are excellent 3rd party lenses for either Canon or Nikon which are good.

 Nikon's can use old lenses if the body has AF motor. Canon has pro level f/4.0 zooms (17-40, 24-105, 70-200) which are rather attractive and priced okay. You save yourself the cost and the weight especially if you're going to shoot f8 and greater anyway.

 I just use both. Problem solved.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sports photography involves changing lighting conditions. If Canon's auto modes were inferior to Nikon's (metering plays a large role in this), then Canon wouldn't be #1 in that area - regardless of their lens lineup. Canons practically perform every bit as well as Nikons and vice versa. What Ken Rockwell said was very inaccurate and it's sites like his that lead to many myths being perpetuated._

 

If you don't have competition, you'll be #1 by default. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They're riding on history and their great lens selection in mega telephoto range. There was a time when Nikon wasn't doing so well. Don't assume there can't be better now.

 You're not going to convince me since I've shot thousands of photos and know the results. What Ken Rockwell is saying in this particular case is something I agree with. I've owned, rented, or gotten my friends P&S, consumer, medium, and pro level DSLR cameras for both and that is my observation.


----------



## Towert7

Just picked up a Nikon 80-200 F/4.5n on Ebay.
 It's quite an interesting lens!
 So sad my D50 can not meter with it. Perhaps if I ever get a D300/D700/D3 I'll have more fun with it.

 From what I've seen so far though, it's quite the lens.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Hayduke, try to find a local camera store that rents cameras. Rent a Nikon and canon in your price range, along with a 35mm f/2 lens for both of them. See which one seems more natural to you, better in your hands, whatever.

 Nikon and Canon cameras are extremely similar...they match each other pretty well. Right now, Nikon is leading on the "low-end" FF market, ie. the D700 vs. 5D. Nikon and Canon glass is extremely similar, too. None is better than the other, they're just different.

 Now, Canon does have the 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.2, which Nikon lacks. And another lens or two, but Nikon has the 14-24mm f/2.8. Etc.

 The camera matters ****. Don't worry about it. Instead of getting a camera right now, why not get a couple of books about art, lighting, composition, etc. I've found that books like that always help my photography more than a new lens or body.

 On another note, I'm considering trying some macro photography. I was thinking of getting that AF-D 105mm macro lens and a teleconverter, but, I remembered macro bellows...Anyone care to explain macro bellows vs. macro lens? Thanks...


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hayduke, try to find a local camera store that rents cameras. Rent a Nikon and canon in your price range, along with a 35mm f/2 lens for both of them. See which one seems more natural to you, better in your hands, whatever.

 Nikon and Canon cameras are extremely similar...they match each other pretty well. Right now, Nikon is leading on the "low-end" FF market, ie. the D700 vs. 5D. Nikon and Canon glass is extremely similar, too. None is better than the other, they're just different.

 Now, Canon does have the 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.2, which Nikon lacks. And another lens or two, but Nikon has the 14-24mm f/2.8. Etc.

 The camera matters ****. Don't worry about it. Instead of getting a camera right now, why not get a couple of books about art, lighting, composition, etc. I've found that books like that always help my photography more than a new lens or body.

 On another note, I'm considering trying some macro photography. I was thinking of getting that AF-D 105mm macro lens and a teleconverter, but, I remembered macro bellows...Anyone care to explain macro bellows vs. macro lens? Thanks..._

 

Thanks for the advice 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I did look around locally, and I can't find anyone that rents equipment 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 The good news is, my daughter-in-law has a Canon 350D (Rebel XT) that she is letting me "play" with. She only has the kit lens, but I figure I can use the lenses from my AE1 Program. This of course doesn't really help me decide Nikon vs Canon 

 I'm not really buying a "new" body. This would be the first. I have no DSLR body atm. I got a deal on my old film camera, so I never really thought about which camp to join. Even though I own a Canon, I had always wondered what I was missing with Nikon. Since I don't have thousands of $$ invested in Canon lenses, I'm taking this opportunity to put some thought into which brand to choose.

 This isn't a criticism, but I was expecting a very quick answer to "why Nikon?" I guess it's not an easy quesiton huh? lol 

 Right now, it's looking like there isn't a huge difference between them. I do see that, in regards to the level of body I'm looking at, Canon offers more for the money. My focus of research the last few days has shifted to lenses. I'll see which camp has the lenses I think I will like better.

 It really does suck that nobody local rents gear. It would make it soo much easier to decide 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I guess that's the price I pay for living in a "small" town.

 In regards to the books and such. I'm way ahead of you. I studied a lot about photography in college when I was using the 35mm camera. Great suggestion though, thanks


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This isn't a criticism, but I was expecting a very quick answer to "why Nikon?" I guess it's not an easy quesiton huh? lol _

 

Exactly!
 Not even the pros have a consensus of which is better. Watching the Olympics, I see some with D3's, and some with Canon 1D's.

 To be honest, canon has a few things going for it that nikon does not. And to be even more honest, Nikon has a few things going for it that canon does not. Your job is to find out these differences and see which will impact your more on a daily basis and what is more important to you. 

 What I've discovered is that Canon has a few more exotic lenses still in productions (85mm F/1.2, 50mm F/1.2). If price is a big thing though, this is a moot point because these lenses are PRICEY!
 They also have one or two more budget (yet still good) lenses like the 17-40L F/4 or the 70-200 F/4 L for a nice price. With nikon, you don't have these options, and instead you can choose between their more budget lenses, or their more professional lenses. On the other hand, Nikon has a nice little 18-200VR lens that canon doesn't seem to have, though it's DX.
 Depending on what you want, this could range from nothing important to very important.

 I've also discovered that the Nikons are much more comfortable for me to operate and hold in my hand compared to all of the Canons I've used (especially the 40D brick). That alone was enough to sway me to get a nikon. It just feels more professional and better built. It's also easier for me to operate the camera without the need for me to take my eye off the camera. For some people this doesn't matter, but for others it's a very important thing.

 And of course there are differences in terms of viewfinders, LCD's, menus, AF speed, sound, etc.

 Find a local mom and pop camera store and try them out (don't need to rent them). You'll be amazed what just 30 minutes holding each camera will tell you that looking online Never will!

 Either way though, both Canon and Nikon are great companies, and you really can't go wrong with either. It's simply up to personal preference.

 And to be honest, no matter which you pick, there will be days you wish you went with the other brand. ^_^
 If I were to start all over again, I'd still go Nikon. I'd get the D80 and a nice lens and start there. Great camera.

 Keep us posted on what you discover.


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you don't have competition, you'll be #1 by default. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They're riding on history and their great lens selection in mega telephoto range. There was a time when Nikon wasn't doing so well. Don't assume there can't be better now._

 

I seriously doubt that even the D3 offers a practical advantage over the 1D MKIII - Canon and Nikon are very, very close from a technological aspect.

 Besides it's a moot point since any photographer worth his salt would use Manual or Aperture priority 99% of the time anyway.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I seriously doubt that even the D3 offers a practical advantage over the 1D MKIII - Canon and Nikon are very, very close from a technological aspect.

 Besides it's a moot point since any photographer worth his salt would use Manual or Aperture priority 99% of the time anyway. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It's about usability.

 As for full automatic, I'm not speaking of a camera mode but how you use them even in Aperture Priority. There's more fiddling with the Canon.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Exactly!
 Not even the pros have a consensus of which is better. Watching the Olympics, I see some with D3's, and some with Canon 1D's.

 To be honest, canon has a few things going for it that nikon does not. And to be even more honest, Nikon has a few things going for it that canon does not. Your job is to find out these differences and see which will impact your more on a daily basis and what is more important to you. 

 What I've discovered is that Canon has a few more exotic lenses still in productions (85mm F/1.2, 50mm F/1.2). If price is a big thing though, this is a moot point because these lenses are PRICEY!
 They also have one or two more budget (yet still good) lenses like the 17-40L F/4 or the 70-200 F/4 L for a nice price. With nikon, you don't have these options, and instead you can choose between their more budget lenses, or their more professional lenses. On the other hand, Nikon has a nice little 18-200VR lens that canon doesn't seem to have, though it's DX.
 Depending on what you want, this could range from nothing important to very important.

 I've also discovered that the Nikons are much more comfortable for me to operate and hold in my hand compared to all of the Canons I've used (especially the 40D brick). That alone was enough to sway me to get a nikon. It just feels more professional and better built. It's also easier for me to operate the camera without the need for me to take my eye off the camera. For some people this doesn't matter, but for others it's a very important thing.

 And of course there are differences in terms of viewfinders, LCD's, menus, AF speed, sound, etc.

 Find a local mom and pop camera store and try them out (don't need to rent them). You'll be amazed what just 30 minutes holding each camera will tell you that looking online Never will!

 Either way though, both Canon and Nikon are great companies, and you really can't go wrong with either. It's simply up to personal preference.

 And to be honest, no matter which you pick, there will be days you wish you went with the other brand. ^_^
 If I were to start all over again, I'd still go Nikon. I'd get the D80 and a nice lens and start there. Great camera.

 Keep us posted on what you discover._

 

Thanks Towert7

 I'll go fondle a Nikon at the mall. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 The only camera store we have in Flagstaff is a Ritz camera


----------



## Towert7

I mentioned that I picked up a very good condition Nikkor 80-200 F/4.5n AI lens. I took a few pictures of it.














 It's very light for what it is. Close to 750g, which is about half as light as the current 80-200 and 70-200VR. I had read that the zoom on it is very light and fast, and it sure is! I'm also amazed at how precise the focusing is with it, especially compared to all of the AF lenses I've used. It almost makes a full turn.

 Interesting little lens. The shots I've taken with it so far have come out real nice and very sharp! I'm going to keep fooling around with it, weather permitting.


----------



## dj_mocok

85 bucks you bought it for, did you say? That's a damn steal, look at the quality of that lens.


----------



## flashnolan

Can anyone recommend a nice macro lens for my D40? What kind of a price range am I looking at? I want to be able to take some close focal shots of spiders, etc.


----------



## dj_mocok

If static object, get a used macro Ai/Ais lenses, it's really affordable and they are very well made. But the thing is with D40 I am not sure if you can easily manual focus with that small viewfinder. So maybe newer AF lenses suit you better.

 If moving objects (not much time to focus around), most lenses even third party ones they generally perform really well. Get Tamron or Sigma if you don't want to pay premium. They are still great if you can get over the "third party" notion.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_85 bucks you bought it for, did you say? That's a damn steal, look at the quality of that lens._

 

81$ for the lens, totaling 89$ with shipping. It was a steal.

 Sadly, it didn't come with any box or papers, but that's ok.
 Thankfully the lens elements are in perfect shape, no mold, and everything is smooth as butter. Aside from a nick or two on the body, it's in amazing shape. The serial number is the highest I've ever seen, so it isn't too 'old'.

 The person I bought it from really didn't know what they had. You could tell from the pictures of it that they were not the photographer who used this lens. I asked what version it was, and they had no clue. Thankfully, others asked the same thing and got the same answer so there wasn't much interest in it.


----------



## flashnolan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If static object, get a used macro Ai/Ais lenses, it's really affordable and they are very well made. But the thing is with D40 I am not sure if you can easily manual focus with that small viewfinder. So maybe newer AF lenses suit you better.

 If moving objects (not much time to focus around), most lenses even third party ones they generally perform really well. Get Tamron or Sigma if you don't want to pay premium. They are still great if you can get over the "third party" notion._

 

Should I trust eBay or do you know a good place to pickup a nice used lens?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *flashnolan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can anyone recommend a nice macro lens for my D40? What kind of a price range am I looking at? I want to be able to take some close focal shots of spiders, etc._

 

I would recommended the Nikkor 60mm Micro AF-S, which will work on your D40 perfectly. It's nice and cheap at about 480$. The only reservation, is that it's a 60mm, which means you need to get pretty close. Some spiders are really small! Because of this you may want a longer focal length.

 If you can splurge, I would look into the Nikkor Micro 105mm AF-S.

 If you're feeling gutsy, you could try a third party lens such as the:
 Tokina 100mm Macro,
 Sigma 105mm Macro,
 Sigma 150mm Macro,
 Tamron 180mm Macro.

 You'll have to double check that they will Auto Focus on your D40 though (which some may not).


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *flashnolan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Should I trust eBay or do you know a good place to pickup a nice used lens?_

 

I personally would never trust E-bay. I would only use E-bay for a gamble.
 You could be buying something from someone who doesn't even know what mold inside the lens looks like.

 Check with your local mom and pop camera shops. Some of them may sell used gear. Some may even specialize in used gear.

 You could also look at other forums specializing in photography, such as nikonians.com 
 Buying from a user there may be a bit safer than someone on e-bay.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *flashnolan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can anyone recommend a nice macro lens for my D40? What kind of a price range am I looking at? I want to be able to take some close focal shots of spiders, etc._

 

I'm afraid it isn't going to be cheap. I think the only lenses that will autofocus on the d40 are the Sigma 150mm 2.8 HSM and the Nikon AF-S 105mm 2.8 VR.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## flashnolan

What is wrong with manual lenses? I don't mind focusing with my hand on the lens. Yes, auto focus is nice, but when one myself for example am taking a picture of something up close it is a shot I have time to develop. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm afraid it isn't going to be cheap. I think the only lenses that will autofocus on the d40 are the Sigma 150mm 2.8 HSM and the Nikon AF-S 105mm 2.8 VR.

 See ya
 Steve_


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *flashnolan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What is wrong with manual lenses? I don't mind focusing with my hand on the lens. Yes, auto focus is nice, but when one myself for example am taking a picture of something up close it is a shot I have time to develop._

 

Only thing is that the D40 has a small viewfinder, so it will be hard to get pinpoint focus sometimes. Other than that though, I agree, using manual focus on macro is very helpful.
 I'd still look at the Nikon 105mm Micro AF-S VR.
 If you need macro on a budget and can live with 60mm, check out the 60mm Micro AF-S for 480$, or the AF-D for 400$.
 Can't go wrong with either.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *flashnolan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What is wrong with manual lenses? I don't mind focusing with my hand on the lens. Yes, auto focus is nice, but when one myself for example am taking a picture of something up close it is a shot I have time to develop._

 

Lenses of this focal length are more than just macro lenses. They're also short teles, good for portrait or tabletop shooting. For me, I would want auto focus. If manual focus is OK for you, there are a dozen or more different choices out there. The Tokina that I use has a clutch where you can make it fully manual if you want. That might be a good choice.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## flashnolan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Only thing is that the D40 has a small viewfinder, so it will be hard to get pinpoint focus sometimes. Other than that though, I agree, using manual focus on macro is very helpful.
 I'd still look at the Nikon 105mm Micro AF-S VR.
 If you need macro on a budget and can live with 60mm, check out the 60mm Micro AF-S for 480$, or the AF-D for 400$.
 Can't go wrong with either._

 

Thanks for the advice! I am sure that is a great lens. 

 Can you recommend one for me in the say $100ish range, or is there no such thing as a good lens at that price? I can't justify spending $480 on a lens considering that is what I paid for my D40 + 2 lens' to begin with.


----------



## Poohblah

since were talking about manual lenses. a great place to get used lenses, especially AI mount, is KEH.com. i've bought stuff from them before, and even BGN condition items are great quality. also, i suggest getting a split screen focusing screen from katzeyeoptics.com for much easier manual focusing with your DLSR 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 i have an old nikon F2 that i got from that site, i love it

 the only issue with the aforementioned 60mm f/2.8 AF-D is that it won't autofocus with the D40

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *flashnolan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the advice! I am sure that is a great lens. 

 Can you recommend one for me in the say $100ish range, or is there no such thing as a good lens at that price? I can't justify spending $480 on a lens considering that is what I paid for my D40 + 2 lens' to begin with._

 

the easiest way to get macro for $100 is a 50mm f/1.8 and a reversing ring - http://www.adorama.com/NKBR2A.html
 of course this means you can only focus by moving the camera, but you'll add a nifty fifty to your camera bag

 other options include some macro add-on lenses, these work great on a budget


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would recommended the Nikkor 60mm Micro AF-S, which will work on your D40 perfectly. It's nice and cheap at about 480$. The only reservation, is that it's a 60mm, which means you need to get pretty close. Some spiders are really small! Because of this you may want a longer_

 

Getting close is the whole point of micro lenses. At a 1.5x crop, that 60mm lens is a 90mm lens (film) which is pretty powerful for macro photography.


----------



## Arainach

Actually, 60mm for macro isn't much at all. For reference, with the 60mm macro, at closest focus the front of the lens is about 2" from the subject. Not much working room at all, and will scare away anything living. A 105mm or 150mm macro will give you the ability to work from considerably farther back, which is invaluable.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mightyacorn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Getting close is the whole point of micro lenses. At a 1.5x crop, that 60mm lens is a 90mm lens (film) which is pretty powerful for macro photography._

 

Right, it's not bad, but for me it's not ideal for some situations.
 And of course extension tubes can be used.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *flashnolan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the advice! I am sure that is a great lens. 

 Can you recommend one for me in the say $100ish range, or is there no such thing as a good lens at that price? I can't justify spending $480 on a lens considering that is what I paid for my D40 + 2 lens' to begin with._

 

Sadly, almost no DSLR lenses are 100$ new, much less 300$. Almost any lens will be more expensive than the D40. 

 Having said that though, the 18-55mm Nikon kit lens does very good for close up photography, though it is not a true macro lens. With it you get near macro functionality. For 100$, that's the best you can hope for from a new lens. Starting off with the kit 18-55mm lens, you can then fool around with things like front lens diopters or extension tubes.
 Examples:
B+W | 52mm Close-up NL +4 Glass Lens | 65015357 | B&H Photo Video
Kenko | Auto Extension Tube Set DG for Nikon Lens | AEXTUBEDGN

 Which will take a basic 55mm and push it to the macro end of things.

 That'll be a much more 'tidy' way of doing macro on a budget without the need for reversing lenses.


----------



## Samgotit

Flash, as Towert suggested, you are a prime candidate for extension tubes given your budget. 

 I bought mine from Hong Kong off Ebay:

Kenko Auto (Macro) Extension Tube Set DG for Nikon New - eBay (item 170248616072 end time Aug-15-08 04:28:55 PDT)

 You can use them with either of the lenses you have now. If and when you want to upgrade to a true macro lens, they don't become obsolete. There's no actual optics in them, so they won't degrade lens performance.


----------



## J.D.N

Does anyone have any hands on experience with the 10.5mm fish eye? Id really like to experiment with it, not just for landscapes but for 'arty' closer up shots with really bent lines etc. The only problem i can see is i would have to manually focus it all the time as i have a D40x. 

 Not sure whether it would be a wise purchase, considering the re-sale value might be a big loss.


----------



## bigshot

Focus isn't a problem with fisheyes. They have a tremendous depth of field. A lot of them are fixed focus anyway. Resale value isn't a problem either. Nikon fisheyes usually sell for almost as much used as new.

 The problem with a fisheye is the distortion... The reason pros use fisheyes is mostly to get a 180 degree view for processing into a Quicktime VR panorama. They can be used for "arty" shots like you say, but the distortion is a pretty specific effect. The novelty wears off soon.

 I considered getting a fisheye myself, but instead, I decided to get the Tokina 11-16 2.8. It has a tremendous field of view, but with extremely straight lines. It's much more versatile than a true fisheye and it's razor sharp.

 Ken Rockwell just posted a great article on how to shoot with ultra wides. Great tips on how to get the most out of them. Check it out. How to Use Ultra-Wide Lenses

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Poohblah

lenses tend to have high resale values, so i wouldn't worry about it.
 focusing isn't a problem, so long as there is plenty of light you can use a small aperture and simply zone focus.


 concerning extension tubes: they won't work with the kit lens (18-55) or any other G mount lens for the lack of an aperture ring.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_concerning extension tubes: they won't work with the kit lens (18-55) or any other G mount lens for the lack of an aperture ring._

 

Glad you pointed that out. Thanks poohblah.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ken Rockwell just posted a great article on how to shoot with ultra wides. Great tips on how to get the most out of them. Check it out. How to Use Ultra-Wide Lenses

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Ken Rockwell, my foot. i've never seen a less reliable source of accurate information.


----------



## bigshot

Ken Rockwell is a lightning rod for anger from armchair shutterbugs who would rather shoot test charts than real subjects. People who actually shoot pictures can get lots of great info from his site. The article I linked to has some great examples of better ways to compose shots using an ultra wide. If you plan on shooting pictures with one, you might want to read it.

 He has a good article on the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye and using a sunex circular fisheye to create QT VR panoramas too.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ken Rockwell is a lightning rod for anger from armchair shutterbugs who would rather shoot test charts than real subjects. People who actually shoot pictures can get lots of great info from his site. The article I linked to has some great examples of better ways to compose shots using an ultra wide. If you plan on shooting pictures with one, you might want to read it._

 

are you kidding me? he's the one who shoots brick walls to test his lenses.


----------



## bigshot

Some losers spend their time photographing color test targets, sheets of classified ads, brick walls, resolution patterns, star targets, and anything except something that would result in a decent photo. That's why we all call this the Wall of Shame. Its shameful, since that same time could have been spent photographing something interesting instead of a blank wall or jacking around with test targets. Don't let this happen to you! --Ken Rockwell

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ken Rockwell, my foot. i've never seen a less reliable source of accurate information._

 

I have. President Bush.


----------



## Poohblah

interesting link. whatever.

 my point is that you can't rely on his website for information because it's next to impossible to tell when he's joking or not - he admits himself that he is sarcastic or joking quite often in his articles. there is one other reason i don't like his website, and that is because he insists "you don't need a tripod if you shoot digital" and that wide aperture lenses aren't useful anymore. are you serious? my tripod and 50mm f/1.4 are the best things that ever happened to my photography bag.

 might be a good source of information for the soccer mom photographer, though.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have. President Bush._

 

good point.


----------



## Arainach

He has a point. Tripods and fast glass were absolutely essential when shooting film since (A) you couldn't change your ISO at will and (B) anything much above ISO 200 (400 _maybe_) became grainy and crap. My simple D50 produces very usable results at ISO800, and Nikon's most recent offerings (D300, D700, D3) all have ISO3200 as good as my D50's ISO800. Add in the increasing prevealence of VR and for anything but fast-moving shots, tripods and fast glass become a luxury that 99% of people don't absolutely _need_.


----------



## Poohblah

that's true, yes. but he needn't say that tripods and fast lenses no longer have a place, because that's what he actually says - "throw away your tripod" and "tripods are relics."

 that's, i suppose, what i actually don't like about him - he does have good points in some of his articles, but then he goes on to insist that the way he goes about things applies to everyone. he comes off as very arrogant.


----------



## bigshot

Ken Rockwell's recommendations for good tripods and what applications they are useful for.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_that's true, yes. but he needn't say that tripods and fast lenses no longer have a place, because that's what he actually says - "throw away your tripod" and "tripods are relics."

 that's, i suppose, what i actually don't like about him - he does have good points in some of his articles, but then he goes on to insist that the way he goes about things applies to everyone. he comes off as very arrogant._

 

That's not the message I pull away from his articles.
 I wish there were more people who are as down to earth.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Ken Rockwell has many, many, many good points...and he kids around, a lot. You have to read his stuff carefully, to see if he is being serious or not. He writes stupid crap sometimes, but he can write a lot of good stuff, too.

 He's like the people here who don't obsess and try to be logical about their equipment (like bigshot or monolith).


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wish there were more people who are as down to earth._

 

i could not disagree more. but i'm not going to argue over your opinion, since it is, after all, _your_ opinion.


----------



## Towert7

And why, in the name of all that is good and holy, do Ken Rockwell wars only break out in the Nikon thread and not the canon thread?

 Hm, that alone is enough to warrant canon over nikon. Distance myself from all these crazed fanatics.


----------



## Poohblah

because 95% of what ken rockwell talks about is nikon gear


----------



## bigshot

That Canon 5% is pretty sizeable! not to mention the info on the Canon lenses

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## J.D.N

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Focus isn't a problem with fisheyes. They have a tremendous depth of field. A lot of them are fixed focus anyway. Resale value isn't a problem either. Nikon fisheyes usually sell for almost as much used as new.

 The problem with a fisheye is the distortion... The reason pros use fisheyes is mostly to get a 180 degree view for processing into a Quicktime VR panorama. They can be used for "arty" shots like you say, but the distortion is a pretty specific effect. The novelty wears off soon.

 I considered getting a fisheye myself, but instead, I decided to get the Tokina 11-16 2.8. It has a tremendous field of view, but with extremely straight lines. It's much more versatile than a true fisheye and it's razor sharp.

 Ken Rockwell just posted a great article on how to shoot with ultra wides. Great tips on how to get the most out of them. Check it out. How to Use Ultra-Wide Lenses

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Cheers for the info steve, i may well look into getting something close, but not quite a fisheye. At the moment my only lens, the 18-200 is proving a little restrictive in certain applications. 

 I have read the KR review on the 10.5 FE and will be sure to give the one above a read when ive got some time. 

 Cheers


----------



## Arainach

A fisheye is a rather special purpose lens and not something I'd get unless I had a large pile of other lenses and was looking to waste money.

 What do you find yourself lacking with the 18-200? If you want a good portrait lens consider the 85mm f/1.8 (or the f/1.4 if you can afford it - it's worth the price but it's not cheap). If you're looking to get up close and personal, a good ultrawide like the Tokina 11-16, Tokina 12-24, or Sigma 10-20 could fill the gap nicely. If you're looking for more of an action sports setup, an 80-200 f/2.8 or 70-200VR would do it. It all depends on your needs.

 As for me, I've now got a Tokina 12-24 f/4 on the way. Next on my list of priorities is probably an f/2.8 tele or a macro; the 18-70 AF-S is still holding up great as a "normal" zoom, so I've found no need to really replace it.


----------



## Killswitch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *J.D.N* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i may well look into getting something close, but not quite a fisheye.
 Cheers_

 

The Nikon 12-24mm lens is pretty amazing, having tried my uncle's on a D2X and a Fujifilm S5-Pro. The only problem is that it is DX only and due to the smaller sensor size the lens only provides a 18-36mm 35mm equivalent. The image quality however is very very good.

 Also the price might be a bit much.


----------



## bigshot

The Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 will work for FF at the long end of the zoom. It isn't rated as working with FF, but it does.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 will work for FF at the long end of the zoom. It isn't rated as working with FF, but it does.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Though, if you have the money to splurge on FX you will probably opt to get the real deal with the ultra wide 14-24 or the wide 17-35mm from Nikon.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 will work for FF at the long end of the zoom. It isn't rated as working with FF, but it does.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

True, but it's hard to find right now and when it _is_ found there have been big reports of consistency problems at sites like Nikonians.


----------



## bigshot

Just looked at the Nikonians review. I think they got two lenses from the same box that had been dropped from a great height. They said the lenses they got came from the same source and they both rattled and had loose lens covers on arrival. That sounds like the problem wasn't with the lens, but rather with the shipping. I got mine at Adorama and it is razor sharp and doesn't rattle at all. The auto focus is extremely snappy.

 There is a flickr set of images taken with the Tokina 11-16. That will give you a better idea of how the lens performs than a bunch of test strips on a table. I looked at the Nikonian sample images and they made no sense at all.

Here's a shot I took wide open at night. A little bit of CA in the harsh contrast zone and some graininess from the high ISO, but plenty sharp and contrasty enough for me!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Poohblah

another option is tokina's 12-24mm f/4 which is much cheaper than nikon's 12-24. but if you need that extra stop, than the 11-16 is your lens.

 also you could go for a 14mm f/2.8 lens, of course with this option you lose zoom and the ability to use filters.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
Here's a shot I took wide open at night._

 

I like the girl that's covering her face. Classic.


----------



## bigshot

That's the problem with an ultra wide! It looks like I'm a mile away from them, but I was actually about 15 feet from the window.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## dj_mocok

That's not a problem but more like the whole reason why I want that lens altogether. I am tired of not getting so many things I want to get walking around with an 85mm


----------



## lan

I'd like to give a shout out to the 50mm f/1.8D. My favorite little lens of the moment. It was awesome shooting photos of my friend's kid.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'd like to give a shout out to the 50mm f/1.8D. My favorite little lens of the moment. It was awesome shooting photos of my friend's kid._

 

I can quote that for the truth!
 Great optics, regardless of price.


----------



## Arainach

Optics are good, but on a DX sensor I just find the 50mm focal length too restricting. A bit too narrow for most of the shooting I end up doing.

 ....so I leave my 50 f/1.8D permanently attached to my film body. Works great there.


----------



## Poohblah

on a crop body, i would agree that the 50mm is too long to be considered a standard lens, however it is fantastic for portraits.

 unfortunately nikon doesn't offer anything faster than the 35mm f/2 if you want a standard prime lens for your crop body. there used to be a 28mm f/1.4 but it is hella expensive, and big too.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 unfortunately nikon doesn't offer anything faster than the 35mm f/2 if you want a standard prime lens for your crop body. there used to be a 28mm f/1.4 but it is hella expensive, and big too._

 

Nikon | Wide Angle 35mm f/1.4 AIS Manual Focus Lens | 1429 | B&H
 Still made brand new today.
 Manual Focus though.


----------



## screwdriver

there is a sigma 30mm 1.4 right? im not sure about the image quality but most primes usually are good anyways.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nikon | Wide Angle 35mm f/1.4 AIS Manual Focus Lens | 1429 | B&H
 Still made brand new today.
 Manual Focus though._

 

Unfortunately, the 35 f/1.4 is mostly crap until stopped down to f/4 or so.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Unfortunately, the 35 f/1.4 is mostly crap until stopped down to f/4 or so._

 

As I may buy this in the future, I'm curious as to what you say.
 Did you used to (or still do) own this lens, or is this the consensus from others?


----------



## Towert7

Actually, I'm looking at the flickr group for this lens, and the pictures I've seen at F/1.4 look beautiful!
 This for example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rodluva...-90672466@N00/
 or this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mambolo...pool-nikkor35s
 These are amazing!

 So now you have me interested. What about it is crappy?


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_there is a sigma 30mm 1.4 right? im not sure about the image quality but most primes usually are good anyways._

 

eh, i would stay away from it. it's a sigma prime. these days zooms tend to be about as good as primes.

 i didn't know the 35mm f/1.4 AI-S was still made. i know they still make 50mm f/1.2 AI-S lenses though.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As I may buy this in the future, I'm curious as to what you say.
 Did you used to (or still do) own this lens, or is this the consensus from others?_

 

I've only used one briefly for a few shots, which when taken at f/1.4 seemed a bit dull in color but otherwise good. Most other reviews I've read have stated something to the effect of "dull colors and softness at f/1.4, better color but still some center softness and pronounced edge softness at f/2, good color and center but still edge softness at f/2.8, excellent at f/4. I wouldn't mind more time with the lens to try and confirm this myself, but suffice to say it's no 28 f/1.4 or 50 f/1.4 it would seem, unfortunately.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've only used one briefly for a few shots, which when taken at f/1.4 seemed a bit dull in color but otherwise good. Most other reviews I've read have stated something to the effect of "dull colors and softness at f/1.4, better color but still some center softness and pronounced edge softness at f/2, good color and center but still edge softness at f/2.8, excellent at f/4. I wouldn't mind more time with the lens to try and confirm this myself, but suffice to say it's no 28 f/1.4 or 50 f/1.4 it would seem, unfortunately._

 

I see. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Repooc

Sweet, I didn't know threads like this existed in this forum.

 I just wanted to chime in because I'm a D80 user as well.

 Can't wait until the D90 specs are released. I MAY contimplate doing the upgrade. Time will tell though.

 (28 more posts to go)


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Repooc* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_(28 more posts to go)_

 

for what? until you buy a new camera? what are you waiting for!?!?!?! hehe


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Repooc* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sweet, I didn't know threads like this existed in this forum.

 I just wanted to chime in because I'm a D80 user as well.

 Can't wait until the D90 specs are released. I MAY contimplate doing the upgrade. Time will tell though.

 (28 more posts to go)_

 

the D90 won't be much of an upgrade from the D80.
 a D200 or D300 will be a much bigger step up, and right now D200's are cheap as chips.


----------



## Repooc

yeah, I only picked up my D80 last december... I just like to eye the new products.

 But for sure... if I were serious about upgrading. It would be a tough call between the D700 and D300 for me.

 A buddy of mine just went from the D80 to the D300 last year as well.

 (10 more posts to go)


----------



## Towert7

I was testing out my new Nikon 80-200 F/4.5n AI for a few minutes. Manual focus and manual exposure is interesting to say the least! I'm thankful I have a pretty good grasp of what exposure to use.

*Red Tail Hawk at UMass*




*Purple Flower*




 Sadly, the lighting was pretty bad and I had to bump the ISO up high for the hawk picture. 1/90sec at 200mm is a bit tough for me, even with a mono pod.

 I'll have to take this lens out during the day and see how it works.


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As I may buy this in the future, I'm curious as to what you say.
 Did you used to (or still do) own this lens, or is this the consensus from others?_

 

I don't have this lens, but I think he is being a bit harsh. F/4 is probably the sweet spot for this lens.


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the D90 won't be much of an upgrade from the D80.
 a D200 or D300 will be a much bigger step up, and right now D200's are cheap as chips._

 

How can you honestly say that? The D90 specs haven't been released, least of all has not been reviewed.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mightyacorn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How can you honestly say that? The D90 specs haven't been released, least of all has not been reviewed._

 

because you're not really upgrading when you go from one high-end consumer body to another.

 i can guarantee that a prosumer body such as the D200 will offer greater control, speed, ease of use, and durability than a consumer level body (within a generation or two, of course - digital technology is evolving rapidly).


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_because you're not really upgrading when you go from one high-end consumer body to another.

 i can guarantee that a prosumer body such as the D200 will offer greater control, speed, ease of use, and durability than a consumer level body (within a generation or two, of course - digital technology is evolving rapidly)._

 

Some people might appreciate the better high ISO. But yeah the more 
 "pro" body usually handles better. For most people, they don't care about that though.


----------



## dj_mocok

Question for BigShot regarding Tokina 11-16mm:

 Just wondering, do you by any chance notice that there's also a distortion on top (12 o'clock) position when you are shooting at 11mm wide? eg. if you try shooting round object at that position,the object tends to look longer (not round anymore but more oval)?

 But I think it's just me who is not really used to the amount of distortion especially for such a wide angle lens. But overall, I am very with this lens. Just got it today so I haven't shot so much with it. But I love the fact that I can actually use an ultra wide lens for night flashless photography.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Question for BigShot regarding Tokina 11-16mm: Just wondering, do you by any chance notice that there's also a distortion on top (12 o'clock) position when you are shooting at 11mm wide? eg. if you try shooting round object at that position,the object tends to look longer (not round anymore but more oval)?_

 

No more than any other part of the frame... I think what you might be seeing is caused by perspective. The angle you shoot something from makes a huge difference with an ultra wide lens. Straight on is a lot different than a slight up shot. Even a tiny bit of an angle up can cause the distortion keystoning effect you're describing there.

 The nice thing is the distortion with this lens is very even. You can easily correct for it in photoshop if you want all your lines straight. But I often use distortion for a purpose when I shoot, so I don't always correct it.

 Check out Ken Rockwell's new article on shooting with ultrawides. It has some great advice for how to compose things. This is a great lens to jam three inches from people's faces.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## dj_mocok

Yeah, I think it might have been that. I have to be careful with this sort of thing because I am too used to shooting everything with 'normal' lens, wide angle needs a bit of caution when shooting.


----------



## nineohtoo

Thanks to the damn canon thread, I think I'm gonna go back to Nikon. Anyone want to help me find a D2Hs(must be S)? Gonna unload all my Canon stuff asap lol.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks to the damn canon thread, I think I'm gonna go back to Nikon. Anyone want to help me find a D2Hs(must be S)? Gonna unload all my Canon stuff asap lol._

 

What exactly is the D2Hs?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What exactly is the D2Hs?_

 

A nikon pro camera. It was superseded by the d2x, d2xs, and d3.
 Still, if you can find one for 800$, hm............. not bad!


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks to the damn canon thread, I think I'm gonna go back to Nikon. Anyone want to help me find a D2Hs(must be S)? Gonna unload all my Canon stuff asap lol._

 

What happened with the Canon thread?


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks to the damn canon thread, I think I'm gonna go back to Nikon. Anyone want to help me find a D2Hs(must be S)? Gonna unload all my Canon stuff asap lol._

 

easy. KEH Camera: Nikon Digital - Camera Bodies - D2HS 4.10 M/P BODY ONLY (CF CARD ) DIGITAL SLR INTERCHANGEABLE LENS CAMERA
 the non-S version is a good $400-500 cheaper though. for $900 +/- you could also get a D200, which would be a better choice (IMHO) unless you need the speed of the D2Hs.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A nikon pro camera. It was superseded by the d2x, d2xs, and d3._

 

not really. the D2H/s was a camera that was placed in the lineup alongside the D2X/s. the D2H/s was a fast camera for sports while the D2X/s was a heavy hitter photojournalism camera. nikon and canon have always run a similar lineup with their flagship models - every generation, there would be one fast body and one high resolution body.


----------



## nineohtoo

D2H has a crappy LCD, and is one stop worse than the D2Hs. 

 There was someone who asked why Canon over Nikon, and I gave pros and cons to both, with one of them being Nikon's latest gen has better high ISO, with D50, D2Hs and D2Xs having exceptionally good high ISO(like Canon's CMOS models). D2Hs and D2X prices hover around $1000 now, which puts it barely above what a D90 body would cost(what I wanted to buy). D2Hs have good high ISO, excellent AF speed and tracking, smaller file sizes(faster PP), and pro build. Remembering that, I decided I should get one one.

 Upon further reading on 40D, D2Hs, D2X, and show photography, I think my real issue is that the clubs I shoot in have nearly no light. Now I'm beginning to think that I should use my money towards a 17-55mm 2.8, and work towards getting photo passes in better venues.

 I am one indecisive mofo lol. I think I see a 40D in my near future though. I'm gonna want the bigger LCD also.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_D2H has a crappy LCD, and is one stop worse than the D2Hs. 

 There was someone who asked why Canon over Nikon, and I gave pros and cons to both, with one of them being Nikon's latest gen has better high ISO, with D50, D2Hs and D2Xs having exceptionally good high ISO(like Canon's CMOS models). D2Hs and D2X prices hover around $1000 now, which puts it barely above what a D90 body would cost(what I wanted to buy). D2Hs have good high ISO, excellent AF speed and tracking, smaller file sizes(faster PP), and pro build. Remembering that, I decided I should get one one.

 Upon further reading on 40D, D2Hs, D2X, and show photography, I think my real issue is that the clubs I shoot in have nearly no light. Now I'm beginning to think that I should use my money towards a 17-55mm 2.8, and work towards getting photo passes in better venues.

 I am one indecisive mofo lol. I think I see a 40D in my near future though. I'm gonna want the bigger LCD also._

 

Depending on what you call "nearly no light", 2.8 is going to be slow, especially! if you don't use a flash. Even at ISO 1600.
 One night I stumbled upon a nice event, and it had decent lighting. I was stuck with my 60mm F/2.8 lens, and even at ISO1600 most results were not pretty. 


 Best advice I can give:
 Don't rush into something. You even see that you're all up in the air and don't really know what you want. Take the time to find out what you want! 1000$ is a lot of money to spend only to realize that you didn't make a smart choice.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_D2H has a crappy LCD, and is one stop worse than the D2Hs. 

 There was someone who asked why Canon over Nikon, and I gave pros and cons to both, with one of them being Nikon's latest gen has better high ISO, with D50, D2Hs and D2Xs having exceptionally good high ISO(like Canon's CMOS models). D2Hs and D2X prices hover around $1000 now, which puts it barely above what a D90 body would cost(what I wanted to buy). D2Hs have good high ISO, excellent AF speed and tracking, smaller file sizes(faster PP), and pro build. Remembering that, I decided I should get one one.

 Upon further reading on 40D, D2Hs, D2X, and show photography, I think my real issue is that the clubs I shoot in have nearly no light. Now I'm beginning to think that I should use my money towards a 17-55mm 2.8, and work towards getting photo passes in better venues.

 I am one indecisive mofo lol. I think I see a 40D in my near future though. I'm gonna want the bigger LCD also._

 

if you already have a bunch of canon stuff, stick with canon. i assume you have a 50mm f/1.8 already? fast glass will help your lighting situation much better than a new body, or system for that matter.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_if you already have a bunch of canon stuff, stick with canon. i assume you have a 50mm f/1.8 already? fast glass will help your lighting situation much better than a new body, or system for that matter._

 

Yea, but if you can crank the D90 up to ISO3200 with perfectly usable results like the D300, that's nice! That's a stop or two faster than I could get with my current nikon, and couple that with a fast lens......... oh yea baby! That's hot!


----------



## nineohtoo

I'll be more specific with my case. I have exactly the same stuff in Canon and Nikon. My D50 broke, and I couldn't get a cheap replacement($400+ for a D50?) so I bought a 350D. Both my cameras have a sigma 30mm 1.4, and a basic speed light(SB-600/420EX). I've yet to sell my Nikon stuff since switching over to Canon, in hopes of a good D90. I need clean high ISOs and better auto focus. 

 I shoot everyday stuff with friends, and walking around. When I'm walking around I don't really care if what lens I'm using, or if I'm using digital or film(I've got a 35mm rangefinder, med format camera, and holga that I enjoy using). 

 I take my photography seriously when I enter local San Francisco night clubs and lounges. I refuse to use flash in these instances because I don't want to annoy fellow fans, or the artists. This forces me to shoot with ISO 1600 at f1.4-2 on my Sigma 30mm. This lens is really the only lens I need. The normal view is perfect at the foot of the stages I'm at, and since it's normal view, its perfect for when I'm around and about with friends. 

 My concern as of recently is, that the bodies I've used thus far are holding me back with light sensitivity, and autofocus speed/tracking. Hence why I wanted a D90. But after factoring the price and possible limitations. I figured I could get a better camera out of Nikon's last generation of Pro bodies(D2Hs/D2X), OR Canon's last generation prosumer crop body(40D). The D90 would still be a crippled D300 at best, and right now we really don't know what features are gonna be missing. We know its gonna be around 12mp, and there's the possibility of it still being CCD based. That won't be much of an upgrade from a D90. Yeah, I can wait it out, but it's still gonna be just a consumer body, and that's why I optioned the other previously mentioned bodies.

 However after a lot of thought, I'm beginning to think the venues I'm at just aren't lit enough period. Upon inspecting pics of others from similar shows, I've seen people needing to use flash because their 2.8 zooms aren't cutting it. So like in my previous post, I suggested what I should do is work to get photo passes in better venues where light isn't much of a problem, and get a wide to short tele 2.8 zoom for the new found range I'd have. Then I'll get a 40D  

 If it helps you guys any, my pics are on flickr.com/nineohtoo or on the slideshow on myspace.com/shotsfromthepit. Flickr search the local camera friendly locale: Pop Scene, Bottom of The Hill and Cafe Du Nord. Camera friendly, but probably poorly lit to prevent good pictures LOL.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


 The D90 would still be a crippled D300 at best, and right now we really don't know what features are gonna be missing. 
 

true. we could extrapolate based on previous iterations that the D90 won't couple with AI lenses etc., but that is just guesswork.

 IMO i think that you should either go for the D300 or the 40D. the 40D is a little bit cheaper but the D300 is a little bit faster. 

 if you're willing to stick with nikon i have a sigma 24-70 f/2.8 that i think i might sell soon, although it's not quite as wide as a 17-55 f/2.8.


----------



## Towert7

Well, I just looked at your flickr account Nineohtoo, and those pictures are quite nice.

 You're lucky that you know what lenses you need, and that you pretty much already have them (30mm F/1.4, 50mm F/1.4). And as you say, all you need now is better high ISO performance.
 Was the Auto Focus on your 350D or (now broken) D70 too slow?
 I wonder if the AF on the D300 or 40D is fast enough for you.

 Well, looks like you have a tough choice. D2Hs, D300, 40D....
 If it's good high ISO performance you want though, I haven't seen anything better then nikon's current pro lineup such as the D300. I don't know if the D2Hs has the same high ISO performance as the D300, but if it does that's great!


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, looks like you have a tough choice. D2Hs, D300, 40D....
 If it's good high ISO performance you want though, I haven't seen anything better then nikon's current pro lineup such as the D300. I don't know if the D2Hs has the same high ISO performance as the D300, but if it does that's great!_

 

since the D2Hs is the same generation as the D200, i think it's safe to assume that the D300's ISO performance surpasses that of the D2Hs' quite easily.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_since the D2Hs is the same generation as the D200, i think it's safe to assume that the D300's ISO performance surpasses that of the D2Hs' quite easily._

 

I see. Thank you for the info.


----------



## lan

I'd wait to see how the D90 is. If it doesn't work out a D300 would work. I'd skip the D2Hs. Although it is an older gen, it was only 4MP so had an advantage noise wise vs. D2X/s and D200.

 I do prefer Canon 5D over the D300 in low light situations but it's AF is not good enough IMO.


----------



## dj_mocok

Anyone interested in reading Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 review?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone interested in reading Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 review?_

 

Your review? sure

 This is a very hot lens at the moment. I shoot Canon but would like to read your impressions on it.


----------



## actorlife

Anybody know the lowest price for New/Used on a Nikon D300? Links would be great. Thanks!


----------



## laxx

I think it goes for about $1300-1400 used.


----------



## Towert7

Yea, about 1400$us unless you find someone who really wants to get rid of it.
 For an extra 200$, I would buy it new, but I can see how some would want to save the 200$.


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone interested in reading Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 review?_

 

I'd love to see a review of this lens. Been thinking about getting this lens instead of the Nikon 12-24mm.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'd love to see a review of this lens. Been thinking about getting this lens instead of the Nikon 12-24mm._

 

Almost $900 for that lens? Scores well at FMs but the Tokina is a beast.


----------



## dj_mocok

Alright I'll try to write it as soon as possible, hehe...


----------



## hembergler

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Alright I'll try to write it as soon as possible, hehe..._

 

Excellent! I look forward to reading it. That lens is on my current Maybe Next Year list.


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Almost $900 for that lens? Scores well at FMs but the Tokina is a beast._

 

FM? Beast? I don't really follow...


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_FM? Beast? I don't really follow... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

FM i'm not sure of.
 But to be a _beast_ means pretty much just that, to be a very impressive and awe inspiring 'thing'... usually relatively large as well.


----------



## fureshi

Beast is a good description of it considering that it can take a 77mm filter. I just didn't expect it to be such a large lens, same with the Nikon 12-24mm lens.


----------



## bigshot

The 11-16 doesn't extend like my 18-200 VR, but telescoped in, it's about the same weight and size. Lotsa glass in that puppy.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## meat01

FM = Fred Miranda, a photography forum


----------



## Poohblah

FM = fredmiranda.com: Specialized in Canon - Nikon SLR Cameras, Forum, Photoshop Plugins, Actions, Reviews, Hosting and Digital Darkroom


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_FM? Beast? I don't really follow... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Sorry. FM as in fredmiranda.com: Specialized in Canon - Nikon SLR Cameras, Forum, Photoshop Plugins, Actions, Reviews, Hosting and Digital Darkroom

 I thought you had the review ready to go. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I can wait but I expect you to parrot what others have said about the Tokina.


----------



## dj_mocok

Sorry, not yet, hehe...

 In the mean time, please direct all queries to Mr Bigshot since he also got one and looks like he's been using it for awhile too.


----------



## Towert7

Right from the rumor mill, we may be seeing a revised nikon mid range zoom incorporating VR at WPPI 2009.
 Wouldn't that be nice? It sure would for people photographers in low light!


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

A decent zoom with VR would be awesome indeed.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Right from the rumor mill, we may be seeing a revised nikon mid range zoom incorporating VR at WPPI 2009.
 Wouldn't that be nice? It sure would for people photographers in low light!_

 

But why? VR is all but useless in a midrange zoom since you can hand-hold at such low speeds anyway.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But why? VR is all but useless in a midrange zoom since you can hand-hold at such low speeds anyway._

 

50mm at F/2.8 isn't that fast, especially when no flashes are allowed during the ceremony.
 Professionals can use all the help they can get!


----------



## OverlordXenu

I know this thread is more about digital cameras, but I was wondering...Does anyone here have/use Nikon's high-end film scanner? I ask because I'm planning on getting a 6x7 medium format camera, and 99megapixels is just insane. Is it really the best film scanner under $5,000?


----------



## dj_mocok

Yay took this picture today!


----------



## dj_mocok

Maybe I should just go back to writing the Tokina lens review. 

 PS: Overlord, can't help you there since I don't shoot film. Ask people from Photo.net, there are many film users there.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_50mm at F/2.8 isn't that fast, especially when no flashes are allowed during the ceremony.
 Professionals can use all the help they can get!_

 

If you're running into shutter speeds where you can't hand-hold at 50 f/2.8, you're running as much or more of a risk of subject motion blur than hand motion blur, and VR can't help subject motion.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you're running into shutter speeds where you can't hand-hold at 50 f/2.8, you're running as much or more of a risk of subject motion blur than hand motion blur, and VR can't help subject motion._

 

During most of the ceremony (aside from the bride entering and the couple exiting) things are pretty slow paced, so IS/VR comes in handy.
 I do know what you mean though.

 The biggest complaints I've heard from the nikon 24-70 from wedding photographers is the lack of VR and the size of it.
 If nikon could add VR to their 24-70, that might make a lot of wedding photographers reconsider their canon's, which is an area nikon would like to take back (wedding photographers).

 Well, we'll see if this rumor turns into fruition.


----------



## lan

Sometimes you don't want to stop motion and you want to be stopped down. VR is still useful there.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The effect is growing on me
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. I have to say the effect doesn't quite work in its favour (IMO) in every situation.

 This one's from the Chinese photography forum:





 It's a fantastic shot, but the flowers are just a tad too punctuated. I don't like it when the background draws too much attention from the subject itself.


 This one, however, is just superb!



_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am not sure how to explain this, it's like explaining a sound. But you notice how in some pictures the little leaves sort of gelled together tidily? 
 That one I really like and I will never able to do that with my lens. It's just a little thing I know but it's a lot of difference for me. The bokeh is painting like. 

 Milk: 
 Of course I know bokeh is background/object/distance dependent - and focal length dependent too - too many variables, but some lenses just produce different characteristics altogether due to difference in lens design/quality.

 Let's use these for example:



 Picture 3 (Kinoptik)



_

 

I have been shotting with my Nikon 80-200 AI for a while now, and there has been something unique about the bokeh compared to all my other lenses.
 It reminded me of this post, and how the Kinoptik has a unique bokeh.

 Well, I'm finding the 80-200 AI to have a very similar bokeh, where it 'swirls' the out of focus items very similar to the bokeh I'm seeing in the shots from the kinoptik.

 Example (though not too pronounced):




 I don't think the 'paint brush' effect is on this lens, but the swirly background bokeh sure is.

 I've been taking a few more and the effect is more noticeable, but I haven't edited them and posted them up yet. I'll come back and post a few more if I get them finished anytime soon. Let me see if I can pick a good one.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I know this thread is more about digital cameras, but I was wondering...Does anyone here have/use Nikon's high-end film scanner? I ask because I'm planning on getting a 6x7 medium format camera, and 99megapixels is just insane. Is it really the best film scanner under $5,000?_

 

if you're shooting medium format and don't plan on making insanely large prints from the scanned files, then a flatbed scanner with negative carriers will do the job perfectly fine. epson makes some good ones for around $400 +/-. 

 i don't think nikon's coolscans even accept anything large than 35mm, i might be mistaken though.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have been shotting with my Nikon 80-200 AI for a while now, and there has been something unique about the bokeh compared to all my other lenses.
 It reminded me of this post, and how the Kinoptik has a unique bokeh.

 Well, I'm finding the 80-200 AI to have a very similar bokeh, where it 'swirls' the out of focus items very similar to the bokeh I'm seeing in the shots from the kinoptik.

 Example (though not too pronounced):




 I don't think the 'paint brush' effect is on this lens, but the swirly background bokeh sure is.

 I've been taking a few more and the effect is more noticeable, but I haven't edited them and posted them up yet. I'll come back and post a few more if I get them finished anytime soon. Let me see if I can pick a good one._

 

That's a very pleasing bokeh!! So you got a 80-200 AI?! Nice 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Right from the rumor mill, we may be seeing a revised nikon mid range zoom incorporating VR at WPPI 2009.
 Wouldn't that be nice? It sure would for people photographers in low light!_

 

Isn't that just the one that will come bundled with the D90, aka 18-105VR f/3.5-5.6? If it performs as well as a 18-55 or 18-70, and has the build quality which either matches or supercedes the latter, I'm mildly interested. The extra range sure would be useful.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's a very pleasing bokeh!! So you got a 80-200 AI?! Nice 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yup. It's an interesting little lens. I'm still trying to get a nice example of what I'm seeing through the viewfinder, but I'm finding it hard.

  Quote:


 Isn't that just the one that will come bundled with the D90, aka 18-105VR f/3.5-5.6? If it performs as well as a 18-55 or 18-70, and has the build quality which either matches or supercedes the latter, I'm mildly interested. The extra range sure would be useful. 
 

the 18-105VR will be similar to the 18-200VR. That is Nikon's mid priced type of lens. Not budget, but not professional.

 What I was thinking about is their 24-70mm F/2.8. The F/2.8 is really needed, especially since it is constant throughout the whole focal range. It's got less range than the 18-105VR will have, but the optical performance is nikon's professional style. Essentially prime quality with the benefit of a zoom range.

 Sadly, the Canon and Nikon 24-70mm do not have IS/VR, ... yet.

 I've shot events with my 60mm F/2.8, and sadly even at ISO 1600 I really could have used the help of VR.

 You're right though, the 18-105VR will be interesting. I wonder if it will be DX (I assume so)?


----------



## OverlordXenu

Which 80-200mm do you have? The f/4.5 version?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Which 80-200mm do you have? The f/4.5 version?_

 

yup, F/4.5n.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the 18-105VR will be similar to the 18-200VR. That is Nikon's mid priced type of lens. Not budget, but not professional._

 

I'm not impressed by the 18-200VR. It is well built and the VR is very helpful, but the optical performance can be disappointing. It's simply not sharp _enough_ at the long end.

  Quote:


 What I was thinking about is their 24-70mm F/2.8. The F/2.8 is really needed, especially since it is constant throughout the whole focal range. It's got less range than the 18-105VR will have, but the optical performance is nikon's professional style. Essentially prime quality with the benefit of a zoom range.

 Sadly, the Canon and Nikon 24-70mm do not have IS/VR, ... yet.

 I've shot events with my 60mm F/2.8, and sadly even at ISO 1600 I really could have used the help of VR. 
 

Agreed. VR would be very useful, even at F/2.8. I had another go using my friend's 24-70 and 70-200VR. Even indoors with moderate lighting, I was thoroughly surprised to see that not even F/2.8 was enough for shooting at low ISOs. 

  Quote:


 You're right though, the 18-105VR will be interesting. I wonder if it will be DX (I assume so)? 
 

I would think so too.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yup, F/4.5n._

 

I went to a second camera store yesterday and saw a F/3.5. Maybe you should give that one a try too?


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


 Agreed. VR would be very useful, even at F/2.8. I had another go using my friend's 24-70 and 70-200VR. Even indoors with moderate lighting, I was thoroughly surprised to see that not even F/2.8 was enough for shooting at low ISOs. 
 

This has always been the case; optics doesn't change simply because you're using a sensor. One of the biggest benefits of the switch to digital is that you can change your ISO on the go and that higher ISOs are usable. Bump the ISO up to 400/800 and there should be no issue whatsoever.


----------



## lan

Yeah if you're only at ISO 200 or 400, you should bump up. But really you should just use Auto-ISO and program your minimum shutter speed to avoid motion shake. Now if you're already at 1600, it's another story. In that case, VR would help your motion shake, or use a faster lens which might not work if you wanted more depth of field, or just take an image quality hit and go for 3200.


----------



## dj_mocok

Review is almost finished. Hopefully I can finalise and post it sometime this weekend. 
 By the way there's no such thing as a site that I can put the review permanently for free are there?

 EDIT: Can I actually put my review on blogspot and just let them host it for me for free? But I will be putting images though, I am not sure how many images it can take or how big.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Review is almost finished. Hopefully I can finalise and post it sometime this weekend. 
 By the way there's no such thing as a site that I can put the review permanently for free are there?_

 

Try Fred Miranda's review forum (fredmiranda.com).


----------



## dj_mocok

Most review sites only allows you to post short comments, not a full on review. I asked the admin at Photo.net but unfortunately they already have their review of Tokina 116 on its way. They asked me to write for another lens instead but don't think I wanna do that. Too tiring and I'm already half way there for my Tokina review.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not impressed by the 18-200VR. It is well built and the VR is very helpful, but the optical performance can be disappointing. It's simply not sharp enough at the long end._

 

Actually, I would say the 18-200VR is sharpest at the wide end *and* at the tele end. My best photos from it are either zoomed all the way in or all the way out.

  Quote:


 I went to a second camera store yesterday and saw a F/3.5. Maybe you should give that one a try too? 
 

Except, nikon didn't make a F/3.5 version of their 80-200mm....
 They made the non AI F/4.5, the AI F/4.5, AI F/4.5n, AI-S F/4.0, and various F/2.8's.
 Which lens did you see?
 Perhaps the 200mm F/3.5?


----------



## laxx

I doubt they'll put VR on the 24-70 anytime soon. Much like the Canon 24-70, it's already heavy enough as is (called "the brick" for a reason), and adding IS would only make it bigger.


----------



## Towert7

I am so sad!

 The lens that I lent my parents, the kit 18-55mm AFS is having issues recently.

 It has trouble turning the lens to focus. It appears the 'Silent Wave' motor is going on it. What a shame! I ploop on their 50mm AF-D, and it focuses lightning fast!

 POS AFS!

 This, coupled with hearing about other people having Silent wave motor problems, will make me much more hesitant to buy a lens with it again.

 Too bad the new pro 24-70 and 70-200 have a similar design. Makes me wonder if those will develop a problem too. 1600$, down the drain? OUCH!


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am so sad!

 The lens that I lent my parents, the kit 18-55mm AFS is having issues recently.

 It has trouble turning the lens to focus. It appears the 'Silent Wave' motor is going on it. What a shame! I ploop on their 50mm AF-D, and it focuses lightning fast!

 POS AFS!

 This, coupled with hearing about other people having Silent wave motor problems, will make me much more hesitant to buy a lens with it again.

 Too bad the new pro 24-70 and 70-200 have a similar design. Makes me wonder if those will develop a problem too. 1600$, down the drain? OUCH!_

 

You're comparing an AF-S kit lens to professional AF-S zoom lenses. Besides the price difference, you're also looking at different technologies: yeah, they both use AF-S motors, but only the mid-range through pro models use true ring-type ultrasonic drives. It's a shame the kit lens has a problem, but I've never seen the same types of issues occur in Nikon's pro AF-S lineup; so I wouldn't hesitate to buy either the 24-70 or 70-200.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're comparing an AF-S kit lens to professional AF-S zoom lenses. Besides the price difference, you're also looking at different technologies: yeah, they both use AF-S motors, but only the mid-range through pro models use true ring-type ultrasonic drives. It's a shame the kit lens has a problem, but I've never seen the same types of issues occur in Nikon's pro AF-S lineup; so I wouldn't hesitate to buy either the 24-70 or 70-200._

 

I've hard of some Nikon 17-35mm AFS lenses being sold with broken AF motors.
 That's as 'pro' as you can get.


----------



## lan

Nikon should be able to repair the lens no?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nikon should be able to repair the lens no?_

 

Yea, it's under warranty, but then you have to ask yourself:
 "Ok, I can get it repaired under warranty once, and the next time it breaks in 3-4 years, it won't be covered. I'll either be left with a Manual focus lens, sell it broken, or pay nikon to have it fixed".

 This borders on defective by designed. As if it was not designed to last. POS. I expect better from nikon!


----------



## Towert7

Current Nikon kit as of 8-25-2008:


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yea, it's under warranty, but then you have to ask yourself:
 "Ok, I can get it repaired under warranty once, and the next time it breaks in 3-4 years, it won't be covered. I'll either be left with a Manual focus lens, sell it broken, or pay nikon to have it fixed"._

 

It's been my experience that if something is going to break, it breaks during the first period of heavy use. Once it's repaired correctly, it doesn't break again.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yea, it's under warranty, but then you have to ask yourself:
 "Ok, I can get it repaired under warranty once, and the next time it breaks in 3-4 years, it won't be covered. I'll either be left with a Manual focus lens, sell it broken, or pay nikon to have it fixed".

 This borders on defective by designed. As if it was not designed to last. POS. I expect better from nikon!_

 

You're certainly making me lean towards Canon now 

 btw, that's a pretty nice set of lenses!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's been my experience that if something is going to break, it breaks during the first period of heavy use. Once it's repaired correctly, it doesn't break again.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Tell that to all the millions of people who buy new cars and get problems 5-10 years down the road.

 It's been my pxperience that if something is going to break, it'll break when it's good and ready. This usually correlates to just after the warranty period is up. ^_^


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This borders on defective by designed. As if it was not designed to last. POS. I expect better from nikon!_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's been my experience..._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's been my pxperience..._

 

It's impossible to come to any conclusion of defects based on your own personal experience or a few people complaining online. I think we can all agree crap happens. The pro glass should be built better and more rugged than the consumer stuff. Unfortunately, sometimes you get a lemon.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's impossible to come to any conclusion of defects based on your own personal experience or a few people complaining online. I think we can all agree crap happens. The pro glass should be built better and more rugged than the consumer stuff. Unfortunately, sometimes you get a lemon._

 

Yea, I know, I know.
 All my statements are made knowing this.

 And, if you buy an apple and get a lemon, you should demand your money back!
 ^_^


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And, if you buy an apple and get a lemon, you should demand your money back!_

 

Sure thing.

 BTW glad to see another SB400 user. Which cam did you use to take the "family" photo?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sure thing.

 BTW glad to see another SB400 user. Which cam did you use to take the "family" photo?_

 

My parent's D80, with their broken 18-55mm.
 Gonna bring the lens in tomorrow.

 The SB400 is amazing for just how small it is!
 Only wish it could tilt for portrait style photos with bounce flash.


----------



## milkpowder

The SWM on my friend's 18-135 broke too. It makes sense for the SWM on cheaper AF-S to be less durable than the gold-ring glass.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The SWM on my friend's 18-135 broke too. It makes sense for the SWM on cheaper AF-S to be less durable than the gold-ring glass._

 

It makes sense that it would be less durable? Maybe, but the less durable version should not be so fragile that it breaks after a few years of typical usage.

 The old screw drive wasn't nearly as fragile. For the budget lenses, I'll take a hit in speed to get durability of a more reliable design. Leave the fast motors for the lenses that have them implemented better and will last the course (20 years, minimum).

 I buy lenses with the expectation that everything will work 20 years down the road just as it did when I got it new, without the need of repair.
 Why the he!! am I spending all this ridiculous money, if not to get quality?


----------



## milkpowder

Am I right in saying that the cheaper AF-S lenses don't actually have the same "full-on" version that is seen in more expensive lens? 

 My 50/1.8 AI also broke recently. The focus ring no longer gripped the inner sleeve. I took it apart and discovered that the focus ring is held up against the inner sleeve by three screws. At some point, the three screws will loosen and you'll end up with a non-functioning lens. Maybe it's something as trivial as that? Unfortunately, the fix isn't so simple. Even a lens of such relative simplicity is a massive hassle to fix. Once you retighten the three screws (having completely taken apart the lens), the reassembly process is extremely time consuming and requires patience & dexterity. Goodness knows how you put an AF lens back together. When I get an upgrade my 18-70, I plan on opening it up


----------



## dj_mocok

Hey, don't open it up, give it to me please.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Am I right in saying that the cheaper AF-S lenses don't actually have the same "full-on" version that is seen in more expensive lens? 

 My 50/1.8 AI also broke recently. The focus ring no longer gripped the inner sleeve. I took it apart and discovered that the focus ring is held up against the inner sleeve by three screws. At some point, the three screws will loosen and you'll end up with a non-functioning lens. Maybe it's something as trivial as that? Unfortunately, the fix isn't so simple. Even a lens of such relative simplicity is a massive hassle to fix. Once you retighten the three screws (having completely taken apart the lens), the reassembly process is extremely time consuming and requires patience & dexterity. Goodness knows how you put an AF lens back together. When I get an upgrade my 18-70, I plan on opening it up
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Ever since I was a child I've always opened thigns up to see how they work. Until now, I hadn't realized that lenses are an area I never even considered taking things apart 

 You're pretty brave.


----------



## Towert7

I took apart an old Fuji lens, and let me tell you it was a pain to put back together.
 Thankfully I didn't care for the lens, and was willing to break it. I probably did break it.
 I'd never open up one of my lenses that I use.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Am I right in saying that the cheaper AF-S lenses don't actually have the same "full-on" version that is seen in more expensive lens? _

 

I wonder myself.
 The kit 18-55 I had wasn't used that much.
 I have a 18-200 which is also AF-s, and I've use that a LOT more. It's remained just like new. I don't know whether I'm pushing my luck with it, or if it actually is built better than the kit 18-55. I wish I knew!


----------



## lan

At my local Ritz, a customer dropped their plastic lens. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It was interesting seeing the insides.


----------



## Towert7

So the Nikon D90 is officially released just now.
D90 from Nikon

 Estimated price for the body is 1000$us, and with the kit 18-105VR lens it's 1300$us.
 Lens will sell alone for 400$.

 Claimed to have the sensor from the D300, so I think we can expect phenomenal low light high iso results.
 It's got a video mode, and to top it off it captures in HD. Wow, now that's pretty impressive. When I got my D50, I was a little sad it didn't have a movie feature. I certainly would have used it for the job I worked at. The D90 doesn't just have a movie mode, it's got an HD movie mode. Pimpin!
 1280x720
 They gave a few demonstrations on their website. Video quality is nice for what this is, but audio quality is not so good as would be expected.

 It appears the D90 will also have a nice built in sensor cleaner, which the D80 didn't. Sweet! 4 Frequency Ultrasonic cleaning.

 Also going to have that wonderful 3" LCD that nikon used on the D300 it seems.

 And it looks just as comfortable as any other nikon.

 A few interesting updates over the D80.


----------



## fureshi

i'm really happy that the D90 is approximately the size of the D50/D80. those two cameras seem to be the perfect weight and size for my hands. while the D40/D60 felt great for a small camera, the grip on them still felt a tad bit too small. the D300 on the other hand is a bit on the heavy side but feels great. i lugged one up half dome in yosemite last month and after about 6 miles of hiking, i put it in my bag because it was just too heavy. the D90 looks to be a great camera.


----------



## lan

I wonder if this can replace my video camera 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Only prob is flash memory size and battery life.

 edit: nevermind. dpreview said it only does 5 minutes at 720p and there's no autofocus. it'll be good for making movies and clips of short scenes but not an extended length performance. i would have to get very creative with it.


----------



## lan

D90 | D-MOVIE

 Interesting stuff. I love the use of 200/2. I can't wait to use my 300/2.8 on this. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's going to be sick bokeh and subject isolation That was the one weakness of normal camcorders with smaller sensors.


----------



## lan

Still scouring stuff online re: D90 and found this.

Chase Jarvis and friends try the D90

 I think it's time for me to go to bed. I could stay up all night lol.


----------



## milkpowder

Good stuff!

 It'll be amazing. Would've been nicer better of they gave it the D300's autofocus system. That said, the D90 has a dedicated bracketing button and the D300 doesn't 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I'm really excited to know how the D90 and 50D compare. Based on specs alone, the 50D is slightly ahead: magnesium frame, 9 cross-point sensors, 6.3fps, broader ISO range, etc... oh... I forgot higher _price_ too


----------



## dj_mocok

Nah, I don't think I'll be interested in replacing my D80 with a D90 yet. All those features don't really appeal to me. Well at least not appealing enough to make me part my $1,000 for it.
 For those of you who are thinking to score some D80, it's your chance now to get them cheap from stores.


----------



## milkpowder

Much nicer screen, sensor dust cleaning, D300-level ISO performance (at least one-stop advantage over D80/200) and Live view would be enough to sway me. The screen is so important and the newer generation of 3" LCDs look incredible. You can actually see whether your photo is in focus or not! I switch lens very often so built-in sensor cleaning would be a huge plus.


----------



## nineohtoo

Man oh man. I've been sitting on an equivalent amount of Canon and Nikon stuff, and finally gave in and kept my Canon gear(decided cheaper pro zooms, prime selection, and USUALLY cheaper equiv bodies was in my favor.) and got rid of it for Nikon stuff. And now the 50D and D90 are announced. 

 It's gonna be an exciting next few months seeing the reviews from these two. I got to mess with someones D700 today and its indeed a nice toy, but way more than I could ever afford. A D90 though, if it can give me D300 quality is very tempting. 

 I hope I don't regret trading my 30mm 1.4 and Sb-600 for a canon mount and 430ex :\

 AND yes, upgrading is very much in my favor. High ISO quality is very important to me.


----------



## nineohtoo

D90:ŽB‰e‰æ‘œƒTƒ“ƒvƒ‹ - ƒfƒWƒ^ƒ‹ˆêŠáƒŒƒtƒJƒƒ‰ | ƒjƒRƒ“ƒCƒ[ƒWƒ“ƒO

 sample images at ISO 200 and 400. I'm waiting to see the 3200 and 6400 from this. I'm not too impressed, especially with it being a CMOS sensor. 

 If this camera can pull clean iso 3200 shots like they do in that video, I'm dropping all my Canon stuff(Sigma 30mm/Sigma18-50mm/430EX/420EX) for a D90+17-55mm 2.8 come next week. I'll get my Sigma and SB-600 back later lol(I just sold them this week to pay for my 430EX and 18-50mm LOL). \

 And yes, I know can keep my stuff and go for a 50D. But the HD video is enticing despite being mono, and I feel much more at home with Nikon controls and feel. The guy who traded for my SB-600 came from a 5D and let me play with his D700. It made me want a Nikon again lol. 

 But if neither of these cameras are impressive as their parents are claiming them to be, bargain price 40D it is lol.


----------



## nineohtoo

Nikon D90 Hands-on Preview: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Chase Jarvis Blog: Chase Jarvis RAW: Advance Testing the Nikon D90

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90.htm

 Yes im losing tons of sleep over this. LOL. It's awesome.


----------



## milkpowder

Why don't you wait until more 50D high (1600+) ISO shots appear. We already know how well the D90 can perform, that is, just as good as the D300. The D300 is very usable up to 3200 if you do noise reduction in PP and won't aggressively crop. All you'll really be left with is some mid-frequency noise and maybe a touch of chroma noise at the expense of a little detail. Now the 50D boasts another whole stop of sensitivity. Canon must be pretty confident!

 EDIT:

 Canon Japan's sample images from 50D:

 1/8000s ISO 1600
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos...s/4_sports.jpg

 8s ISO 400
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos...nightscene.jpg

 Based on my experience with the D300, I don't think it looks particularly impressive. No doubt noise reduction was applied. I wonder what and how much?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hope I don't regret trading my 30mm 1.4 and Sb-600 for a canon mount and 430ex :\

 AND yes, upgrading is very much in my favor. High ISO quality is very important to me._

 

You had a Nikon, got a Canon, and now might go back to Nikon? And this was all in what time span a few months? Sounds like a lot of hassle.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You had a Nikon, got a Canon, and now might go back to Nikon? And this was all in what time span a few months? Sounds like a lot of hassle._

 

That's what happens when the search for the best price will sway you and not what you really want. ^_^


----------



## dj_mocok

Get a SONY DSLR and all your Nikon/Canon dilemmas go away.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

I'm actually quite impressed by the movie quality on this thing. Sure, it's a little impractical (5 minute max, no AF) but the ability to change lenses really puts the camera in a different league of everyday camcorders. The results on Nikon's website, at least, look very professional and sharp.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm actually quite impressed by the movie quality on this thing. Sure, it's a little impractical (5 minute max, no AF) but the ability to change lenses really puts the camera in a different league of everyday camcorders. The results on Nikon's website, at least, look very professional and sharp._

 

I love the clip using the fisheye lens! Now that, was nifty.


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Still scouring stuff online re: D90 and found this.

Chase Jarvis and friends try the D90_

 


 Look's like a viral advertisement.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You had a Nikon, got a Canon, and now might go back to Nikon? And this was all in what time span a few months? Sounds like a lot of hassle._

 

The real question is how many pictures did he take during that time? If he spent all his time shopping, it was both a hassle and a waste.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Geir

looks like my trusty d70 have found a successor  And not that bad a hit to the wallet neither


----------



## Hoppergrass

just bought a d80. now i'm in the market for a flash unit. nikon promotes their sb-600 and sb-800. why should a buy one over the other? or is their a better option?


----------



## warpdriver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Geir* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_looks like my trusty d70 have found a successor  And not that bad a hit to the wallet neither_

 

I agree. This is a worthwhile upgrade for me. 

 The video feature is probably useless for all intents but it doesn't hurt either. Great for short clips in a pinch.


----------



## screwdriver

Im wondering about the durability of the D90 as it adds the video capability - with this - does it make it more prone to problems?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Im wondering about the durability of the D90 as it adds the video capability - with this - does it make it more prone to problems?_

 

Anything with added features makes it more prone to problems. If you want something with the least chance of problems, you'll buy a pin hole camera.


----------



## screwdriver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anything with added features makes it more prone to problems. If you want something with the least chance of problems, you'll buy a pine hole camera._

 




 whats a pine hole camera?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_whats a pine hole camera? _

 

You know! You take a pine cone and make a hole in it. ^_^

 Thanks for the correction. I totally missed it.


----------



## Towert7

In all honesty though, that's one of the big benefits from buying a Nikon or Canon. You can take some comfort in the fact that you're getting a professional product that *should* last the course.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hoppergrass* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_just bought a d80. now i'm in the market for a flash unit. nikon promotes their sb-600 and sb-800. why should a buy one over the other? or is their a better option?_

 

as far as i can tell, the onyl reason to get a brand new, expensive flash is to have those meaningless i-ttl features. if i were you, i would read strobist.blogspot.com and buy a used flash such as an sb-26. IMHO on-camera flash is usually overrated. i've seen it used well, but not very often.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Im wondering about the durability of the D90 as it adds the video capability - with this - does it make it more prone to problems?_

 

Added complexity means there's a higher chance but modern p&s and camcorders have dual still and video functionality and you don't hear anybody complaining. The only issues I see are prolonged sensor exposure. That 5 minute limit was probably there for this. It's like the warning they give for using Live View too long also.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_as far as i can tell, the onyl reason to get a brand new, expensive flash is to have those meaningless i-ttl features. if i were you, i would read strobist.blogspot.com and buy a used flash such as an sb-26. IMHO on-camera flash is usually overrated. i've seen it used well, but not very often._

 

Doing the strobist thing requires full manual use of the flash if you're going to use those old flashes. While that is another skill to learn, sometimes it's just too slow to be practical. That's where the automatic flash comes in so I wouldn't call I-TTL meaningless. You just have to learn how to use it also. Results from on camera flash can be okay with bounce technique and some light modifiers. Nikon's CLS can do good stuff off camera also.


----------



## nineohtoo

Get 800 for better commander flash, and 600 if you plan on keeping them on camera. 

 Manual flash is fun, but like Ian said, its too slow to be practical. Personally, I've hated the idea of flash at shows and feel its usually disrespectful to the performer and fellow fans in the crowd. But I've been really impressed with the results I've seen with CLS(I think the D3/D700 helps  ) on the ishootshows blog. 

 After more reading, I'm not too impressed by what the D90 offers. Yes some of the ISO 3200 shots Nikon has dont look so bad after some PP and resizing for web, but by the looks of it, that's about to be the new standard. Until reviews are out, It might still have poor metering as well as autofocus like the D80. As limited as it is, I do welcome the HD video, and higher ISO capabilities(D80 was horrid at ISO 1600).

 As for me switching to Canon and back. I usually buy used, and usually only buy when there are steals to be had. If I sell my stuff to back to Nikon, I'm still gonna pocket about $150. In the time I've had the stuff, they did get heavy use, and gave me enough time to appreciate both systems for what they're worth. Only thing lost is the time spent selling, and rebuying stuff. 

 However I'm back to the reasoning I had when I decided to stick with Canon. IMO I get way more bang for my buck with Canon than I do Nikon. The 40D at its used price of about $800, imo can throw down with Nikon's last gen of Pro bodies, D2X and D2H, which still sell for more. I feel the same MIGHT be the same about the 50D when it comes out(compared to D300), but only time will tell. On top of that, Canon has more primes, and cheaper pro zoom options. I know I shoot with 3rd party glass now(with great results), but its reassuring to know I can get high quality OEM glass at good prices later on.


----------



## lan

Here's some D90 test images if you haven't seen them already,

Nikon D90 Digital Camera Samples - Hands-On Preview - The Imaging Resource!

 High ISOs looks ok.


----------



## Edwood

The D-Movie Mode is a nifty gimmick, but it's so limited, it's bascially a toy feature. 

 Won't be selling off my Canon HF100 anytime soon.

 I'm more aspiring to get the D700. Perhaps settle for the D300 or D200 as the prices fall.


----------



## lan

If I'm filming some event, obviously this won't fly.

 If I'm making some movies, I don't need more than 5 minutes per scene anyway and I'll be external micing. To some this will be pretty awesome if you can leverage it creatively.

 Here's a quick 720 vimeo clip, http://www.vimeo.com/1612204


----------



## Edwood

Yeah, it's not so great at motion shots, you can see a lot of flickering / shutter rolling. Lack of Autofocus is the real killer. Most "advanced amateur" people won't mind the 5 minute limit so much, but quick 5 minute shots are usually candid action clips, which manual focus can be a huge impediment. 

 So it will be great for YouTube clips, not so much for anything else. Too bad YouTube has not gone HD yet.

 -Ed


----------



## lan

Most of the creative people are using Vimeo anyway. Yeah the cam is indeed limited but it's up to the user to push it to it's limits.

 Rolling shutter is just a prob with CMOS cams. I think some people with HV20 and such see it if I last recall.


----------



## screwdriver

also the flash sync speed is only 1/200 like the D80.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D-Movie Mode is a nifty gimmick, but it's so limited, it's bascially a toy feature. 

 Won't be selling off my Canon HF100 anytime soon._

 

Now if I had a D90 when I was working at my old job, I certainly would have put this movie mode to a LOT of use! Something for short clips that looks good is what I really could have used.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_also the flash sync speed is only 1/200 like the D80._

 

Don't fret, the D300 and other CMOS cams are only like 1/250th which isn't much of an improvement. It is most annoying during the daytime though when using flash fill.


----------



## dj_mocok

Phew. Okay, as promised,
 I have finished writing up the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Review. 
 Now finally I don't have to stay up late and sacrifice my sleeping hours anymore, goddarn it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I was originally thinking to put the review straight to post but it's too long. I don't own a website so I had to create a free blog and put the review there instead.

 I don't know how to make my review shows up when you google something like "Tokina 11-16mm review", so unfortunately not many people can find it unless they know the specific address to the review. If you guys know how to solve this problem, please let me know.

 Anyway, I hope you guys enjoy the review.


----------



## lan

Thanks for the review. I've added the URL for google to index the next time it does. Hopefully it'll show up on the first page. I've got to get some lunch now so can't quite read this BIG review but will do later.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the review. I've added the URL for google to index the next time it does._

 

I have no clue when it comes to URL HTML thing so I have no idea what that means but it sounds good. Thank you.


----------



## bigshot

Nice review. The only thing I would disagree with (and it's a minor quibble) is the zoom range... I feel it really is a bit narrow. I would have preferred it go out to 24mm. But as you say, it's better to have a little flexibility than for it to be a prime 11mm- especially when you have to stick it so close to your subject.

 Which reminds me of another thing I've noticed about the lens... Like a fisheye, there is a real danger of bumping the front element against the nose of the person you are shooting a portrait of. I would definitely suggest biting the bullet and going for a good UV filter for this one.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kugino

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_also the flash sync speed is only 1/200 like the D80._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Don't fret, the D300 and other CMOS cams are only like 1/250th which isn't much of an improvement. It is most annoying during the daytime though when using flash fill._

 

can someone tell me whey flash sync speed has worsened with each iteration of the nikons? my d70 has a flash sync speed of 1/500...


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kugino* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_can someone tell me whey flash sync speed has worsened with each iteration of the nikons? my d70 has a flash sync speed of 1/500..._

 

It is strange to say the least.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Phew. Okay, as promised,
 I have finished writing up the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Review. 
 Now finally I don't have to stay up late and sacrifice my sleeping hours anymore, goddarn it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was originally thinking to put the review straight to post but it's too long. I don't own a website so I had to create a free blog and put the review there instead.

 I don't know how to make my review shows up when you google something like "Tokina 11-16mm review", so unfortunately not many people can find it unless they know the specific address to the review. If you guys know how to solve this problem, please let me know.

 Anyway, I hope you guys enjoy the review._

 

Really nice review. Well done. Thanks for the legwork and time you put into it as well. Will own the Tokina oneday.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kugino* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_can someone tell me whey flash sync speed has worsened with each iteration of the nikons? my d70 has a flash sync speed of 1/500..._

 

It's one of the things lost when going from CCD to CMOS. It happened to Canon also. The 1D has 1/500 flash sync and 1/16000th shutter speed but any newer camera after than cannot boast those specs.


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Phew. Okay, as promised,
 I have finished writing up the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Review. 
 Now finally I don't have to stay up late and sacrifice my sleeping hours anymore, goddarn it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was originally thinking to put the review straight to post but it's too long. I don't own a website so I had to create a free blog and put the review there instead.

 I don't know how to make my review shows up when you google something like "Tokina 11-16mm review", so unfortunately not many people can find it unless they know the specific address to the review. If you guys know how to solve this problem, please let me know.

 Anyway, I hope you guys enjoy the review._

 

definitely a nice and thorough review from the user standpoint. i'm glad you didn't spend time shooting brick walls and instead chose to shoot normal subjects even though you said you were being lazy. your review is really tempting me to pick one up and luckily my fiance doesn't mind me spending money on hobbies, especially photography. maybe it has to do with the fact that she love photography too and oftentimes uses my lenses.


----------



## Towert7

That 18-105VR for 300$us when kit with the D90 seems like a pretty nice deal.

 Quite a nice kit lens to say the least! Much nicer than the basic kit 18-55 that came with my D50. If I had the extra reach and VR on my kit lens, I surely wouldn't have got the bug to upgraded nearly as quick.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice review. The only thing I would disagree with (and it's a minor quibble) is the zoom range... I feel it really is a bit narrow. I would have preferred it go out to 24mm. But as you say, it's better to have a little flexibility than for it to be a prime 11mm- especially when you have to stick it so close to your subject.

 Which reminds me of another thing I've noticed about the lens... Like a fisheye, there is a real danger of bumping the front element against the nose of the person you are shooting a portrait of. I would definitely suggest biting the bullet and going for a good UV filter for this one.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Yeah, of course I'd prefer it to have more range too if Tokina could still maintain the quality and most importantly the price. But I know what you mean about bumping the lens. Sometimes I forgot that this lens is so wide, so on my viewfinder, the foreground object may look not so close yet but it's actually almost touching the lens. I almost scratch the lens a few times because of that and almost tripped on the stairs too because I thought the stairs were still a few more steps but actually they were right in front of me. Dangerous.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really nice review. Well done. Thanks for the legwork and time you put into it as well. Will own the Tokina oneday._

 

I just hope that Nikongod will never get hold of this lens. Imagine how many crotch-angled self-taken pictures he would take and post here if he owned the lens.


----------



## hembergler

Great review, you certainly put your time in!

 I'll own it eventually.


----------



## musicmind

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Phew. Okay, as promised,
 I have finished writing up the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Review. 
 Now finally I don't have to stay up late and sacrifice my sleeping hours anymore, goddarn it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Anyway, I hope you guys enjoy the review._

 

Looks great, thanks for your efforts.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kugino* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_can someone tell me whey flash sync speed has worsened with each iteration of the nikons? my d70 has a flash sync speed of 1/500..._

 

Well, they have been vastly improving high ISO noise reduction, so the need to shoot with a flash is reduced. 

 Depends on your shooting style.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, they have been vastly improving high ISO noise reduction, so the need to shoot with a flash is reduced. 

 Depends on your shooting style._

 

It is still quite relevant in the daytime for fill flash though. That's where 1/250th is most limiting.


----------



## lan

Prices of SB900 have started to drop 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 but I'm not really interested in it yet. I just got a SB600 because I want to mess with CLS. I can do a lot more with multiple SB600s. I think I'll get some gels next. I got a SC-28 to use with my SB400. Should be fun stuff.


----------



## Edwood

I love how small the SB-400 is. Underpowered, sure, but in most instances, It's perfect for me.

 I'll probably end up with the SB-900 eventually since it can swivel as well.

 -Ed


----------



## lan

I don't think the SB600/800/900 are really that much more powerful than the SB400. They can just focus the beam better. When I start using light modifier, they are nearly all underpowered at times.

 It's time to mess with CLS.


----------



## RYCeT

Btw what's the difference between SB-800 to SB-900? Do the differences justify the price?


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think the SB600/800/900 are really that much more powerful than the SB400. They can just focus the beam better. When I start using light modifier, they are nearly all underpowered at times.

 It's time to mess with CLS._

 

Yeah, the SB600 and 800 have significantly more throw distance. 

 Heheh, how many flashes are you going to end up having?

 -Ed


----------



## nineohtoo

Check the strobist blog for a good review and whether or not to upgrade from 800 to 900. I think he says that the 800 is more than adequate for the average person.

 Great review on the Tokina. I keep reading nothing but good things about it, and it's nice to see a review not involving charts and newspapers lol. Now if someone can use it to photograph a show, I'll be sold. Tokina 11-16mm/Sigma 18-50mm 2.8(Tamron is also nice), and Sigma 30mm 1.4 sounds like a great crop sensor concert kit


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Btw what's the difference between SB-800 to SB-900? Do the differences justify the price?_

 

Well to me the biggest things are 1) rotates in both directions 180 degrees 2) easier interface 3) actual physical settings for master / slave operation 4) faster recharge rate make SB900 worth it

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, the SB600 and 800 have significantly more throw distance. 

 Heheh, how many flashes are you going to end up having?_

 

When I take photos of people, I'm not more than 9ft / 3 meters away so it's fine really.


----------



## dj_mocok

I shot this today.

 Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 @ 16mm f/5 1/30


----------



## OverlordXenu

I don't get it. It is flat, isn't quite focused, yet there is way too much DoF...there is no real subject...

 I'm sorry, but can you explain to me what you're going at, artisticly?

 I just see a mediocre snapshot...I would have gotten close up to a flower, pumped up the color saturation so it doesn't look like something off of the local news, and opened it wide up to get a nice, blurred background.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't get it. It is flat, isn't quite focused, yet there is way too much DoF...there is no real subject...

 I'm sorry, but can you explain to me what you're going at, artisticly?

 I just see a mediocre snapshot...I would have gotten close up to a flower, pumped up the color saturation so it doesn't look like something off of the local news, and opened it wide up to get a nice, blurred background._

 

i agree


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't get it. It is flat, isn't quite focused, yet there is way too much DoF...there is no real subject...

 I'm sorry, but can you explain to me what you're going at, artisticly?

 I just see a mediocre snapshot...I would have gotten close up to a flower, pumped up the color saturation so it doesn't look like something off of the local news, and opened it wide up to get a nice, blurred background._

 

Are you serious? That's like one of the best shots I've ever made! It's so artistic I don't even know where to begin.

 Maybe you need something more contemporary. 

 Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 @ 11mm f/4, 1/5sec.


----------



## Edwood

Woooo, my dad just upgraded to a D700. My parents are coming to LA to visit in two weeks, so I'll get to see the D700 in action. 

 And looks like as a result, I'll be getting a hand me down D200. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was considering the D90 or D300 in the future, I guess this D200 will keep me satiated in the meantime until the D700 comes down in price in the later future.

 -Ed


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't get it. It is flat, isn't quite focused, yet there is way too much DoF...there is no real subject...

 I'm sorry, but can you explain to me what you're going at, artisticly?

 I just see a mediocre snapshot...I would have gotten close up to a flower, pumped up the color saturation so it doesn't look like something off of the local news, and opened it wide up to get a nice, blurred background._

 

No comment on the artistic qualities, but I'm just noticing that it has very little distortion at 16mm and it not too soft at the corners. I'd have to see a full res pic to be sure, but that lens seems to be a pretty decent performer for a wide angle.

 -Ed


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you serious? That's like one of the best shots I've ever made! It's so artistic I don't even know where to begin.

 Maybe you need something more contemporary. 

 Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 @ 11mm f/4, 1/5sec.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...cok/TOKINA.jpg_

 

Yeah, much more distortion there, but not bad considering it's at 11mm.

 And again, no comment on the artistic thing. 

 -Ed


----------



## OverlordXenu

oh, it was just a demonstration...alright. I looked at your gallery and stuff, and I did like a lot of your work.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Woooo, my dad just upgraded to a D700. My parents are coming to LA to visit in two weeks, so I'll get to see the D700 in action. 

 And looks like as a result, I'll be getting a hand me down D200._

 

I suggest you don't checkout the D700. Or you might want to try and sell the D200 and get something else. LOL.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I suggest you don't checkout the D700. Or you might want to try and sell the D200 and get something else. LOL._

 

LOL, that is very very true. 

 I think I'll sell off my Pentax *ist DS and 35mm f/2.0 and Flash to fund that Nikon 105mm Macro with VR, I've been eyeing. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## dj_mocok

Actually the pictures were not demonstrations. I was only kidding when posting those but actually it feels great just snapping randomly and not having to think about the aesthetic factor of the picture. 

 Maybe we should have a "Post your Crap Pictures" Thread. Sounds fun.

 PS: Edwood:
 C'mon I know you can't resist my artistic shots! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	









 PS: Yes, that lens has very little distortion at 16mm. If you want to see the distortion test, Photozone and Ken Rockwell's sites have the review for that lens (also the distortion level).


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Woooo, my dad just upgraded to a D700. My parents are coming to LA to visit in two weeks, so I'll get to see the D700 in action. 

 And looks like as a result, I'll be getting a hand me down D200. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was considering the D90 or D300 in the future, I guess this D200 will keep me satiated in the meantime until the D700 comes down in price in the later future.

 -Ed_

 

I would die for a D700. The D300 is a big step up from the D200, but the D700 is a HUGE step up.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_oh, it was just a demonstration...alright. I looked at your gallery and stuff, and I did like a lot of your work._

 

Still don't get what point he was trying to demonstrate
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Oh well...


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Still don't get what point he was trying to demonstrate
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Oh well..._

 


 You still don't get it? You want more pictures? 
 How about some nude photography then?
 I didn't graduate from _Institute of Craphotology_ for no reason you know...


----------



## Edwood




----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_



_

 

What lens did you use to take that shot?


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What lens did you use to take that shot?_

 

28mm f/1.4 in my dreams. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Attached to a D700.




 In my dreams.



 -Ed


----------



## dj_mocok

Hehe.. Okay enough silly pictures for me for today (today only).

 By the way, who's here saving up for a new body? I am still using D80 and I don't think I need to upgrade it yet - nothing much in D90 that really makes me want to upgrade.

 However, I am quite tempted with D700 - mainly because of ISO performance and FF. I would love to use my Ai-s with a D700. Yes I know, it sounds crazy for some people, why would I use dinosaur lenses on cameras like D700? But that's what I really want - shooting a D700 with 85mm 1.4 Ai-s attached to it.

 I might upgrade my camera next year, but definitely not this year. Maybe to something like whatever D300's successor is by that time (D400?), or who knows Nikon might even release a new breed of affordable FX range altogether. Or I might just get the D700 by then, which will be much cheaper already I hope.

 By the way, I think Nikon is really shooting itself on the foot here with it's model naming. We got D70 --> D80 ---> D90. So what's next year? D100?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By the way, I think Nikon is really shooting itself on the foot here with it's model naming. We got D70 --> D80 ---> D90. So what's next year? D100? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yeah I thought about that exact same thing a few days ago also. Also what's after the D60?


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah I thought about that exact same thing a few days ago also. Also what's after the D60? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

D70 of course.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 By the way, I think Nikon is really shooting itself on the foot here with it's model naming. We got D70 --> D80 ---> D90. So what's next year? D100? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Well, they could just go into the thousands with their number naming convention, it's always the popular and confusing marketing thing to do.

 D90 -> D1000

 D700 -> D2000

 D3 -> D0.5 ?

 LOL, I can't make sense of numbered naming conventions.

 -Ed


----------



## Poohblah

or they could do what canon did and switch from D60 to 10D


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, much more distortion there, but not bad considering it's at 11mm._

 

The small amount of distortion is only half the story. The distortion on the Tokina is very even- easy to correct in photoshop. For comparison, the Sigma 10-20 has different types of distortion working at the same time. It's extremely difficult to correct for.

 see ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was considering the D90 or D300 in the future, I guess this D200 will keep me satiated in the meantime until the D700 comes down in price in the later future._

 

The D200 is a great camera. It takes just as good pictures as any other Nikon model. It just has about a stop and a half less latitude in low light than the D300 and it isn't full frame like the pro models. You are making out like a bandit getting that as a hand-me-down. If you can't take spectacular pictures with a D200, getting a fancier camera isn't going to help.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think I'll sell off my Pentax *ist DS and 35mm f/2.0 and Flash to fund that Nikon 105mm Macro with VR, I've been eyeing._

 

I have the Tokina 2.8 100mm Macro, and it is a great lens. Solid, sharp and poppy. You might want to take a look at it before you go for the Nikon.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Dimitris

I went to B&H today and played around with the D700 & D3. Wuao these cameras are sweeeet! I cant wait to use the D700 with my old Nikkors in 10 years when I can afford it.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D200 is a great camera. It takes just as good pictures as any other Nikon model. It just has about a stop and a half less latitude in low light than the D300 and it isn't full frame like the pro models. You are making out like a bandit getting that as a hand-me-down. If you can't take spectacular pictures with a D200, getting a fancier camera isn't going to help.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

i agree. what i've noticed with my D200 is that it is the ultimate tool - everything is easy to access and change on the fly, and there are about a million custom settings for it so you can set it up exactly how you want it. this is in comparison to a consumer DSLR, which is more of a snapshot generator. 

 the only gripe i have about the D200 is that it won't get me a glass of water when i get thirsty. i think i need a D700 for that.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D200 is a great camera. It takes just as good pictures as any other Nikon model. It just has about a stop and a half less latitude in low light than the D300 and it isn't full frame like the pro models. You are making out like a bandit getting that as a hand-me-down. If you can't take spectacular pictures with a D200, getting a fancier camera isn't going to help.

 See ya
 Steve_

 



 Yep. I'm excited about stepping up from the D80 to D200. I think I might force myself to shoot only JPEGs for awhile to practice shooting and setting up better. I tend to be a pretty lazy photographer since I am far better at Photoshop than I am at Photography. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Heheh, I don't think I'm worthy of the D700 yet, even if I could justify affording it.

 -Ed


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i agree. what i've noticed with my D200 is that it is the ultimate tool - everything is easy to access and change on the fly, and there are about a million custom settings for it so you can set it up exactly how you want it. this is in comparison to a consumer DSLR, which is more of a snapshot generator. _

 

What makes you think 'consumer' DSLR is a snapshot generator? I've seen my fair share of crap pictures coming from high-end cameras and lenses as well, and vice versa. 
 The only reason why you think you are seeing more snapshots is because most beginners tend to go with lower level DSLR to test the water (and the portability) but it doesn't mean that the likes of D40 can't produce jaw-dropping pictures.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What makes you think 'consumer' DSLR is a snapshot generator?_

 

I think he means people that just point and shoot with DSLR's. Have everything on automatic, not even trying aperture priority mode.


----------



## coolshot

I am currently a canon user who is switching to nikon soon. Right now i'm in the research phase. First off I shoot with a canon xt, sigma 18-50ex 2.8 and 430ex speedlite. I interested in nikon's fx format, better metering and flash systems(CLS). If I was concerned with long primes or f4 zooms I would have stayed. I primarily shoot people indoors in low light situations. Right now its mainly just friends and family at parties. Occasionally I do get asked to shoot at nightclubs. 

 Although I hear about the d80 and its metering problems I'm looking at this for about a $1800 budget. 

 Nikon d80
 Nikkor 16-85VR
 Nikkor SB 900
 various accessories I already have. 

 Here is what i'm thinking. The D80 is slightly bigger. This helps out hand holding tremendously. I already held one at bestbuy. I can't afford Fx bodies so this will be nice stop gap until then. The 16-85 is slow, not like 2.8 like i'm used to but I rarely use 2.8 anymore. I find that the DOF is too shallow for all those group shots. With an average aperture of around 5.6-8 I need VR. I'm hoping an ISO bump and VR will help me get the shots I need. I frequently shoot with my camera in one hand and a beer in another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I am going to wait until the holidays to see if I really jump into something. Any suggestions would be great.


----------



## nineohtoo

^Stick with Canon unless you plan on spending more. 

 D700 is what $3k? Unless you've got the budget, Nikon full frame is out of the question. The D90 is cool, but its still not full frame, and outside of the video and better ISO, it's not much of an upgrade form a D80. For a little more you can pick up a used D300.

 With Canon full frame, the 5D can be had for around $1300. If you don't mind crop, you can wait it out for the 50D at the same price, or get a 40D for $800 or maybe even less(my future plan). Either way you cut it, full frame with good glass is gonna cost a bit of money either way.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *coolshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am currently a canon user who is switching to nikon soon. Right now i'm in the research phase. First off I shoot with a canon xt, sigma 18-50ex 2.8 and 430ex speedlite. I interested in nikon's fx format, better metering and flash systems(CLS). If I was concerned with long primes or f4 zooms I would have stayed. I primarily shoot people indoors in low light situations. Right now its mainly just friends and family at parties. Occasionally I do get asked to shoot at nightclubs. 

 Although I hear about the d80 and its metering problems I'm looking at this for about a $1800 budget. 

 Nikon d80
 Nikkor 16-85VR
 Nikkor SB 900
 various accessories I already have. 

 Here is what i'm thinking. The D80 is slightly bigger. This helps out hand holding tremendously. I already held one at bestbuy. I can't afford Fx bodies so this will be nice stop gap until then. The 16-85 is slow, not like 2.8 like i'm used to but I rarely use 2.8 anymore. I find that the DOF is too shallow for all those group shots. With an average aperture of around 5.6-8 I need VR. I'm hoping an ISO bump and VR will help me get the shots I need. I frequently shoot with my camera in one hand and a beer in another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I am going to wait until the holidays to see if I really jump into something. Any suggestions would be great._

 

Why don't you wait til Canon 50D comes out and see how good it is? I mean you've been shooting Canon, so you will lose out on selling your camera and lenses as well (although from what you mentioned, the lens is not something you'll miss, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)

 If I were you, I'd wait for 50D, either that or get a new Canon 5D which is very nicely priced at the moment (you don't need the speed anyway). Or even get a second hand 40D when 50D is everywhere already. 
 Or get a nice wide angle lens instead of switching camp. Actually get a super wide, so you can handhold even a bit better. 

 If you're switching to Nikon but still sticking with so so lens, I don't think you'll notice much improvement, if any. I don't think Canon's flash system is THAT bad you can't even use it properly for a simple tasks like function or in the club. I don't use flash, but as far as I know Nikon's flash system excels when you are dealing with more complicated flash procedures (commander this and that, I don't even know how it works).

 EDIT: Heh, nineohtoo was actually saying the exact thing while I was typing the post, haha... see, two people are recommending you the same thing already. So stick with Canon and get a better body and lens!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *coolshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am currently a canon user who is switching to nikon soon. Right now i'm in the research phase. First off I shoot with a canon xt, sigma 18-50ex 2.8 and 430ex speedlite. I interested in nikon's fx format, better metering and flash systems(CLS). If I was concerned with long primes or f4 zooms I would have stayed. I primarily shoot people indoors in low light situations. Right now its mainly just friends and family at parties. Occasionally I do get asked to shoot at nightclubs. 

 Although I hear about the d80 and its metering problems I'm looking at this for about a $1800 budget. 

 Nikon d80
 Nikkor 16-85VR
 Nikkor SB 900
 various accessories I already have. 

 Here is what i'm thinking. The D80 is slightly bigger. This helps out hand holding tremendously. I already held one at bestbuy. I can't afford Fx bodies so this will be nice stop gap until then. The 16-85 is slow, not like 2.8 like i'm used to but I rarely use 2.8 anymore. I find that the DOF is too shallow for all those group shots. With an average aperture of around 5.6-8 I need VR. I'm hoping an ISO bump and VR will help me get the shots I need. I frequently shoot with my camera in one hand and a beer in another 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I am going to wait until the holidays to see if I really jump into something. Any suggestions would be great._

 

A few things I would recommend. First off, if you are making the switch to nikon, congratulations. Those silly canon folk will try and keep you as hard as they can! If only they knew what they were missing! ^_^ 
 Joking, of course.


 If you want to buy into nikon FX, I wouldn't spend money on DX lenses. The DX lenses are not a good investment, and when you do make the switch up to FX from the D80 the lenses will not work very good. Best to get some of nikon's good lenses if you can. Keep your eye out for lenses that have been discontinued. You can get some real bargains even though they are brand new! I got my pro 35-70mm F/2.8 that way for something like 400-470$, and I'm waiting for the 80-200 F/2.8 to do the same when the new revised 70-200 comes out.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *coolshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_First off I shoot with a canon xt, sigma 18-50ex 2.8 and 430ex speedlite.

 I primarily shoot people indoors in low light situations. Right now its mainly just friends and family at parties. Occasionally I do get asked to shoot at nightclubs._

 

I'm not sure why you can't take photos with what you already have. Go into full manual and you won't have any problems.


----------



## screwdriver

Man - now i have the $$$ to buy a new gear to replace my old beat up D70 , its so hard to decide.

 So far i have the following lenses; nikon 17-55 2.8 , nikon 80-200 2.8 , tamrom 90 macro , nikon 50 1.8. 

 i can buy a D300 body and this is the max i can spend OR buy a D90 ( or a D200) and another lens like a tokina 11-16.


 im leaning more into the D90 and tokna as it gives me another lens to use.


----------



## dj_mocok

If I were you, I'd rather get D90 as well. 
 But D200, D300, or D90, they all will give you huge improvement over your D70.

 The only thing you might not like about D90 is it might be a tad small if you are so used to D70 already (I personally think D70's size suits me better than D80/D90). 

 But anyway, say if you bought the D90 and that Tokina 11-16mm (or equivalent), I think you are pretty much set in terms of lenses - anymore than that it's probably the 'gear-head' factor.

 Actually if you wanna save even more money, get the D80 (or D200) now, it's so cheap it's ridiculous. But I guess if the new D90 is only $200-$300 bucks more, it's better to get the D90 then.

 If you read a few posts back, I also just got myself the Tokina lens. Before I bought the lens, it came to my mind that I could also just sell my D80 and get a D300 instead of buying a Tokina lens. But I chose lens over body, and I never regretted it. Now I can take pictures in many more different ways than before. Had I chosen to go D300, I wouldn't be able to do what I can with the Tokina, and to be honest, I'm not even sure if my photo results would improve that much by getting the D300.

 In your case, getting a new body + new lens - you're in for a big treat!


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What makes you think 'consumer' DSLR is a snapshot generator? I've seen my fair share of crap pictures coming from high-end cameras and lenses as well, and vice versa. 
 The only reason why you think you are seeing more snapshots is because most beginners tend to go with lower level DSLR to test the water (and the portability) but it doesn't mean that the likes of D40 can't produce jaw-dropping pictures._

 

what i said was probably poorly worded. but what i meant was that consumer cameras don't have nearly the ease of use or level of customization that, say, the D200 has. for example, there are often situations when i want a half-press of the shutter to only turn on the meter and not focus the camera. or maybe i'm shooting in low lighting and i want to quickly alternate between high ISO's and bursts from the flash - i can assign a button to do that.

 it's all about control, and consumer cameras just don't have quite the same level of control.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Man - now i have the $$$ to buy a new gear to replace my old beat up D70 , its so hard to decide.

 So far i have the following lenses; nikon 17-55 2.8 , nikon 80-200 2.8 , tamrom 90 macro , nikon 50 1.8. 

 i can buy a D300 body and this is the max i can spend OR buy a D90 ( or a D200) and another lens like a tokina 11-16.


 im leaning more into the D90 and tokna as it gives me another lens to use._

 

if i were you i would go for the D200 and the tokina. i'm saying this not because i have a D200, but because i just don't see what the D90 has to offer that the D200 doesn't, and the D200 is more solidly built to boot.


----------



## dj_mocok

Okay, I've made up my decision (I think).
 I decided to forget about full frame Nikon since the price is just too much and looks like I don't have the heart to part with my lens that suits DX format better.
 By the time D400 arrives (or whatever it's called), that's when I will upgrade my D80. 

 I hope it will come around the 3rd or 4th quarter next year. So it's time to start saving the money now.


----------



## screwglue

hey guys im new to head-fi and i just found this thread. anyways is there a thread that is more focused on pictures and not gear?

 I also agree with mocok, if you're gonna get a d200 you might as well get a d80, which i'd rather get over a d90. in my opinion the pictures taken are relatively the same. d90 just has a bigger screen, and some small things that i don't think matter.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwglue* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_hey guys im new to head-fi and i just found this thread. anyways is there a thread that is more focused on pictures and not gear?

 I also agree with mocok, if you're gonna get a d200 you might as well get a d80, which i'd rather get over a d90. in my opinion the pictures taken are relatively the same. d90 just has a bigger screen, and some small things that i don't think matter._

 

Pictures? Who needs pictures? We here buy expensive gears so that we can brag about them, not to take pictures with them. Well occasionally we do take pictures of bricks, but again, that's just to brag later on about how much details we can capture from the bricks. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Anyway, there is one "post your picture" thread on the member's lounge, I don't think you can miss that one because it's usually updated all the time. 

 But if you want more pictures and the talk about pictures or photography (which sometimes can lead to rather heavy conversation), you can visit photo.net. I like that site best over the others.


----------



## hembergler

In case someone hasn't already seen these, here are a few new/updated Tamrons:

Tamron announces three Di Full-Size Format lenses
Tamron announces new Di lenses for Canon and Nikon

 I have a feeling that 18-270mm might have just a tiny bit of distortion.


----------



## Poohblah

and yet, there still isn't anything quite like 14mm on full frame.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwglue* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_hey guys im new to head-fi and i just found this thread. anyways is there a thread that is more focused on pictures and not gear?_

 

if you want to discuss images, feel free to head on over to an art site or someplace like photo.net


----------



## coolshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure why you can't take photos with what you already have. Go into full manual and you won't have any problems._

 

I shoot full manual already. I take decent shots with what I have right now. My main complaints right now are ISO performance and handling. I'm really enjoying my beyer DT770 but it doesn't mean I don't want an AT L3000.


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Anyone got any experience with Nikons repair service? my D80 had 6 dead pixel spots and is now in for a repair. The store clerk said they would swap the sensor, but had no idea of how long it would take.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i can buy a D300 body and this is the max i can spend OR buy a D90 ( or a D200) and another lens like a tokina 11-16.

 im leaning more into the D90 and tokna as it gives me another lens to use._

 

I think the decision is pretty easy, if you like 11-16 range, then get the lens of course. I know I will never use that range much.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *coolshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I shoot full manual already. I take decent shots with what I have right now. My main complaints right now are ISO performance and handling. I'm really enjoying my beyer DT770 but it doesn't mean I don't want an AT L3000._

 

For that situation of shots you describe, your photos won't be any better with a D80. D80's high ISO isn't any better than the XT. You want D90, D300, D700, or D3. And if you wanted better handling in the form of autofocus, D300 and up will have it. But you should still use the AF assist lamp because using a slow lens makes AF performance weaker and viewfinder dimmer. All of which I wouldn't want indoors. So I still argue for having f/2.8 zoom.

 Honestly, if you just take decent shots with what you have, having a "better" gear won't make you any better.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwglue* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_hey guys im new to head-fi and i just found this thread. anyways is there a thread that is more focused on pictures and not gear?

 I also agree with mocok, if you're gonna get a d200 you might as well get a d80, which i'd rather get over a d90. in my opinion the pictures taken are relatively the same. d90 just has a bigger screen, and some small things that i don't think matter._

 

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f11/po...iendly-256063/


----------



## Towert7

lan, it's funny that you mention the AF assist lamp.

 I have turned that thing off on my D50 and never looked back. It didn't help me at all with my lenses, some of which are not the fastest in the world (18-200VR, 70-300G).

 All it did was tick off the people/animals I was taking a picture of.


----------



## Towert7

This winter is shaping up to be a very interesting time in terms of new things out of Nikon.

 Rumors of a 40mp medium format (DX > FX > MX) camera and a few lens revisions, especially the 70-200VR. Hmm... Very exciting! Can't wait.

 If this is true, it could push canon behind a year or two.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_lan, it's funny that you mention the AF assist lamp.

 I have turned that thing off on my D50 and never looked back. It didn't help me at all with my lenses, some of which are not the fastest in the world (18-200VR, 70-300G).

 All it did was tick off the people/animals I was taking a picture of._

 

Well when you're talking about an extreme situation when you can't AF, you either use AF assist lamp, the red light from the flash, or manual focus. For me it's been a help. For the original poster, it will be a help also. It's quite annoying when the camera won't fire because AF isn't confirmed.


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This winter is shaping up to be a very interesting time in terms of new things out of Nikon.

 Rumors of a 40mp medium format (DX > FX > MX) camera and a few lens revisions, especially the 70-200VR. Hmm... Very exciting! Can't wait.

 If this is true, it could push canon behind a year or two._

 

Thanks, I read Nikon Rumors too.

 I very much doubt that Nikon would build a medium format camera, that would also mean a new line of lens.

 There is a rumor of a Nikon rangefinder mentioned in the forum at rangefinderforum.com. MX? Leica M series lenses?

 Nikon needs to improve their point and shoot cameras, there is a lot of money in this area. 

 About Canon, wait for Photokina. There could be news, if not, Canon owners won't be happy.


----------



## Towert7

I could see a niche market for a budget Leica M, so if Nikon can do that it will be interesting. Even my little D50 is not very discrete when it comes to street photography. Having an old body style digital camera would come in handy, especially for just throwing into a bag.

 From the pictures though, it's claiming to be 40mp.... which is huge! I will be shocked if this turns out to be true.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mightyacorn* 
_About Canon, wait for Photokina. There could be news, if not, Canon owners won't be happy._

 

The poor canon owners have been waiting for the 5D replacement for at least a year now. If it's not released then, it'll be a sad day indeed.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think he means people that just point and shoot with DSLR's. Have everything on automatic, not even trying aperture priority mode._

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as the automatic settings are the same as you would choose if you set the camera manually. I find that the D200 does exactly what I would do in auto program mode.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_im leaning more into the D90 and tokna as it gives me another lens to use._

 

Wise choice.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## dj_mocok

Shot taken with D80 and 50mm f/1.4. Man, I love this camera.


----------



## rhythmdevils

well i am going to buy a D3 soon. Either that, or a D3x when it comes out. But im not sure I need the megapixels, and I am assuming that high iso performance will be sacrificed when the photo-sites or whatever are smaller. anyone have any thoughts?

 And also, I found the D3 for sale for around 2,500 dollars! but i feel really sketchy about the merchant. there's two of them actually. what do you all think?

WildDigital.com - Nikon*D3, 12.4 Megapixel, Interchangeable Lens, SLR, Digital Camera

Nikon D3 (Body Only) (Nikon-25434) - Compare Prices at ShopCartUSA.com

 that's cheaper than the D700 yikes.


----------



## rhythmdevils

oh, and i forgot to mention, that I think Nikon is kicking Canon's sorry but right now!

 My work has an Eos1ds MkIII and from what I have seen, the D3 slaughters, at half the megapixel count.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_well i am going to buy a D3 soon. Either that, or a D3x when it comes out. But im not sure I need the megapixels, and I am assuming that high iso performance will be sacrificed when the photo-sites or whatever are smaller. anyone have any thoughts?

 And also, I found the D3 for sale for around 2,500 dollars! but i feel really sketchy about the merchant. there's two of them actually. what do you all think?

WildDigital.com - Nikon*D3, 12.4 Megapixel, Interchangeable Lens, SLR, Digital Camera

Nikon D3 (Body Only) (Nikon-25434) - Compare Prices at ShopCartUSA.com

 that's cheaper than the D700 yikes._

 

You know how the old saying goes, "If it sounds too good to be true...."

www.ResellerRatings.com 
 Use it. Use it often.

WildDigital.com Customer Ratings, Reviews and Prices at ResellerRatings

 They both sound like your typical "Crooklyn Camera Shops."

 You'll never get those D3's at those prices.

 -Ed


----------



## rhythmdevils

holy cow! ha ha. i didn't think it could be legit. I guess I'll have to keep saving up! I was thinking of going ebay, but it would be nice to know that something like this is new and unused...


----------



## Edwood

Just get a D700, less saving up needed.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My work has an Eos1ds MkIII and from what I have seen, the D3 slaughters, at half the megapixel count. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Question, do you even need the camera you are considering getting?


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shot taken with D80 and 50mm f/1.4. Man, I love this camera. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Damn, I miss Sydney. Circular Quay huh


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Question, do you even need the camera you are considering getting?_

 

Do we really *need* any of our headphone gear? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_well i am going to buy a D3 soon. Either that, or a D3x when it comes out. But im not sure I need the megapixels, and I am assuming that high iso performance will be sacrificed when the photo-sites or whatever are smaller. anyone have any thoughts?

 And also, I found the D3 for sale for around 2,500 dollars! but i feel really sketchy about the merchant. there's two of them actually. what do you all think?

WildDigital.com - Nikon D3, 12.4 Megapixel, Interchangeable Lens, SLR, Digital Camera

Nikon D3 (Body Only) (Nikon-25434) - Compare Prices at ShopCartUSA.com

 that's cheaper than the D700 yikes._

 

if you want a $2500 D3, get a D700. that deal is most certainly not legit.

 for that matter, if you have $2500 and want a full frame nikon, get an F100 and use the $2000+ you saved on film and processing.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_if you want a $2500 D3, get a D700. that deal is most certainly not legit.

 for that matter, if you have $2500 and want a full frame nikon, get an F100 and use the $2000+ you saved on film and processing._

 

I have a Hasselblad 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 And I am completely devoted to film. But commercial work doesn't lend itself to well to all the work that goes into film. I gotta be able to have images ready the day I shoot. And the D3 is the first camera Ive seen that can contend with film- and the low light sensitivity is just dreamy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I don't want a D700 because, silly as it might seem, it doesn't have the in-finder crop to 4x5 aspect ratio that the D3 has. That crop alone is worth the extra to me, no joke! i guess im a purist


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Question, do you even need the camera you are considering getting?_

 

what do you mean? The eos1ds is not mine. I just get to use it frequently.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a Hasselblad 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

i'm assuming you can't afford a digital back for it, then?


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i'm assuming you can't afford a digital back for it, then?_

 

yeah 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 but i can't imagine anything greater than hearing that "ka-chunk" (the sound of the hasselblad's big mirror slaming up and shutter opening) and then having a 40 megapixel digital image from it.


----------



## dj_mocok

D3? Heck, if you can afford it, why not? 

 Or ask StuartR and see if he wanna sell his D3 and then he can finally get a D700 because it's lighter.


----------



## Hayduke

How good or bad is the kit 18-135 lens that comes with the D80?

 I figure someone here will have used it.

 I wasn't planning to buy a camera for several more months, but that timescale has been accelerated a bit. I'm buying one this week (maybe even today). I can spend up to about $1100, but I'd prefer to spend less 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I've narrowed it down to the D80 kit, the D60 kit or the rebel Xsi kit.
 I know kit lenses suck compared to higher end glass, but This is the only way I can see to get something usable immediately within my budget.

 I'm going on a backpacking trip next week, and I thought I was going to borrow a Rebel XT, but that's not looking good. I was saving this money to spend more later on, but I think it's enough to get me something to start with. I'll buy more lenses later and, after I have a few nice lenses, eventually upgrade the body.

 I was undecided between Canon and Nikon (still am a little), but there is one difference that is really swaying my decision. I know it's a dumb reason, but I prefer the direction Nikon zooms "twist". With the Canon I've borrowed recently, I keep twisting the wrong way to zoom. The first thing I noticed when I tested a Nikon at the shop was that it works the "correct" way  At least it operates the way that is intuitive for me. It may sound like a minor thing, but it's something I keep thinking about.

 SO any advice on that D80 kit lens? Or how about opinions on D80 vs D60?

 I'm aware the D60 can't auto focus lenses without a motor. I'm not sure how big a deal that is though. My intention is to only buy lenses that are "full size". I don't want to buy any of the lenses that only work on DX bodies so that I can upgrade to a FX body down the road and use the same lenses.

 Hopefully I'll get some good responses quickly, as I was planning to go shopping on my lunch hour


----------



## ozz

I went with the D-80 last year with the kit lens 18-135 and never looked
 back and now it can be had for hundreds cheaper.As for Canon Nikon
 buy the one that feels right in your hand as they are built slightly
 different also from model to model.Use the compare feature on the web
 site for each model thats what I did and came to the conclusion that the
 D-80 would allow me some room to grow should I take this hobby more
 serious.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ozz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I went with the D-80 last year with the kit lens 18-135 and never looked
 back and now it can be had for hundreds cheaper.As for Canon Nikon
 buy the one that feels right in your hand as they are built slightly
 different also from model to model.Use the compare feature on the web
 site for each model thats what I did and came to the conclusion that the
 D-80 would allow me some room to grow should I take this hobby more
 serious._

 

yay an answer! hehe I'm almost decided on the D80. I like the sensor cleaning feature of the D60 and Rebel Xsi, but I'm not sure if that's more a gimmik then useful.

 I think right now my remaining concern is the reviews say the D80s high ISO performance isn't as good as the Canons. I do like to shoot low light and high f-stop, so that could be an issue.

 Ritz camera (the only shop in my smallish town) has a D80 kit with what looks like the same lens as the D60 kit. It's a 18-55 VR lens.

 They also have a kit with a D60 and 2 lenses. One is the 18-55 VR and it also comes with a 55-200. I really like this kit because these 2 lenses would cover pretty much everything I want. They probably aren't great lenses though, and they probably won't work when I eventually get an FX body.

 I hate this. I'm feeling pressured because I need to purchase the camera asap and I don't want to regret the choice I make. The worst part is I really can only get something from Ritz. I'm not sure I can get anything shipped to me by Wednesday, and if I did get it Wednesday, that really wouldn't give me any time to play with it before I go backpacking (we are entering The Canyon on Thursday morning).


----------



## bigshot

You can get a D40 at Amazon with both an 18-55 and a 55-200 for $663. That is a pretty nice little kit for that price. Add a fast prime like the 50mm 1.4 to that for $314 and you're set for just about anything for under a grand. Great deal.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can get a D40 at Amazon with both an 18-55 and a 55-200 for $663. That is a pretty nice little kit for that price. Add a fast normal prime like the 50mm 1.4 to that for $314 and you're set for just about anything for under a grand. Great deal.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I've ruled out a D40. I know the mantra is don't worry about how many pixels, but I like to make big prints and I crop pretty often. I'm sure the D40 is a nice camera, but I really want to try and stay above 10MP.

 I do appreciate the suggestion though. I had looked at Amazon before, but ruled it out due to my deadline. I didn't think I could get something shipped here in time. I might be able to get a big enough discount form them to offset a 2day shipping though. hmmmmm.. then there is the desire to "buy local" even if it is a chain store. I think it would be a good thing to try and keep them in business here huh? lol

 Most of the time I love it, but sometimes living in a small town sucks 

 Well I'm off to the camera store! I might buy something, I might not. I'm inclined to get the D80, but then I won't have a lot of lens selection for my trip next week.


----------



## ozz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've ruled out a D40. I know the mantra is don't worry about how many pixels, but I like to make big prints and I crop pretty often. I'm sure the D40 is a nice camera, but I really want to try and stay above 10MP.

 I do appreciate the suggestion though. I had looked at Amazon before, but ruled it out due to my deadline. I didn't think I could get something shipped here in time. I might be able to get a big enough discount form them to offset a 2day shipping though. hmmmmm.. then there is the desire to "buy local" even if it is a chain store. I think it would be a good thing to try and keep them in business here huh? lol

 Most of the time I love it, but sometimes living in a small town sucks 

 Well I'm off to the camera store! I might buy something, I might not. I'm inclined to get the D80, but then I won't have a lot of lens selection for my trip next week._

 

They are dealing a little a good all around lens would be the 18-200 vr but
 get ready for the price my friend has that lens with his 300 and says thats 
 all he needs. I would get the prime as Bigshot mentioned if your going to
 take a lot of low light shots also when I borrowed my friends 18-200 I found
 it just did not zoom far enough for me so the 70-300 vr fit the spot although
 its a tad soft at 300. Another thing nice about dealing with a local camera shop should there be a defect or trouble with said piece they tend to work with you.


----------



## screwdriver

i had the 18-135 nikon lens and it is very sharp for a kit lens . just remember to have steady hands when shooting at the far end .

 the D80 is going to be a bargain when the D90 comes out in stores . you are at a bad time buying - it wont be till a few weeks before the D90 comes out .

 the D90 as per speculations has beter high ISO performance than the D80 , higher MP , dust cleaning and video but a kit with 18-105 VR will be $1299.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How good or bad is the kit 18-135 lens that comes with the D80?

 I figure someone here will have used it.

 I wasn't planning to buy a camera for several more months, but that timescale has been accelerated a bit. I'm buying one this week (maybe even today). I can spend up to about $1100, but I'd prefer to spend less 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I've narrowed it down to the D80 kit, the D60 kit or the rebel Xsi kit.
 I know kit lenses suck compared to higher end glass, but This is the only way I can see to get something usable immediately within my budget.

 I'm going on a backpacking trip next week, and I thought I was going to borrow a Rebel XT, but that's not looking good. I was saving this money to spend more later on, but I think it's enough to get me something to start with. I'll buy more lenses later and, after I have a few nice lenses, eventually upgrade the body.

 I was undecided between Canon and Nikon (still am a little), but there is one difference that is really swaying my decision. I know it's a dumb reason, but I prefer the direction Nikon zooms "twist". With the Canon I've borrowed recently, I keep twisting the wrong way to zoom. The first thing I noticed when I tested a Nikon at the shop was that it works the "correct" way  At least it operates the way that is intuitive for me. It may sound like a minor thing, but it's something I keep thinking about.

 SO any advice on that D80 kit lens? Or how about opinions on D80 vs D60?

 I'm aware the D60 can't auto focus lenses without a motor. I'm not sure how big a deal that is though. My intention is to only buy lenses that are "full size". I don't want to buy any of the lenses that only work on DX bodies so that I can upgrade to a FX body down the road and use the same lenses.

 Hopefully I'll get some good responses quickly, as I was planning to go shopping on my lunch hour 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Ok, so here's the thing. The D80 will be a great starting point for a DSLR. It's a steal at 720$ for the body.

 Nikon prices their lenses where they belong! You know how much the 18-135 kit lens costs. You then know how well it's built and how nice the optics are. It's a kit lens!
 Having said that, it'll be perfectly fine for a lens to start using. Your picture taking skills we be limiting you *[size=medium]much [/size]*more than the lens at the start, assuming you're new to photography.
 Great thing about the 18-135, is you get a ultra wide angle to telephoto lens all in one. That's great!

 You already know you plan to get better lenses, so I see no reason not to start off with the D80 and 18-135 kit lens. You'll love it! 

 Buy it and start having fun!
 Can't wait to see the pictures you take during your hike.


----------



## Hayduke

Thanks for the input everyone 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm pretty set on the D80 now, and I'd like to get the kit for exactly the reason Towert said. It's a decent lens and will at least give me a reasonable range to get started.

 I'm not real new to photography. I just haven't been as in to it for awhile. I still have my old 35mm Canon, and I used to use it a lot. I got plenty of good pictures, but I don't think I'll ever shoot film again. When I was in school, I could play in the darkroom, so developing wasn't such a financial burden. I stopped taking many pictures when I had to start paying for developing. Anyway, I've had my little Nikon P&S for awhile, but it's always bothered me that I couldn't do the things I was used to doing with my 35mm film camera.

 I went out at lunch today and I don't think there are any D80s for sale in Flagstaff 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm not sure what I'm going to do. Ill probably end up ordering from an online retailer and pay a little extra for the fast shipping. I figure I will be saving $100 on the basic kit, so that is probably more then the amount of the shipping. I'll post again tomorrow and let you guys know what I decided.

 If I just up my budget by a couple hundred $$ I could get.... hehe


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I went out at lunch today and I don't think there are any D80s for sale in Flagstaff 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

i doubt that. you can find a D80 at any halfway decent camera shop (not best buy etc.).


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can get a D40 at Amazon with both an 18-55 and a 55-200 for $663. That is a pretty nice little kit for that price. Add a fast prime like the 50mm 1.4 to that for $314 and you're set for just about anything for under a grand. Great deal.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

too bad the D40 can't auto focus with the 50/1.4, and given its small, dim viewfinder and no split screen focusing aid, focusing will be tough.


----------



## dj_mocok

Get a D80 you will never regret it even though D90 comes out the day after you bought D80. 
 Don't worry about this so called sensor cleaning feature. I've been shooting with my D80 for almost 2 years, and there's not a single speck of dust on the sensor. As long as you practice care when swapping lenses, dust on sensor is not an issue.

 Actually if I were you, I'd have a look at used D200 as well and see if I can score a real bargain.

 Kit lens is fine. The good thing about Nikon's kit lenses are, they can still perform well, only bad thing is build quality might not feel as solid as more expensive ones - but can't get everything you want from a kit lens, can you?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the input everyone 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm pretty set on the D80 now, and I'd like to get the kit for exactly the reason Towert said. It's a decent lens and will at least give me a reasonable range to get started.

 I'm not real new to photography. I just haven't been as in to it for awhile. I still have my old 35mm Canon, and I used to use it a lot. I got plenty of good pictures, but I don't think I'll ever shoot film again. When I was in school, I could play in the darkroom, so developing wasn't such a financial burden. I stopped taking many pictures when I had to start paying for developing. Anyway, I've had my little Nikon P&S for awhile, but it's always bothered me that I couldn't do the things I was used to doing with my 35mm film camera.

 I went out at lunch today and I don't think there are any D80s for sale in Flagstaff 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm not sure what I'm going to do. Ill probably end up ordering from an online retailer and pay a little extra for the fast shipping. I figure I will be saving $100 on the basic kit, so that is probably more then the amount of the shipping. I'll post again tomorrow and let you guys know what I decided.

 If I just up my budget by a couple hundred $$ I could get.... hehe 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

BHphoto if you want fast service!


----------



## SiBurning

Just picked up a D40 the day before leaving for vacation. My first decent camera. It feels great in my hands and this is the first time I ever took an even half decent picture. It's an upgrade from a Kodak dx3215. Okay... when you stop laughing... Hey! I got it in a raffle at a head-fi meet, or... the previous camera was even worse.

 Took over 1000 bad pictures on my trip. Though far from the best, this is one of my favorites. Of course, there's a twin picture with the background in focus. (more or less)


----------



## Towert7

That's great to hear that you've enjoying your new Nikon D40, and that it's finally giving you the tools to take better pictures. Now the pressure will be on you to improve, not the camera. ^_^


----------



## dvessel

I think you guys will find this interesting. Slow motion shutter release from a D3.

Jeffrey Friedl’s Blog » Blog Archive » Nikon D3 Shutter Release in Super Slow Motion


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i doubt that. you can find a D80 at any halfway decent camera shop (not best buy etc.)._

 

I live in Flagstaff, AZ. Population ~35,000. We have a single camera store. That Ritz camera store, in the mall, doesn't have any D80s 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Thanks for suggesting B&H Towert. They look pretty similar to Adorama in regards to price.

 OK, I didn't order anything yet, but I'm going to here shortly. I'm torn between the 18-135 kit lens or getting a 18-55 VR and a 55-200 VR. Getting the 2 VR lenses will cost ~$100 more. That seems like the better deal to me. This would give me longer range and VR. My only concern is that I think they are DX lenses. This means they won't work if I ever upgrade to a FX camera, right?

 I'm looking at this "package":
 Camera and 1 lens
9483 Nikon D80 Digital SLR Camera with 18 - 55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (Vibration Reduction) Zoom-Nikkor Lens, USA Warranty
 The other lens
2166 Nikon 55mm - 200mm f/4-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR (Vibration Reduction) Autofocus Zoom Lens with 5 Year U.S.A. Warranty
 And a couple memory cards
SDSDB2048A11 SanDisk 2 GB Secure Digital (SD) Memory Card.

 Those 4 items (2 SD cards) come in at $1115.80. Seems like a pretty good deal since the D80 with the (non VR) 18-135 lens is $999 ($1099 if I could fins one local). Next day shipping is going to run me about $60-70, but I will have it on Tuesday.

 Any reason I should choose B&H over Adorama?
 Should I save a little money and just get the kit with the 18-135 (non VR) lens?


----------



## Hayduke

Maybe I'm not supposed to buy a camera 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I called Adorama earlier and kept getting stuck in the queue for a sales rep. I had to hang up twice. I just tried again and now they are closed! Both Adorama and B&H both close early on Fridays and are closed on Saturdays!

 I guess I'll just have to call them on Sunday and place the order with 1 day shipping. Maybe I'll see if there is anyplace in Phoenix that has a D80 in stock and drive down. The gas is about the same as next day shipping.

 EDITTED:

 Since yesterday's trip to Ritz was a bust, but I didn't get the feeling the guy I talked to knew much, I called them back just now. The person I spoke with this time seemed to know how the store worked a little better. He assured me they will have some D80s coming in on Monday. He also said they will be having a sale starting Monday (nice guy huh?!?!). If you are in the market for a D80 this is an incredible deal. I'm getting the D80, the 18-55 VR and the 55-200 VR lenses all for $1084.45 including tax. I don't even have to pay a shipping fee! I'm so excited right now! I get the camera I wanted, a better deal then I was getting on the internet, and I get to shop local (as close as it gets with a chain at least).

 You can be sure I'll post again Monday after I get my hot little hands on this camera.


----------



## lan

That is the one quirk about Adorama and B&H. Call J&R and have them price match either of those two other places then.

 I personally don't like going into Adorama or B&H and dealing with them. I find Ritz and J&R more personable.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is the one quirk about Adorama and B&H. Call J&R and have them price match either of those two other places then.

 I personally don't like going into Adorama or B&H and dealing with them. I find Ritz and J&R more personable._

 

I've called up BHphoto once or twice, but I was very impressed by how smart the guy was.


----------



## Towert7

Hayduke, those VR lenses are very cheap. I couldn't believe how cheap the 55-200VR is. Great deal.

 Yea, all the lenses you are looking at are DX (yet another reason for the cheap price). But like I say, this is your first (or 2) starter lens. From there, you can upgrade till your hearts content.


----------



## Hayduke

I got a new camera!

 **does a happy dance**

 I got the D80 with the 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR. I called Ritz back and asked if they could give me a 90% assurance that they would have a D80 on Monday. My concern was that on Monday they wouldn't have it and it would be too late to get one even with 1 day shipping. He called me back about 30 minutes later and said they got a shipment in and it had 2 D80s. I hopped in the car and now I have a shiny new kit! WOOHOO!!!

 I don't know that I got a great sale price or anything. The kit was the D80 and the 18-55 for $799 then I added the 55-200 for $250. That's regular price for the lens, but there was a special where I got the lens, a fairly nice case (regular price $70), and 2 DVDs from Nikon on how to take pictures. So the total was about $100 more then I had planned walking into the store, but I'm happy with the purchase.

 I do kind of wish I hadn't got DX lenses, but on the other hand, I couldn't afford to cover that whole range with full size lenses. I'll just only get the full frame ones from here on out. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll post pics later. I have a couple hours of light left, so I'm going to go hiking and take some pictures!!!


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I got a new camera!

 **does a happy dance**

 I got the D80 with the 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR. I called Ritz back and asked if they could give me a 90% assurance that they would have a D80 on Monday. My concern was that on Monday they wouldn't have it and it would be too late to get one even with 1 day shipping. He called me back about 30 minutes later and said they got a shipment in and it had 2 D80s. I hopped in the car and now I have a shiny new kit! WOOHOO!!!

 I don't know that I got a great sale price or anything. The kit was the D80 and the 18-55 for $799 then I added the 55-200 for $250. That's regular price for the lens, but there was a special where I got the lens, a fairly nice case (regular price $70), and 2 DVDs from Nikon on how to take pictures. So the total was about $100 more then I had planned walking into the store, but I'm happy with the purchase._

 

sweet! it's always fun to walk home with new goodies 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 I do kind of wish I hadn't got DX lenses, but on the other hand, I couldn't afford to cover that whole range with full size lenses. I'll just only get the full frame ones from here on out. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 

sure you could've. a used nikon 75-300 f/4.5-5.6D is extremely cheap, around $60-80 in fact. a used nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 is only around $300, and throw in a 50mm f/1.8 for $100 and you've got a great range and a good fast aperture lens to boot. on the other hand, you did get brand new, VR lenses.


----------



## dj_mocok

I want pictures. Gimme pictures! 
 Actually I want cactus pictures. Gimme cactus pictures now!


----------



## milkpowder

*Hayduke:*

 Congrats!! Welcome to the Nikon family!! I'm looking forward to seeing some pictures


----------



## Towert7

Glad to see you were able to get what you wanted.

 And, it's not that the DX lenses won't work on a FX digital camera, it's just that you will be using less of the FX sensor size.
 But if we are honest, you're not going to buy a FX camera and NOT buy some of nikons best lenses. That's the whole point of getting the FX, to get better picture quality over the DX format.


----------



## bigshot

Just because there are FX cameras, it doesn't mean that you have to use them. A DX camera is perfectly capable of taking beautiful photographs that can be printed bigger than you would ever want to print them. For the average advanced amateur, DX is plenty.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just because there are FX cameras, it doesn't mean that you have to use them. A DX camera is perfectly capable of taking beautiful photographs that can be printed bigger than you would ever want to print them. For the average advanced amateur, DX is plenty.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

It's more about the sheer lack of noise at higher ISO's and the ability to utilize a lot more ambient light with a larger sensor. Remember that Nikon went with a much lower pixel density, rather than perpetuate the extra megapixel myth, which ironically is happening in DSLR's lately. Sony is set to announce a 25MP Full frame DSLR soon. Betcha it won't perform nearly as well as the D3 and D700 in low light at higher ISO's.

 Oh, yeah, and there's the added DOP and ability to use full frame lenses at their actual focal length.

 -Ed


----------



## dj_mocok

It's been 3 hours since you posted that you got a new camera, and I'm still waiting for the cactus pictures.
 Where's the cactus pictures man? 

 If you have spare 150 bucks lying around, you can also get yourself a 50mm f/1.8, this is usually the choice for 1st prime lens. 
 Now before you ask, I'll give you the answers in regards to basic D80 queries:

 1. "When I tilt around the camera, I notice a sound like a small loose screw rolling around inside the camera. Should I take it back?"
 - That's the picture orientation sensor - nothing wrong with the camera.

 2. "When I press function button to display gridlines on the viewfinder, nothing happens, what should I do?"
 - Press and hold the function button, and at the same time rotate the front dial (the one for aperture), then it will toggle on and off the gridlines

 3. "Should I get filter for my lenses to protect the lens?" 
 - Generally speaking, I recommend not to since it is a waste of money for those lenses, as a matter of fact, get it damaged as soon as you can so you can have an excuse to buy better lens. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 4. "What camera settings should I use?"
 It depends on what you are going to do with the files later. If you are not going to post process it, then I suggest setting it up to the best you can get straight from camera (that means maybe you can increase sharpness, contrast, etc). If you will be doing post process, set everything to minimum as a rule of thumb.

 That brings me to my next suggestion - by all means get a post processing software, it will worth every single dollar you spend for it. Photoshop Elements 6 is a good starting point. You can get it from Amazon for $59.99 after rebate. Or maybe cheaper from places like eBay if you can get a second-hand one. 

 If you haven't got a post processing software, this should be your next upgrade before buying another lens. That's because even with the simplest retouching, the improvement will be more than the improvement from getting a better lens in general.

 I hope that helps and I want my cactus pictures now.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's been 3 hours since you posted that you got a new camera, and I'm still waiting for the cactus pictures.
 Where's the cactus pictures man?
 I want my cactus pictures now._


----------



## dj_mocok




----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's more about the sheer lack of noise at higher ISO's and the ability to utilize a lot more ambient light with a larger sensor._

 

But most people shoot pictures in sunlight, and even DX cameras perform better in low light than their film counterparts that shot millions and millions of great pictures before digital was even invented. Just because FX cameras are better in low light, it doesn't mean that you need it.

 No cactus in Flagstaff... That's Ponderosa Pine country.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I want pictures. Gimme pictures! 
 Actually I want cactus pictures. Gimme cactus pictures now!



_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's been 3 hours since you posted that you got a new camera, and I'm still waiting for the cactus pictures.
 Where's the cactus pictures man? 

 If you have spare 150 bucks lying around, you can also get yourself a 50mm f/1.8, this is usually the choice for 1st prime lens. 
 Now before you ask, I'll give you the answers in regards to basic D80 queries:

 1. "When I tilt around the camera, I notice a sound like a small loose screw rolling around inside the camera. Should I take it back?"
 - That's the picture orientation sensor - nothing wrong with the camera.

 2. "When I press function button to display gridlines on the viewfinder, nothing happens, what should I do?"
 - Press and hold the function button, and at the same time rotate the front dial (the one for aperture), then it will toggle on and off the gridlines

 3. "Should I get filter for my lenses to protect the lens?" 
 - Generally speaking, I recommend not to since it is a waste of money for those lenses, as a matter of fact, get it damaged as soon as you can so you can have an excuse to buy better lens. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 4. "What camera settings should I use?"
 It depends on what you are going to do with the files later. If you are not going to post process it, then I suggest setting it up to the best you can get straight from camera (that means maybe you can increase sharpness, contrast, etc). If you will be doing post process, set everything to minimum as a rule of thumb.

 That brings me to my next suggestion - by all means get a post processing software, it will worth every single dollar you spend for it. Photoshop Elements 6 is a good starting point. You can get it from Amazon for $59.99 after rebate. Or maybe cheaper from places like eBay if you can get a second-hand one. 

 If you haven't got a post processing software, this should be your next upgrade before buying another lens. That's because even with the simplest retouching, the improvement will be more than the improvement from getting a better lens in general.

 I hope that helps and I want my cactus pictures now._

 

LOL Well I live in Flagstaff, so we don't have as many cactus around as the folks down in Phoenix 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll see what I can do though hehe

 There is an event happening today called Route 66 Days. Lots of cool old cars. I'm going to head down and take some pictures of that.

 In the meantime, here are the new goodies!


----------



## Towert7

Oh, that must be such a nice feeling Hayduke!!!

 I can remember how happy I felt when I brought home my D50 kit, very similar to what you picked up:
 D50, nikon bag, 18-55 lens, 70-300 lens, and an instructional book.
 Very similar. You'll get many years of enjoyment out of it!


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But most people shoot pictures in sunlight, and even DX cameras perform better in low light than their film counterparts that shot millions and millions of great pictures before digital was even invented. Just because FX cameras are better in low light, it doesn't mean that you need it.

 No cactus in Flagstaff... That's Ponderosa Pine country.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Just because better headphones sound better doesn't mean that you need it.

 Oh c'mon, since when does that logic work here? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## bigshot

OCD + rampant consumerism = happiness
 (at least until the new model comes out!)

 Me? I just take pictures and listen to music. I just want tools that do the job. There's a cost to upgrading beyond just money. I had my F2 for 25 years. It got so it was an extension of my hand and my mind. If I change camera bodies every time Nikon comes up with a new model of DSLR, I'll never get to that point.

 DX is capable of doing everything I need, and the lenses are fantastic. Much better than the ones I have for my F2. In order for me to upgrade, there is going to have to be a compelling reason, not just an extra stop or two when shooting under a full moon.

 If a DSLR was able to replace my video camera and was redesigned to suit both purposes, not just ape the form of film cameras as others have pointed out recently, that might make me trade the D200 in.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But most people shoot pictures in sunlight, and even DX cameras perform better in low light than their film counterparts that shot millions and millions of great pictures before digital was even invented._

 

i'd like to see any digital camera perform a 2+ hour exposure that is so easy to get with film. but i'm assuming you mean handheld exposures, so yes modern dslr's do great in low light. however, modern high speed films such as ilford delta 3200 or t-max 3200 are just as good in low light as, say, a D200.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i'd like to see any digital camera perform a 2+ hour exposure that is so easy to get with film._

 

Use a ND filter.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*i'd like to see any digital camera perform a 2+ hour exposure that is so easy to get with film.* but i'm assuming you mean handheld exposures, so yes modern dslr's do great in low light. however, modern high speed films such as ilford delta 3200 or t-max 3200 are just as good in low light as, say, a D200._

 

You'd probably get an incredible amount of noise (hot pixels), regardless of whether a ND filter is used or not.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Use a ND filter._

 

you don't need an ND filter to make long exposures, but that's not the point. my point is that when you are making exposures in the range of several hours, digital not only drains the hell out of the battery but also noise and hot pixels become major issues even at the base ISO setting.

 it's easy to make an exposure of several hours with film because you can set the shutter to time mode (or use a locking cable release) and there is no drain on the battery (unless you're using an electrical camera, and even then there is still very little drain on the battery) and no increase in grain (the film equivalent of noise).


----------



## stuartr

It's a balance though, as most films have reciprocity failure and digital does not. So your two hour exposure on film may only require 15 minutes on digital to get an equivalent exposure. It depends on what film you are using. Some like Fuji Acros are extremely well-suited to long exposures and do not require much reciprocity correction, others are not so lucky. 

 In general though, I will agree that film is a better solution for long exposures over a few minutes.


----------



## dvessel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_OCD + rampant consumerism = happiness
 (at least until the new model comes out!)_

 

Keep it coming. When the price drops on the D90 to where the D80 is now, it'll be time to upgrade my D70. Noisy little person but it still works great –minus the broke built-in flash.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's a balance though, as most films have reciprocity failure and digital does not. So your two hour exposure on film may only require 15 minutes on digital to get an equivalent exposure. It depends on what film you are using. Some like Fuji Acros are extremely well-suited to long exposures and do not require much reciprocity correction, others are not so lucky. 

 In general though, I will agree that film is a better solution for long exposures over a few minutes._

 

that's why you adjust for reciprocity failure using the aperture and not the shutter speed...


----------



## bigshot

How often do most folks do 2 hour exposures or shoot in the dead of night? The point is, most people shoot most pictures under conditions that make the difference between a D40 and a D700 insignificant.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dvessel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Keep it coming. When the price drops on the D90 to where the D80 is now, it'll be time to upgrade my D70. Noisy little person but it still works great –minus the broke built-in flash._

 

That's why when you see someone upgrades his/her camera every year, don't get jealous, don't prevent it, don't talk them out of it. Ask them to buy more instead. That way they are supporting the company, so the company can provide us with better products with lower prices. I hope most people embrace this DSLR consumerism thing so that DSLR can become a commodity. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Imagine if everyone sticks with their plain old cameras and hardly upgrades. Technology improvement won't be that fast, price won't be as low as now - argh! the horror! C'mon buy more instead, so people like me can get a fairly new, barely 'outdated' DSLRs for cheap. 
 I hope D400 is out next year so that I can get a D300 at the store for a discontinued price.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How often do most folks do 2 hour exposures or shoot in the dead of night? The point is, most people shoot most pictures under conditions that make the difference between a D40 and a D700 insignificant.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I think in 4 years taking picture, my slowest shutter speed was less than 1 minute exposure. And I can't even remember when I did that. But then again, as I said, buy more cameras folks!


----------



## stuartr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_that's why you adjust for reciprocity failure using the aperture and not the shutter speed..._

 

Not if you are already wide open...

  Quote:


 How often do most folks do 2 hour exposures or shoot in the dead of night? The point is, most people shoot most pictures under conditions that make the difference between a D40 and a D700 insignificant.

 See ya
 Steve 
 

Most people don't. But I would not necessarily agree that people don't benefit from better high ISO performance. Most of the people I know who are very casual photographers shoot a lot at parties, holidays and so on. Usually those events are indoors at night and require either flash, very fast lenses or very good ISO performance. But while people might benefit from these things, I completely agree that a d700 is overkill for anyone other than skilled amateurs and professional photographers.


----------



## dvessel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's why when you see someone upgrades his/her camera every year, don't get jealous, don't prevent it, don't talk them out of it. Ask them to buy more instead. That way they are supporting the company, so the company can provide us with better products with lower prices. I hope most people embrace this DSLR consumerism thing so that DSLR can become a commodity. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It's also good for the floral and pet industries. I see a heck load of photos of dogs, cats and flowers. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Whatever floats thee boats..

 Hrm, my kitty is all grown up.. Upgrade!! ::kidding::


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ But while people might benefit from these things, I completely agree that a d700 is overkill for anyone other than skilled amateurs and professional photographers._

 

What are you talking about, Stuart? We all know that those rich crazy Nikon people, they buy lenses and cameras just for the sake of buying and having them, not actually using them. Who cares about benefits? It's new Nikon!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dvessel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's also good for the floral and pet industries. I see a heck load of photos of dogs, cats and flowers. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Whatever floats thee boats.._

 

Those, would be fighting words. ^_^!!!
 hahaha


----------



## stuartr

I am actually in the "if it makes them happy, good for them" group. I always thought it was kind of stupid that people get angry that someone who is a poor photographer has a great camera. So what? I look at it like the ugly guy with the hot girlfriend/wife -- that person knows something good when they see it and obviously has what is required to get the thing they wanted -- whether it is a good personality, money or sheer determination. If you like cameras and want a good one, who cares whether you are a good photographer or not? We'll all know that a good photographer with a bad camera will take a better picture than a bad photographer with a good camera, so why all the angst?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am actually in the "if it makes them happy, good for them" group. I always thought it was kind of stupid that people get angry that someone who is a poor photographer has a great camera. So what? I look at it like the ugly guy with the hot girlfriend/wife -- that person knows something good when they see it and obviously has what is required to get the thing they wanted -- whether it is a good personality, money or sheer determination. If you like cameras and want a good one, who cares whether you are a good photographer or not? We'll all know that a good photographer with a bad camera will take a better picture than a bad photographer with a good camera, so why all the angst?_

 

Here here!
 That's the best point of view to take.


----------



## dvessel

I took a cheap shot but I agree with stuart. Just have fun and enjoy it to the full.

 The best thing that could come out of this is that more people who partake in this hobby, the more likely someone will float to the top creating amazing photos.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stuartr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am actually in the "if it makes them happy, good for them" group. I always thought it was kind of stupid that people get angry that someone who is a poor photographer has a great camera. So what? I look at it like the ugly guy with the hot girlfriend/wife -- that person knows something good when they see it and obviously has what is required to get the thing they wanted -- whether it is a good personality, money or sheer determination. If you like cameras and want a good one, who cares whether you are a good photographer or not? We'll all know that a good photographer with a bad camera will take a better picture than a bad photographer with a good camera, so why all the angst?_

 

cheers! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 (unless the hot girl is my ex who left me for no good reason of course  )

 oh about people getting angry at those who are poor photogs but have expensive/good cameras... they're just jealous


----------



## OverlordXenu

Bigshot, what are your opinions on medium and large format?


----------



## Poohblah

i know you didn't ask my opinion, but here it is anyway:
 medium and large format are great when you NEED more resolution: i.e. landscapes. however, even if you are making big enlargements, then careful control of grain is far more important than resolution. 8x10 and larger formats make incredible contact prints which makes printing easier and high quality too. but the biggest thing that large format has going for it is the ability to control the plane of the lens and film in order to manipulate converging lines and the plane of focus (assuming you are using a view camera). also, you can push/pull individual frames instead of the whole roll when you use sheet film in large format cameras.

 digital, on the other hand, really needs more resolution to make large prints, because you end up with pixels instead of grain in big enlargements. that's the reason so many pro's use medium format cameras with digital backs in the studio.


----------



## Arainach

You may prefer grain to pixels in enlargements, but I'll take sensor noise over what happens to films at high ISOs any day.


----------



## dvessel

Not sure what sensor noise looks like in current cameras, but if they are like my D70, I'll take film grain. A lot smoother and uniform than the blotchy magenta and green. Very ugly.

 I often photoshop out the CCD chroma noise and add more noise though photoshop so it looks closer to film.


----------



## dj_mocok

I've actually never seen a DSLR that has a noise like film grain. It's different. Maybe it's just me, but particular film grain can look beautiful to me and actually adds certain feel to a picture, whereas digital noise just look like impurity.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dvessel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not sure what sensor noise looks like in current cameras, but if they are like my D70, I'll take film grain. A lot smoother and uniform than the blotchy magenta and green. Very ugly.

 I often photoshop out the CCD chroma noise and add more noise though photoshop so it looks closer to film._

 

Chroma noise, especially broad, blotchy chroma noise is horrible. It's incredibly difficult to get rid of without absolutely smudging all the fine details, that's why I try my best to avoid ISOs at which my cameras exhibit major chroma. Film grain is very nice. I love to add a bit of film grain to B&W photos.


----------



## dj_mocok

I want some sea lion pictures taken with Nikon DSLR.


----------



## dvessel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Chroma noise, especially broad, blotchy chroma noise is horrible. It's incredibly difficult to get rid of without absolutely smudging all the fine details, that's why I try my best to avoid ISOs at which my cameras exhibit major chroma. Film grain is very nice. I love to add a bit of film grain to B&W photos._

 

It's actually pretty easy. You do loose some detail in the chromatic channels if seen through the Lab color space but if done right, can be pretty hard to detect.

 Similar to how jpegs work in that the luminance is maintained but the color is less defined. That's how it achieves high compression. The eye is less capable of detecting fine edges for color as opposed to black and white contrast.

 Something like duplicate channel, overlay the duplicate to "color" mode then apply a softening effect like median or smart blur. The really tough photos needs to be more selective, and your right, those are more time consuming and hard to work with.


----------



## Hayduke

Does anyone use Lightroom?

 I started using it a few weeks ago when I was borrowing a Rebel XT. It seemed to slow down a bit with the RAW files, but now that I have my Nikon, it seems much much slower working with NEF files. Canon's CR2's seemed quicker. I know Nikon claims NEF has a high amount of lossless compression. Maybe that's the problem? Perhaps it's harder to decompress?

 I'm thinking about converting everything to DNG format instead. Adobe claims DNG has even higher compression rates, but I'm hoping that Lightroom might be able to work with it easier.

 Anyone else have thoughts on .NEFs and Lightroom?


----------



## dvessel

This might not help you Hayduke but Aperture has a "Quick Preview" mode which is blazing fast. I have read that Lightroom is quick too so there might be a similar setting to speed things up. Look up the docs.

 I wouldn't bother myself converting to DNG. It's just more work for little gain as far as I can see. Maybe when it's accepted as an ISO standard and cameras stored it in that format by default it'll be different. At the moment, it's just another proprietary format and more work.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I started using it a few weeks ago when I was borrowing a Rebel XT. It seemed to slow down a bit with the RAW files, but now that I have my Nikon, it seems much much slower working with NEF files._

 

That's what more megapixels does. Takes up more space and takes longer time to process.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bigshot, what are your opinions on medium and large format?_

 

They're great for studio, architecture and landscape. I used to have a RB67 (stolen). I didn't use it enough myself, so I never replaced it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## OverlordXenu

Thanks. The reason I ask is that on another forum, I was contemplating getting an RZ67, until someone said that by looking at my work, he didn't see where MF would net me any improvement over 35mm, by looking at my work. And I had to agree. Why did I want a MF camera? Why would it help me?

 I still want an RZ67. It just looks and feels so amazing. But, I don't need it. Maybe I should just get a 17-35mm instead.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks. The reason I ask is that on another forum, I was contemplating getting an RZ67, until someone said that by looking at my work, he didn't see where MF would net me any improvement over 35mm, by looking at my work. And I had to agree. Why did I want a MF camera? Why would it help me?

 I still want an RZ67. It just looks and feels so amazing. But, I don't need it. Maybe I should just get a 17-35mm instead._

 

Did you read Ken Rockwell's thoughts about medium format or something? He seems to think that you can't get good landscape photography with a DSLR (based on current tech). His argument was based on large print quality. I thought a 10MP could print up to 24x30 and still look good. In his example, he amount of zoom he used was the equivalent of a much much larger image. Basically, now big do you print? If you want to print something large enough for your wall, then you might consider a MF camera. Of course he neglects to discuss digitally stitching several digital images together. He keep saying how you can use a MF camera and a scanner to get the 100MP image. My response is, how about a 1GP image? That's already being done with digital cameras. I have several panoramas that are about 30MP images taken with a 5MP camera. I've found myself often dreaming of a medium or large format camera, but then I remind myself that I don't care to work with film and the thoughts quickly go away. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you haven't tried it for your landscape photos, try stitching some together. It's a lot of fun for me. In fact, I think I have one of the files here at work. I'll go post it on the photo thread (a scaled down verison obviously).


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've found myself often dreaming of a medium or large format camera, but then I remind myself that I don't care to work with film and the thoughts quickly go away._

 

Medium format is not specific to film.
 You can put a digital back on many medium format cameras. Pricey though.
 Looks like an RZ67 with digital back will run about 11k.

 The simple fact is, you KNOW if you need medium format or larger. If you don't know if you need it, then you don't.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Medium format is not specific to film.
 You can put a digital back on many medium format cameras. Pricey though.
 Looks like an RZ67 with digital back will run about 11k.

 The simple fact is, you KNOW if you need medium format or larger. If you don't know if you need it, then you don't._

 

True there are digital backs. My comments were mostly in response to Ken Rockwell's argument that medium format is needed for high quality landscape photos. His points are all very valid. He just conveniently failed to mention stitching images together. It is definitely more work that way, but I can achieve results that are just as good (or better) for far less money.

 I'm heading into the Grand Canyon on Thursday with my new D80 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 We're going to be inside for 5 nights, so I'll bring back some examples of 100MP images to demonstrate my argument 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Maybe I should go pick up a couple more memory cards


----------



## lan

Went to J&R to mess with the D90. I have nothing much to report. I still prefer the size, feel and controls of the D300. As a matter of fact the controls on the upper right I feel are strange. I didn't bring a memory card to test the video mode. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Last time I brought the card to test D700, I discovered after that Photoshop couldn't open the RAW images anyhow. Didn't want to bother this time


----------



## screwdriver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Went to J&R to mess with the D90. I have nothing much to report. I still prefer the size, feel and controls of the D300. As a matter of fact the controls on the upper right I feel are strange. I didn't bring a memory card to test the video mode. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Last time I brought the card to test D700, I discovered after that Photoshop couldn't open the RAW images anyhow. Didn't want to bother this time 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

yes as much as i like the price on the D90 and the reports of better high ISO quality - i still need a weather sealed camera so im deciding on the D300 and the D200.

 either D300 body or D200 + 1 lens


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Did you read Ken Rockwell's thoughts about medium format or something? He seems to think that you can't get good landscape photography with a DSLR (based on current tech). His argument was based on large print quality. I thought a 10MP could print up to 24x30 and still look good. In his example, he amount of zoom he used was the equivalent of a much much larger image. Basically, now big do you print? If you want to print something large enough for your wall, then you might consider a MF camera. Of course he neglects to discuss digitally stitching several digital images together. He keep saying how you can use a MF camera and a scanner to get the 100MP image. My response is, how about a 1GP image? That's already being done with digital cameras. I have several panoramas that are about 30MP images taken with a 5MP camera. I've found myself often dreaming of a medium or large format camera, but then I remind myself that I don't care to work with film and the thoughts quickly go away. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you haven't tried it for your landscape photos, try stitching some together. It's a lot of fun for me. In fact, I think I have one of the files here at work. I'll go post it on the photo thread (a scaled down verison obviously)._

 

KR is the king of contradictions. One of his favorite landscape photogs uses a 5D.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_KR is the king of contradictions. One of his favorite landscape photogs uses a 5D._

 

no doubt about that statement.

 i like to use his site for facts, for example to find out how many aperture blades a certain lens has, but that's about it.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He just conveniently failed to mention stitching images together. It is definitely more work that way, but I can achieve results that are just as good (or better) for far less money._

 

How do you deal with things moving in your photos?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yes as much as i like the price on the D90 and the reports of better high ISO quality - i still need a weather sealed camera so im deciding on the D300 and the D200.

 either D300 body or D200 + 1 lens_

 

Your only choice is D300 and 24-70 2.8? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 I'd never buy 17-55 since it's a DX lens. Just don't feel like investing that much in a DX lens.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How do you deal with things moving in your photos?_

 

Landscapes usually hold still for me


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Landscapes usually hold still for me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I assume you piviot the camera, so that the lens is changing position?
 I wonder... how much editing do you have to do to get each images perspective correct? I would imagine it must take at least 10 minutes for a good job?

 And, just to make sure I'm clear on what you are doing, you are replacing say.... a landscape from a Large format camera with many small images from the D80 zoomed in a lot? (so, instead of one image from a 70mm large format, you are taking many 80mm images?)

 Because of the zooming, coupled with it being a crop sensor, I assume DOF is going to be reduced quite a bit. I would expect it to be hard to get a picture of a mountain far off and a tree right near you both in full focus (shallow dof when zoomed in). That would either require a tilt/shift lens, or a larger format that didn't require you to zoom in so much (wider angle). I would also assume that haze may play a bigger part in the stitched images vs. one from wide angle.

 Well, either way I'll be interested to see the results you post when you come back from your trip. I still have my hunch that medium or large format is going to be the ideal choice for landscape. Especially if the film/digital sensor you are working with can give you a dramatically increased dynamic range.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Landscapes usually hold still for me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Can't wait to see some of the stuff you stitch together. Make sure it's a bit larger than thumbnail size ok?


----------



## paulr

Hey, cool thread. I have a lot of old 35mm Nikon SLR gear that I don't use any more since film is just way too much hassle in this digital era. I added a D70 with the 18-70 kit lens and it's nice and I do use it some, but in reality I mostly use a Canon point and shoot for its convenience rather than lugging the D70 around. And the D70 is not very usable with my old manual focus Nikkors, some of which are otherwise rather nice. But because I'm not that serious an SLR shooter, I don't want to get something as expensive as a D300, especially since what I really want is an FX body that uses my old wideangles properly. I figure that eventually there will be FX's (maybe used D700's) in the current D90 price range and I'll buy one when that happens. I like to hope that within a year or so Nikon will have an FX model that's comparably priced to brand C's version (the 5D) and after that it's just a matter of waiting.

 What I'm leading up to is, I see I can buy a brand new D200 for $1000 from B&H or a used one for maybe $700 on craigslist, and that's more of a reasonable expenditure for me, especially if I sell my D70. Does that sound like a reasonable approach to this situation, or is the D300 really THAT much better?


----------



## Towert7

The D300 (along with the D3) kind of revolutionized the camera world in terms of High ISO performance. If you do a lot of low lighting shooting without a flash, the D300 will show it's superiority in no time. If you take pictures in moderate light or above, they will both take great pictures.

 There are other smaller changes as well, but the big one is ISO performance. Other things are added or improved on the D300 like dust removal, more vivid color option, better back LCD, live view, slightly better viewfinder, and up to 51 focus points vs. 11.

 So whether an extra stop or three is worth 800$, that will be up to you.


----------



## magotts

hey guys just want to ask if minolta lenses are compatible with nikon??? coz sony is compatible with it hehehe thanks!

 and can DSLRs record videos?


----------



## dj_mocok

I never heard of Minolta to Nikon adapter, not sure it's worth the hassle converting too to be honest.

 DSLR that can record videos? D90 can.


----------



## kugino

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I never heard of Minolta to Nikon adapter, not sure it's worth the hassle converting too to be honest.

 DSLR that can record videos? D90 can._

 

yep. and from some of the videos i've seen, it can do it quite well...


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *paulr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What I'm leading up to is, I see I can buy a brand new D200 for $1000 from B&H or a used one for maybe $700 on craigslist, and that's more of a reasonable expenditure for me, especially if I sell my D70_

 

If I was you, I'd just stay with the D70. The difference between a D70 and another DX camera isn't going to be worth the money to you.The D200 is a great camera. But if what you want is full frame, you should just wait for that. (It's going to be a while though.) 

 Now, speaking for myself... I have a bag full of old Nikkor lenses for my F3. I don't use them, and I probably wouldn't use them even if I had a full frame DSLR. I REALLY like things like VR, autofocus and the new low distortion/fast/widerange zooms. At this point, I'm more interested in buying lenses for the camera I have than worrying about lenses for the camera I don't even own yet. It's easy to get your money's worth out of a lens you use all the time.

 Everyone always says that glass holds its value, but that isn't always the case. For specific pro lenses that's true, but for the average consumer lens it isn't. Have you checked ebay for how much your old 35mm lenses are selling for? You'd be surprised.

 Buy stuff you can use TODAY.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D300 (along with the D3) kind of revolutionized the camera world in terms of High ISO performance. If you do a lot of low lighting shooting without a flash, the D300 will show it's superiority in no time. If you take pictures in moderate light or above, they will both take great pictures.

 There are other smaller changes as well, but the big one is ISO performance. Other things are added or improved on the D300 like dust removal, more vivid color option, better back LCD, live view, slightly better viewfinder, and up to 51 focus points vs. 11.

 So whether an extra stop or three is worth 800$, that will be up to you._

 

The ISO performance is very good and certainly useful if you'll be shooting a lot indoors. The fact that chroma noise is nearly non-existent at 1600 means you'll have a much easier time post-processing. The viewfinder is also considerable bigger than that of the D80. Great (but still not ideal) for those AI/AI-S/Zeiss lenses.


----------



## Towert7

Thinking about it, I too would probably hold on to the D70 and continue investing in lenses that will be good when you make the move up to Full Frame.

 Their full frame pro zoom lenses are what I would start saving for.


----------



## Arainach

Eh, as far as I'm concerned DX is far more than enough for me. I'll wait and snag a nice deal on a 17-55 one of these days, eventually replace my D50 with a D300, and that should be more than enough camera to last me all but forever, really.

 Besides, the 14-24 f/2.8 is expensive as heck and I love my Tokina 12-24.


----------



## dj_mocok

I am also one of those people who is perfectly fine with DX format. I know I would love to have a bigger, superior viewfinder like the full frame ones, but since that's pretty much the main selling point for me (I don't really mind about crop factor), I don't think it's worth the upgrade. Well at least not if it's still almost twice the price of D300 anyway.

 But then again, if I had a good, nice paying job, then I'd get it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Edwood

Just got a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Much better focal length for DX.

 Playing with a D700. Holy cow, I can't believe how good pics look at 6400 ISO. But wow is the D700 heavy. Balances really well with big lenses, but man, is it heavy.

 Did I mention the D700 is heavy?

 -Ed


----------



## milkpowder

Stop making us jealous


----------



## lan

Ed, you really should start working out. Odd though, I figure all that baby lifting would've helped.

 Post some pics with this Sigma.


----------



## jayehs

is D700 heavier than D300?


----------



## lan

Of course it's heavier, it's bigger.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Of course it's heavier, it's bigger._

 

Not really, only the viewfinder area is bigger. I was actually surprised, I thought that the D700 would be much larger, but then again, the specs did say it's pretty much the same size as the D300.

 I don't know how heavy the D300 is, but the D700 is certainly much heavier than the D200. 

 Oh, and the D700's LCD is awesome. It's large, very high resolution, and easy to see details. I think it's the same as the one in the D300.

 -Ed


----------



## lan

The D700 is 995g vs. D300 at 825g vs D200 at 830g. To me the weight difference is negligible.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D700 is 995g vs. D300 at 825g vs D200 at 830g. To me the weight difference is negligible._

 

Ah, I guess it's because I've been used to the weight of my D80 all this time. I suppose when I get used to the weight of the D200, the D700 won't be all that heavier feeling.

 Man, the low light capabilities of the D700 is simply amazing. I guess you can think of the added weight of the D700 as saving you weight in not having to carry around a flash most of the time. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## lan

SB400 is about the same difference in weight and with batteries (depending on batteries), weigh a bit more. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Still there are cases when I want to use the flash regardless.

 BTW did your dad really need the D700?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just got a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Much better focal length for DX._

 

Yay! I'm going to have to play around with that one. I've always been interested, but the min. focus distance always seemed pretty limiting.


----------



## screwdriver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just got a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Much better focal length for DX-Ed_

 

can you post some sample images for us ?

 btw i did get a D300 but it wont be here til next week . Need to do a lot of reading /manual and the jump from the D70 and all the features of the D300 will be overwhelming.


----------



## bigshot

I just ordered the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. The review at dpreview.com makes it look like the perfect thing to round out my kit. 18-200VR, Tokina 11-16, Tokina 100 macro and 50 1.4. I should have it by the end of next week.

 The reason I was hesitating on the 30 was because although the framing is close to a normal 35mm film lens, the way it looks through the camera isn't. Crop applies to the viewfinder too. If you hold the 30 up to your eye and keep the other eye open, they don't match. They do with the 50.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yay! I'm going to have to play around with that one. I've always been interested, but the min. focus distance always seemed pretty limiting._

 

Heheh, yeah, you'll get to use it all you want at the upcoming October SoCal Meet. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Or sooner, if you're in LA anytime beforehand.

 Yeah, it's no macro lens, but it's not that bad. Definitely not a small object lens. 

 I plan on getting a Nikon 105mm VR Macro eventually. It's an awesome macro lens (full frame future proof) and can be used as a decent telephoto lens in a pinch. For a DX setup, I'd probably carry the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and 205mm Macro to cover the bases. 

 I like the wider angle at 30-35mm focal range offers me in the DX format. It's a great walk around lens for me. I don't shoot a lot with both my eyes open, so the 1:1 that a 50mm lens offers is not really a concern for me. It's too much of a telephoto lens for it to be useful for everyday use for me with the DX format. Now with Full Frame, that's another story.

 The Sigma 30mm is fast. Autofocus is very fast as well, very quiet (doesn't have that really high pitched sound that my 18-200mm makes. Oh and the autofocus works very well in very low light, even without the assist lamp.

 I like that you can immediately grab the focus ring and manually focus without changing the selector, which I guess is how it is with nearly all AF-S ultrasonic motor type lenses. The focus ring is well damped, although a little on the stiff side, but very usable.

 The Sigma 30mm is pretty beefy too, but not all that long. The body is nearly all metal, but the coating is pretty thin, so looks like it will wear away a lot faster than the old school Nikon metal lenses.


----------



## Edwood

How does the new Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G compare to the 105mm one? 

 60mm will be far more useful on DX, not so much for FX. Also, the 60mm is significantly cheaper and smaller in size.

 But it doesn't have VR, which the 105mm does.

 Hmmmmm.....

 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How does the new Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G compare to the 105mm one? 

 60mm will be far more useful on DX, not so much for FX. Also, the 60mm is significantly cheaper and smaller in size.

 But it doesn't have VR, which the 105mm does.

 Hmmmmm.....

 -Ed_

 

Sadly, you are comparing apples and oranges. Both are macro, but one is 60mm and the other is 105.

 If you are going to be taking pictures of tiny spiders, you want the 105 (or longer).
 If your macro work includes larger things, such as audio gear, product shots, etc, you'll want the 60mm.

 The Nikkor 60mm Micro AF-D on my D50 gives me sharpness/detail approaching the 5D, which is saying A LOT!
 It is by far the sharpest of my lens kit.

 You won't go wrong either way, you just need to think about what focal length will be best for you.


----------



## Towert7

Oh, and also, VR helps when you are out in the wild taking pictures. If you will be using the macro lens on a tripod...... vr is pointless.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 If you are going to be taking pictures of tiny spiders, you want the 105 (or longer).
 If your macro work includes larger things, such as audio gear, product shots, etc, you'll want the 60mm.

 The Nikkor 60mm Micro AF-D on my D50 gives me sharpness/detail approaching the 5D, which is saying A LOT!
 It is by far the sharpest of my lens kit.

 You won't go wrong either way, you just need to think about what focal length will be best for you._

 

Yeah, I'd like keep my take around lenses down to two. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and one of the Micro-Nikkors. I would probably be shooting mostly product type shots, but occassionally I'd like to be able to shoot really tiny things. Most of the times when I do that, I have access to controlled lighting.

 I'm wondering, which one is better for portraits when it comes to just image quality? 60mm one or the 105mm one? (not considering focal length practicality)


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh, and also, VR helps when you are out in the wild taking pictures. If you will be using the macro lens on a tripod...... vr is pointless._

 

Product type shots, I'll almost always be hand holding. Tiny things, usually I use a tripod. 

 -Ed


----------



## milkpowder

Most people would probably choose the 105mm for portraits provided that you have unlimited space to shoot from. The 60mm will require you to stand relatively close to your subject and thus make them feel intimidated by your presence.


----------



## Towert7

On a DX crop, I was getting pretty good 1/2 body shots from ~10-15ft away with a 60mm. A 105 would have required me to be farther away for the same shot. Since there were a lot of people there, being farther away won't have been a good thing in terms of framing.

 So again, when you say portraits, it depends on whether you want to be somewhat close to the subject or farther away.

 Shooting indoors, I would probably find the 105 to be too long. Actually, my 85mm is a bit on the long side for DX unless they are across the room.

 As for the product shots, just be aware that 105mm is very telephoto relatively. If I were to take a picture of headphones with a 105, I would probably have to move back 10ft to get a good framing. 

 Should be interesting to see what you choose.


----------



## milkpowder

But he's using a D700 right? For portraits, I would get the 85mm f/1.4 and shoot at F/1.8-2.0 instead of a 105mm f/2.8.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On a DX crop, I was getting pretty good 1/2 body shots from ~10-15ft away with a 60mm. A 105 would have required me to be farther away for the same shot. Since there were a lot of people there, being farther away won't have been a good thing in terms of framing.

 So again, when you say portraits, it depends on whether you want to be somewhat close to the subject or farther away.

 Shooting indoors, I would probably find the 105 to be too long. Actually, my 85mm is a bit on the long side for DX unless they are across the room.

 As for the product shots, just be aware that 105mm is very telephoto relatively. If I were to take a picture of headphones with a 105, I would probably have to move back 10ft to get a good framing. 

 Should be interesting to see what you choose._

 

Hmmm. That is true. Especially if I were shooting stuff with a crowd of people around, I'd have to ask people to stand aside every time I took a picture. That would be a problem.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But he's using a D700 right? For portraits, I would get the 85mm f/1.4 and shoot at F/1.8-2.0 instead of a 105mm f/2.8._

 

Nope, I'll be using a D200. The D700 I'm playing with right now is not mine. Yes, it's a horrible horrible tease. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## bigshot

That Sigma 50 on a D200 is probably the closest to a full frame 85 1.4 that you are going to find. (75mm equivalent) It'll give you a nice creamy bokeh too. I use a Tokina 100mm 2.8 macro for portraits myself. Gotta keep far enough back to not be under the lights.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## dj_mocok

But 500 bucks for a 50 mil 1.4 is a bit too much to pay for me personally. Especially coming from a third party brand.


----------



## Tuarreg

Moved to another forum. Wrong section.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But 500 bucks for a 50 mil 1.4 is a bit too much to pay for me personally. Especially coming from a third party brand._

 

that's why you pay $300 for the smaller, lighter nikon 50/1.4


----------



## dj_mocok

I am still using my 50mm 1.4 Ai-s and perfectly happy with it. It takes excellent pictures.


----------



## Poohblah

sorry, read the thread a little too fast...


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_that's why you pay $300 for the smaller, lighter nikon 50/1.4_

 

The Sigma is a totally different lens than that. It has a much quieter and faster focusing motor, a nine blade rounded diaphragm for much better bokeh, and an aspherical element for sharper images and better contrast wide open. What's the point of a fast lens that you have to stop down to f5.6 to get sharpness in the center? The Sigma is tack sharp at all stops. On full frame, the Nikon has even worse performance, adding vignetting and halation at wide apertures. The Nikon is basically the same design they was making back in the 70s, while the Sigma is a totally different animal. I bet Nikon refreshes their 50mm 1.4 soon with a design that incorporates aspherical elements, and it will probably cost even more than the Sigma.

 I have a D200, and with this lens, my camera performs as well as the D300 with the Nikon 50mm 1.4 in low light, because I can use the wide apertures to compensate for narrower ISO without compromising image quality. I also get much better bokeh, which is the whole point of a lens like this.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The Sigma is a totally different lens than that. It has a much quieter and faster focusing motor, a nine blade rounded diaphragm for much better bokeh, and an aspherical element for sharper images and better contrast wide open. What's the point of a fast lens that you have to stop down to f5.6 to get sharpness in the center? The Sigma is tack sharp at all stops. On full frame, the Nikon has even worse performance, adding vignetting and halation at wide apertures. The Nikon is basically the same design they was making back in the 70s, while the Sigma is a totally different animal. I bet Nikon refreshes their 50mm 1.4 soon with a design that incorporates aspherical elements, and it will probably cost even more than the Sigma.

 I have a D200, and with this lens, my camera performs as well as the D300 with the Nikon 50mm 1.4 in low light, because I can use the wide apertures to compensate for narrower ISO without compromising image quality. I also get much better bokeh, which is the whole point of a lens like this.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

i don't know to what extent you're examining your images, but my nikkor 50/1.4 performs better than anything else i have seen at f/2. it easily outresolves most film and the sensor of the D200 at that aperture. it is very useable at f/1.4, good enough for 8x10 prints from both film and digital.


----------



## dj_mocok

I know on the paper The Sigma 50mm 1.4 may sound impressive, but from the sample pictures I've seen around, I personally don't see any benefit of this lens over the Nikon 50mm 1.4 that warrants the additional 200 bucks for it. 
 If it's pretty much in the same price range as the Nikon (or only a tad more), I'd consider it if I were in the market for one. But with that price, I'd rather get Nikon instead. But overall I'm perfectly fine with my old 50mm MF, it's a fun lens!
 Actually the Sigma 30mm 1.4 interests me more than the 50mm.


----------



## dj_mocok

From last night: Stiegl is nice!


----------



## paulr

Has anyone done a low light comparison of RAW pictures between the D200 and D300? I have the impression that the D300 makes better low light JPG's because it has more aggressive noise reduction in its firmware, but the basic sensor noise levels are about the same between the two cameras, so if you start with the raw sensor output, it's then just a matter of what your postprocessing software can do.

 Maybe I should just hold out for a D700...


----------



## Edwood

If you shoot primarily in low light, and like to go without a flash, the D700 is well worth saving up for. Pricey, but so is pretty much anything amazing.

 Another thing that is really nice, particularly glasses wearers like myself, is how much easier it is to see what you are shooting through the larger viewfinder. Yet another benefit for full frame.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you shoot primarily in low light, and like to go without a flash, the D700 is well worth saving up for. Pricey, but so is pretty much anything amazing.

 Another thing that is really nice, particularly glasses wearers like myself, is how much easier it is to see what you are shooting through the larger viewfinder. Yet another benefit for full frame._

 

And it's still a bargain compared to that eye upgrade


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And it's still a bargain compared to that eye upgrade 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

LOL, "But, honey. It's so much cheaper than Lasik!" 

 Think it will work? Heheh.

 -Ed


----------



## paulr

The D700 is about 1.5x as expensive as the EOS-5D despite being several years newer. Costs of this stuff is supposed to be going down, not up. Of course I recognize that the D700 is a better camera in many ways, but the sensor performance is about the same as far as I can tell. So it makes more sense for me to wait for a "D500" or something like that.

 Yes I'm into available light shooting (that's why I have those manual focus lenses, like the 180/2.8 and 35/1.4, and I barely missed getting a sensational deal on a 300/2.8) but I just don't shoot enough to justify buying the latest expensive stuff. I could imagine buying an FX camera with a D300 price tag on the theory that I'd never want to upgrade it, but that's about my limit. Any further guidance on my D200 idea would still be appreciated.

 Thanks


----------



## dj_mocok

I'd probably just wait for D400 since D300 is almost due for replacement (I think). But to be honest, I don't see anything that I can't really shoot with my D80. Maybe only once in a blue moon when I am shooting at a ridiculously dark place without flash.

 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think D700 is the same price as Canon 5D. If I remember correctly, when 5D was released, it was around AUS$5,000 or more (and the Canon 1DMark range was more than AUD$10,000). Whereas D700 now in Australia is around AUD$3,600 and D3 is around AUD$5,400 range. So price is definitely better now.
 They are selling 5D for AUS$2,600 here.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *paulr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D700 is about 1.5x as expensive as the EOS-5D despite being several years newer. Costs of this stuff is supposed to be going down, not up. Of course I recognize that the D700 is a better camera in many ways, but the sensor performance is about the same as far as I can tell. So it makes more sense for me to wait for a "D500" or something like that.

 Yes I'm into available light shooting (that's why I have those manual focus lenses, like the 180/2.8 and 35/1.4, and I barely missed getting a sensational deal on a 300/2.8) but I just don't shoot enough to justify buying the latest expensive stuff. I could imagine buying an FX camera with a D300 price tag on the theory that I'd never want to upgrade it, but that's about my limit. Any further guidance on my D200 idea would still be appreciated.

 Thanks_

 

the D700 blows the 5D out of the water in terms of ISO performance, of course we're still waiting on the 5D mkII 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i would guess based on skimming internet reviews that the D300 has ISO performance that is about a stop better than the D200 when shooting in RAW. by that i mean the D300's ISO 1600 looks similar to the D200's ISO 800, etc.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LOL, "But, honey. It's so much cheaper than Lasik!" 

 Think it will work? Heheh.

 -Ed_

 

My motto is "you never know if you don't ask."


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I know on the paper The Sigma 50mm 1.4 may sound impressive, but from the sample pictures I've seen around, I personally don't see any benefit of this lens over the Nikon 50mm 1.4 that warrants the additional 200 bucks for it._

 

The primary difference is center sharpness wide open. Corners don't matter so much, and vignetting is irritating, but not critical. But center sharpness is crucial. When you're using a wide aperture like this, the depth of focus is very narrow, which is great for portraits where the face in the middle of the frame is razor sharp while the head behind and background falls off into creamy bokeh. (I can find an example somewhere to link to if you want...) You only get this effect with a really wide aperture with a sharp center and excellent bokeh. The Nikon 1.4 is razor sharp when you get down to f4 and it's perfectly acceptable at 2.8, but that isn't the same as the Sigma. And the bokeh on the Nikon is just OK compared to absolutely perfect bokeh on the Sigma (like their 30mm 1.4).

 The Nikon 50mm 1.4 is a fine walkaround normal lens for when you might occasionally run into low light situations, but it isn't specifically designed to be used primarily at the widest aperture. For me, the ideal walkaround lens would be an inexpensive lightweight short zoom with a normal aperture. I just got an old 28-70 f3.5/4.5 AF-D for that purpose.

 The Sigma is a big, heavy lens with a very specific purpose. If you need what it does, it's more than worth the extra $200. It doesn't matter to me, because I'm using a D200, but on full frame, the difference between the Sigma and the Nikon is even more pronounced.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *paulr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Any further guidance on my D200 idea would still be appreciated._

 

I have a D200 that I bought a year or so ago. If I was buying a camera today instead of back then, I would seriously consider a D90 over the the D300. If money is an issue, my advice would be to go for lower in recent model rather than go higher in model with an older camera. But glass is always most important to me. I'd go for a lower model of body, but I wouldn't scrimp on the lenses.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## zephyrnoid

Heads up fellas! The Nikon D90 is making headlines with amazing HD Video footage!


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The primary difference is center sharpness wide open. Corners don't matter so much, and vignetting is irritating, but not critical. But center sharpness is crucial. When you're using a wide aperture like this, the depth of focus is very narrow, which is great for portraits where the face in the middle of the frame is razor sharp while the head behind and background falls off into creamy bokeh. (I can find an example somewhere to link to if you want...) You only get this effect with a really wide aperture with a sharp center and excellent bokeh. The Nikon 1.4 is razor sharp when you get down to f4 and it's perfectly acceptable at 2.8, but that isn't the same as the Sigma. And the bokeh on the Nikon is just OK compared to absolutely perfect bokeh on the Sigma (like their 30mm 1.4).

 The Nikon 50mm 1.4 is a fine walkaround normal lens for when you might occasionally run into low light situations, but it isn't specifically designed to be used primarily at the widest aperture. For me, the ideal walkaround lens would be an inexpensive lightweight short zoom with a normal aperture. I just got an old 28-70 f3.5/4.5 AF-D for that purpose.

 The Sigma is a big, heavy lens with a very specific purpose. If you need what it does, it's more than worth the extra $200. It doesn't matter to me, because I'm using a D200, but on full frame, the difference between the Sigma and the Nikon is even more pronounced.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I can see what you mean, but I am not kidding you - my Nikon 50mm 1.4 is really sharp at f/1.4.
 About the creamy bokeh slowly fades along the way, of course it is not as good as something like 85mm 1.4, but if you do it carefully, you can get a good result too. Although the bokeh as in point of lights could be a bit better.


----------



## jayehs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a D200 that I bought a year or so ago. If I was buying a camera today instead of back then, I would seriously consider a D90 over the the D300. If money is an issue, my advice would be to go for lower in recent model rather than go higher in model with an older camera. But glass is always most important to me. I'd go for a lower model of body, but I wouldn't scrimp on the lenses.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I'm trying to decide between D90 and D300. I was originally planning to get D90 but looking at the price, D90 is going to run around $1300 (CAD) including tax which is around how much D300 go for used. I really like the video feature on the D90 tho. hmmm


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *zephyrnoid* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Heads up fellas! The Nikon D90 is making headlines with amazing HD Video footage!_

 

We've already discussed that new gimmick here already. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 It's a cool feature, but will in no way replace HD camcorders. They need to add auto focus firstly, and then increase that paltry 5 minute recording limit.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We've already discussed that new gimmick here already. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Gimmick my @$$!
 I wish my D50 had a video feature, even if it won't compete with a Canon XL1.

 You might not see any use in it, but that doesn't mean it's a gimmick. Trust me, it's not a gimmick. It's a feature that serves a very good purpose.


----------



## Towert7

Bigshot, did you buy your nikon 50mm F/1.4 new?

 It's funny, because I have the little brother to the 50mm F/1.4 you are talking about, the 50mm F/1.8, and it's quite sharp at F/1.8 for me.

 I wonder if the F/1.8 version is known for being sharper, or vice versa?


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Gimmick my @$$!
 I wish my D50 had a video feature, even if it won't compete with a Canon XL1.

 You might not see any use in it, but that doesn't mean it's a gimmick. Trust me, it's not a gimmick. It's a feature that serves a very good purpose._

 

Nah. It's still a gimmick. Manual focus only is not a big issue for hardcore users, but the 5 minute clip limit is the real killer.

 It's a good start, and I can't wait until they perfect it in the next DSLR they release with the next generation D-Movie.

 -Ed


----------



## paulr

Thanks for the suggestions, the D90 is not an option for me since the point of upgrading from my D70 is to get a body that meters and AE's with my older manual focus Nikkor lenses. It's basically a scam on Nikon's part, but no Nikon DSLR below the semipro (D200) level has that capability. I suppose if I wanted to minimize expenditure I could get an old D1 or one of its relatives, but the D200 is much more modern and much more usable size-wise. That is interesting about the D300 being a stop better in RAW mode. Is there a similar comparison between the D700 and the EOS-5D? I thought that all these sensors were now operating close to the quantum limits and there weren't any further big improvements to be made, except through sheer sensor size (i.e. going from DX to FX). So I thought the D3, D700, and EOS-5D raw sensor performance were all about the same.

 The Sigma 50/1.4 sounds almost like an attempted successor of the legendary 58/1.2 Noct Nikkor, a completely aspheric design from before the computer era. They now go for $3K+ on Ebay from what I understand.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nah. It's still a gimmick. Manual focus only is not a big issue for hardcore users, but the 5 minute clip limit is the real killer.

 It's a good start, and I can't wait until they perfect it in the next DSLR they release with the next generation D-Movie.

 -Ed_

 

You are so flat out wrong Ed. It is not a gimmick, even though you can't see the use in it, others can!


----------



## Towert7

Just had a look over at bhphoto, and saw the Nikon D80 for 600$US.

 Holy cow, that's a nice price! Seems they have discounted it due to the D90. Great time to get a nice deal on a good entry level DSLR. Paid 780$ for the D80 a few months ago, and that was a steal back then.

 It's so funny. Back when I purchased my D50, that was THE cheap DSLR. Retailed for 850$ when I got it (one of the first to break the sub 1000$ bracket). It's amazing just how low they can sell them for now.


----------



## paulr

The D50 is a great and underrated camera. It's probably what I'd buy if I wanted an entry level Nikon DSLR. I don't see that much point to buying a D80.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are so flat out wrong Ed. It is not a gimmick, even though you can't see the use with it, others can!_

 

No. YOU are so flat out wrong! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 C'mon we can argue like this all night. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 D-Movie will be a fun feature for sure, but the 5 minute clip limit will never ever see any practical use for any real life replacement of an HD camcorder. Hence why it's a gimmick. When I say it's a gimmick, it's not good enough to stand up on it's own compared to other products due to it's limitations.

 But I digress. I think I'm just too much in love with the big hunk of magnesium frames of the D200/300/700 series. It just feels so nice in my hands. My D80 just feels so wimpy now. The big hunka magnesium certainly is heavier, but it makes steadying shots easier with larger lenses. And oh, man, I am sooooooo tempted by the D700. I just can't justify it's cost since I don't have any jobs in the near future that would ever come close to having the D700 pay for itself. (I bought a $3000+ monitor tablet without flinching because it paid for itself in a week.)

 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *paulr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D50 is a great and underrated camera. It's probably what I'd buy if I wanted an entry level Nikon DSLR. I don't see that much point to buying a D80._

 

Well, there are a few things the D50 does better than the D80, and vice versa. Great thing with the D80, is you can still buy it brand new fresh out of the box. You can only find the D50 used now a days.
 Plus, the D80 has a huge viewfinder over the D50. And the D80 has a LCD light, which helps so much during the dark. And the nice DOF preview... :sigh:

 I still enjoy my D50 though a lot.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No. YOU are so flat out wrong! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 C'mon we can argue like this all night. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



_

 

No one, can win an argument if they are on the wrong side, and thus I have already won.


 Allow me to prove why it is not a gimmick.
 You can call an apple a 'blablah' all you want, but if others don't start using the word blablah to refer to the apple, you are just in your own little fantasy world.
 The same with the D90. You can call it a gimmick all you want, but if others don't start calling it a gimmick you are just in your own little fantasy world.

 I claim that I, among others, have a use for the video feature in the D90. Like I keep saying, you obviously can't see the point in it, but others can. Others would put it to good use!

 So, keep calling it a gimmick, but you're in your own little fantasy world.

 Had my D50 had a video feature, my work would have saved 400$.


----------



## Edwood

I managed to shoot a few pics comparing the D700 and D80 (yeah, I know not the best comparison) shooting in low light. Plus a bunch of regular pics with the D700. 

 -Ed


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No one, can win an argument if they are on the wrong side, and thus I have already one.


 Allow me to prove why it is not a gimmick.
 You can call an apple a 'blablah' all you want, but if others don't start using the word blablah to refer to the apple, you are just in your own little fantasy world.
 The same with the D90. You can call it a gimmick all you want, but if others don't start calling it a gimmick you are just in your own little fantasy world.

 I claim that I, among others, have a use for the video feature in the D90. Like I keep saying, you obviously can't see the point in it, but others can. Others would put it to good use!

 So, keep calling it a gimmick, but you're in your own little fantasy world._

 


 OK, I'll call it a "Toy" feature instead, since it can't really be seriously used as an HD camcorder replacement. "Toy" feature can be used a lot, but not for anything really serious, other than artsy fun shots, or candid YouTube clips here and there (although YouTube isn't High Def yet.)

 And what does Nikon have to do with Apple? Or do you really want to get me started on Apple. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_OK, I'll call it a "Toy" feature instead, since it can't really be seriously used as an HD camcorder replacement. "Toy" feature can be used a lot, but not for anything really serious, other than artsy fun shots, or candid YouTube clips here and there (although YouTube isn't High Def yet.)

 And what does Nikon have to do with Apple? Or do you really want to get me started on Apple. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed_

 

Oh nono, not the company apple, the fruit apple.................
 We can use an orange instead.............

 Ok, I'm happy with that description. It is a toy feature. For those who can get by with it, it will save them from buying a budget HardDrive video camera. My work required only the most basic short video clips (and lots of them), so it would have been great especially since I would take a picture of it, and would also take a short clip of it in action. Instead of setting the camera up, and then setting up the camcorder, I could do it all from the camera.


----------



## jayehs

I don't D-movie is meant to replace HD camcorder. And just because it can not, it doesn't mean it's a gimmick. I would define gimmick as something that doesn't add much value to the product. I think d-movie too useful and versatile to be dismissed as a gimmick.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh nono, not the company apple, the fruit apple.................
 We can use an orange instead.............

 Ok, I'm happy with that description. It is a toy feature. For those who can get by with it, it will save them from buying a budget HardDrive video camera. My work required only the most basic short video clips (and lots of them), so it would have been great._

 


 Yes, I prefer oranges as well. Mmmmmm. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Toys aren't a bad thing, quite the contrary. Toys are FUN. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 D-Movie on the D90 is a boon for Macro movies. Fixed focus on a tripod is prefect for not having autofocus. And you can use killer lenses for awesome Macro movies. And more than 5 minutes per clip of tiny things can get pretty boring.

 Speaking of Macro, I'm still debating between the 105mm Macro or the 60mm Macro Nikkor lenses. I think I'll play around with my new Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for a bit until I get used to it, and then get a Macro lens when the "new toy feeling" is gone. 

 -Ed


----------



## dj_mocok

I know this is a Nikon thread, but I think I just realised that all I really want is just a Leica Noctilux 50mm f/1.


----------



## lan

Its f/0.95 not 1.0 big difference. lol


----------



## dj_mocok

Although of course f/0.95 is even better, but the f/1 version is more 'reasonably' priced.


----------



## Towert7

I wonder how it actually performs wide open..............
 With a price like that though, I won't be trying it any time soon. ^_^


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wonder how it actually performs wide open..............
 With a price like that though, I won't be trying it any time soon. ^_^_

 

If you look at this dude's flickr page, that's pretty much how it performs wide open. But I suggest you not to visit the page though, or else you'd be tempted to get one but realise it's wayyy to expensive to get one and you'll be disappointed instead. Like me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 PS: Not sure if you guys are interested or not, but just letting you guys know that I might get banned or my account deleted from photo.net because I just snapped at the moderator, haha... 
 [size=xx-small]Luckily I made backups for all my pics there already.[/size]


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jayehs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm trying to decide between D90 and D300. I was originally planning to get D90 but looking at the price, D90 is going to run around $1300 (CAD) including tax which is around how much D300 go for used. I really like the video feature on the D90 tho. hmmm_

 

I would be hesitant to buy a used camera that's a new model like that. I'd be afraid someone was just trying to dump a lemon on ebay. I think I'd prefer a D90 under factory warranty myself.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bigshot, did you buy your nikon 50mm F/1.4 new?_

 

Yes. Way back in the late 70s. I had a 1.2 as well, but I sold that because it seemed to have low contrast wide open. They were all fine for printing 8x10 wide open, and they got sharp by the time you got to around 2.8 or 3.5 or so. But the larger apertures were more for convenience than for actual critical use.

 I'm willing to compromise sharpness a bit for convenience in a zoom. But in a prime, I want all of the stops to perform perfectly. When I pull out a lens like this, it's for a specific purpose- and in this case that's wide open with the subject in the center and lots of soft focus all around.

 My Tokina 11-16 is from another world IQ-wise. The stuff I'm getting from it are better than anything I ever got with 35mm. I'm hoping this 50mm will be in the same league. The shots I've seen on the web taken with it look great. Until recently, I didn't realize how significant the advances in lens design have been over the past couple of decades.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *paulr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the suggestions, the D90 is not an option for me since the point of upgrading from my D70 is to get a body that meters and AE's with my older manual focus Nikkor lenses._

 

I am in a similar situation to you. I have a huge kit of old 70s and 80s nikkor glass. I suppose I could use them on my D200, but I just haven't found myself doing that. The lenses I've gravitated to do things those old lenses never could.

 I have five lenses now, and they cover what I do perfectly... Nikon 18-200VR, Nikon 28-70 AF-D, Tokina 100mm Macro, Sigma 50mm 1.4 and Tokina 11-16. The first two there are extremely versatile (one for good, one for lightweight bum-around), the second two cover portraits and macro, and the last one nails architecture and landscapes. The only other lens I might want is a fast long sports lens, but the amount I would use it doesn't justify the cost. Basically, in five lenses, I've covered everything in my old bag full of primes- with the added benefit of faster apertures and sharper optics.

 Rather than upgrading your body, I would suggest getting a really useful lens. For sheer versatility, the 18-200VR can't be beat. And it won't duplicate anything you already have in your bag.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_D-Movie will be a fun feature for sure, but the 5 minute clip limit will never ever see any practical use for any real life replacement of an HD camcorder._

 

I think the point is that it's unfair to compare a DSLR to an HD Camcorder, especially when it's the only DSLR to be able to shoot HD video at all. Of course it isn't a replacement for a camcorder. But in a lot of situations, it may be enough to save having to take a camcorder along on a vacation with you. And in the future, the two classes of cameras will certainly end up merging into a hybrid that does rival both types. That's the next camera I'll be buying. Until then, my D200 and Canon HV30 will do the trick for me.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Here is an example shot of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 against the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 wide open at night...

http://210.238.185.197/~maro/lens_te..._z_yoru_14.jpg

 The difference is less pronounced in daylight, and there is no difference at all stopped down a bit.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## paulr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have five lenses now, and they cover what I do perfectly... Nikon 18-200VR, Nikon 28-70 AF-D, Tokina 100mm Macro, Sigma 50mm 1.4 and Tokina 11-16. The first two there are extremely versatile (one for good, one for lightweight bum-around), the second two cover portraits and macro, and the last one nails architecture and landscapes. The only other lens I might want is a fast long sports lens, but the amount I would use it doesn't justify the cost. Basically, in five lenses, I've covered everything in my old bag full of primes- with the added benefit of faster apertures and sharper optics._

 

Right, this is what I mean, I got an old 180/2.8 in manual focus for $125 and barely missed getting a 300/2.8 for $450. The AF versions of those lenses would be at least 5x as expensive. The Sigma 50/1.4 is around 5x a 50/1.4 MF Nikkor though maybe it's a better lens (in my case I have a 50/1.8AF and manage to live without the extra stop). I have the 18-70 kit lens from the D70 and rather than an 18-200 I sometimes think of getting the 17-55/2.8 for more speed, but in the long run I want an FX camera, so I'm resistant to sinking a lot of $$ into DX lenses. The 28-70/2.8 is of course a fabulous lens but costs more than a D3. In practice I'd mostly care about the wideangle end, and I have the 35/1.4 and 28/2.0 in manual focus and I think they were about $150 each. Zooms that fast simply do not exist. My one concession to semi-expensive DX lenses is the Sigma 10-20mm which I've been having a good time with, for sure. I wouldn't mind buying expensive stuff if I used it more or felt I was going to keep it a long time, but given how little DSLR shooting I actually do, I really have to resist acquiring a pile of high-end AF lenses (especially DX models).


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes. Way back in the late 70s. I had a 1.2 as well, but I sold that because it seemed to have low contrast wide open. They were all fine for printing 8x10 wide open, and they got sharp by the time you got to around 2.8 or 3.5 or so. But the larger apertures were more for convenience than for actual critical use.

 I'm willing to compromise sharpness a bit for convenience in a zoom. But in a prime, I want all of the stops to perform perfectly. When I pull out a lens like this, it's for a specific purpose- and in this case that's wide open with the subject in the center and lots of soft focus all around.

 My Tokina 11-16 is from another world IQ-wise. The stuff I'm getting from it are better than anything I ever got with 35mm. I'm hoping this 50mm will be in the same league. The shots I've seen on the web taken with it look great. Until recently, I didn't realize how significant the advances in lens design have been over the past couple of decades.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Thanks for the info. Hope you like the sigma.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *paulr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_he 28-70/2.8 is of course a fabulous lens but costs more than a D3._

 

Do you mean the D300?
 The 28-70 F/2.8 should go for around 1100 used, and the 24-70 F/2.8 goes for around 1600$ new. Both cheaper than the 4500$ D3.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here is an example shot of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 against the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 wide open at night...

http://210.238.185.197/~maro/lens_te..._z_yoru_14.jpg

 The difference is less pronounced in daylight, and there is no difference at all stopped down a bit.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Wow, huge difference in those two pictures. Wonder what the zeiss does to portraits without stopping down much.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 28-70 F/2.8 should go for around 1100 used, and the 24-70 F/2.8 goes for around 1600$ new._

 

The 28-70 I have is the f3.5/4.5 AF-D. It cost me $80. It's the perfect lightweight walkaround beater lens.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, huge difference in those two pictures. Wonder what the zeiss does to portraits without stopping down much._

 

It performs a lot better in daylight. And if you notice, it's a lot better in the center than at the edges. With portraits all that edge messiness would be blur anyway.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Here is my prediction for the future...

 Nikon hybrid HDvideo/DSLR cameras will be crop, not full frame. Don't sell off those DX lenses yet! Also, I bet a new classification of lenses will emerge with powered zooms.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you look at this dude's flickr page, that's pretty much how it performs wide open. But I suggest you not to visit the page though, or else you'd be tempted to get one but realise it's wayyy to expensive to get one and you'll be disappointed instead. Like me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

That's one hell of a photographer. Fortunately, they don't fit Nikon cameras, so I don't have to lose sleep lusting over it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here is an example shot of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 against the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 wide open at night.

http://210.238.185.197/~maro/lens_te..._z_yoru_14.jpg

 The difference is less pronounced in daylight, and there is no difference at all stopped down a bit.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

That's very interesting. The Zeiss photo looks brighter though and there's an odd (aperture) flare?... Can you please tell me what I should be looking for in that comparison?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's very interesting. The Zeiss photo looks brighter though and there's an odd (aperture) flare?... Can you please tell me what I should be looking for in that comparison?_

 

The brightness difference is actually contrast. The Sigma has a much snappier contrast wide open. The flare is the way the Zeiss lens reacts to sharp contrasts out at the edges. Compare the focus at different points in the shot.

 The Zeiss lens isn't so bad in daylight at 1.4, and it matches the quality of the Sigma when it gets stopped down a few stops. What this tells you is that the Zeiss is a normal lens that just happens to have a fast aperture. The Sigma is a lens that is designed to be used wide open. It's sharp at all stops. The difference is the asymmetrical element in the lens.

 That particular Zeiss lens was up to now, one of the best performing (and most expensive) 50mm f1.4 lenses on the market. Rumors are that it's about to be replaced by a new design... probably very much like the Sigma, but at a price much higher.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## milkpowder

I heard that the ZF mount Zeiss aren't even manufactured by Zeiss themselves -> Cosina in Canada? Is the optical design Zeiss too?


----------



## dj_mocok

Bigshot, 

 Just wondering, what MF lenses have you got?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ I think I'm just too much in love with the big hunk of magnesium frames of the D200/300/700 series. It just feels so nice in my hands. My D80 just feels so wimpy now._

 

No kidding. Ever since I first picked up a D200, I knew I would have to have one somehow. Most other cameras just feel like toys by comparison. I know the D80 is very close, picture-wise, but if I'm going to shell out for a serious camera, I want it to feel like a serious camera, you know?

 Plus, I feel a lot more at ease with the D200 hanging off my neck whilst scrambling up >45 degree rocky slopes than I would a plasticam.


----------



## dj_mocok

I never felt un-serious holding my D80.


----------



## paulr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you mean the D300?
 The 28-70 F/2.8 should go for around 1100 used, and the 24-70 F/2.8 goes for around 1600$ new. Both cheaper than the 4500$ D3._

 

Yes, of course I meant D300, whoops! If I could get a D3 for $1600 I'd grab it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

 I can't take the D90 seriously as a video camera unless it has first class digital audio recording to go with the video, with an external stereo mic input. I think red.com is leading the way in "affordable" (at least compared to the 6-figure Hollywood stuff) large-sensor HDTV cameras.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bigshot, Just wondering, what MF lenses have you got?_

 

I'd have to dig out those bags. I've got them buried right now. But off the top of my head... 125mm, 43-86mm, 24mm, 50 1.4, Vivitar 70-210, micro nikkor... there's more I can't think of right now, and I sold off a bunch along with an F2 and F3 body a year or so ago. I ended up with my own kit, along with my brother's and parents. Piles of equipment I'll probably never use again.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No kidding. Ever since I first picked up a D200, I knew I would have to have one somehow. Most other cameras just feel like toys by comparison. I know the D80 is very close, picture-wise, but if I'm going to shell out for a serious camera, I want it to feel like a serious camera, you know?_

 

I know the feeling toyed around with one my mates D300, going back to my D80 afterwards it was clear why the D300 is much more expensive.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'd have to dig out those bags. I've got them buried right now. But off the top of my head... 125mm, 43-86mm, 24mm, 50 1.4, Vivitar 70-210, micro nikkor... there's more I can't think of right now, and I sold off a bunch along with an F2 and F3 body a year or so ago. I ended up with my own kit, along with my brother's and parents. Piles of equipment I'll probably never use again.

 See ya
 Steve_

 


 That's a shame you got so many lenses there, especially you got 24mm and 50mm 1.4, those 2 are such a waste to be left somewhere in the dark storage room and never to be used again.


----------



## Edwood

Well, the D90's D-Movie feature is officially a gimmick.

 The REAL deal is in the (much more expensive) upcoming Canon 5d mkII.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Canon* 
_Canon has taken its expertise in imaging, photography and video capture technology to a new level with the EOS 5D Mark II Digital SLR. Answering the question of where SLR technology is going next, the EOS 5D Mark II features 16:9 Full HD video capture at 1920 x 1080 pixels and 30 fps as well as 4:3 standard TV quality (SD) video capture at 640 x 480 pixels and 30 fps, both capabilities appearing for the first time in a Canon SLR camera.

 The EOS 5D Mark II will record video up to 4GB per clip or a maximum continuous movie capture time of 29 minutes and 59 seconds, whichever comes first. Depending on the level of detail in the scene, a 4GB memory card can record approximately 12 minutes of video at full HD resolution or approximately 24 minutes in standard definition.i Video clips are recorded in .MOV format using an MPEG-4 video compression and sound is recorded using linear PCMii without compression. The new camera features an input terminal for external stereo microphones as well as a built-in monaural microphone for convenience. To help show off those fantastic movies as well as still photos, the EOS 5D Mark II camera includes an HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface) output to display crisp, clear images on a High-Definition TV._

 

About Canon: Press Room > Press Release

 And Canon is undercutting the Nikon D700 by pricing the 5D mkII at around $2700 MRSP.

 Bring on the D700 price drops, baby!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 And going back to the whole shooting movies with a DSLR, there would really need to be some kind of shoulder stablizing rig, as it's really awkward and fatiguing to hold a large DSLR in front like a Camcorder. Especially if you have a larger lense on.

 -Ed


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I never felt un-serious holding my D80._

 

I feel un-serious holding my D80. I have magnesium envy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, the D90's D-Movie feature is officially a gimmick._

 

You're in your fantasy world again ed...........


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And Canon is undercutting the Nikon D700 by pricing the 5D mkII at around $2700 MRSP.

 Bring on the D700 price drops, baby!!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Now yer talkin'! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're in your fantasy world again ed..........._

 

Welcome to Ed-land, how may the Ed-bot serve you today?


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now yer talkin'! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 Welcome to Ed-land, how may the Ed-bot serve you today? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

...........mmmmmmmmmmbrap..............


----------



## lan

I'm not sure the D700's price will drop. It's just like D300 was always more expensive than 40D. It's nearly irrelevant if the price does drop since you still have to deal with the cost of the lenses lol.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I feel un-serious holding my D80. I have magnesium envy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed_

 

Well I never felt that way maybe because I always have serious lens attached in front of it, hehe.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Now about the Canon, the price looks very attractive. I know this is yet to be confirmed, but if it could perform as good as D700 in low light, I think Canon had just delivered "Bam! In your face, Nikon" with that 5DMkII.

 By the way, did you see one of the preset settings? It's called "faithful" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 What the hell is that? Can't they pick something better sounding? It's almost embarrassing to have 'faithful' setting on your camera. What's next? "Inspiration" or 'passionate' setting?
 But nonetheless that looks like one hell of a camera. Nikon must be sweating now, and I hope they do, so that come next year hopefully I can get something that is even better than D300.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By the way, did you see one of the preset settings? It's called "faithful" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 What the hell is that? Can't they pick something better sounding? It's almost embarrassing to have 'faithful' setting on your camera. What's next? "Inspiration" or 'passionate' setting?_

 

I wish my camera had a passion setting.......... ~_~
  Quote:


 Nikon must be sweating now, and I hope they do, so that come next year hopefully I can get something that is even better than D300. 
 

Give it a day! We are all saying "oh wow, a Canon 5D v2", but tomorrow we may be saying something totally different. ^_^
 Here's to hope!


----------



## bigshot

I feel like I should wear out the camera body I have before I get a new one. I failed at doing that with my F2. It's going to take a while to wear out the D200.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 By the way, did you see one of the preset settings? It's called "faithful" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 What the hell is that? Can't they pick something better sounding? It's almost embarrassing to have 'faithful' setting on your camera. What's next? "Inspiration" or 'passionate' setting?
 But nonetheless that looks like one hell of a camera. Nikon must be sweating now, and I hope they do, so that come next year hopefully I can get something that is even better than D300._

 

"Faithful" setting? LOL, where is that?


----------



## philodox

I've been thinking about getting an older [manual focus] SLR like the Nikon F3HP or perhaps even the completely mechanical camera [no battery] like the Nikon F2 to play around with. Any thoughts?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've been thinking about getting an older [manual focus] SLR like the Nikon F3HP or perhaps even the completely mechanical camera [no battery] like the Nikon F2 to play around with. Any thoughts?_

 

If that's what you want then go for it. The nikon is the budget route. If you have a lot of money to spare though, many people seem to swear by their leicas.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"Faithful" setting? LOL, where is that?_

 

Here, under "Picture Style".


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've been thinking about getting an older [manual focus] SLR like the Nikon F3HP or perhaps even the completely mechanical camera [no battery] like the Nikon F2 to play around with. Any thoughts?_

 

I had an F2 and I sold it when I inherited an F3. I regret it. The F2 was a great camera.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## dj_mocok

Here, eBay for Nikon F2 with 2 lenses for cheap. Although I am not so sure about the condition of the lenses though.


----------



## jterp7

I tried out the D90 yesterday, the movie mode at least was not great at all. THough other than that it seemed a good upgrade to the D80, which I've owned at one point (only a modest D50 at the moment)


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I had an F2 and I sold it when I inherited an F3. I regret it. The F2 was a great camera._

 

What was it about the F2 that you preferred over the F3? I like the fact that it is completely mechanical, but that is really more for the 'cool factor' than anything else.

 Mocok - Is that a good deal? Would those two lenses cover everything for me at first?


----------



## bigshot

The F2 was easier to use. The electronics in the F3 are irritating. Instead of a needle to read exposures, you get a row of leds like a cheap video game. The F3 works and it's fine, but the F2 just seems more intuitive and closer to what a film camera always was.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## dj_mocok

The 35mm should be enough for most of your shooting, I am not sure with the other lens though, looks like an elcheapo. If everything still works perfectly without fungus, fault, etc... I think that price is pretty decent. 

 But actually after having a closer look, I think the equipments are a bit dirty, but I might be wrong. Although for some reason my gut feeling says they might have problem - either fungus or stiff mechanical...


----------



## philodox

Thanks for the info Steve. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 It really does look like a great deal as long as everything works. I can take my time and give it a good cleaning. Have a friend who is a professional photographer who should be able to tell me if everything is in working order. Shoot a roll of film, see how it turns out, and take it in for serviceing if it needs it... still way cheaper than the other F2 auctions I was able to find.

 Waiting to hear back from him on shipping costs.


----------



## philodox

Was talking to my photographer friend and he thinks we'd be better off checking out the local camera shops and pawnshops since we could see and handle the stuff and not have to worry about shipping. So, we're going tomorrow night.


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The F2 was easier to use. The electronics in the F3 are irritating. Instead of a needle to read exposures, you get a row of leds like a cheap video game. The F3 works and it's fine, but the F2 just seems more intuitive and closer to what a film camera always was.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

The LEDs aren't that bad to be honest... Sure it's impossible to see at night since the lamp is really weak but you can't see the needles anyway.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Was talking to my photographer friend and he thinks we'd be better off checking out the local camera shops and pawnshops since we could see and handle the stuff and not have to worry about shipping. So, we're going tomorrow night. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Shooting from ALL mechanical type of SLR must be fun!


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shooting from ALL mechanical type of SLR must be fun!_

 

Advancing the film manually after taking a great shot just brings a smile to my face.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wish my camera had a passion setting.......... ~_~_

 

Isn't that the "Auto" setting? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My understanding is that the "Faithful" setting is trying to get the color/exposure to be as close to the original as possible. It seems like it's the more "neutral" setting as opposed to some of the others that may use difference WB or other exposure values.

 *shrug* but what do I know? I just got my D80 after letting my AE-1 sit for a decade. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 On that note, I just returned from a 6 day backpacking trip in The Canyon with my new D80. I love the camera, but I found that I'm not real good at getting proper exposures. I mostly shoot in aperture priority mode. I thought the point of "A" mode was that it would pick the correct shutter speed to achieve a good exposure. I definitely learned a great deal about using the camera, but I was pretty disappointed about how many were poorly exposed. Am I misunderstanding what the A mode is? I don't recall having this trouble with my AE-1P.

 There were some shots that were underexposed, but mostly the problem seems to have been over exposure. Some of them I was able to salvage in Lightroom, but they are probably not suitable for larger prints anymore. Some were beyond repair. I'm guessing it may have been the subject matter. I do know that I've had an over exposure problem with other cameras in The Canyon. I always chalked it up to a crappy camera and expected better from the D80. Any ideas what I did wrong? Maybe I turned off a setting? The only setting I know I messed with was the auto ISO. I realize that this could affect exposure, but I thought it would just mean longer shutter speeds at f22 and above. I actually packed a tripod specifically so I could shoot at f22 and ISO 100.

 Can anyone recommend a book or site that has photography instruction? I'm looking for the type of methods used in school? (ie discuss some theory then have an assignment that demonstrates that theory)

 Would it help to post links to some of the pictures? I haven't finished going through them all. I took 3 2GB cards and used up about 2.8 of them 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think it was ~700 shots. It might take the weekend to get through them all.


----------



## Towert7

I wouldn't expect phenomenal images straight out of the D80 without the user getting familiar with it, but then again I wouldn't expect many of them to be lousy either.

 The first thing you should know is that there are 3 different 'metering' modes on your camera.
 Spot meter, center weighted, and matrix.

 Matrix metering is Nikon's way of trying to get the best image for the lighting conditions. It's a very tough business, and it does some very complicated algorithms to produce the results it does. Having said that though, there are certain lighting conditions that will throw it off, ESPECIALLY when there are huge variations in lighting.

 What you have to understand is that, most non-pro DSLR's have a compressed dynamic range compared to what your typical 35mm film will produce. I wonder if it's even more comrpessed then slides, such as velvia. If you up the contrast, this will become even more so.

 So, you need to be mindful of the range of lighting you have in the picture.

 Lets say you are taking a picture of a landscape in matrix metering mode. Best thing to do is take one test photo and see how the meter is interpreting the picture. Judge _then_ whether it is underexposed, overexposed, or just right for what you want. Then you can adjust what matrix meter mode gives you by A few F-stops in either direction.

 The other metering modes are much easier to predict compared to matrix metering.

 In spot meter mode, you are metering off what is in the very center of your viewfinder. It will expose it to get the correct lighting for what a 10%(?) grey subject should be. It is VERY easy to predict what the picture will look like using spot metering just by what you point it to and what color it is, etc. This is very similar to the type of meter you'd find in an older camera.

 Center weighted metering mode is in between these two. Good for when your main subject is near the center of the image. Some guessing still takes place though I think.

 Again, in all three modes you can adjust the Exposure (called Exposure compensation EV).

 Don't expect consistent results until you get familiar with the metering modes of your camera, and which to use when. Also, make a habit of taking a test photo in the lighting conditions first and see what it looks like, and then make your exposure corrections from there. That's the great thing about digital, you can take a test photo and instantly see it, and make any adjustments as needed.

 Your camera should have come with a link to the nikon website with video tutorials on selected topics. Take a look at those here:
Nikon Imaging | Global Site | Digitutor

 Very basic article, you probably already know this:
Nikon, Inc.

 Ken rockwell article. Scroll down to exposure:
Nikon D80 Performance


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shooting from ALL mechanical type of SLR must be fun!_

 

That's what I'm hoping. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Anyone have any experience with film [negative] scanners? I was thinking that if I can find one that is inexpensive but performs well, I could use it to 'develop' my pictures rather than taking them in to get done. Then my only expense is the film itself. I have photoshop and a friend who knows how to use it, so all I really need is a recommendation on the hardware.


----------



## philodox

I'm sort of on the fence right now. The F2 is so cool, but I'm worried that if I get one it will break down and I'll be SOL. My other option is just to get a new generation film camera like the FM10. What would be the main differences between the F2 and the FM10? They would both likely cost me around the same [if I try to get a F2 in decent condition], and the FM10 will be brand new... which is a big plus.


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Very basic article, you probably already know this:
Nikon, Inc.

 Ken rockwell article. Scroll down to exposure:
Nikon D80 Performance_

 

Completely agree with your recommendations and of course read the manual I found the Nikon manual that is supplied with the D80 to provide a lot of nice insights into what the camera does in the different modes and what you can do with the calibration options.


----------



## GTRacer

I'd go for the F2 as the FM10 isn't what I'd consider a 'real' Nikon. Plus the 100% viewfinder means that you won't be getting any unexpected objects in the frame once the film is developed. Nikon F series cameras are built like tanks anyway, they'll take quite a bit of abuse before they kick it.


----------



## philodox

Yeah, after further reading I decided the same. The FM10 isn't anywhere near as robust as their earlier cameras and isn't even made by Nikon...


----------



## dj_mocok

Hayduke, generally speaking, with D80 if you go under matrix metering and using A mode, it's best to leave the exposure compensation at -.03EV or -.07 EV. 

 Usually it will give better result. But then again, at times you will have more varied lighting, if that's the case just adjust it accordingly. That's the only thing that I don't really like about D80, the metering can be slightly off . They can call it 'preserving highlights' or whatever excuse, but it's just not as accurate as, say D200 in my opinion. With D200 I hardly got this inconsistency unless it's really expected (bright backlight, dark foreground, etc)


 But you'll get used to this very quickly anyway because it's only a few button press once in awhile. But I wonder how you could actually go home with so many incorrectly metered images? You didn't check it from the LCD as soon as you took one picture? I think it's a good habit to check your picture quite often because sometimes we can just do something stupid and keep taking pictures without realising something (eg. accidentally left the camera under M when it's supposed to be A - I did this quite often actually)

 About auto ISO, I never turned this feature on. I personally would rather have control over ISO because I don't really want to use higher ISOs unless it's really necessary, and sometimes I'd rather retry the shot again than bumping the ISO. But if you haven't got all the time you can have then maybe auto ISO is better.

 Also was there any specific reason why you were shooting at f/22? I think if your lens is pretty wide and you are shooting scenery, won't f/16 (max) is enough to make everything in focus? If it's because you need to slow down the shutter desperately I think it's better to use ND filter than stopping down like that.

 Also for high ISO noise reduction, just set this to minimal because with high ISO. your details are sacrificed bad enough already, and you don't want to make it worse.


----------



## philodox

Sorry to spam your Nikon thread, but one more quick question. Are there any good camera forums that sell used gear? I've been looking around at some of the Nikon specific ones, but the volume seems to be quite a bit less than head-fi, and I'm sure there must be a forum out there that cators to crazy camera people.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone have any experience with film [negative] scanners? I was thinking that if I can find one that is inexpensive but performs well, I could use it to 'develop' my pictures rather than taking them in to get done. Then my only expense is the film itself._

 

You still have to get the film developed. Many labs now send back your negs with a disk full of scans. I think Costco does this.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm sort of on the fence right now. The F2 is so cool, but I'm worried that if I get one it will break down and I'll be SOL._

 

The F2 is built like a tank. You can drop it on concrete and it will still work. I don't think it's possible to wear one out under normal use.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You still have to get the film developed. Many labs now send back your negs with a disk full of scans. I think Costco does this.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Really? I've been looking at scanners that just scan the negatives. I figured I could just pop the film out of my camera and scan away. Shows how much I know about camers.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_About auto ISO, I never turned this feature on. I personally would rather have control over ISO because I don't really want to use higher ISOs unless it's really necessary.

 Also was there any specific reason why you were shooting at f/22? I think if your lens is pretty wide and you are shooting scenery, won't f/16 (max) is enough to make everything in focus?

 Also for high ISO noise reduction, just set this to minimal because with high ISO. your details are sacrificed bad enough already, and you don't want to make it worse._

 

Auto ISO only cuts in if the shutter speed gets too slow to handhold. It really is best to leave it on, especially with the newest generation of Nikons.

 Stopping down to the smallest aperture won't get you sharper pictures. The sharpest f stops on most lenses are the ones in the middle.

 The higher the ISO, the more need there is for noise reduction. If it becomes a problem, you can shoot raw and turn noise reduction off in the camera- apply noise reduction in post processing to your taste.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really? I've been looking at scanners that just scan the negatives. I figured I could just pop the film out of my camera and scan away. Shows how much I know about camers. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Exposed film has to be developed into negatives at the lab. Then you have the negatives made into prints, or scanned to digital. You really don't have to worry much about this. Places like Costco take care of all this for a few bucks a roll.

 Here is more info on shooting film... Film and Printing

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## philodox

Thanks for the link, I've got so much to learn about photography... its a little daunting but rewarding in the end I think.


----------



## OverlordXenu

I would check out apug.org as they are a website that is completely dedicated to analog (film) photography, and they will be much more able to answer your questions than we can. Not to mention, there is much more to film than negatives.

 I would start out with a few rolls of Ilford HP5+ 400. Find a good B&W lab to develop and scan them for you (I may have one in mind).

 Personally, I would not trust 1 hour labs like Costco or CVS, unless you know what kind of work they do at your personal location. I've seen the way many of them handle film, and it makes me scringe. Not to mention their scans tend to be really ****ty.

 Also, I shoot Ilford Delta 100 (processed into slides and scanned by DR5), Fuji Velvia (a local pro lab processes this for me), and Kodachrome. I have been meaning to try Fuji Astia, though.


----------



## Hayduke

Thanks for the responses folks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm quoting a couple to respond to directly.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wouldn't expect phenomenal images straight out of the D80 without the user getting familiar with it, but then again I wouldn't expect many of them to be lousy either.

 The first thing you should know is that there are 3 different 'metering' modes on your camera.
 Spot meter, center weighted, and matrix.

 Matrix metering is Nikon's way of trying to get the best image for the lighting conditions. It's a very tough business, and it does some very complicated algorithms to produce the results it does. Having said that though, there are certain lighting conditions that will throw it off, ESPECIALLY when there are huge variations in lighting.

 What you have to understand is that, most non-pro DSLR's have a compressed dynamic range compared to what your typical 35mm film will produce. I wonder if it's even more comrpessed then shooting slides, such as velvia. If you up the contrast, this will become even more so.

 So, you need to be mindful of the range of lighting you have in the picture.

 Lets say you are taking a picture of a landscape in matrix metering mode. Best thing to do is shoot one test photo and see how the meter is interpreting the picture. Judge then whether it is underexposed, overexposed, or just right for what you want. Then you can adjust what matrix meter mode gives you by A few F-stops in either direction.

 The other metering modes are much easier to predict compared to matrix metering.

 In spot meter mode, you are metering off what is in the very center of your viewfinder. It will expose it to get the correct lighting for what a 10%(?) grey subject should be. It is VERY easy to predict what the picture will look like using spot metering just by what you point it to and what color it is, etc. This is very similar to the type of meter you'd find in an older camera.

 Center weighted metering mode is in between these two. Good for when your main subject is near the center of the image. Some guessing still takes place though I think.

 Again, in all three modes you can adjust the Exposure (called Exposure compensation EV).

 Don't expect consistent results until you get familiar with the metering modes of your camera, and which to use when. Also, make a habit of taking a test photo in the lighting conditions first and see what it looks like, and then make your exposure corrections from there. That's the great thing about digital, you can take a test photo and instantly see it, and make any adjustments as needed.

 Your camera should have come with a link to the nikon website with video tutorials on selected topics. Take a look at those here:
Nikon Imaging | Global Site | Digitutor

 Very basic article, you probably already know this:
Nikon, Inc.

 Ken rockwell article. Scroll down to exposure:
Nikon D80 Performance_

 

Thanks for all the info. It sounds like I do understand how it works correctly, but there are some subtleties I need to learn to understand. Some of the info in your links are a little remedial, but that's OK. It never hurts to review! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I did find Ken's article about the D80 interesting. I had read his review before buying the camera, but somehow I missed the performance page. He basically says he loves the camera except for the metering. He said it has a tendency to overexpose and recommends stopping down about -.3 to -.7 EV (just like dj suggests below).

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FrederikS|TPU* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Completely agree with your recommendations and of course read the manual I found the Nikon manual that is supplied with the D80 to provide a lot of nice insights into what the camera does in the different modes and what you can do with the calibration options._

 

I did read the entire manual and I even had it with me. I noticed on the first day that I had switched the AF to only use the spot I selected, and I couldn't remember how to change the spot or switch it back to auto-AF. I'll reread the manual again in the next couple weeks. I've only had the camera for 2 weeks as of today, so I read it pretty recently.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hayduke, generally speaking, with D80 if you go under matrix metering and using A mode, it's best to leave the exposure compensation at -.03EV or -.07 EV. 

 Usually it will give better result. But then again, at times you will have more varied lighting, if that's the case just adjust it accordingly. That's the only thing that I don't really like about D80, the metering can be slightly off . They can call it 'preserving highlights' or whatever excuse, but it's just not as accurate as, say D200 in my opinion. With D200 I hardly got this inconsistency unless it's really expected (bright backlight, dark foreground, etc)

 But you'll get used to this very quickly anyway because it's only a few button press once in awhile. But I wonder how you could actually go home with so many incorrectly metered images? You didn't check it from the LCD as soon as you took one picture? I think it's a good habit to check your picture quite often because sometimes we can just do something stupid and keep taking pictures without realising something (eg. accidentally left the camera under M when it's supposed to be A - I did this quite often actually)

 About auto ISO, I never turned this feature on. I personally would rather have control over ISO because I don't really want to use higher ISOs unless it's really necessary, and sometimes I'd rather retry the shot again than bumping the ISO. But if you haven't got all the time you can have then maybe auto ISO is better.

 Also was there any specific reason why you were shooting at f/22? I think if your lens is pretty wide and you are shooting scenery, won't f/16 (max) is enough to make everything in focus? If it's because you need to slow down the shutter desperately I think it's better to use ND filter than stopping down like that.

 Also for high ISO noise reduction, just set this to minimal because with high ISO. your details are sacrificed bad enough already, and you don't want to make it worse._

 

Thanks so much dj! I think you hit the nail on the head. I was in a rush to get the camera and be ready for the trip. I was concerned about the battery life and wether or not I needed an extra battery. The specs say I get 2700 shots on a charge, and I took 6GB which worked out to ~700 shots. I felt reasonably confident that a single battery would suffice, but to help make sure it did, I turned off photo review to save battery power. In hindsight, that may have been a mistake given how new I was to this camera. I did review some photos manually, but ironically only the ones that looked good. Lesson learned 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Many of the photos I was taking were the perfect conditions to cause the camera difficulty. Often, I would be taking landscapes that had bright sunlight and shaded areas in the frame. Sounds like I need to practice these sorts of shots a bit. Luckily I live only 90 miles from The Canyon. I'm already formulating a plan to make another trip in the next couple of months.

 In regards to auto-ISO, I turned it off as well. I knew that I preferred 100 film with my old camera, so I saw no need to make the photos grainier. If the shutters got too long, I had my tripod for just that reason. Back in my film days, I do recall that I didn't mind 200 and 400 speed films, so I am considering turning on auto-ISO. Luckily, on the D80, you can limit how high auto ISO will raise the value, so I can just set it to 400.

 Why f22? I guess that's my newbness showing. That's the value I used with my film camera when I wanted the whole shot to be in focus. So f16 will do this as well? I wasn't sure what the minimum was (hence the inquiry about intro photo lessons). I'm aware that I don't have a good feel for how shutter, f-stop and ISO interact. I mean I understand how they all work, but I don't know any specific numbers, ie with ISO 100 and f5.6 I need a shutter of 1/200. I also realize these numbers changes based on the available light. I'm going to go out this weekend and experiment to determine a couple of values. I want to get a feel for how large the depth of fields are for my 2 lenses at the different f stops and I need to figure out how slow a shutter I can shoot handheld with the VR lenses.

 I also turned off the noise reduction. Basically, that seemed like a post processing sort of thing and would defeat the point of shooting RAW. I want to setup the camera to take the best possible image, but any manipulation after the shutter closes will be done in Lightroom or Photoshop. Any other features on the D80 that are post processing that I should consider turning off? I know there are lots of editing functions, but I'll probably never use them 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Auto ISO only cuts in if the shutter speed gets too slow to handhold. It really is best to leave it on, especially with the newest generation of Nikons.

 Stopping down to the smallest aperture won't get you sharper pictures. The sharpest f stops on most lenses are the ones in the middle.

 The higher the ISO, the more need there is for noise reduction. If it becomes a problem, you can shoot raw and turn noise reduction off in the camera- apply noise reduction in post processing to your taste.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I use the smaller apertures to increase depth of field. It sounds like I only need to go to f16 to achieve my goal of the entire frame being in focus. So what would be the advantage of the smaller apertures? One of my lenses will go to f29.



 Thanks again for everyone's help here. I apologize for all the questions and the long posts (I tend to do that hehe), but I appreciate all the good advice.


----------



## Edwood

The D80's overexposing is mostly with natural lighting shots, particularly daylight. With a flash, I notice it meters better. Although sometimes it freaks out, and is not nearly as consistent shot to shot compared to the D200.

 -Ed


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Isn't that the "Auto" setting? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My understanding is that the "Faithful" setting is trying to get the color/exposure to be as close to the original as possible. It seems like it's the more "neutral" setting as opposed to some of the others that may use difference WB or other exposure values.

 *shrug* but what do I know? I just got my D80 after letting my AE-1 sit for a decade. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 On that note, I just returned from a 6 day backpacking trip in The Canyon with my new D80. I love the camera, but I found that I'm not real good at getting proper exposures. I mostly shoot in aperture priority mode. I thought the point of "A" mode was that it would pick the correct shutter speed to achieve a good exposure. I definitely learned a great deal about using the camera, but I was pretty disappointed about how many were poorly exposed. Am I misunderstanding what the A mode is? I don't recall having this trouble with my AE-1P.

 There were some shots that were underexposed, but mostly the problem seems to have been over exposure. Some of them I was able to salvage in Lightroom, but they are probably not suitable for larger prints anymore. Some were beyond repair. I'm guessing it may have been the subject matter. I do know that I've had an over exposure problem with other cameras in The Canyon. I always chalked it up to a crappy camera and expected better from the D80. Any ideas what I did wrong? Maybe I turned off a setting? The only setting I know I messed with was the auto ISO. I realize that this could affect exposure, but I thought it would just mean longer shutter speeds at f22 and above. I actually packed a tripod specifically so I could shoot at f22 and ISO 100.

 Can anyone recommend a book or site that has photography instruction? I'm looking for the type of methods used in school? (ie discuss some theory then have an assignment that demonstrates that theory)

 Would it help to post links to some of the pictures? I haven't finished going through them all. I took 3 2GB cards and used up about 2.8 of them 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think it was ~700 shots. It might take the weekend to get through them all._

 

Also make sure you didn't mess with the wrong command dial mistakenly. In Aperture Priority mode, turning the front knob will change the aperture value while keeping the "proper" metered exposure in check. Turning the rear knob, however, adjusts Exposure Compensation on top of the metered exposure - and keeps the aperture value fixed. 

 Of course, the D80 is known for slightly inaccurate metering, and you seem to know what you're doing / how to do it. Still, I've frequently made mistakes like these after simply mixing up shutter speed and aperture command dials.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks again for everyone's help here. I apologize for all the questions and the long posts (I tend to do that hehe), but I appreciate all the good advice._

 

Every lens is a little bit different, but there are two limitations to sharpness related to the f stop you use... wide open, a lot of lenses are soft because of the natural distortion of the lens elements. Stopped all the way down, diffraction can make the image fuzzy. Here's a good general article on lens sharpness.

 Hope this helps
 Steve


----------



## screwdriver

you can get a lot of info on the web regarding the basics and stuff of exposure - even if you dont get a book.

 if you wanna venture into manual mode - i recommend the dvd in the photoshop cafe titled PERFECT EXPOSURE FOR DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY -the zone system of metering and shooting.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I did read the entire manual and I even had it with me. I noticed on the first day that I had switched the AF to only use the spot I selected, and I couldn't remember how to change the spot or switch it back to auto-AF. I'll reread the manual again in the next couple weeks. I've only had the camera for 2 weeks as of today, so I read it pretty recently._

 

The AF mode is different from the Metering Mode. For best results, you want to keep the multipoint AF mode where you select what is in focus, not what the camera 'thinks' should be in focus. The metering mode you choose though is totally up to you. 

 Yes, F/16 on a DX sensor Usually gives decent results, though it still won't cover something close and something very far. To check though, use your DOF preview button. If massive DOF is critical for odd ball situations, a tilt lens would be advisable.


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Every lens is a little bit different, but there are two limitations to sharpness related to the f stop you use... wide open, a lot of lenses are soft because of the natural distortion of the lens elements. Stopped all the way down, diffraction can make the image fuzzy. Here's a good general article on lens sharpness.

 Hope this helps
 Steve_

 

there are some good books out there about exposure and how to take exposure readings properly. understanding exposure by bryan peterson is a book that i recently got through and learned a lot from. it's a bit slow at the beginning but he does a good job of covering the basics before he starts throwing techniques at you.


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, I'd like keep my take around lenses down to two. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and one of the Micro-Nikkors. I would probably be shooting mostly product type shots, but occassionally I'd like to be able to shoot really tiny things. Most of the times when I do that, I have access to controlled lighting.

 I'm wondering, which one is better for portraits when it comes to just image quality? 60mm one or the 105mm one? (not considering focal length practicality)


 -Ed_

 

It's been awhile for me to read this nikon thread, so Ed, have you picked your micro lens yet? Which one? Are you happy with it? 
 The reason I'm asking, I also looks for a micro lens. I'm considering Nikon 60mm, 105mm, and Tamron 90mm. Currently I'm leaning on Tamron, they have $90 rebate which bring the cost down to around $350. I read their reviews, it give 105mm run for their money and capable to take a good potrait as well which I find important since I loved taking potrait and lust for nikon 85 1.4 but what can I say, at my latest financial condition I can't afford to buy the nikon 85 1.4 yet and I need a macro lens. It seems the tamron 90 is a very good alternative to me.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's been awhile for me to read this nikon thread, so Ed, have you picked your micro lens yet? Which one? Are you happy with it? 
 The reason I'm asking, I also looks for a micro lens. I'm considering Nikon 60mm, 105mm, and Tamron 90mm. Currently I'm leaning on Tamron, they have $90 rebate which bring the cost down to around $350. I read their reviews, it give 105mm run for their money and capable to take a good potrait as well which I find important since I loved taking potrait and lust for nikon 85 1.4 but what can I say, at my latest financial condition I can't afford to buy the nikon 85 1.4 yet and I need a macro lens. It seems the tamron 90 is a very good alternative to me._

 

Haven't picked one yet. Had my main LCD monitor start dying on me, so my Macro lens funds were eaten up with a new juicy 22" 1920x1200 monitor.

 I'll probably end up with the new 60mm Nikkor Macro with AF-S.

 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

You should seriously consider the 60mm AF-D. It's at a better price. The optics on it are phenomenal.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_there are some good books out there about exposure and how to take exposure readings properly._

 

I was talking about sharpness, not exposure. f16 is not necessarily sharper than f5.6. At very small apertures, diffraction can cause a picture to have huge depth of field but overall fuzziness. The middle of a lens's f-stop range is the sharpest.

Here is a vivid example of how f 5.6 is sharper than f 16 or f 32.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## milkpowder

Re: 60mm AF-D

 And I really dig its old-school looks too.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's been awhile for me to read this nikon thread, so Ed, have you picked your micro lens yet? Which one? Are you happy with it? 
 The reason I'm asking, I also looks for a micro lens. I'm considering Nikon 60mm, 105mm, and Tamron 90mm. Currently I'm leaning on Tamron, they have $90 rebate which bring the cost down to around $350. I read their reviews, it give 105mm run for their money and capable to take a good potrait as well which I find important since I loved taking potrait and lust for nikon 85 1.4 but what can I say, at my latest financial condition I can't afford to buy the nikon 85 1.4 yet and I need a macro lens. It seems the tamron 90 is a very good alternative to me._

 

The Tamron also gives you a solid working distance at 1:1. With a 60mm macro, you could find yourself inches in front of a subject at maximum magnification - which isn't ideal for depth of field purposes or camera-shy creatures. Obviously, the Nikon 105 is even better than the Tamron in that respect and many others; but for $700, it should be.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

This ain't Canon's thread, but the recent 5D MK II Samples Gallery is up on DPreview; and the results are impressive. Detail seems phenomenal at lower ISOs, and low-light performance is solid considering the 21 megapixel sensor. I am a bit curious as to the accuracy of the metering and dynamic range, however: the highlights on a lot of the shots are fairly blown out. Regardless, I think Canon has finally caught up to Nikon's digital offerings after a few years of playing the underdog. $2700 for a 21 MP, FF digital SLR is a great deal.

 EDIT: Check out this ISO 3200 shot of a black watch. Digital Noise is noticeable in the dark color, but unobtrusive; and chroma noise is invisible.


----------



## bigshot

I took my new Sigma 50 f1.4 out last night after work and shot a few shots. You can see the results on my blog Late Night Coffee Shops.

 I'm not entirely happy with the pics, not because of the lens, which performed beautifully, but because I have gotten used to VR. I've gotten lazy and I don't brace myself for long exposures as well as I should. But all in all, the Sigma is exactly as advertised- sharp all the way out to the corners at all f stops, super fast and accurate focusing, and beautiful bokeh.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was talking about sharpness, not exposure. f16 is not necessarily sharper than f5.6. At very small apertures, diffraction can cause a picture to have huge depth of field but overall fuzziness. The middle of a lens's f-stop range is the sharpest.

Here is a vivid example of how f 5.6 is sharper than f 16 or f 32.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

That would explain why I sem to favor f/5.6 when shooting a lot.

 I also like it's depth of field, it's a happy medium.

 -Ed


----------



## lan

For sharpness I prefer f4 to f8 myself depending on the lens. Of course it depends which camera also.

 Isn't the 60mm AF-S better than the old one? It's one of the new nano coated ones.


----------



## dj_mocok

If I ever used f/4, 5.6, or smaller, it's mainly because I want the depth of field or it's just way too bright. 

 Apart from that, stopped down to f/2.8 gives me sharp enough results already for the things I shoot.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Isn't the 60mm AF-S better than the old one? It's one of the new nano coated ones._

 

Optically I really can't fault the 60mm AF-D. It doesn't really suffer from glare, or CA. Its optics were phenomenal! The AF-S only seems to improve the mechanics, adding AF-S, and having internal focus.

 If the improved mechanics (and that, is debatable), at the cost of a cheaper feel, are enough to warrant 80$, then you know which to get.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Optically I really can't fault the 60mm AF-D. It doesn't really suffer from glare, or CA. Its optics were phenomenal! The AF-S only seems to improve the mechanics, adding AF-S, and having internal focus.

 If the improved mechanics (and that, is debatable), at the cost of a cheaper feel, are enough to warrant 80$, then you know which to get._

 

Internal focus is a big improvement. As having the lens element keep extending as I tried to get closer to a subject would be annoying.

 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Internal focus is a big improvement. As having the lens element keep extending as I tried to get closer to a subject would be annoying.

 -Ed_

 

To me, internal focus is not needed, especially since the AF-D version didn't rotate the front element when focusing.

 I'm lucky, because this allowed me to buy the cheaper, stronger built version. But if you need IF, then the AF-S is the logical choice.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Obviously, the Nikon 105 is even better than the Tamron in that respect and many others; but for $700, it should be._

 

I have the Tokina 100mm f2.8 Macro and I'm very happy with it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Internal focus is a big improvement._

 

Auto focus isn't that important for shooting macro, because most of that would be done manually. It's important for using the lens double duty as a portraiture lens though.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Auto focus isn't that important for shooting macro, because most of that would be done manually. It's important for using the lens double duty as a portraiture lens though.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Ed is not so much referring to auto focus, but internal focus. Internal focus is a feature whether you use auto focus or manual focus. I believe it means the front element will not extend when focus is changed. This can be helpful in macro work when you get close (2" or so).

 On a related note:
 My work with the 60mm doesn't get me so close that it becomes an issue, so I'm lucky. If you plan on doing macro to 1:1, or 1:0.5............... then I wouldn't even look at the 60mm. At that point the 100mm+ become a big help.
 With the 60mm, you simply get tooooo close!


----------



## paulr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, huge difference in those two pictures. Wonder what the zeiss does to portraits without stopping down much._

 

Wow, it looks almost like the camera shook on the Zeiss shot, to cause that weird looking flare. Are you sure that's completely a lens effect?


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ed is not so much referring to auto focus, but internal focus. Internal focus is a feature whether you use auto focus or manual focus. I believe it means the front element will not extend when focus is changed. This can be helpful in macro work when you get close (2" or so).

 On a related note:
 My work with the 60mm doesn't get me so close that it becomes an issue, so I'm lucky. If you plan on doing macro to 1:1, or 1:0.5............... then I wouldn't even look at the 60mm. At that point the 100mm+ become a big help.
 With the 60mm, you simply get tooooo close!_

 

Yes, what he said. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Yeah, I'm still debating that one. I would like to have a Macro double as a decent portrait lens. Which the 60mm would be more handy focal length.

 -Ed


----------



## nineohtoo

Anyone getting the 50mm 1.4 AF-S? 

 Nikon's been on a roll and I don't think they're gonna be stopping anytime soon. I'm seeing an 85mm 1.4 AF-S in the very near future, and a wide low light prime within the next year.


----------



## dj_mocok

Hmm, not me. I got 2 50mm's already. Although it's nice to have a lens that will meter with my camera, but I think I'd rather spend the money on a new body. 

 If I didn't have a 50mm, I'm pretty sure this would be high on top of my list. I think they will sell a lot of these. But now I just feel sorry for Sigma...


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But now I just feel sorry for Sigma..._

 

Lol why? They have their lens on multiple mounts.

 I do not like 50mm much unless on full frame.


----------



## dj_mocok

Yeah because in regards to Nikon users, if they had a choice between Sigma and Nikon and the Nikon wasn't much more $$$, I'm pretty sure most Nikon users would go after the Nikon one. 

 Now they have to bank on Canon users a bit more I guess...


----------



## flashnolan

Recently I purchased the following at an Ultimate Yard Sale event in my area.





 $20 (I think; can't remember)









 Both for $30!

 Can anyone explain all of the adjustments on these lenses? I figured out how to focus, but there are a lot of other settings that I am not sure what they do. Both lenses have real heft and weight to them. They make the stock lenses from my D40 feel "cheap". Also, I got the flash listed above. It fits into the camera well enough, but I can't figure out how to sync it with the camera for a shot. The wire coming off of the flash goes to something that also looks like it can mount on a camera. Is there supposed to be a battery or something else with the flash?

 Thanks.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah because in regards to Nikon users, if they had a choice between Sigma and Nikon and the Nikon wasn't much more $$$, I'm pretty sure most Nikon users would go after the Nikon one. 

 Now they have to bank on Canon users a bit more I guess..._

 

Yeah I know what you mean. The price difference isn't that much. I'd like to see how they all compare.

 edit: Just reading around, the new Nikon has no Nano coating, no ED glass, nor aspherical elements. So it could come down to the feel (AF speed, build, size, manual focus ring) or look (colors, bokeh). Maybe not so much sharpness.

 I'm quite happy with my 50 1.8. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and since I don't use it often, I don't see the need to upgrade.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


 edit: Just reading around, the new Nikon has no Nano coating, no ED glass, nor aspherical elements. So it could come down to the feel (AF speed, build, size, manual focus ring) or look (colors, bokeh). Maybe not so much sharpness. 
 

It's quite simple to get sharpness without any of the above. The old 50 f/1.4 had none of the above and it was razor sharp. This isn't a hugely complex zoom. It's a 50mm prime. The simplest lens in existence. It doesn't require a complex formula.


----------



## philodox

When I was out camera shopping the other day, the guy in the store advised me I might want to consider an old Canon film SLR instead. His reasoning behind this is that their lenses are much cheaper on the used market since Canon uses a new mounting system for their digital cameras. If I stick with searching for an F2, I have to pay premium prices for the lenses since I am competing with every other Nikon user out there. With an older Canon camera, most people who have moved to digital are looking to offload their lenses.

 They didn't have any Nikon F2's in the store, but the Nikon F3HP's were all around $600 without a lense. Looked in the Canon section, and they had A-1's for less than $300 including a 50mm lense.

 The only problem is, I'm not sure if there is a Canon equivalent to the Nikon F2. From some brief looking around, the following are on my short list: Canon F-1, Canon EF and Canon A-1.

 Any ideas? Or should I go ask this in the Canon thread?


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The only problem is, I'm not sure if there is a Canon equivalent to the Nikon F2. From some brief looking around, the following are on my short list: Canon F-1, Canon EF and Canon A-1.

 Any ideas? Or should I go ask this in the Canon thread? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

If you go the Canon route, those old bodies used the FD mount and can't be used on modern cameras without modification.

 A lot of the lenses from the Nikon F series can be used with current Nikons.

 Do you want to go completely manual? Nikon FM doesn't appeal to you?


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They didn't have any Nikon F2's in the store, but the Nikon F3HP's were all around $600 without a lense. Looked in the Canon section, and they had A-1's for less than $300 including a 50mm lense.

 The only problem is, I'm not sure if there is a Canon equivalent to the Nikon F2. From some brief looking around, the following are on my short list: Canon F-1, Canon EF and Canon A-1.

 Any ideas? Or should I go ask this in the Canon thread? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Damn 600 CAD? My F3HP was only $200 (some light use), with new light seals, mirror pad and the top plates, bottom plate and viewfinder were re-powder coated. Just keep an eye on eBay. Check out the Canon T90 too if you don't mind using batteries.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When I was out camera shopping the other day, the guy in the store advised me I might want to consider an old Canon film SLR instead. His reasoning behind this is that their lenses are much cheaper on the used market since Canon uses a new mounting system for their digital cameras. If I stick with searching for an F2, I have to pay premium prices for the lenses since I am competing with every other Nikon user out there. With an older Canon camera, most people who have moved to digital are looking to offload their lenses.

 They didn't have any Nikon F2's in the store, but the Nikon F3HP's were all around $600 without a lense. Looked in the Canon section, and they had A-1's for less than $300 including a 50mm lense.

 The only problem is, I'm not sure if there is a Canon equivalent to the Nikon F2. From some brief looking around, the following are on my short list: Canon F-1, Canon EF and Canon A-1.

 Any ideas? Or should I go ask this in the Canon thread? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That's also mainly because Nikon's F mount works for majority of Nikon SLRs in circulation today and also still compatible with DSLRs. Whereas Canon ones, they are cheaper because the film lenses might not be compatible with Canon DSLRs, therefore you might be stuck with those lenses used only for your old Canon SLR.

 But if I were you and I already had a Nikon/Canon DSLR, if I wanted to try film I'd probably get a good rangefinder camera instead of SLR and just stick with one normal lens for that rangefinder. Sounds like more fun to me.


----------



## milkpowder

There's a F3HP on eBay and it's BIN for $500+ too 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The AF-S 50/1.4 seems a tad expensive. It's £100 more than the AF-D version and seeing that my camera drives the latter just fine, I don't know how I can justify purchasing the AF-S version. The AF-D is already an incredibly fine lens, optically, so maybe the AF-S is even better in that respect(?). Also, I'm really not a great fan of the "G" look.

 I was hoping for a 28 or 35mm f/1.4 AF-D instead. 28-35mm is a far more useful range on DX, 50mm being neither here nor there. Now that I'm more than willing to pay £280 for.

 I guess this is both good news for D40(x)/60 users. Good because they finally have an AF prime; Bad because it's pretty darn expensive (retail is almost as much as the bodies themselves). If I was a D40(x)/60 user looking to spend as little as possible, I'd get a split prism focussing screen fitted and settle for a 50/1.8 AI.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But if I were you and I already had a Nikon/Canon DSLR, if I wanted to try film I'd probably get a good rangefinder camera instead of SLR and just stick with one normal lens for that rangefinder. Sounds like more fun to me._

 

Now you got me interested. Which rangefinder would you recommend? I have a relatively tight budget (few hundred dollars max.). The Leica M series looks gorgeous, but I'm pretty sure my budget won't even allow for a M2


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's quite simple to get sharpness without any of the above. The old 50 f/1.4 had none of the above and it was razor sharp. This isn't a hugely complex zoom. It's a 50mm prime. The simplest lens in existence. It doesn't require a complex formula._

 

I was just speculating comparing it to the Sigma that's all. It might not be as sharp wide open. Of course how sharp you like things is a matter of preference also. Until it's released, it's impossible to know how it is visually. And everyone can then decide if they like the total package or not.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mightyacorn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you go the Canon route, those old bodies used the FD mount and can't be used on modern cameras without modification._

 

Yeah, that's sort of the point. Since the digital canon users aren't going after the lenses I'd be using, I can get them much cheaper. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mightyacorn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you want to go completely manual? Nikon FM doesn't appeal to you?_

 

I like the idea of completely manual, but it's not an absolute must. I'll take a look at the FM, thanks for the recommendation. I remember seeing some of them in the shop and they were definately more reasonably priced than the F3HPs. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Damn 600 CAD? My F3HP was only $200 (some light use), with new light seals, mirror pad and the top plates, bottom plate and viewfinder were re-powder coated. Just keep an eye on eBay. Check out the Canon T90 too if you don't mind using batteries._

 

I guess they are getting really popular. Keep in mind though that this was at a camera shop, so all of them have been cleaned and serviced. They also offer pretty inexpensive warrantys. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But if I were you and I already had a Nikon/Canon DSLR, if I wanted to try film I'd probably get a good rangefinder camera instead of SLR and just stick with one normal lens for that rangefinder. Sounds like more fun to me._

 

I don't have any camera at the moment as my digital point and shoot just died. I'll be borrowing a friends film SLR for a while before I buy anything to make sure that it is really the way I want to go. I'd like to try some macro shots of gear and electronics as well as some artsy shots from the top of my building [great view of Toronto], which is what got me seriously looking at an SLR. Originally I was going to just get an entry level digital SLR, but going film seems like a more cost effective entry point from what I've seen so far... I also love the look of these old cameras.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Originally I was going to just get an entry level digital SLR, but going film seems like a more cost effective entry point from what I've seen so far... I also love the look of these old cameras. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Ok, heres the thing. Film is a PITA and costs quite a bit, ESPECIALLY if you are starting out with photography. It takes more time, and you have less control over it unless you develop it yourself or pay the big $$$ for a pro lab to handle your negatives. Trust me! That 100$ you save going film will be eaten up in a few roles of film. Trust me!

 Having said that, if you are going to buy a camera based on looks, then there is no option for you. Get the one that looks best.

 Me? I would get a budget DSLR with a nice kit lens. You'll have all the benefits of a new DSLR camera, and if you so desire, you can just flick a switch and you are in manual mode. Not manual enough for you? Switch the mode dial to M and you're in full manual mode. Ye ha!

 The person who said nikon lenses are still going for a lot of money fed you a load. Most of the Nikon AI, AI-S, Non AI lenses are VERY cheap, and yet still beautiful lenses. I picked up a very good condition nikkor 80-200 AI for 81$us. What a steal!

 Anyways, to start out I would get something like the Nikon D40 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm kit lenses. Right now it's selling for 500$us after a MIR. So I expect you can find it up north for 550$cnd or so.
 Brand new, two brand new lenses, free pictures (no cost to develop, no cost of film), warranty, and a DSLR with a very nice feature set, especially compared to a old film camera.

 Great thing with the Nikon D40, is it can take almost any lens! So, lets say you buy the same lens I did. It'll work on the D40 without any adapters (albeit in manual mode like a film camera).

 I don't get it. What's keeping you back from a budget DSLR?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was just speculating comparing it to the Sigma that's all._

 

As you say, that's hard to do, because the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 hasn't been released yet. It's going to be months before the new lens shows up in the US. On paper, the Sigma has better optics, but until the new Nikon comes out, it's hard to tell how that will affect the real world performance. I'm sure the Sigma will come down in price a bit to become competitive.

 The thing is, if a third party lens performs better or costs less than the Nikon equivalent, people will use them. Those that decide on lenses based solely on the brand name are making a big mistake. There are a lot of great Nikon lenses, but there are great third party lenses too. Some of them are better (or just about as good and much cheaper) than the Nikon equivalent. I've got two Tokinas and a Sigma in my kit, and they are just as good as lenses that say Nikon on the lens cap. (If it bothers you, switch out the cap with a Nikon one and no one knows!)

 Edit: Just checked into the new Nikon 50mm 1.4, and it doesn't have the main feature of the Sigma that improves the sharpness over the old Nikon 50 1.4 when it's wide open- the aspherical element. It also doesn't have the special coating that reduces CA and uses a non-standard filter size. It does have the 9 bladed rounded diaphragm, so it will have good bokeh like the Sigma. It appears to fit right between the old Nikon and the Sigma in both price and quality.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Film is a great way to learn because it's less forgiving. You need to get it right in the camera, rather than photoshopping it into balance from a RAW file. As long as you get the equipment cheap and realize there probably won't be any resale value to it, it can be an inexpensive way to get into photography.

 It isn't true that only expensive custom labs produce good processing. Big labs process film just as good, and for proofs and basic normal sized prints, a big discount lab is better. If you happen to create a Mona Lisa, you can spring for the big expensive custom print for that one. The rest will all do fine at Costco.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## OverlordXenu

There are pro labs that will do E-6 for $6/roll. 6mp scans are usually $10/roll. Film is usually $5-10/roll.

 Film is only expensive if you shoot a crap load. You also have to realize that that old Nikon F2 will produce technologically better pictures than the D700, D3, 5D, etc. whatever. But that doesn't really matter.

 Honestly, one of the reasons I still choose to use film is because it forces me to get the best possible image out of the camera as possible. Sure, I'll burn-and-dodge if I have to, but I can't do much else unless I scan (which I also do).


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The person who said nikon lenses are still going for a lot of money fed you a load._

 

Based on the pricing I saw in the store, I would say that he didn't. I'm not saying that you can't get deals on older Nikon lenses, just that you can get even better deals on the Canon lenses. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyways, to start out I would get something like the Nikon D40 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm kit lenses. Right now it's selling for 500$us after a MIR. So I expect you can find it up north for 550$cnd or so._

 

That's not too bad, I'll definately consider it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't get it. What's keeping you back from a budget DSLR?_

 

The way I look at it, I can get a top of the line professional quality film camera that can take amazing pictures which digital is only now approaching for less money that it would cost me to buy an entry level digital camera. OverlordXenu pretty much summed it up in his last post.

 We'll see what my experience is like when I borrow my friends camera though... who knows, I might absolutely hate film.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The way I look at it, I can get a top of the line professional quality film camera that can take amazing pictures which digital is only now approaching for less money that it would cost me to buy an entry level digital camera. OverlordXenu pretty much summed it up in his last post._

 

I think digital caught up to color film 3 years ago. It's now at a point where there are subtle differences between the two if done 'right', so it's up to preference.

 The old bodies have a much different feel than your typical DSLR now a days. They draw less attention if used with a small lens, but they also don't seem to fit my hands anywhere near a good as my D50.

 Well, at least you will try out film soon and get a taste of it. Whether that taste will be to your liking is another thing. ^_^


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Film is a great way to learn because it's less forgiving._

 

Digital is a great way to learn because it's more forgiving.

 In addition to this, I can take a test photo in the lighting conditions and make any corrections to it there. That way I don't have to wait a few days to find out that I under exposed every picture.

 It also means that I can learn at a much quicker pace because I can go out shooting and view the final photos on my computer a few hours later. I don't have to wait for my film to come back. I don't have to take notes on what I photograph with. It's all fresh in my mind and the photo data is stored in the picture.

 Don't get me wrong. I know exactly what you are saying. But what I'm saying is it's foolish to think that the same amount of learning (if not More) can not be done with a digital camera. In the end, it's up to the photographer and how dedicated they are.


----------



## philodox

I checked that same camera store, and the pricing is as follows:

 NIKON D40 W/18-55 II/55-200 DX LENS
 $599 CAD

 NIKON D40 DSLR W/ NIKON 18-55 II LENS
 $469 CAD


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I checked that same camera store, and the pricing is as follows:

 NIKON D40 W/18-55 II/55-200 DX LENS
 $599 CAD_

 

I guess that was to be expected. 
 Still, I think it is a nice deal for 2 lenses and a camera.

 Should be interesting to see what you decide.


----------



## GTRacer

I learnt my chops on digital, now I'm using film. Happy days.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Digital is a great way to learn because it's more forgiving._

 

The things I've "learned" from digital is to not brace myself when shooting at slow speeds, ballparking exposure because I can always manipulate the RAW file, and shooting a cropload of exposures hoping one or two might come out good. These are all bad habits that I didn't have with my old F2. I'm actively trying to "un-learn" these lessons right now!

 I like digital better myself. But I see the advantage of learning things the right way on film first. If I hadn't, I wouldn't even know that these "lessons" are actually mistakes.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The things I've "learned" from digital is to not brace myself when shooting at slow speeds, ballparking exposure because I can always manipulate the RAW file, and shooting a cropload of exposures hoping one or two might come out good. These are all bad habits that I didn't have with my old F2. I'm actively trying to "un-learn" these lessons right now!

 I like digital better myself. But I see the advantage of learning things the right way on film first. If I hadn't, I wouldn't even know that these "lessons" are actually mistakes.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

You're right that digital could lead to those bad habits, but be honest, all of them are a result of laziness. You CAN take digital pictures with the same amount of care and attention to detail as you would with film, just many people don't. Someone who is interested in improving their photography will not always just snap a dozen shots of the same subject and "hope for the best".

 Some subjects require it. For example, if you're taking pictures of a sporting event or some action subject, you have to get it right the first time. You can't just shoot blind, review the photos, and try again. The moment is lost. For a still life (landscape, portrait, macro etc) there is a strong tendency towards these bad habits. If you're trying to "unlearn" them, try practicing with different subject matter.

 Just shooting digital doesn't create the bad habits. Shooting a wedding, for example, requires you get the shot right, yet most wedding photographers use digital. Why is that? Personally, I think the digital workflow is much much easier. I'm enjoying my D80 a lot. I doubt I'll ever shoot film again.


----------



## Dimitris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I checked that same camera store, and the pricing is as follows:

 NIKON D40 W/18-55 II/55-200 DX LENS
 $599 CAD

 NIKON D40 DSLR W/ NIKON 18-55 II LENS
 $469 CAD_

 

Philodox what is your budget? How about your get a used D200 and then a couple of old AiS lenses? The D200 can meter and also add Exif info for them. You can easily find a 50mm f1.4 Ais for $120 and a 28mm f2.8 in forums. That way you will get the feel of old mechanical system at least in 1/2 of your setup.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The things I've "learned" from digital is to not brace myself when shooting at slow speeds, ballparking exposure because I can always manipulate the RAW file, and shooting a cropload of exposures hoping one or two might come out good. These are all bad habits that I didn't have with my old F2. I'm actively trying to "un-learn" these lessons right now!

 I like digital better myself. But I see the advantage of learning things the right way on film first. If I hadn't, I wouldn't even know that these "lessons" are actually mistakes.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

There is no 'right' way to learn things in my experience. Such talk is foolishness in my mind.

 Don't blame a digital camera for your actions. Nor would I applaud a film camera for keeping your bad habits in check. It's up to the student, the photographer, not what camera they choose.

 I think an argument that film 'forces' you do to certain things, and thus is a better teaching tool, is silly.
 That's my take on it at least.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Philodox what is your budget? How about your get a used D200 and then a couple of old AiS lenses? The D200 can meter and also add Exif info for them. You can easily find a 50mm f1.4 Ais for $120 and a 28mm f2.8 in forums. That way you will get the feel of old mechanical system at least in 1/2 of your setup. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That's an interesting idea... not sure I can afford a used D200 at the moment though.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is no 'right' way to learn things in my experience. Such talk is foolishness in my mind.

 Don't blame a digital camera for your actions. Nor would I applaud a film camera for keeping your bad habits in check. It's up to the student, the photographer, not what camera they choose.

 I think an argument that film 'forces' you do to certain things, and thus is a better teaching tool, is silly.
 That's my take on it at least._

 


 There is a wrong way to learn things. Even a D700 is not immune from my taking crappy pics. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As you say, that's hard to do, because the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 hasn't been released yet. It's going to be months before the new lens shows up in the US. On paper, the Sigma has better optics, but until the new Nikon comes out, it's hard to tell how that will affect the real world performance. I'm sure the Sigma will come down in price a bit to become competitive.

 The thing is, if a third party lens performs better or costs less than the Nikon equivalent, people will use them. Those that decide on lenses based solely on the brand name are making a big mistake. There are a lot of great Nikon lenses, but there are great third party lenses too. Some of them are better (or just about as good and much cheaper) than the Nikon equivalent. I've got two Tokinas and a Sigma in my kit, and they are just as good as lenses that say Nikon on the lens cap. (If it bothers you, switch out the cap with a Nikon one and no one knows!)

 Edit: Just checked into the new Nikon 50mm 1.4, and it doesn't have the main feature of the Sigma that improves the sharpness over the old Nikon 50 1.4 when it's wide open- the aspherical element. It also doesn't have the special coating that reduces CA and uses a non-standard filter size. It does have the 9 bladed rounded diaphragm, so it will have good bokeh like the Sigma. It appears to fit right between the old Nikon and the Sigma in both price and quality.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Yeah, it's pretty obvious from the size of the lens that it's just an evolutionary step up from the old 50mm f/1.4 It looks like they just put an ultrasonic motor in there. I hope they significantly improved the optics. Otherwise, it's way late to the game. Seriously. How hard was it to slap an AF-S motor in there? I think it's more of a marketing decision, since the D700's release.

 Nikon really needs to re-release or update their legendary 28mm f/1.4, but much like legendary top end headphones, they just don't see the mass market appeal and marketing potential, despite the crazy prices on eBay lately.

 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Even a D700 is not immune from my taking crappy pics. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed_

 

All it takes is time and practice practice practice.
 Give it a year or two and I'm sure you'll be making stunning photos, especially if you have nice equipment.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think digital caught up to color film 3 years ago. It's now at a point where there are subtle differences between the two if done 'right', so it's up to preference._

 

Nearly all film (unless you use a really ancient emulsion) will have more technical resolution than any digital out today. The film I commonly shoot is upwards of 30 megapixels (if I can find a good enough scanner), due to how many line pairs per milimeter the emulsion has (and I shoot some even finer-grained emulsions). What it comes down to, is the lens though. Your average lens probably can't resolve above 80 lp/mm, which means that it probably records less information onto the film/sensor than a 5D Mk. II or modern emulsion can hold.

 Print film still has much, much, much more latitude than digital cameras can capture, and even more than our monitors (even high-end ones) can reproduce. I think slide film and digital are about equal.

 (I'll probably switch to digital for 35mm when Kodachrome is discontinued and a full-frame body is under $2,000 and as good as the 5D Mk. II.)

 I'll still say this, grain looks better than noise.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nearly all film (unless you use a really ancient emulsion) will have more technical resolution than any digital out today. The film I commonly shoot is upwards of 30 megapixels (if I can find a good enough scanner), due to how many line pairs per milimeter the emulsion has (and I shoot some even finer-grained emulsions). What it comes down to, is the lens though. Your average lens probably can't resolve above 80 lp/mm, which means that it probably records less information onto the film/sensor than a 5D Mk. II or modern emulsion can hold.

 Print film still has much, much, much more latitude than digital cameras can capture, and even more than our monitors (even high-end ones) can reproduce. I think slide film and digital are about equal.

 (I'll probably switch to digital for 35mm when Kodachrome is discontinued and a full-frame body is under $2,000 and as good as the 5D Mk. II.)

 I'll still say this, grain looks better than noise. _

 

Ok, if you say so.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Philodox what is your budget? How about your get a used D200 and then a couple of old AiS lenses? The D200 can meter and also add Exif info for them. You can easily find a 50mm f1.4 Ais for $120 and a 28mm f2.8 in forums. That way you will get the feel of old mechanical system at least in 1/2 of your setup. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That's a very good idea. You better listen to this man.


----------



## Dimitris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's an interesting idea... not sure I can afford a used D200 at the moment though. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

They go around $750 in forums I think. If out of budget I would wait a bit. I really love what old lenses can do on newer bodies. I have 6 of them and I am using them on my 20D. I just hope one day Nikon will launch a manual Dslr so I can dump by Canon gear.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They go around $750 in forums I think. If out of budget I would wait a bit. I really love what old lenses can do on newer bodies. I have 6 of them and I am using them on my 20D. I just hope one day Nikon will launch a manual Dslr so I can dump by Canon gear. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

"manual Dslr"?

 By definition, wouldn't a DSLR be electronic? Only a few of the lower end Nikon DSLRs don't have a "real" mechanical shutter. They all have an M mode. What exactly are you waiting for Nikon to do?


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"manual Dslr"?

 By definition, wouldn't a DSLR be electronic? Only a few of the lower end Nikon DSLRs don't have a "real" mechanical shutter. They all have an M mode. What exactly are you waiting for Nikon to do?_

 

A D700 with a manually cocked shutter and old Nikon F ergonomics/looks.


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A D700 with a manually cocked shutter and old Nikon F ergonomics/looks. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I think that is to advance the film, but I get your point. I've wanted a stripped down full frame camera for a while now.


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mightyacorn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think that is to advance the film, but I get your point. I've wanted a stripped down full frame camera for a while now._

 

It advances the film and cocks the shutter, well at least on my F3 HP.


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'll probably switch to digital for 35mm when Kodachrome is discontinued and a full-frame body is under $2,000 and as good as the 5D Mk. II._

 

Kodachrome is discontinued.

 So what camera, scanner & film do you use?


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mightyacorn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Kodachrome is discontinued.

 So what camera, scanner & film do you use?_

 

Uhhh...No it isn't. I just got some more a couple of weeks ago, from BH photo video. Kodak recently stopped production of the 25 and 200 speed Kodachrome, but PKR64 remains.

 I use a Nikon F100 with a 35mm f/2 AF lens most of the time (its resolving power escapes me at the moment), I get my film scanned for free at a local pro lab (those same 6mp scans I was talking about) because I'm friends with someone who works there, although if I had to choose a film scanner RIGHT NOW I would get Nikon's highest end for 35mm and medium format, and an Epson V750 for sheet film. What emulsions do I use? Oh, many...It depends on my subject matter. I shoot Technical Pan (sadly discontinued), Rollei ATP (a new emulsion, pretty much the same as TP), Kodachrome 25, 40, and 64 speed, Fomapan R100, Ilford Delta 100, HP5+ 400, Kodak T-Max 100 and Tri-x, Fuji Astia, Provia, Velvia 50. I can't think of any others ATM, I'd have to go look in my freezer.

 I think I may sell my F100 outfit and get a Voigtlander R4A and 21mm f/4. Rangefinder lenses always have more resolving power because rangefinders lack a mirror and the lenses can be closer.


----------



## Towert7

OverlordXenu, if you ever get one of your pictures (assuming they are color pictures) from the F100 scanned in to digital and resize it, I'd be interested to see them. I'm curious to see what level of sharpness you're getting.


----------



## Dimitris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"manual Dslr"?

 By definition, wouldn't a DSLR be electronic? Only a few of the lower end Nikon DSLRs don't have a "real" mechanical shutter. They all have an M mode. What exactly are you waiting for Nikon to do?_

 

I meant a digital variation of my F3hp. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 FF with old camera ergonomics, no need for fancy metering, AF etc etc and $1500 new.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_OverlordXenu, if you ever get one of your pictures (assuming they are color pictures) from the F100 scanned in to digital and resize it, I'd be interested to see them. I'm curious to see what level of sharpness you're getting._

 

As of right now, the only stuff I have scanned in was shot with an incredibly ****ty (soft and slow) lens. The 24-120VR. I did get some of them enlarged to 8x10, though, and I like them. They were the cheap-o 6mp scans.

 I think I may be able to get access to a high-quality scanner, though. I'm not sure. (I think the local high school has a nice one, and I have younger brothers.)


----------



## Edwood

It's a good thing that I don't like Canon's DSLR body's ergonomics. THe new 5D MKII has me really tempted since it's HD video recording is quite awesome from the footage shown so far. Will have to see raw footage from other people to see for sure.

 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's a good thing that I don't like Canon's DSLR body's ergonomics. THe new 5D MKII has me really tempted since it's HD video recording is quite awesome from the footage shown so far. Will have to see raw footage from other people to see for sure.

 -Ed_

 

From the link in the other thread? Yea, that was impressive!
 If we are honest though, that made use of 27,000$ worth of lenses, and a very talented director of photography. I don't think results anywhere near that should be expected right out of the camera without a solid background in cinematography. I'll also note how there was NO audio from the camera. That's saying something, but that's to be expected.

 In the end, it is possible of taking very nice movies (excluding audio), which is very impressive! I don't know how long it will take nikon to put out a product that can compete with it.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As of right now, the only stuff I have scanned in was shot with an incredibly ****ty (soft and slow) lens. The 24-120VR. I did get some of them enlarged to 8x10, though, and I like them. They were the cheap-o 6mp scans.

 I think I may be able to get access to a high-quality scanner, though. I'm not sure. (I think the local high school has a nice one, and I have younger brothers.)_

 

Oh that's ok. No need to go out of your way. I was just wondering if you had already scanned some in.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_From the link in the other thread? Yea, that was impressive!
 If we are honest though, that made use of 27,000$ worth of lenses, and a very talented director of photography. I don't think results anywhere near that should be expected right out of the camera without a solid background in cinematography. I'll also note how there was NO audio from the camera. That's saying something, but that's to be expected.

 In the end, it is possible of taking very nice movies (excluding audio), which is very impressive! I don't know how long it will take nikon to put out a product that can compete with it._

 

Apparently the 5D is going to have an adapter for stereo audio, although unless it has a very good preamp (doubtful). Otherwise, I'd rather use a portable recorder separately.

 Yeah, the person behind the equipment is far more important. I'm sure that guy could make a stunning video with a bunch of Flip cameras.

 -Ed


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think results anywhere near that should be expected right out of the camera without a solid background in cinematography._

 

Can't the same be said for stills?

 I predict a lot of photographers will start exploring video and a lot of videographers will be taking more photos.

 It's a win-win for all of us


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can't the same be said for stills?_

 

I actually do say the same thing for stills.

 Coming from photography, I have picked up a few tricks when it comes to lighting, but I'm sure it would still take me a year or two to get halfway decent results using the video feature in a DSLR.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I actually do say the same thing for stills.

 Coming from photography, I have picked up a few tricks when it comes to lighting, but I'm sure it would still take me a year or two to get halfway decent results using the video feature in a DSLR._

 

Don't get me wrong, you're right about the amount of other equipment and expertise that went into that movie. I bet that DSLR was the cheapest piece of gear on the sets


----------



## philodox

I'm warming up to used D200 idea more and more. Going to have to save up some cash though.

 Was looking at newer lenses and came up with this short list so far:

 All-rounder: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR
 Quality: Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4

 Fun: Tokina 10-17mm DX f/3.5-4.5 Fisheye Zoom

 Dreaming: Zeiss 100mm f/2 Macro Planar

 Any comments or suggestions? Some old lenses would be great as well, but there are so many that it is kind of daunting.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Any comments or suggestions? Some old lenses would be great as well, but there are so many that it is kind of daunting. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I wouldn't spend too much money UNTIL you start to find out what types of photography you are in to (assuming you're strapped for cash).

 If you find you like landscapes, get a good wide angle.
 If you like macro, get a good micro lens.
 And so on.

 The 18-200VR will be nice because it's cheap and gives you such a wide range. As you use it, you'll probably find out what you like taking pictures of. From there, then decide to upgrade over it for either better image quality or wider apertures.

 I've got quite a few primes, but I wish I had more zooms with the same image quality as the primes. I think that was my big mistake. 
 I'm saving up for the 80-200 F/2.8 and 17-35mm F/2.8 since I've already got the 35-70mm F/2.8. I don't know if there's a lesson to be had here or not.

 Either way though, make sure you know what type of photography you're into before laying down the big $$$ for a lens.


----------



## bigshot

I have a D200, and it's a great camera. But if I was buying right now, I would buy a D90 and not a D200. It's a better sensor.

 The lens kit I decided on are very similar to your choices there... The trick is to try to do everything in as few lenses as possible. When I go out to shoot, I never take more than two lenses with me. I want to be shooting pictures, not swapping lenses in and out.

 I have the Nikon 18-200 VR for an all around lens, a cheap lightweight Nikon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 VR for bumming around, a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 ultra wide, Sigma 50mm f1.4 for low light, and a Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro for studio portraits and close up. The only other lens I think I'd like is the Sigma 30mm 1.4.

 By the way, my Sigma 50mm f1.4 is sharper wide open than the Zeiss or the Nikon equivalents and it has much better contrast than either of them. You can't necessarily judge by brand names. It's all in the optical design. There are great third party lenses out there.

 The main purpose of a fisheye is to stitch together Quicktime VRs. If you aren't doing that, a good ultrawide is a lot more useful and fun than a fish. You can still get wonky distortion if you point up or down, but you get good straight lines straight on. More versatile.

 I'd also suggest starting with a D90 and the 18-200 VR. That will get you going. You might even find you don't need any more lenses.

 One other tip... Don't underestimate the value of a point and shoot or pocket camera. A good small camera will get pictures you'll never get with a DSLR. The camera that takes the best pictures is the one that isn't at home in a camera bag in the closet.

 There are some sample shots of a couple of my lenses on my personal blog Late Night Coffee Shops

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Quality: Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4_

 

Although you might not believe it based on the low prices, the Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 AF-D has *very* good image quality!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The camera that takes the best pictures is the one that isn't at home in a camera bag in the closet._

 

It's funny that you keep saying that, but I don't think a lot of people have an issue with the weight of the camera and lens. I wonder...


----------



## philodox

That Nikon 18-200 VR really does seem like the perfect all-rounder/starter lense. I confess that I did gravitate to that 50mm based mainly on the Zeiss name, but also because of its focal length. Not sure if I've been reading biased opinions, but everything I've read so far seems to say that Sigma has some serious reliability issues with its lenses. I'll keep that Nikkor 50mm in mind as well. I thought the fisheye would be fun for some artsy shots from my balcony or the rooftop patio, but I guess I could do similar stuff with an ultrawide lense. I have a high interest in doing macro shots, and that manual Zeiss lense just looks pretty. Would I be able to do decent macro shots using the Nikon 18-200 VR in a pinch?

 The D90 is nice, but I'm not sure I'd be able to find a used one as cheap as the D200. A better sensor is all well and good, but I'm not looking to chase megapixels. The D90 can do video, which is cool, but I'd imagine I would miss out on some of the 'pro' features of the D200?


----------



## Arainach

I would get a D90 over a D200. The D90/D300/D700/D3 are a generation above, and a HUGE step over every Nikon DSLR that came before them thanks to the addition of Active Dynamic Range and the new High ISO capabilities. They legitamitely, honest-to-goodness take _better_ pictures inherently. I'll confess that dirt-cheap prices have made me at least _think_ of replacing my D50 with a D200, but I'm waiting and saving for a D90 or D300 because I've shot with them, looked at the results, and they honestly are a leap ahead.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm warming up to used D200 idea more and more. Going to have to save up some cash though.

 Was looking at newer lenses and came up with this short list so far:

 All-rounder: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR
 Quality: Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4

 Fun: Tokina 10-17mm DX f/3.5-4.5 Fisheye Zoom

 Dreaming: Zeiss 100mm f/2 Macro Planar

 Any comments or suggestions? Some old lenses would be great as well, but there are so many that it is kind of daunting. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

I've done a little reading and it seems the Zeiss primes aren't as special as I thought they were. Wide-open performance will be very good, but stopped down, you'd be hard pushed to see any difference between a Nikon or Sigma 50/1.4. I'm also fighting over which prime to get at the moment and am waiting for more info re: the new AF-S 50/1.4.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would get a D90 over a D200. The D90/D300/D700/D3 are a generation above, and a HUGE step over every Nikon DSLR that came before them thanks to the addition of Active Dynamic Range and the new High ISO capabilities. They legitamitely, honest-to-goodness take better pictures inherently. I'll confess that dirt-cheap prices have made me at least think of replacing my D50 with a D200, but I'm waiting and saving for a D90 or D300 because I've shot with them, looked at the results, and they honestly are a leap ahead._

 

The newer generation are also much easier to use. The menu/button system makes more sense. The large, high-res LCD screen is also much nicer than the previous generations'.


----------



## BigSurSpoon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Although you might not believe it based on the low prices, the Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 AF-D has *very* good image quality!_

 

I agree with that completely. I take a lot of my pictures with it.


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Although you might not believe it based on the low prices, the Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 AF-D has *very* good image quality!_

 

Completely agree just got it second hand from another head-fier. Great pictures especially considering the ridiculous low price


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've done a little reading and it seems the Zeiss primes aren't as special as I thought they were. Wide-open performance will be very good, but stopped down, you'd be hard pushed to see any difference between a Nikon or Sigma 50/1.4. I'm also fighting over which prime to get at the moment and am waiting for more info re: the new AF-S 50/1.4._

 

The value of a large aperture lens lies inherently in its large aperture. Ziess lenses command such a premium because they offer a more even performance than equivalent Nikon lenses wide open. Sure, at mainstream apertures like f/5.6, the differences are marginal; but you didn't buy an f/1.4 lens to stop it down constantly.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's funny that you keep saying that, but I don't think a lot of people have an issue with the weight of the camera and lens. I wonder..._

 

It's not the weight. It's whether you have a camera with you every moment of the day or not. I have a camera in my pocket right now. If I stumble across a picture I want to take, I can take it. I don't have to plan to carry a camera, and I don't have to worry about having a couple of grand worth of gear hanging around my neck when I walk down the street.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## musicmaker

Folks, I'm considering picking up a Nikon D90 and am looking for some advice. I'm just getting into DSLRs so please bear with me.

 (a) Should I buy the D90 with kit 18-105 VR kit lens ?
 (b) The 18-200 VR seems to be a better all-rounder lens but dpreview gave it a recommended (with reservations). 
 (c) What's the cheapest place to buy online ? The best prices I've been able to find are $999 for body alone or $1299 with kit 18-105mm lens. 

 thanks,
 Manu


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_everything I've read so far seems to say that Sigma has some serious reliability issues with its lenses. I'll keep that Nikkor 50mm in mind as well._

 

Don't buy a Nikon 50mm 1.4 unless you can get it dirt cheap. Nikon is releasing a new one that is supposed to be much improved. The problems you are reading about the Sigma probably deal with focusing issues on the 30mm 1.4. The truth is that there is nothing wrong with the lens. It's just hard to focus at 1.4 because the depth of field is so narrow. A lot of people who weren't used to large aperture lenses got the Sigma and complained about its ability to focus in low light when the problem was actually how they determined the focus points. There is nothing wrong with third party lenses, particularly the pro line ones... Sigma, Tokina, Tamron... they all make good lenses.

 When I was into 35mm, I worried about brand names. I wanted a Nikon, not a Nikkormat. I wanted Nikkor lenses, not third party brands. I wanted all the focus rings to match. I was really stupid. When I got my D200, I decided to carefully check to see what works best for me and consider alternatives. No more brand name snob silliness for me.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a high interest in doing macro shots, and that manual Zeiss lense just looks pretty. Would I be able to do decent macro shots using the Nikon 18-200 VR in a pinch?_

 

The 18-200 really isn't made for that. There are a lot of options for macro lenses. I have a really nice Tokina 100mm f2.8 that I use, and it doubles as a portrait lens. Sigma makes a 150mm that people say good things about. Nikon makes a good 105mm VR, but it's pricey. For a macro lens, manual focus is OK, but it should be a short tele so your lens doesn't poke the subject. It's also nice if the physical length of the lens doesn't extend when you focus.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D90 is nice, but I'm not sure I'd be able to find a used one as cheap as the D200._

 

It's worth the little extra money for the dynamic range and high ISO performance. The D90 can effectively shoot a stop and a half faster than the D200.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *musicmaker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Folks, I'm considering picking up a Nikon D90 Should I buy the D90 with kit 18-105 VR kit lens ? The 18-200 VR seems to be a better all-rounder lens but dpreview gave it a recommended (with reservations)._

 

I would heartily recommend the 18-200, it's a great lens, but one caveat... it is heavy. I got a lightweight Nikon 18-55 VR kit lens for $120 on ebay for bumming around when I don't want to carry the 18-200.

 The best places to buy online are B&H, Adorama, Ritz, J&R, Amazon, Crutchfield, etc. Be careful of places that charge too little. There are a lot of bait and switch boiler room operations online that you don't want to deal with.

 hope this helps
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *musicmaker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Folks, I'm considering picking up a Nikon D90 and am looking for some advice. I'm just getting into DSLRs so please bear with me.

 (a) Should I buy the D90 with kit 18-105 VR kit lens ?
 (b) The 18-200 VR seems to be a better all-rounder lens but dpreview gave it a recommended (with reservations). 
 (c) What's the cheapest place to buy online ? The best prices I've been able to find are $999 for body alone or $1299 with kit 18-105mm lens. 

 thanks,
 Manu_

 

(A) It'll be a great intro DSLR!
 (B) If you can afford the 18-200VR, get it. If not, 18-105VR. Starting out, I think it's more important to get a range of focal lengths so you can fool around with taking many pictures.

 (C) BHphotovideo.com


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's not the weight. It's whether you have a camera with you every moment of the day or not. I have a camera in my pocket right now. If I stumble across a picture I want to take, I can take it. I don't have to plan to carry a camera, and I don't have to worry about having a couple of grand worth of gear hanging around my neck when I walk down the street.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Ah, ok. I now see what you are referring to.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That Nikon 18-200 VR really does seem like the perfect all-rounder/starter lense._

 

It is.

 You won't get true macro 1:1 magnification, but it will let you zoom in to "200mm" and focus a foot or so away from the front of the lens, which is pretty good.
 All of these were shot with the 18-200VR:














 These pictures were not heavily edited. It's basically what came out of the camera!


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The value of a large aperture lens lies inherently in its large aperture. Ziess lenses command such a premium because they offer a more even performance than equivalent Nikon lenses wide open. Sure, at mainstream apertures like f/5.6, the differences are marginal; but you didn't buy an f/1.4 lens to stop it down constantly._

 

Technically, I did. 85mm at f/1.4 is _way_ too little Depth of Field for most stuff; I borrowed the lens for a while to use for portraits at f/2.8-5.6, for which it was absolutely stunning.


----------



## milkpowder

Towert7, do you have your camera Picture Controls on vivid?


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm warming up to used D200 idea more and more. Going to have to save up some cash though.

 Was looking at newer lenses and came up with this short list so far:

 All-rounder: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR
 Quality: Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4

 Fun: Tokina 10-17mm DX f/3.5-4.5 Fisheye Zoom

 Dreaming: Zeiss 100mm f/2 Macro Planar

 Any comments or suggestions? Some old lenses would be great as well, but there are so many that it is kind of daunting. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

D200 is perfectly fine. It is 'outdated' but it can still take one hell of a picture. 
 If I were you, I'd probably get a used D200, or even a used D80 body since it's dirt cheap now, and for the lens:

 A few decent Ai/Ai-s lenses, especially if the camera is D200.
 Or if it's a D80, what I'd get:
 Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 AFD used from eBay but the one still in good condition
 and maybe just one dirtcheap prime like 50mm 1.8 AF for portrait needs. With those two, you can take many many types of photography already, and honestly you probably don't NEED other lenses so desperately with the 2 combination.
 If you don't mind manual operation by all means get a used D80 if D200 is a bit too expensive. You have to make full use of gearhead amateurs who are dumping their D80s cheap just because they want to get all the newest DSLRs. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You didn't mention a budget, or else I can probably think of more specific combo to recommend, but then it all really depends on you personally. (eg. whether size and built is extremely important or not, your shooting habit, etc...)


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Towert7, do you have your camera Picture Controls on vivid?_

 

I have my camera settings on custom, but I bet they are close to vivid.
 Contrast +1 (out of a max of +2), and Saturation + (as high as it goes).
 It's a 3 year old D50, so my + Saturation is tame compared to what you can get out of a D3/D300/D90, etc.
 I also have sharpening up as high as it goes.


----------



## Dimitris

If you want to do macros and you go with the D200 I would recommend the old Nikkor 55mm f3.5. Its one of the best Nikkor macros ever made and they sell for around $60 shipped and paypaled! Check out some reviews and you will see what I mean. You can also get the PK-13 extension tube for around $20 for 1-1 magnification. The good thing with the manual Nikkors is that they are available everywhere and for really cheap! I have 6 and the total budget was under $1000 and they are all in excellent condition! Drop me a PM if you want me to show you where to get them.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That Nikon 18-200 VR really does seem like the perfect all-rounder/starter lense. I confess that I did gravitate to that 50mm based mainly on the Zeiss name, but also because of its focal length. Not sure if I've been reading biased opinions, but everything I've read so far seems to say that Sigma has some serious reliability issues with its lenses. I'll keep that Nikkor 50mm in mind as well. I thought the fisheye would be fun for some artsy shots from my balcony or the rooftop patio, but I guess I could do similar stuff with an ultrawide lense. I have a high interest in doing macro shots, and that manual Zeiss lense just looks pretty. Would I be able to do decent macro shots using the Nikon 18-200 VR in a pinch?

 The D90 is nice, but I'm not sure I'd be able to find a used one as cheap as the D200. A better sensor is all well and good, but I'm not looking to chase megapixels. The D90 can do video, which is cool, but I'd imagine I would miss out on some of the 'pro' features of the D200?_


----------



## dj_mocok

Just giving you guys a chance to own this beauty - Nikon 105mm Ais f/1.8 in mint condition. Looking at the pretty much brand new new state of this pretty lens made me almost buy it. If I didn't have a similar range lens, I'd be all over it.

 It's really worth bidding it if you appreciate classic lenses.


----------



## BigSurSpoon

Wow, that looks like a beautiful lens. Too bad I can't afford it right now...


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have my camera settings on custom, but I bet they are close to vivid.
 Contrast +1 (out of a max of +2), and Saturation + (as high as it goes).
 It's a 3 year old D50, so my + Saturation is tame compared to what you can get out of a D3/D300/D90, etc.
 I also have sharpening up as high as it goes._

 

The colours on the D300 can be quite crazy. Ken Rockwell likes to use vivid + additional saturation!

 Here are some rough and ready test shots of mine with the 18-70DX:


























 D2XMode1 looks very nice. I could probably add +1 saturation to the picture. The reds in Vivid and D2XMode3 look blown.


----------



## Towert7

Standard and Mode 1 are very similar, especially since the white balance between them is off. Standard has a fair amount of yellow added in, so it makes the reds seem more saturated. I think if the WB was equal in both, they would be VERY similar. 
 Neutral is also similar. 
 I think my preference is for standard (assuming the WB issue is a fluke due to the Auto WB). If standard is actually changing the WB vs. mode 1, then I would pick mode 1.

 I haven't seen the items in real life, but just for a guess I would say my D50 is setup to produce images like Neutral.

 So yes, neutral or standard seem nice.


----------



## lan

I have different settings for each lens. That's the wonder of D300. I don't really shoot JPEG but have been dabbling in it (by shooting RAW+JPEG) lately so I can get a somewhat better JPEG preview. Sometimes I need to get people images pretty fast and I can't post process many images super fast.


----------



## bigshot

Have you noticed a quality difference in the jpegs vs the raw? In particular in the HDR and high ISO noise reduction. Supposedly, those two features of the D300 aren't available in raw.

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## shigzeo

lossy compression from the sensor and lossless from the sensor are very unlike audio where we really say we can hear a difference and most cannot. raw and jpeg offer from a distance still, very visually different images. often the jpeg looks a bit more vibrant though as it loses tones in compression and retains the most bright ones only.

 raw however has all the dark details that jpeg throws away and fine lines of colour that hide between every shade. it is quite stunning actually. but i shoot jpeg mostly.


----------



## lan

I don't think you can compare RAW and JPEG since you cannot make them with exactly the same settings. There are also some cameras which make nicer JPEGs than others. While you could say you could see more in the RAW, I'm not sure that would translate in print.

 As for the JPEGs from the D300, I think they are fine. With all those setting, it takes a while to get things the way you really like but once I've done it, I have no complaints on the JPEGs so far.

 A pro monitor and color calibration goes a long way and is more important. I once tried a print experiment of JPEG vs PNG, 8bit vs 16bit, various noise reductions, various sharpening settings, and various resolutions. On 4x6s it doesn't matter that much. I usually print at 2MP 8bit PNG.


----------



## Towert7

The pentax K10D was one camera that had the default settings set to UGLY!!!!!!!!!!!! Switch it to raw, and instantly you would get much better results.

 Other cameras though, the differences seem small (if any at all).

 It is very funny for me to hear people say "shotting in .jpg you have to have the settings set right".

 It's what, 4 settings? It takes 2 seconds.
 WB, ISO, aperture, exposure compensation (if needed). Done. 
 If you use Auto ISO, it's even less. 

 I shudder at the thought of people taking pictures without first setting these 3-4 settings for the appropriate lighting conditions.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *shigzeo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_lossy compression from the sensor and lossless from the sensor are very unlike audio where we really say we can hear a difference and most cannot. raw and jpeg offer from a distance still, very visually different images. often the jpeg looks a bit more vibrant though as it loses tones in compression and retains the most bright ones only.

 raw however has all the dark details that jpeg throws away and fine lines of colour that hide between every shade. it is quite stunning actually. but i shoot jpeg mostly._

 

Is there a quality difference between RAW and JPEG? Some, but it gets smaller and smaller with each generation of cameras. I can't tell much of a difference unless I'm intentionally underexposing with my D50. At the end of the day, the fact that I don't have to spend 1-15 minutes on each and every shot I take is more than worth the tiny difference RAW gives. I shoot JPEG exclusively unless I know I absolutely need the full dynamic range.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

In instances where image quality is paramount, I wouldn't go back to using JPEG. RAW just provides so much more leeway to massage the image just the way I want it, rather than relying on the camera's best guess. I only use RAW in instances where image quality is secondary to just getting the shot, and I'd have a lot of shots to process (like at a headphone meet, for instance).


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

I was wondering whether this is a good offer. This set includes the SB-600 flash, a diffuser and battery charger and 4 x AA rechargeable batteries. 
NKSB600AFKA Nikon SB-600 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight USA Warranty, - Basic Outfit with 4 NiMH Batteries, Charger, Flashpoint Flash Diffuser

 Anyone got experience ordering from Adorama abroad?


----------



## Arainach

Abroad, no, but Adorama's a top-notch company, so I wouldn't be too worried.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I shoot JPEG exclusively unless I know I absolutely need the full dynamic range._

 

On the current generation of Nikon cameras, the Adaptive Dynamic Range feature isn't available in RAW format... only jpeg. From the rave reviews on how this feature works I've read, it seems to be a good reason to shoot JPEG instead of RAW.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FrederikS|TPU* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was wondering whether this is a good offer. This set includes the SB-600 flash, a diffuser and battery charger and 4 x AA rechargeable batteries. 
NKSB600AFKA Nikon SB-600 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight USA Warranty, - Basic Outfit with 4 NiMH Batteries, Charger, Flashpoint Flash Diffuser

 Anyone got experience ordering from Adorama abroad?_

 

Looks like a decent deal. You might want to compare the after shipping price since you're outside the US.


----------



## mbriant

I'm made quite a few purchases from Adorama over the years and have never had a problem with them shipping to Canada.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quick question about film Nikon SLR guys, you know if I want to just test a lens with a film SLR (to see if the lens is broken or not), can I just attach it to a film SLR and operate the lens (the AF) without a film inserted in the camera (blank)?


----------



## OverlordXenu

Yes.


----------



## dj_mocok

Cool. thanks.


----------



## Arainach

Well, I've finally bit the bullet. I found a buyer for my 18-70 AF-S; I expect my 70-210 f/4 to sell pretty soon, and I plan on using the proceeds towards snatching up one of the 18-200VRs that seem to be flooding the market dirt-cheap right now as people move to FX. Combine that with my Tokina 12-24 and I should be set for a long, long time. The reduced lens switching alone will make it worth it to me.


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...if I want to just test a lens with a film SLR (to see if the lens is broken or not)..._

 

I'd also inspect the lens for scratches and mold on the glass. A small flashlight will help.


----------



## milkpowder

Anyone know why people are selling their 18-105VR already? I've seen a few come up for sale...


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Thanks for the replys seems like Adorama is a good vendor. Anyone have experience with diffusers are there any noticeable differences between the brands? I mean it is just a piece of plastic but the price difference between the Flashpoint and some of the others are massive.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FrederikS|TPU* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the replys seems like Adorama is a good vendor. Anyone have experience with diffusers are there any noticeable differences between the brands? I mean it is just a piece of plastic but the price difference between the Flashpoint and some of the others are massive._

 

The only real difference comes in it's size. Bigger is better here. The ones that are like caps don't really make much of a difference since it's not much larger than the flash head to begin with.

 So I recommend you skip that Flashpoint one or anything that is of that style and get something bigger. There are some Lumiquest bounce ones but I use the Westcott Micro Apollo softbox in situations I need to shoot forward and use nothing or a big piece of paper while bounce while shooting up.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I've finally bit the bullet. I found a buyer for my 18-70 AF-S; I expect my 70-210 f/4 to sell pretty soon, and I plan on using the proceeds towards snatching up one of the 18-200VRs that seem to be flooding the market dirt-cheap right now as people move to FX. Combine that with my Tokina 12-24 and I should be set for a long, long time. The reduced lens switching alone will make it worth it to me._

 

I'd suggest adding one more lens... The 18-50 VR kit lens. That would give you a middle range zoom that is much lighter and smaller than either of your other lenses. You should be able to pick up a refurb for about $120. Well worth it. The 18-50 is optically as good as the 18-70.

 Even if I was going FF, which I have no reason to for many years, I would still keep the 18-200 VR. There's nothing for FF that compares to it. The people dumping it for cheap are sheep. Fleece 'em!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Arainach

I don't really see the point, to be honest. If I was using a 17-55 f/2.8 as my primary lens, sure, I could see the benefit of having a lighter walk-around lens, but the 18-200's compact and light enough to do anything as far as I'm concerned with what I've seen of it when messing around. When not zoomed it's not much bigger than my 18-70 was and it weighs about the same as my 12-24, which feels like a perfect walkaround lens - well-balanced on my camera. I've owned an 18-55 (non-VR) in the past, and to be honest it felt like a toy in my hands. I sold it in favor of the 18-70 because I much preferred the feel of the larger and more massive lens.


----------



## milkpowder

Well, the 18-70 feels like a toy compared to the 18-200VR


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The only real difference comes in it's size. Bigger is better here. The ones that are like caps don't really make much of a difference since it's not much larger than the flash head to begin with.

 So I recommend you skip that Flashpoint one or anything that is of that style and get something bigger. There are some Lumiquest bounce ones but I use the Westcott Micro Apollo softbox in situations I need to shoot forward and use nothing or a big piece of paper while bounce while shooting up._

 

Thanks Ian, invalueable info! Definitely going to get the Westcott micro instead for the SB-600.


----------



## bigshot

I've learned that there are no good or bad lenses. There are just lenses that fit the purpose and those that don't. With my lens kit, the trick has been to put together a variety of lenses that cover the whole spectrum of what I need. The 18-200 VR is a good base to build on, because it's so versatile. But it's heavy for hiking with and it isn't unobtrusive for candids, so I added the little 18-55 VR. For the ultra wide range below 18mm, I got a Tokina 11-17. For low light candid portraits, I got the Sigma 50 1.4 and for formal portraits (and macro) the Tokina 100mm. The only thing I need now is a fast normal prime. I'm looking at the Sigma 30 1.4. I don't have a good sports tele, but I can't afford a good sports tele. Whichever lens you start with will dictate the other lenses you need. It's all a balancing act.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've learned that there are no good or bad lenses._

 

You should have seen the lens on the camera phone I borrowed for a few days. That was a bad lens! The slightest contrast and the thing would flare up like nobodies business!


----------



## dj_mocok

How about this lens? It's only 15 bucks guys, what have you got to lose? Just buy the adaptor and off you go for shooting! (or seal-clubbing)


----------



## dj_mocok

Hey... 
 It's this time of the day again ! Posting amazing pictures taken with Nikon time! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Nikon D80 + Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8


----------



## bigshot

Yow! Don't stare into that picture too long! You'll go blind! It looks like a nuclear blast going off. BBQ ducks!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## dj_mocok

Hehe... Okay, here's D80 + Tokina 11-16mm:


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey... 
 It's this time of the day again ! Posting amazing pictures taken with Nikon time! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Nikon D80 + Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
_

 

Let me take a guess, Watson Bay isn't it?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You should have seen the lens on the camera phone I borrowed for a few days. That was a bad lens! The slightest contrast and the thing would flare up like nobodies business!_

 

iPhone Patch Panorama Flickr Set

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## milkpowder

That is impressive.


 Ehh... what do you know. I am very likely to get my first taste of _scam_





 I sold a 70-300mm VR on eBay not too long ago, sent it and then only today received an email from Paypal telling me the source of payment was unauthorised. I'm a lens and $600+ down. *sigh* I've read through all the T&Cs and I doubt Paypal will cover me. Please keep me in your prayers/cross your fingers, etc... I want this to be a happy ending.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_iPhone Patch Panorama Flickr Set

 See ya
 Steve_

 

...?


----------



## ROYALLOTS

How i may contact admin this site? I have a question.
 iijiivei


----------



## fureshi

i feel compelled to share a picture too. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 shot with D300 and 50mm 1.8 during a typhoon in taiwan a few weeks ago. i'm thankful for the weather sealing as the camera did get a bit wet.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Let me take a guess, Watson Bay isn't it?_

 


 On a ferry from Manly going to Circular Quay. There was one beautiful, beautiful sunset over the bridge , but I couldn't take the picture because so many people in front of me and my lens was that wide angle one. Wayyyyy too wide to take the picture.


----------



## jude

I am leaving the Canon camp to join you Nikonians. Please welcome me to your fold.


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am leaving the Canon camp to join you Nikonians. Please welcome me to your fold. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

welcome Jude!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am leaving the Canon camp to join you Nikonians. Please welcome me to your fold. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Switching sides is always a big to-do, especially if you developed quite the collection of lenses for the previous kit.

 So what prompted you to change? I'm always curious!


----------



## lan

Jude, this is the 3rd camera in a short time. I'm not understanding this. Regardless of which cam, you were taking good photos on each.


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Jude, this is the 3rd camera in a short time. I'm not understanding this. Regardless of which cam, you were taking good photos on each._

 

You're being kind, lan, as I'm in need of much learning still (which I'm reminded about every day with many of the fantastic photos I see others posting here).

 To answer your question (and Towert7's question), I originally wanted to go with a D300, but chose to go with a budget Canon (Rebel XSi) option to start, for reasons of budget, and because I wasn't sure how interested I'd be in photography (yeah, right, I've learned how that tends to go). I then went to the 40D, and I've enjoyed that camera immensely. But the memory of using a friend's D300 kept my neck craning toward Nikon. So, before the investment in Canon got any deeper, I made the switch, going to the D300.

 I've got the body, I've got a (very) versatile lens, and I'll add a few more pieces as the rest of the Canon stuff sells off.


----------



## Towert7

I see. Well that's cool. If it makes it more fun to take pictures, that'll be a big help!


----------



## fureshi

being comfortable with and enjoyment of a camera is pretty important. i've tried rebels and even used a 5D for a few weeks but in the end, i still preferred the feel of a nikon. they've always felt better in my hands and ergonomically makes more sense.


----------



## RYCeT

Ok guys, let's take a pool on how long will Jude get his D700, I'll say 3 weeks


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ok guys, let's take a pool on how long will Jude get his D700, I'll say 3 weeks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

No, man, that's _well_ out of my camera budget--the jump to FX is a pretty big one on the price continuum. And, besides, I'm feelin' _plenty_ of love for this new baby like I'd not felt for my previous two Canons. Here she is, by the way, in one of the last photos taken with my 40D before she found another home:


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, man, that's well out of my camera budget--the jump to FX is a pretty big one on the price continuum. And, besides, I'm feelin' plenty of love for this new baby like I'd not felt for my previous two Canons. Here she is, by the way, in one of the last photos taken with my 40D before she found another home:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3169/...8aacaf2fe9.jpg_

 

Grats Jude!

 I think the next thing you need to buy is a strap. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Unless you like being a billboard for Nikon lol

 I hate the bright yellow on my strap and am trying to decide what to buy to replace it. The single camera store in my smallish town didn't have many options, so I'm gonna have to order online. Of course, that provides too many options, so now I'm having trouble deciding which one to get 

 Anyone have a suggestion? What straps do you all use?

 Edit: I have another question regarding macro lenses. I like taking shots of bugs and flowers and such. Can anyone recommend a midrange (pricewise) macro lens? I'd really like to get something that will go beyond 1:1.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hate the bright yellow on my strap and am trying to decide what to buy to replace it. The single camera store in my smallish town didn't have many options, so I'm gonna have to order online. Of course, that provides too many options, so now I'm having trouble deciding which one to get _

 

I dislike those stock yellow and red straps from Nikon and Canon also. I prefer my straps elastic for comfort. So something like this, Tamrac | N-5057 Neoprene Boomerang Strap (Black) | N505701 | B&H

 I like quick release on the straps also because I sometimes move the camera on a bracket or monopod or want to use something else and I prefer not to deal with the long strap still attached. I sometimes even attach the strap on my backpack shoulder strap and have one camera hang out there while I use another camera.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_




_

 

Very impressive. The 24-70 has to be one of the most incredible lenses Nikon makes. The focus speed is incredible and the build quality is stunning too. It's sharp and produces contrasty colours. The only downside I can think of is its size (especially with the massive hood) and weight. I'm glad you've decided to switch over
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Personally speaking, the 24-70 isn't quite wide enough. I'm more inclined to get the 17-55 which admittedly isn't as good. I'm saving up for the 17-55. Hopefully by next year, I'll have a 70-200VR too
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Wait... my 21st is coming soon. Maybe I can strike a deal with my parents?


----------



## Edwood

Heheheh, welcome aboard, Jude. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I dislike those stock yellow and red straps from Nikon and Canon also. I prefer my straps elastic for comfort. So something like this,_

 

I actually like the stock straps because they are very thin and lightweight. I tend to wrap it around my hand when shooting, so it serves as a handstrap.

 But, yeah, not crazy about the huge yellow lettering.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm more inclined to get the 17-55 which admittedly isn't as good._

 

Nikon 17-55mm DX??? YUCK!!!!
 Nikkor 17-35mm F/2.8. YUMMMM!!!!!

 Either that or just keep your 24-70 and get a D700.


----------



## nineohtoo

^I agree. Despite focusing issues, I'd try to find a good 17-35mm that way you can use it for full frame down the line, instead of a 17-55mm.


----------



## dj_mocok

If you are not planning to go full frame at all, 17-55mm DX is actually a very useful lens. I don't mind having one of those.


----------



## milkpowder

Exactly. If I can take decent shots with a 18-135, 18-70, 18-200VR, then why not with a 17-55? I've shot with a 17-55 before and it's great! The 17-35 seems nice as well, but 35 doesn't seem like enough reach to be a true walk-around lens (for me anyway). For those of us who can't afford to buy all four of Nikon's current 14-300 F2.8/4 pro-glass, the 17-55 + 70-200 + TC1.4x should provide superb coverage on the DX format.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Exactly. If I can take decent shots with a 18-135, 18-70, 18-200VR, then why not with a 17-55? I've shot with a 17-55 before and it's great! The 17-35 seems nice as well, but 35 doesn't seem like enough reach to be a true walk-around lens (for me anyway). For those of us who can't afford to buy all four of Nikon's current 14-300 F2.8/4 pro-glass, the 17-55 + 70-200 + TC1.4x should provide superb coverage on the DX format._

 

For the very demanding photographer, the pro lenses will yield the better image quality. You do give up some functionality.

 The pro nikons have, more or less, the same image quality as the primes. Which is saying a lot! You loose a stop or two, but gain a range to zoom with.

 My little 35-70mm F/2.8, bless its sole, really does shock me at how similar it is to my primes (I really can't tell a difference!). I have not come across a DX lens that can give me the consistency of high quality shots that I get out of my pro lenses. What I mean by this is that, even my budget 18-55 kit lens 'can' take very nice pictures, but that's at a very specific focal length. Using that lens in general will not yield consistently good results.

 Lenses like the 17-55, 18-200, 18-70, etc are fine for normal use. If you're demanding of things like color saturation and sharpness, the pro lenses are what you need to consider.

 It's a big game of trade offs. How important is image quality, how important is extra zoom range, weight, size, etc etc.


 If you need the 17-55 range, then you need that lens. The 17-35 is made more for an ultra wide angle lens only (more of a specific purpose).


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


 Lenses like the 17-55, 18-200, 18-70, etc are fine for normal use. If you're demanding of things like color saturation and sharpness, the pro lenses are what you need to consider. 
 

The 17-55 IS a pro lens. Its images on a DX body will be every bit as good as - probably better than, in fact - the 17-35.

 For me, 17-35mm isn't enough of a range, especially on DX. On full-frame, I could see it - I've done a variety of sessions with my 12-24mm as a walkaround lens, which the 17-35 would be equivalent to on FX. But on a DX body, I'm not too satisfied with the 17-35 range. The 17-55 is a stunning lens, to be sure. Personally, I see no need to go to a full-frame system, so it would fill a very useful range for me. If it wasn't for cost, I'd own one already.

 Then again, I don't find myself shooting in the 17-70mm range much. I'm half-tempted to sell my 18-200 and use it towards an 80-200 f/2.8, but I'm leery of leaving myself with nothing but my 50mm prime between 24mm and 80mm.


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, man, that's well out of my camera budget--the jump to FX is a pretty big one on the price continuum. And, besides, I'm feelin' plenty of love for this new baby like I'd not felt for my previous two Canons. Here she is, by the way, in one of the last photos taken with my 40D before she found another home_

 

That's what on my mind when I got my D300 but now I'm drooling on D700 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Your 24-70 is screaming to be matched up with D700 Jude, resistance is futile 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Btw Jude, you might want to buy GGS LCD protector to cover your LCD instead of Nikon's original plastic protector. The GGS is made of glass, sturdy, clear and cheap, so much better than Nikon's plastic protector. There are a lot of them in ebay, this is what I found from quick search in ebay LCD Screen Optical Glass Protector for Nikon D300 GGS - eBay (item 160289301143 end time Oct-13-08 03:10:37 PDT)


----------



## bigshot

I think someone should put HeadFi on commission. The high pressure upsell is pretty prevalent. Someone should be making money from it.

 Personally, I buy equipment that I can use now. I have no plans to replace my D200. It performs spectacularly for what I want to do with it. When the time comes I'm in the market for another camera, I'll look at lenses for it then. I'm not going to compromise a bit of convenience with how I use the lens now or pay a penny more now for how well it might work for a theoretical camera in the theoretical future.

 The only thing that would convince me to buy a new camera body format at this point is if they come out with a really well thought out hybrid still/video camera. But that is probably going to be crop format, use wide range zooms, and will probably require lenses with more advanced continuous focus features... In other words, a whole new lens kit.

 I read in another forum about a guy who followed the advice of one of the armchair experts in the forum he was reading. He bought a bunch of prime lenses and spent a lot of money. A friend of his lent him a decent zoom and he realized that he had sacrificed usability for a degree of sharpness that didn't make a lick of difference to him in practice. He took a beating, but he sold his primes and replaced them with two kit zooms. That's what people should have advised him to get in the first place. Most of Nikon's kit lenses have the same image quality as their pro grade lenses. The difference is in build quality and speed, not sharpness. Almost all lenses are sharp if you use them properly.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Hayduke

Since we're talking about lenses...

 I put a little question about macro lenses in an earlier post, but nobody noticed it (probably because I added it as an afterthought).

 What macro lenses do you guys use? I like taking pictures of insects and flowers and such. Sometimes I even like to take photos of interesting textures.

 I have the 18-55 and 55-200 DX VR lenses. They don't quite do as good a job as I would like at macro pictures. Ideally, I'd like something that could even go beyond 1:1. While northern AZ does get snow, we're still a desert. Some of the flowers up here are tiny, but they are really spectacular when you look closely! They are so small though, that even with a 1:1 ratio, they would still be tiny hence the desire to go above 1:1. I'd like to avoid getting a lens that is too specialized to only capture macros of tiny things, so would a "standard" macro lens and some sort of extension work better?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Most of Nikon's kit lenses have the same image quality as their pro grade lenses.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

You sir, are not a demanding photographer if you are not seeing the differences between a kit lens and any pro nikkor lens. Good for you, you saved yourself a lot of money. I on the other hand, see many differences. Nikon knows how to price their lenses, and there is a darn good reason why one is worth 200$ and the other is worth 1600$.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Since we're talking about lenses...

 I put a little question about macro lenses in an earlier post, but nobody noticed it (probably because I added it as an afterthought).

 What macro lenses do you guys use? I like taking pictures of insects and flowers and such. Sometimes I even like to take photos of interesting textures.

 I have the 18-55 and 55-200 DX VR lenses. They don't quite do as good a job as I would like at macro pictures. Ideally, I'd like something that could even go beyond 1:1. While northern AZ does get snow, we're still a desert. Some of the flowers up here are tiny, but they are really spectacular when you look closely! They are so small though, that even with a 1:1 ratio, they would still be tiny hence the desire to go above 1:1. I'd like to avoid getting a lens that is too specialized to only capture macros of tiny things, so would a "standard" macro lens and some sort of extension work better?_

 

If you are going to be taking pictures of very tiny things, you'll want a macro lens AT LEAST 100mm or longer.
 The micro nikkor lens will get you down to 1:1. An easy way to go beyond that is to use an extension tube to be able to focus closer.
 Something like this: Kenko | Auto Extension Tube Set DG for Nikon Lens | AEXTUBEDGN

 There are other ways to get below 1:1, but an extension tube is going to be the first place I would look at.

 I've seen amazing images come from a sigma 150 macro. I'm sure the micro nikkor 105mm or 200mm will give equally impressive photos.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You sir, are not a demanding photographer if you are not seeing the differences between a kit lens and any pro nikkor lens. Good for you, you saved yourself a lot of money._

 

Ha! I hear the exact same thing from people who have $400 RCA cables!

 Comparing apples to apples, the difference between pro grade Nikon lenses and their mass produced counterparts are the wider speed (often consistent from one end of a zoom to the other with pro lenses) and the build quality. It isn't the optical quality, because the glass is made to the same specifications for both. If any generalization can be made about the optical performance of Nikon lenses, it's that the ones with more modern designs (ie: aspherical elements) perform better than ones with older designs. There are modern consumer lenses and old style pro lenses. But if you stop down to f8 and they are all perform basically the same when it comes to sharpness.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Arainach

It definitely _is_ the optical quality. Compare the 17-55 at f/4.5 across its range to the 18-70 at f/4.5 across its range. The difference in sharpness and contrast is shocking. I'm sure if you shoot them both at 50mm f/8 they'll look nice and happy. But I don't do most of my shooting at f/8. I do most of my shooting wide-open or very close to it.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You sir, are not a demanding photographer if you are not seeing the differences between a kit lens and any pro nikkor lens. Good for you, you saved yourself a lot of money. I on the other hand, see many differences. Nikon knows how to price their lenses, and there is a darn good reason why one is worth 200$ and the other is worth 1600$._

 

Using price to determine quality is insane. Only gullible consumers do that.

 "It must be better because it costs more! There is _no way_ that a huge multi-national corporation would want to make more money by tricking anyone!"


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ha! I hear the exact same thing from people who have $400 RCA cables!

 Comparing apples to apples, the difference between pro grade Nikon lenses and their mass produced counterparts are the wider speed (often consistent from one end of a zoom to the other with pro lenses) and the build quality. It isn't the optical quality, because the glass is made to the same specifications for both. If any generalization can be made about the optical performance of Nikon lenses, it's that the ones with more modern designs (ie: aspherical elements) perform better than ones with older designs. There are modern consumer lenses and old style pro lenses. But if you stop down to f8 and they are all perform basically the same when it comes to sharpness.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

It's funny, because I get better sharpness and colors out of my older pro lenses (and primes) compared to my newer lenses with more coatings and fancier designs. I have noticed that the newer DX lenses are better at flare and CA, but in terms of color and sharpness they still seem lacking. My old 80-200 F/4.5 AI gives me better images than my 18-55 or 18-200 for sharpness and colors. On the downside, it has visible vignetting even on DX (I like this effect though), and has more CA.

 I nit pick though. I really strive for sharp images.
 The kit 18-55 lens is amazing for 100$!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Using price to determine quality is insane. Only gullible consumers do that.

 "It must be better because it costs more! There is no way that a huge multi-national corporation would want to make more money by tricking anyone!"_

 

I seriously think Nikon has their lenses priced right where they belong.
 Nikon is kept in check by canon and others like sigma, tokina, etc. They price their stuff where it belongs.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Bah, I'm a dirty hypocrite anyway. I'm either going to get a 17-35mm or a large-format outfit. Right now, the LF outfit is winning. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 (Zone VI w/ Schneider APO 110/5.6 and 210/5.6, if anyone cares.)


----------



## dj_mocok

I think Bigshot had a point about the example of the guy replacing all his primes in favour of 2 kit zooms, but I also think that pro grade lenses are better not just simply in speed and build quality. Contrast, bokeh, flare resistance, etc... are also better, although at some factor the difference is little but it's there.

 I think the right statement should be: Yes, pro grade lenses have better image quality, but you also have to ask yourself how good/bad you are at taking pictures before the superiority of the pro lens is counteracted by user's error: eg. camera shake, improper focusing, bad metering, composition, etc.. hence the difference you are supposed to see from pro and kit is very little due to the reasons above?


----------



## milkpowder

Bla bla bla bla... I can't hear you... I can't hear you
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I still want a 17-55!!!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It definitely is the optical quality. Compare the 17-55 at f/4.5 across its range to the 18-70 at f/4.5 across its range._

 

Compare the 17-55 to the 18-55 at f8 printed out at a size smaller than your bedsheets. No real difference at all. The difference is speed. The pro lens is sharper at *wider apertures* than the consumer lens. Stopped down, they are just as good.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, pro grade lenses have better image quality, but you also have to ask yourself how good/bad you are at taking pictures before the superiority of the pro lens is counteracted by user's error?_

 

The other question is, how often do you find yourself shooting in a situation where the pro lens is actually needed? If you are shooting landscape pics in full daylight, f1.4 is going to be pretty much useless, as is VR, better bokeh, super long teles, fish lenses and macro focusing.

 Pro lenses aren't necessarily better than consumer lenses, and they aren't just for pros, they're for *specific purposes*. A pro photographer might still find that a couple of kit lenses fill his needs perfectly a majority of the time. His pictures won't be any the poorer for it.

 There's an advantage to having the right tool for the job, but the real difference between a pro and a duffer is experience, not equipment. Judging the quality of a photographer by the cost of the camera hanging around his neck is what armchair duffers do, not pros.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Compare the 17-55 to the 18-55 at f8 printed out at a size smaller than your bedsheets. No real difference at all. The difference is speed. The pro lens is sharper at *wider apertures* than the consumer lens. Stopped down, they are just as good.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

It would be rather difficult to make a lens that isn't sharp at _some_ aperture or other. The question is what lenses are sharp are the most apertures or at _usable_ apertures - both areas which Pro glass is clearly superior in.

 And you still haven't addressed the other point - sharpness is hardly the only factor. There is still a VERY visible difference between the f/8 18-70 and the f/8 17-55: Color depth and contrast. The 17-55, at all focal lengths and apertures, is dramatically more contrasty than the 18-70.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It would be rather difficult to make a lens that isn't sharp at some aperture or other. The question is what lenses are sharp are the most apertures or at usable apertures - both areas which Pro glass is clearly superior in.

 And you still haven't addressed the other point - sharpness is hardly the only factor. There is still a VERY visible difference between the f/8 18-70 and the f/8 17-55: Color depth and contrast. The 17-55, at all focal lengths and apertures, is dramatically more contrasty than the 18-70._

 

x2.

 There's no question, pro lenses simply rock.
 Wish I had a 17-35 and 80-200 to compliment my 35-70.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you need the 17-55 range, then you need that lens. The 17-35 is made more for an ultra wide angle lens only (more of a specific purpose)._

 

Since Milkpowder is planning on using it with a DX body, the 17-35mm isn't what I would call an ultra wide angle lens. I think that category more pertains to lenses such the the 12-24mm Nikon and Tokina and moreso lenses like the 11-16mm Tokina. I actually found myself wanting wider even with the 12-24mm Nikkor I used to have it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 BTW these new emoticons are awesome! Haven't been here in a looong time I see.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Since Milkpowder is planning on using it with a DX body, the 17-35mm isn't what I would call an ultra wide angle lens. I think that category more pertains to lenses such the the 12-24mm Nikon and Tokina and moreso lenses like the 11-16mm Tokina. I actually found myself wanting wider even with the 12-24mm Nikkor I used to have it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 BTW these new emoticons are awesome! Haven't been here in a looong time I see._

 

The 17-35 is an ultra wide lens. If you choose to use it on a DX camera, it no longer gives you the ultra wide field of view, but the lens still remains an ultra wide lens. I hope you see what I'm trying to get at.

 Other lenses wider than the 17-35, such as the 14-24 are what I would call ultra ultra wide lenses.

 Skyline, you seem to have a lot of money. If you want a really wide angle of view pick up a 14-24mm, and use it with a D700 or D3. That'll give you around a 9mm focal length in 'DX terms'.


----------



## nineohtoo

Quote:


 I'm sure if you shoot them both at 50mm f/8 they'll look nice and happy. But I don't do most of my shooting at f/8. I do most of my shooting wide-open or very close to it. 
 

 Quote:


 Pro lenses aren't necessarily better than consumer lenses, and they aren't just for pros, they're for *specific purposes*. A pro photographer might still find that a couple of kit lenses fill his needs perfectly a majority of the time. His pictures won't be any the poorer for it.

 There's an advantage to having the right tool for the job, but the real difference between a pro and a duffer is experience, not equipment. Judging the quality of a photographer by the cost of the camera hanging around his neck is what armchair duffers do, not pros. 
 

Some very good points here. It's not that kit lenses are bad, it's just you can't use them for every situation. If you're out at the park with your family, I'm sure the kit lens will get you awesome pictures. If you're in a club shooting a band, or a low light arena snapping some sort of sport event, I'm sure that kit lens is gonna sell you short in terms of AF speed(maybe accuracy), wide open performance, and getting you the shutter speeds you need. Plus DoF. People forget that about the pro zooms. 

 As for the 17-55mm, it is a GREAT lens. Pro build, internal focusing. It may be marked DX, but it looks just like a 24-70 for DX lenses. I personally don't feel the same about the Canon version. No IF, and it just has a wide constant aperture. Build isn't that nice. That's why it's not an L. the 17-55mm would be a Nikon "L."

 If I ever go back to Nikon, that's and their hopeful DX normal sized prime are gonna be my go to lenses. One thing I've liked with Canon is the ability to get dual uses out of lenses because of having a full and crop camera(obviously I cant take advantage of this, but I can down the line).


----------



## skyline889

Taken our of context, focal length can mean anything. An 8mm focal length may seem ultra, ultra wide but on a consumer video camera with a much smaller sensor (1/3"), it's not that wide at all. 

 That being said though, the 14-24 is an "ultra, ultra wide lens"! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I saw the D700 while shopping earlier in the month and I so wish I could afford FF.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Taken our of context, focal length can mean anything._

 

To be technical....
 Focal length means one thing when referring to optics. Field of view is what is really changing.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To be technical....
 Focal length means one thing when referring to optics. Field of view is what is really changing._

 

I was just making a comment, not trying to start anything, but yeah I'm aware that it's the field of view that changes; I thought that was made apparent by stating that an 8mm focal length may seem wide when talking about standard crop frame DSLRs but gives you a completely different picture on a smaller sensored consumer video camera since the focal length was a constant in my comparison but I get where you're coming from. Sorry, I just thought by specifying 17-35 you were stating that as your reference point for "ultra wide".

 Getting back to cameras, any suggestions for a wide-normal zoom on a budget? I sold everything (Just have my D50 and 70-300mm VR left) so I've only been shooting with my old non-metering primes for a while and it's getting pretty annoying to have to manual meter all my shots, that and the fact that the Cimko 28mm I'm shooting with now has really bad flare in almost any kind of sunlight. I'm not really shooting much these days so something cheap would be good. I was thinking about just picking up another 18-55mm since the 18-70mm was a disappointment but the price on the VR 18-55mm has fallen so much recently that it has me really tempted. I know VR really doesn't help too much at this range but my main concern is the loss of ED coating. I've never shot with this lens outside so I'm not really sure how this would effect performance in conditions I normally shoot in. If the difference is like $20-30 do you guys think it would be worth it?


----------



## milkpowder

I'd get a Siggy 10-20 if I _really want wide!_


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was just making a comment, not trying to start anything, but yeah I'm aware that it's the field of view that changes; I thought that was made apparent by stating that an 8mm focal length may seem wide when talking about standard crop frame DSLRs but gives you a completely different picture on a smaller sensored consumer video camera since the focal length was a constant in my comparison but I get where you're coming from. Sorry, I just thought by specifying 17-35 you were stating that as your reference point for "ultra wide".

 Getting back to cameras, any suggestions for a wide-normal zoom on a budget? I sold everything (Just have my D50 and 70-300mm VR left) so I've only been shooting with my old non-metering primes for a while and it's getting pretty annoying to have to manual meter all my shots, that and the fact that the Cimko 28mm I'm shooting with now has really bad flare in almost any kind of sunlight. I'm not really shooting much these days so something cheap would be good. I was thinking about just picking up another 18-55mm since the 18-70mm was a disappointment but the price on the VR 18-55mm has fallen so much recently that it has me really tempted. I know VR really doesn't help too much at this range but my main concern is the loss of ED coating. I've never shot with this lens outside so I'm not really sure how this would effect performance in conditions I normally shoot in. If the difference is like $20-30 do you guys think it would be worth it?_

 

The 18-135 is a solid lens for outdoor shooting and general purpose photography. It's _sharp_, fast to focus, maintains a respectable distortion profile, and costs somewhere around $250. For a versatile one-lens solution, it's hard to do better. 

 Of course, if you can spend a bit more and don't need the range, Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8 is another third-party gem. Build quality and focus-accuracy are not up to pro standards, but wide-open sharpness rivals or surpasses that of Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8. The Tamron retails for around $400. 

 However, if you're on an extreme budget, I wouldn't discard the VR kit lens as a possibility. It feels like a toy, yes, but performs well where it counts: optical quality. 

 All 3 are viable options, though, so do some more research and narrow down your must-have elements of a lens.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Getting back to cameras, any suggestions for a wide-normal zoom on a budget?_

 

Nikon 18-55 VR, Sigma/Tokina 12-24

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Edwood

As much as I like zoom lenses, their indoor usage is limited to flash usage only. Well, unless you have a D700 and shoot at 6400 ISO. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 f/2.8 Zoom lenses are HEAVY. So much glass.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is still a VERY visible difference between the f/8 18-70 and the f/8 17-55: Color depth and contrast. The 17-55, at all focal lengths and apertures, is dramatically more contrasty than the 18-70._

 

Compare the 17-55 to the 18-55 VR... across the board, at f8 the optical performance is very similar. You'd really have to strain to see a difference on a landscape picture in broad daylight. Printed out at 11x14, you wouldn't see any difference at all. The major differences between the pro and the consumer versions are the build quality and the aperture. But the consumer version has VR, making the difference difference in speed for non-sports applications non-existent.

 A pro needs a solid lens that can be knocked around and can shoot in challenging light situations. They pay almost ten times the price for that. Both lenses are capable of taking exactly the same quality of pictures under normal conditions.

 There's a LOT more to being a pro than just having pro lenses in your bag. I'm reminded of the Monty Python sketch where the twit goes into the employment office to look for a job as a lion tamer. The office worker says, "Our aptitude tests show that you are more suitable for a career in chartered accountancy." The wimpy guy gets huffy and says, "NO! I want to be a LION TAMER! I already have the hat that says 'lion tamer' on it!"

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Compare the 17-55 to the 18-55 VR... across the board, at f8 the optical performance is very similar. You'd really have to strain to see a difference on a landscape picture in broad daylight. Printed out at 11x14, you wouldn't see any difference at all. The major differences between the pro and the consumer versions are the build quality and the aperture. But the consumer version has VR, making the difference difference in speed for non-sports applications non-existent.

 A pro needs a solid lens that can be knocked around and can shoot in challenging light situations. They pay almost ten times the price for that. Both lenses are capable of taking exactly the same quality of pictures under normal conditions.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

You are not paying 10 times the price just for build quality. That's just silly. They really are optically better through and trough, and will yield much more consistent results. When you are doing photography for a job, you need consistently good results! The budget lenses will not give that to you. Not even an 18-200 is going to give you good results consistently.

 All this "Well, if you use F/8, at a very specific focal length, at a mono color wall with the sun at your back on a tripod and print it out to 4x6" stuff is a load of rubbish. I have used the kit 18-55 lens for about a year! After moving to the 35-70mm F/2.8 lens, there is NO COMPARISON!!! The 35-70mm F/2.8 is consistently giving me better pictures! At the least they are very close, but at the best the 35-70 totally blows the 18-55 out of the ocean, even at higher F stops.

 If you set your camera on auto and take god awful pictures, you won't notice the difference. If you push your camera (and your photography skills) to the limits where the lens is the limiting factor, then you will notice the differences of the lenses. This assumes you are comparing them with a critical eye and are striving for the best pictures you can take.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Compare the 17-55 to the 18-55 VR... across the board, at f8 the optical performance is very similar. You'd really have to strain to see a difference on a landscape picture in broad daylight. Printed out at 11x14, you wouldn't see any difference at all. The major differences between the pro and the consumer versions are the build quality and the aperture. But the consumer version has VR, making the difference difference in speed for non-sports applications non-existent.

 A pro needs a solid lens that can be knocked around and can shoot in challenging light situations. They pay almost ten times the price for that. Both lenses are capable of taking exactly the same quality of pictures under normal conditions.

 There's a LOT more to being a pro than just having pro lenses in your bag. I'm reminded of the Monty Python sketch where the twit goes into the employment office to look for a job as a lion tamer. The office worker says, "Our aptitude tests show that you are more suitable for a career in chartered accountancy." The wimpy guy gets huffy and says, "NO! I want to be a LION TAMER! I already have the hat that says 'lion tamer' on it!"

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Most of us, though, don't use our lenses at f/8 or smaller. Looking through my portfolio, I can only find a handful of shots taken past f/5.6 or so; and by handful, I mean 3-4. Even still, the resolution difference between my 80-200 and 18-135 at that aperture is stunning and noticeable. Without considering build quality, bokeh, or even chromatic aberrations, I feel like I got my $1000 worth out of a pro quality lens.

 Again, I'm not arguing that kit lenses are worthless; but I can say reliably that wide open quality varies greatly between the pro and cheapo lenses.


----------



## Edwood

I have a question for those that have used both the new AF-S 105mm and 60mm Micro-Nikkor lenses. 

 Are handheld close up Macro shots possible with the 60mm one? Does the VR in the 105mm make handheld close up macro easier and better, or is the VR more necessary in the 105mm because of the zoom level from the focal length? 

 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a question for those that have used both the new AF-S 105mm and 60mm Micro-Nikkor lenses. 

 Are handheld close up Macro shots possible with the 60mm one? Does the VR in the 105mm make handheld close up macro easier and better, or is the VR more necessary in the 105mm because of the zoom level from the focal length? 

 -Ed_

 

It is possible to get handheld close up macros with the 60mm, but hard! Not because of motion blur (assuming enough light), but because of DOF, even stopped down a fair amount. Best way to combat this is to use a flash and really crank up the f-stop, or use a monopod, tripod, or some other support.

 If I was doing pictures of very tiny things, I wouldn't even consider the 60mm. Go for 100mm or higher.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is possible to get handheld close up macros with the 60mm, but hard! Not because of motion blur (assuming enough light), but because of DOF, even stopped down a fair amount. Best way to combat this is to use a flash and really crank up the f-stop, or use a monopod, tripod, or some other support.

 If I was doing pictures of very tiny things, I wouldn't even consider the 60mm. Go for 100mm or higher._

 

Ah, I see. It's more about the camera moving in and out vs. up and down from camera shake. So you end up losing focus due to the very shallow DOF. I usually shoot with several lights for extreme close ups, so stopping down wouldn't be too much of an issue for me. The faster f/2.8 would be handier for shooting portraits for me.

 Hmmmm. I wanted to have a macro double duty as a portrait lens. I'd be worried about the added size and weight of the 105mm, but it would most likely be used at home or fixed position events, so lugging it around wouldn't be so much of a concern. 

 -Ed


----------



## dj_mocok

Not really Nikon specific, but I just decided to 'downgrade' my picture quality by shooting SRGB instead of AdobeRGB. I'm sick of making the picture looks so nice, but then when I save it for the web or when I print it out, it doesn't look as nice as when I was working on it because I used AdobeRGB.

 At least with SRGB I can make the supposedly inferior colours to look nice and when I print it out, it will still look nice. Heck I'm not sure if my monitor can in practice display whatever more colours from AdobeRGB. I think Edwood can give his opinion on this since he's good at graphic and photoshop stuff.


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not really Nikon specific, but I just decided to 'downgrade' my picture quality by shooting SRGB instead of AdobeRGB. I'm sick of making the picture looks so nice, but then when I save it for the web or when I print it out, it doesn't look as nice as when I was working on it because I used AdobeRGB.

 At least with SRGB I can make the supposedly inferior colours to look nice and when I print it out, it will still look nice. Heck I'm not sure if my monitor can in practice display whatever more colours from AdobeRGB. I think Edwood can give his opinion on this since he's good at graphic and photoshop stuff._

 

Shoot in RAW. Problem solved.


----------



## nickknutson

I'm pretty jacked, I just bought my first film SLR, a chrome Nikon FE. It should be here later this week!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Even still, the resolution difference between my 80-200 and 18-135 at that aperture is stunning and noticeable._

 

First of all, those aren't the same sorts of lenses at all. I'm talking about comparing apples to apples, not just the same focal length... The perfect example for comparison is the 18-55 and the 17-55 that costs almost ten times as much. Assuming one can even see a difference, how would he go about seeing it? By blowing up the picture to four feet across in photoshop and pixel peeping, or by printing it as a normal sized print and comparing?

 Pro lenses are great, but with good lighting stopped down, there just isn't a lot of difference between a pro lens and a good kit lens. Why? Because at the middle of the aperture range on most lenses, the resolution of the lens comes close to exceeding the ability of the sensor in your camera to reproduce the image. The 18-55 VR is sharper than the sensor can reproduce at f8 and 35mm. No lens, no matter how well designed is going to perform better than that.

 If image quality is that much of an issue, 4x5 or 8x10 view cameras can deliver MUCH better resolution with almost no distortion, and anti-aliasing won't be limiting the quality of the image your lens is capable of putting down.

 Equipment is nice. Everybody likes diddling with equipment. But equipment doesn't take good pictures, good photographers do. Pro lenses extend a photographer's ability to shoot into a wider range of situations... further away, in darker lighting... but pro lenses don't shoot pictures in full daylight at a normal focal length printed on normal sized prints any better.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nickknutson* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm pretty jacked, I just bought my first film SLR, a chrome Nikon FE. It should be here later this week!_

 

Nice, what did it run you if you don't mind me asking? I've been considering a FE since a reasonably priced good condition F2 seems to be near impossible to track down.


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_....If I was doing pictures of very tiny things, I wouldn't even consider the 60mm. Go for 100mm or higher._

 

I went with a 60mm f/2.8 macro when I using the Canon, mostly for product photos, and then finding out that it could work for taking pictures of bugs, too.

 That being said, I agree that 60mm is too short for me for bug work. That Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro is intriguing, but the reports of its slow focus turn me off. With the Canon 60mm--which had a pretty fast focus--I could put it on continuous focus, and it would quickly adjust for tiny movements caused by me, the wind, etc.

 Also, like Towert7 said, shooting macro with large apertures resulted in parts of my targets being out of focus, so I tended to shoot bug shots when it was very sunny out so that I could stop it down and get the DOF I needed. I never really did much with the flash (for macro), nor did I ever pick up a macro-specific flash, although that's another tempting piece of kit.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Assuming one can even see a difference, how would he go about seeing it? By blowing up the picture to four feet across in photoshop and pixel peeping, or by printing it as a normal sized print and comparing?_

 

I have to say though, that I've found my pictures that are the sharpest at 100% magnification (more or less) also look the sharpest looking at 25%.

  Quote:


 The 18-55 VR is sharper than the sensor can reproduce at f8 and 35mm. 
 

I don't know. My 18-55 wasn't always sharp, even at F/8 or F/11. Near the tele range it was, but when it went to wide angle things started to look worse. I will agree that the FX lenses are more limited by the sensor size than their sharpness. Though oddly, I still see differences in sharpness on a DX sensor, though not as much as a canon lens on a 5D vs. a 50D.

  Quote:


 If image quality is that much of an issue, 4x5 or 8x10 view cameras can deliver MUCH better resolution with almost no distortion, 
 

Tell me about it! If I had the money, I'd spring for a Mamiya digital kit right now. I have a book with scenery landscapes from japan, and a fair amount of them were taken with mamiya medium format cameras. Phenomenal!

 I'm sure most of these sharpness fanatics _would_ have a medium-large format camera, if only they could really afford it (digital, that is). Myself included.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have to say though, that I've found my pictures that are the sharpest at 100% magnification (more or less) also look the sharpest looking at 25%._

 

That may be a focus issue, not a sharpness issue. If a lens front or backfocuses, it's liable to look softer than a correctly focusing lens even at normal sizes. I've read about some lenses that focus fine close, but at distance, they focus beyond infinity. (That might even open up a black hole to swallow the universe!)

 I think it was at dpreview.com where I read about the 18-55 VR exceeding the resolution of the sensor at f8. Looking at the specs for a lot of my lenses, this is the case. The biggest problem with sharpness in digital cameras is the antialiasing, not the lenses. But blown down to normal sizes, it isn't a problem at all.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

I took this with the old kit 18-55mm lens, at F/5.6, and it's one of the sharpest pictures I have of my cat (if not _the _sharpest).
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2300/...e22c30e3_o.jpg

 The thing cost 100$..................
 I still can't get over that.

 Some of the budget nikon lenses rock.


----------



## nickknutson

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice, what did it run you if you don't mind me asking? I've been considering a FE since a reasonably priced good condition F2 seems to be near impossible to track down._

 

I paid $66 shipped. It needs a new rewind lever, but otherwise it's in perfect condition. (It's a $10 fix) My local shop has one that was in great condition for $150...but that included an MD-12 grip. I didn't want the grip, so I passed. I'm seeing them priced from $70-$100. There's a guy on ebay from Minnesota that's selling quite a few FE's. He restores them. I think his prices vary from $110 to $130. Nice guy. I've never met him, but I've spoken to him over the phone.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Pro lenses are great, but with good lighting stopped down, there just isn't a lot of difference between a pro lens and a good kit lens. Why? Because at the middle of the aperture range on most lenses, the resolution of the lens comes close to exceeding the ability of the sensor in your camera to reproduce the image. The 18-55 VR is sharper than the sensor can reproduce at f8 and 35mm. No lens, no matter how well designed is going to perform better than that._

 

And after nearly an entire page of posts, you still don't get it, so I'll put it in a few nice, bolded bullet points:

*There is a LOT more to an image than sharpness, such as contrast and color rendition*
*Saying "this lens is just as good at focal length X and aperture Y" does NOT make the lenses optically equal*
*The reason people buy Pro glass is that it delivers excellent results at EVERY focal length and EVERY aperture, something which consumer-grade glass does not*


----------



## bigshot

Using the example of the 17-55 at 35mm stopped down to f8 and the 18-55 at 35mm stopped down to f8, to me, they have nearly identical performance... sharpness, contrast, color, CA and distortion. If you are shooting in daylight and using those settings, there is no advantage to the pro version aside from build quality (and the weight that accompanies it).

 The last point on your list is in my comments already. (Perhaps I should have bolded it so you could see it.) I pointed out that pro lenses have better performance in low light and at extreme focal lengths. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about an average focal length at an average aperture used in the average daylight conditions that most people shoot in.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

:sigh:
 This is getting a little boring guys...................
 Going around, in circles and circles and circles..........


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Using the example of the 17-55 at 35mm stopped down to f8 and the 18-55 at 35mm stopped down to f8, to me, they have nearly identical performance... sharpness, contrast, color, CA and distortion. If you are shooting in daylight and using those settings, there is no advantage to the pro version aside from build quality (and the weight that accompanies it).

 The last point on your list is in my comments already. (Perhaps I should have bolded it so you could see it.) I pointed out that pro lenses have better performance in low light and at extreme focal lengths. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about an average focal length at an average aperture used in the average daylight conditions that most people shoot in.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

So, the sum of your argument is "consumer zooms are fine for daylight tourist snapshots". The main problem being that that describes roughly 0-1% of the shots I do with my DSLR. When I bring out the DSLR, it's because of demanding conditions. I very, very rarely shoot at apertures smaller than f/5.6. Even during the day, I usually don't want infinite depth of field - I'd prefer some background blur, so I shoot at larger apertures. Which consumer zooms tend to suck at. My 18-70 was merely bearable at f/4.5 70mm; my 18-200 at 200mm f/5.6 is unbearable to the point where I'm selling it. Even in normal use there's a clear difference between pro and consumer lenses. I don't spend my life at 35mm f/8. When I was using an 18-55, I was at either 18mm or 55mm for 95% of my shots, and for a very substantial chunk of them I was wide-open.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, the sum of your argument is "consumer zooms are fine for daylight tourist snapshots". The main problem being that that describes roughly 0-1% of the shots I do with my DSLR._

 

We aren't talking about you. We're talking about the average person who buys a DSLR. There's nothing wrong with shooting in daylight at f8 or f11. Millions of photographers, both professionals and amateurs, do it every day. Ansel Adams did it too, and he certainly didn't just shoot "tourist snapshots". Maybe you need to shoot at a wider aperture than f8 or have a super long telephoto or ultrawide, but to most people, spending many times the cost of the consumer lens just to get the ability to shoot in rare exceptional circumstances just isn't worth it.

 Lenses are just tools that are either suitable for a purpose, or not. The gold lettering on the barrel and the high price tag doesn't represent the quality of images that can be produced with them. Their ability to do the job at hand does. A bag full of pro lenses doesn't say anything about one's ability as a photographer. Weston and Steiglitz each owned one lens.

 A great photographer is a great photographer if he's holding a Leica, a Speed Graphic, a D700, or a Casio pocket point and shoot... given the right circumstances, he can get a great photo with any of those. When asked which camera and lens was best, Eisenstadt said, "You can take excellent pictures with the simplest camera, because it is THIS lens that matters." He was pointing to his eye.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## milkpowder

The key phrase is *"given the right circumstances"*. Try shooting a wedding with a point and shoot. By the time you achieve AF-lock, you've already missed the moment.


----------



## nineohtoo

I can't get the bokeh I want with a compact either either because of the small sensor. I'm not discounting the photographer. A good eye can frame and time the perfect photos, but unless the conditions are perfect, regular equipment isn't gonna cut it. 

 Pro equipment like you said is for extreme situations, and some of us only use our SLRs in those situations. I only use my DSLR when I'm shooting shows. Otherwise it's on my desk and my GX100 is in my pouch or pocket.


----------



## Arainach

And that's the distinction that bigshot is missing. His "typical DSLR user" is *gasp* a regular consumer, it would appear. And, lo and behold, the consumer-grade lenses really are good enough for them. But the fact of the matter is that for people that actually use their equipment in demanding professional situations, the pro lenses are worth it for a lot more than just build quality.

 Yes, if you're going to spend your life shooting daytime landscapes at F8, a consumer zoom will probably do you fine. If you ever want to do ANYTHING else - shoot subjects that actually move, shoot at night, get sharp portraits with bokeh, whatever - ANYTHING but static daylight shots - a pro lens can often be more than worth its cost.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And that's the distinction that bigshot is missing. His "typical DSLR user" is *gasp* a regular consumer, it would appear. And, lo and behold, the consumer-grade lenses really are good enough for them. But the fact of the matter is that for people that actually use their equipment in demanding professional situations, the pro lenses are worth it for a lot more than just build quality.

 Yes, if you're going to spend your life shooting daytime landscapes at F8, a consumer zoom will probably do you fine. If you ever want to do ANYTHING else - shoot subjects that actually move, shoot at night, get sharp portraits with bokeh, whatever - ANYTHING but static daylight shots - a pro lens can often be more than worth its cost._

 

I think you just gotta accept that fact that bigshoot is stuck in his mindset, the same way we are stuck in ours. Let the comforting thought be that deep down, we know the truth.

 There is no question in my mind, pro lenses give consistently better results for me. So far, the only people that I've seen try and debate this have needed to add a lot of 'qualifiers' as to why that isn't always the case. We both know what that means.


----------



## philodox

Off topic, I know, but this has been bugging me for a while in reading this thread... what in the hell is bokeh???


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Off topic, I know, but this has been bugging me for a while in reading this thread... what in the hell is bokeh??? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Bokeh is the out of focus blur.

Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## philodox

Ahhh, thanks. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I suppose I could have just googled that.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Off topic, I know, but this has been bugging me for a while in reading this thread... what in the hell is bokeh??? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

bokeh is background blur.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The key phrase is *"given the right circumstances"*. Try shooting a wedding with a point and shoot. By the time you achieve AF-lock, you've already missed the moment._

 

I shot a wedding with a Mamiya RB67 once. No AF at all. No auto exposure either. It wasn't hard, it just took an assistant to help coordinate the shots. I doubt if I'd have any problem shooting an outdoor wedding with a point and shoot. The only real limitation would be the flash.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And that's the distinction that bigshot is missing. His "typical DSLR user" is *gasp* a regular consumer, it would appear._

 

GASP! How horrifying! Who let the riff raff in?!

 There's only one distinction to being a pro, and it isn't what it says on your lenses. It's the ability to make a living shooting pictures. Great equipment is helpful, but it doesn't make you a pro.

 I am a *gasp* a regular consumer myself. I studied to become a professional photographer, but drifted into design instead. I have some lenses that say "pro" on them, and some that don't. I'm able to make great pictures with all of them. Heck, I'm even able to make great pictures with a $200 point and shoot. If you can't make great pictures without having thousands of dollars of electronics and glass hanging around your neck, that says more about your ability as a photographer than it does about the quality of your equipment. If you look down on other photographers because of their equipment and not their ability to create a great photograph, that says more about you.

 If I was a cartoonist, I'd draw a cartoon of a fella sitting on a couch surrounded by camera bags. He'd be pointing a camera with a huge lens at his bare feet. The caption would read, "Look at that BEAUTIFUL bokeh!"

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 I am a *gasp* a regular consumer myself. I studied to become a professional photographer, but drifted into design instead. I have some lenses that say "pro" on them, and some that don't. I'm able to make great pictures with all of them. Heck, I'm even able to make great pictures with a $200 point and shoot. If you can't make great pictures without having thousands of dollars of electronics and glass hanging around your neck, that says more about your ability as a photographer than it does about the quality of your equipment. If you look down on other photographers because of their equipment and not their ability to create a great photograph, that says more about you.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

This makes me sad to read this.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If I was a cartoonist, I'd draw a cartoon of a fella sitting on a couch surrounded by camera bags. He'd be pointing a camera with a huge lens at his bare feet. The caption would read, "Look at that BEAUTIFUL bokeh!"_

 

And he would be right if he was shooting with a 58/1.2 or 85/1.4
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I shot a wedding with a Mamiya RB67 once. No AF at all. No auto exposure either. It wasn't hard, it just took an assistant to help coordinate the shots. I doubt if I'd have any problem shooting an outdoor wedding with a point and shoot. The only real limitation would be the flash.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

All that proves is that you can manual focus much quicker than a point and shoot. That isn't saying much to be honest considering how darn long some of them take to focus, meter and then finally shoot


----------



## Towert7

Speaking of weddings, I wouldn't heir anyone unless that had some serious gear. You need serious gear to be a pro wedding photographer in my eyes, and in millions of other's eyes. The market segment says you can't be a pro without pro gear. ^_^
 Funny how that works.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I went with a 60mm f/2.8 macro when I using the Canon, mostly for product photos, and then finding out that it could work for taking pictures of bugs, too.

 That being said, I agree that 60mm is too short for me for bug work. That Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro is intriguing, but the reports of its slow focus turn me off. With the Canon 60mm--which had a pretty fast focus--I could put it on continuous focus, and it would quickly adjust for tiny movements caused by me, the wind, etc.

 Also, like Towert7 said, shooting macro with large apertures resulted in parts of my targets being out of focus, so I tended to shoot bug shots when it was very sunny out so that I could stop it down and get the DOF I needed. I never really did much with the flash (for macro), nor did I ever pick up a macro-specific flash, although that's another tempting piece of kit._

 

I've honestly never heard of someone using autofocus for macro with a macro lens.

 Edit: Also, just wondering...Why did you go for the D300 over the D90? The D90 is cheaper, has the D300's sensor, and offers a lot more bare functionality (such as ADR).


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've honestly never heard of someone using autofocus for macro with a macro lens._

 

I've setup situations where a fast continuous auto focus would have been helpful.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've honestly never heard of someone using autofocus for macro with a macro lens.

 Edit: Also, just wondering...Why did you go for the D300 over the D90? The D90 is cheaper, has the D300's sensor, and offers a lot more bare functionality (such as ADR)._

 

The D300 has ADR too. It's also built a _lot_ better and meters with MF glass.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 18-135 is a solid lens for outdoor shooting and general purpose photography. It's sharp, fast to focus, maintains a respectable distortion profile, and costs somewhere around $250. For a versatile one-lens solution, it's hard to do better. 

 Of course, if you can spend a bit more and don't need the range, Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8 is another third-party gem. Build quality and focus-accuracy are not up to pro standards, but wide-open sharpness rivals or surpasses that of Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8. The Tamron retails for around $400. 

 However, if you're on an extreme budget, I wouldn't discard the VR kit lens as a possibility. It feels like a toy, yes, but performs well where it counts: optical quality. 

 All 3 are viable options, though, so do some more research and narrow down your must-have elements of a lens._

 

Thanks for the advice. I thought about stepping up to a 2.8 zoom but I tried the Tamron a while back and wasn't that impressed. It was reasonably sharp but CA wasn't very well controlled and build quality did not feel $250 better than the kit lens. The light weight may be great for wedding pros but I like something more substantial. I've also heard that the newer production models coming out have some back focus issues. I thought about the 18-55mm VR and I think I'll get it as a cheap walk-around in the future but for now, I think I'm going with the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 D. It's supposed to be one of the sharpest primes you can buy and its pretty cheap too so it seems to be my best option. It's a little too long for me as I'd actually want the 20mm 2.8 D but at over twice the cost, I don't think it's worth it for me.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice, what did it run you if you don't mind me asking? I've been considering a FE since a reasonably priced good condition F2 seems to be near impossible to track down._

 

The F2s are just awesome. Shooting with it is a joy, it's just too bad developing film and enlarging isn't quite as much fun.


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Speaking of weddings, I wouldn't heir anyone unless that had some serious gear. You need serious gear to be a pro wedding photographer in my eyes, and in millions of other's eyes. The market segment says you can't be a pro without pro gear. ^_^
 Funny how that works._

 

I disagree. You don't have to have pro gear to be a pro photographer.

 I can understand some (IE 70-200 f2.8), but I've seen plenty of pro wedding photographers without pro lenses (non Canon L primes such as 28 f2.8, 50 f1.4) and they take amazing pictures.


----------



## philodox

I know this is a Nikon thread, but I've sort of been flip flopping lately... Not sure if I want to just drop around the same amount of money I was looking to spend on an SLR and get a top of the line point and shoot.

 I do want to take some artsy shots, but I seriously doubt I will get into this at a professional or even serious amateur level. Some things that I've been considering are the Leica V-Lux 1, or maybe one of the similar DSLR-like compact cameras from Panasonic like the DMC-FZ50K or DMC-FZ28K [the Leicas are just modified Pannys AFAIK].

 To keep in the topic of the thread, I suppose something like the P80 from Nikon would fill a similar void.

 Another option is that I wait for micro 4/3rds to become a bit more mature and pick a camera from Olympus or Panasonic [possibly Leica?].

 Any thoughts? What would be the main thing that I'd be loosing with something like the V-LUX 1? It has good glass, good range, good features. Obviously, you can't change the lense so you are stuck with what it offers... but if that's not a big issue will this take comparible/worse/better shots than an entry level 10MP DSLR with a good all-rounder lense?

 EDIT: Just checked and, after rebate, I can get a new Leica V-LUX 1 for $679.95 CDN.

 EDIT2: The Fujifilm S100FS, which also looks cool, is the same price as the Leica. [no rebate]

 EDIT3: They have a used Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50K for $589.00 as well.


----------



## bigshot

The Lumix point and shoots are incredible cameras. I was reading on another board yesterday how they outperform DSLRs in certain circumstances. The Olympus 8080 is an excellent camera too as are the Canons. Point and shoots are very useful for candids. The main drawback is that they don't perform as well in low light as DSLRS and the noise reduction they apply to deal with that tends to flatten out textures into flat, featureless colors. Another problem is that if they are too small, they are hard to hold steady. But for the convenience of their compact size, they're invaluable.

 Point and shoots aren't replacements for DSLRs. They're two different things with two different purposes.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## philodox

Thanks for the input Steve. The Olympus SP-570 UZ looks interesting as well. Becoming just a little overwhelmed with all the choices. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 EDIT: Do they do worse in low light because of the lower ISO ratings? The DMC-FZ50K only has ISO 1600 at full size, but the leica lense on it is f/2.8

 EDIT2: Henry's has a Nikon Coolpix P80 with a case and a 4GB card for $485CDN.


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 I disagree. You don't have to have pro gear to be a pro photographer. 
 

 That's true, but it helps. First of all, when you're charging money for your work, your clients expect the best quality possible. While skill is certainly number one in importance, pro bodies and lenses guarantee you have maximum flexibility to get the shot under any circumstances, that the image will be recorded as clean and sharp as possible, and that there's less chance of an equipment malfunction ... ie: better equipment is more robust, dust/water resistant, etc.

 Secondly, when someone pays you money to shoot their wedding for example, they expect you to have at least as good and preferably better equipment than the guests. Yes, it's strictly perception, but to many, perception is reality. When the crowd of well-wishers gather around to take the cake-cutting shot, or any shot, the "pro" needs to command respect ( in order to not be pushed out of the best positions for the best shots.) Impressive equipment goes a long way in achieving this. IMO of course.


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 I know this is a Nikon thread, but I've sort of been flip flopping lately... Not sure if I want to just drop around the same amount of money I was looking to spend on an SLR and get a top of the line point and shoot. 
 

 There are certainly excellent fixed lens digitals out there, but for about the same money you could likely pick up something like the Nikon D-40 SLR which isn't much larger than some of the better fixed lens offerings and gives you the option of upgrading lenses should you ever decide to.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I disagree._

 

Yea, well I disagree. So there!
 ^_^

 I would not pay someone 4000$ unless I had the peace of mind that their equipment was up to the job.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do they do worse in low light because of the lower ISO ratings?_

 

The reason is that they have smaller sensors. They can sometimes go up to high ISOs, but the results are either noisy or smoothed over by noise reduction. Under normal situations, they're fine. They just aren't designed for extreme situations.

 The trick to point and shoots is finding one with a really good lens. They have an advantage over DSLRs in that they can be designed to perfectly match the lens built into them. DSLRs have to be able to work with any lens. If the lens on a P&S is good, the camera is usually good.

 I would recommend a good point and shoot over a cheap DSLR. At the price you are talking about, it makes sense to buy the camera you will use today, and not worry about ugrading in the future. In five years, whatever you buy will be totally obsolete anyway. (But it will still be able to take fantastic pictures.)

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the input Steve. The Olympus SP-570 UZ looks interesting as well. Becoming just a little overwhelmed with all the choices. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 EDIT: Do they do worse in low light because of the lower ISO ratings? The DMC-FZ50K only has ISO 1600 at full size, but the leica lense on it is f/2.8

 EDIT2: Henry's has a Nikon Coolpix P80 with a case and a 4GB card for $485CDN._

 

They are completely different beasts. Take your best P&S, and then even just try a D40. The D40 should blow you away. You will probably notice that the DSLR helps you take a better picture. Both because it's using:
 A) Better optics. (Did you see the size of those lenses! The shear amount of light they let in vs. a P&S says something)
 B) Better sensor. (Push a P&S into hit's 'high' ISO range, and WATCH OUT!!!. Modern DSLR's can shoot usable shoots at 1600ISO or higher.)
 C) Faster response. Push the shutter release on a DSLR and a P&S. Just try it.

 The list goes on and on, to about 100 places.

 If you have used a P&S and a DSLR, you will instantly see why the DSLR is the best choice for taking more technical (and artsy) pictures.

 The ONLY reason I would ever use anything less than a DSLR/SLR, is if size/weight were a factor. For me thankfully, it is not so much.

 Don't even get me started on battery life.
 P&S.... 60 photos or so. What a battery drain!
 D50? well over 1400 photos. Now that's something I can take on vacation.


----------



## Towert7

philodox, I should also day that you seem to be very undecided. It seems you are just looking at possibilities, without so much trying them out. Don't make a decision without seriously trying them out.

 Also, check out places like dcresource.com and see their comments and what not.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The trick to point and shoots is finding one with a really good lens._

 

That is the main reason that I'm leaning towards the Panasonic or the Leica. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_At the price you are talking about, it makes sense to buy the camera you will use today, and not worry about ugrading in the future._

 

My thoughts exactly. Thanks again for the advice. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Take your best P&S, and then even just try a D40. The D40 should blow you away. You will probably notice that the DSLR helps you take a better picture.

 If you have used a P&S and a DSLR, you will instantly see why the DSLR is the best choice for taking more technical (and artsy) pictures._

 

No offense, but did you even look at any of the camera models I was quoting? These are basically DSLRs that don't have interchangable lenses. I'm not talking about a little slide camera that you fit in your pocket. The lenses that they come with are actually quite good.

 That said, some of your points do ring true and I do realize that there are comprimises in limiting myself to one lense. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_philodox, I should also say that you seem to be very undecided. It seems you are just looking at possibilities, without so much trying them out. Don't make a decision without seriously trying them out._

 

That's the understatement of the year. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll definately try some cameras out before I settle. Just trying to get an idea of what to look at. There is so much gear out there.


----------



## jayehs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_These are basically DSLRs that don't have interchangable lenses. I'm not talking about a little slide camera that you fit in your pocket. The lenses that they come with are actually quite good._

 

I never really understood the point of getting these larger P&S like DMC-FZ50k. They are not much smaller than an SLR, costs about the same as an entry SLR. So why not get an SLR? I'm not sure what kinda sensor these P&S use but if they use small sensors like those small P&S then no they are not basically DSLR's that dont have interchangeable lenses. Sensor is the biggest limiting factor in P&S IMO. 

 I would either get an SLR or a smaller P&S... nothing in between.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jayehs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I never really understood the point of getting these larger P&S like DMC-FZ50k. They are not much smaller than an SLR, costs about the same as an entry SLR. So why not get an SLR?_

 

They have more features than the entry level SLRs and in some case better manual control. The one lense that they do come with is often of very high quality.

 How much would it cost you to buy an entry level DSLR and a top quality all rounder zoom lense with Image Stabalization? If you're not a pro, how often are you going to be reaching for other lenses with this sort of setup? If I think I could live with what the one lense that it comes with, why would I go for a DSLR over something like the DMC-FZ50k?

 I'm still doing some research on the sensors and reports of how they perform in low light as this seems to be the only real downside in my application.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jayehs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I never really understood the point of getting these larger P&S like DMC-FZ50k. They are not much smaller than an SLR, costs about the same as an entry SLR. So why not get an SLR? I'm not sure what kinda sensor these P&S use but if they use small sensors like those small P&S then no they are not basically DSLR's that dont have interchangeable lenses. Sensor is the biggest limiting factor in P&S IMO. 

 I would either get an SLR or a smaller P&S... nothing in between._

 

I can only see one major +ve about the DMC-FZ50k versus the current entry-level DSLRs: the ultra-versatile lens.
 1) It can focus to within 5cm in 'Macro Mode'
 2) Large maximum aperture - F/2.8
 3) Superb range: 35-420mm (35mm equiv)

 If you look at some test shots, the FZ50 performs wonderfully at base ISO. The resolution is very good, even better than some DSLRs. However, bump the ISO up to a few hundred and the performance goes down the drain.


----------



## philodox

Upon further reading, it seems that you actually can get three 'conversion lenses' for the DMC-FZ50k, a Tele, a Wide and a close-up. Not sure how good they are, but this at least gives you a bit of variety. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can only see one major +ve about the DMC-FZ50k versus the current entry-level DSLRs: the ultra-versatile lens._

 

That is what first attracted me to it. When you compare the f/2.8 LEICA DC VARIO-ELMARIT 12x optical zoom lense to what comes in most of the DSLR kits it starts looking very good. I don't see myself having the budget to buy a comparible lense or a slew of lenses to form that kind of range for a DSLR any time soon. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you look at some test shots, the FZ50 performs wonderfully at base ISO. The resolution is very good, even better than some DSLRs. However, bump the ISO up to a few hundred and the performance goes down the drain._

 

I've been comparing the specs of the D40 to the DMC-FZ50k and they have the same ISO sensitivity ranges. Is there really *that* big of a difference between a 10MP 1/1.8" CCD and a 6MP DX format CCD?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_one major +ve
 2) Large maximum aperture - F/2.8_

 

First off, that's hilarious that I see you type +ve. A teacher used that in class and no one understood what it meant. ^_^

 We have to be careful though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a F/2.8 on a 1.5 crop sensor is quite a bit more narrow than a F/2.8 on a 2x crop sensor. I'm not sure why this is (it really doesn't make sense to me yet), but that's what I've been told. Actually, the more that I think about it, perhaps it does make sense.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_No offense, but did you even look at any of the camera models I was quoting? These are basically DSLRs that don't have interchangable lenses. I'm not talking about a little slide camera that you fit in your pocket. The lenses that they come with are actually quite good._

 

Ohhhh, let me pull the dagger out of my back. ^_^
 No, seriously I didn't try those P&S's.
 If they are truly basically DSLR's without interchangeable lenses, then get the P&S and be done with it. You'll save 20$cnd and it'll prevent you from spending more money on camera upgrades and whatnot (thus potentially saving you 6000$cnd).

 I'll say this. I wouldn't trade in my 3 year old Nikon D50 for ANY of the current P&S's out there today. My D50 helps me enjoy photography.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If they are truly basically DSLR's without interchangeable lenses, then get the P&S and be done with it. You'll save 20$cnd and it'll prevent you from spending more money on camera upgrades and whatnot (thus potentially saving you 6000$cnd)._

 

That is exactly what I'm worrying about. I want a good camera, but I don't necissarily want a new head-fi like hobby that is going to be a huge money sink.


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 If I think I could live with what the one lense that it comes with, why would I go for a DSLR over something like the DMC-FZ50k? 
 

 Because you "think" you could live with the one lens? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You seem to have made up your mind that this is the route you'd prefer to take, and that's fine. If you're not as enthusiastic about eeking out better quality photos from your camera equipment as you are about the sound from your audio equipment (there is a huge selection of phones and amps that cost and perform less than the equipment I've seen you with, but you chose to go beyond that), then you won't get the urge to upgrade in the near future. I think that those of us who seem to be pushing you in the DSLR direction are taking upgraditis, which definitely exists in photography, into consideration. The nice thing about upgrading a DSLR, is that you can leap-frog .... the better lenses you buy in the future for your entry level body, can be used with a future body upgrade .... be that in 6 months or years.

 You're right, you can't get ( at least not buying new ) the same features like massive zoom range and vibration reduction in even an entry level DSLR for the same money. But, like most electronics these days, you get what you pay for. So for a manufacturer to be able to give you those extra features at a certain price, they have to give up something ... and that's generally flexibility, expandability, and a certain amount of quality.

 Everyone has different priorities and tolerance levels to upgraditis, so ultimately it's your decision which way to go. If you're just getting your feet wet in photography, then a lesser initial dollar investment is probably the way to start. The cameras you're mentioning offer way more than the tiny, slip-in-your-pocket models, and any major difference in picture quality between them and an entry-level DSLR should only be noticable in larger prints/screen shots.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're right, you can't get ( at least not buying new ) the same features like massive zoom range and vibration reduction in even an entry level DSLR for the same money. But, like most electronics these days, you get what you pay for. So for a manufacturer to be able to give you those extra features at a certain price, they have to give up something ... and that's generally flexibility, expandability, and a certain amount of quality._

 

This is my main conundrum... it is hard to get the 'best' in anything if you don't have unlimited funds. Just trying to figure out what will be the better compromise/sacrifice.

 Also, I'm hoping that this *wont* turn into another hobby like audio... so I almost appreciate the limits that one of these quasi-SLR point and shoots impose upon my wallet.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is exactly what I'm worrying about. I want a good camera, but I don't necissarily want a new head-fi like hobby that is going to be a huge money sink. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It's very true. I think I've invested about 3500$us into my camera equipment. That's about as much as I've spent into my audio hobby.

 I started out with the most awful P&S's you've ever seen. But, I enjoyed taking pictures of my fish, or my computer. Then I upgraded my P&S to another P&S, and it was still a piece of junk. But I started taking more pictures for the fun of it. Started to do sunsets and landscapes out of my room window. I averaged about 20 pictures in 6 months at that point.
 Then I went to work for a job that required me to take many (albeit nothing fancy) pictures of equipment. I started using my Dad's mega zoom Olympus P&S, and that was a pain. The lens was relatively large compared to P&S's, but it couldn't go up to very high ISO and the lens was still not taking in a lot of light. I finally got fed up with having to setup the camera on a tripod each time and sprang for a budget DSLR (at the time, it was the first sub 1000$ DSLR). I was so impressed! I didn't need a tripod anymore. I just set it to ISO400, and took pictures. Noise wasn't even noticeable. That's when you start to see the benefit of having a larger lens (even the kit 18-55 lens!). The pictures also looked a fair bit better just in auto mode.
 I also loved how fast the Auto Focus was. Click and take the picture! With all the P&S's, it has to do this whole contrast based AF and whatnot, and it takes a very long time at times. Not fun.

 Well, I purchased the DSLR for work, but I also started taking a LOT more pictures because it was much more fun. It was easier to take pictures, less of a hassle, and I was getting better pictures out of it even on auto mode.

 I went from taking on average 30 or so pictures a semester to taking about 5000 or so. I think I've had it for about 3 years now, and have something like over 36,000 pictures on it.
 So, as you can see, I'm biased.


 dcresource sometimes does reviews of cameras, and at the end of the review they have a photo gallery. In the review itself they also usually compare high iso performance. Make sure you take a look at the reviews of some of the cameras you are considering and compare the images to something like a D40/D90.

 It'll be interesting to see what you end up with.


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 I'm hoping that this *wont* turn into another hobby like audio... 
 

Good luck with that.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It'll be interesting to see what you end up with._

 

Oh, probably a Hasselblad H3D and one less kidney at the rate I am flip-flopping. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 EDIT: Thanks for the camera journey story btw. That helps. Though, I have to respectfully disagree on your "most awful P&S camera" designation... unless you too have had the unique 'pleasure' of owning a camera produced by Creative. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Good luck with that. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Good luck with that. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

x3 on that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




!

 What started out as a necessity for my reviews has now turned into a hobby. I am glad it did though because the lessons learned about framing and composition helps me with my drawings (understanding perspective) and lots of other stuff. Since I am studying Design & Innovation (Master in civil engineering) at the Technical University of Denmark this kind of knowledge is invaluable. I still find photography interesting and challenging which is great, a very rewarding hobby if you get a feel for it.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I disagree. You don't have to have pro gear to be a pro photographer.

 I can understand some (IE 70-200 f2.8), but I've seen plenty of pro wedding photographers without pro lenses (non Canon L primes such as 28 f2.8, 50 f1.4) and they take amazing pictures._

 

In most instances, yes. In a wedding, no. Lighting is often poor or mediocre, getting the best shots is often a matter of timing and being able to get stuff done quick (which means no AF hunting or slow shutter speeds causing subject blur), and, most importantly of all, _you only get one chance_.

 If I was going in for a portrait session and the photographer had a consumer zoom, I'd give him his chance since if he misses something the shot can always be re-done. If I was hiring someone to do architectural shooting, I'd let them use whatever they want as they can compose the shots, get stuff done, whatever. But a wedding is a one-shot deal - you get it or you don't. And with as much as a good photographer costs, I'm not leaving such things up to someone with less than optimal gear. Fast glass and a decent flash setup are a must.


----------



## philodox

RE: DMC-FZ50k

 Turns out that you only get maybe 350 pictures with the LCD on per charge, so that's a big difference. Also, I'm wondering if the 2" screen is going to be big enough... though the ability to reorient the screen looks usefull.

 *sigh*


----------



## mbriant

If you do go the P&S route, at the very least, make sure it has the capability to easily attach an external flash. (pc connection and/or hotshoe) .... also check that the manufacturer offers an external flash and sync cord that will allow you to use all the auto features of your camera with an external system flash). While the built-in flash is handy in a pinch, it does have some drawbacks such as limited power, inability to use bounce flash, and most important, causing red-eye. The red-eye (flickering pre-flash) reduction feature on flashes is very distracting to the subject, and often doesn't work anyway. Post production red-eye removal is not perfect either, and often leaves the subject with huge black pupils. The only way to guarantee no red-eye is to either bounce the flash off the ceiling/wall or better still, use an external flash mounted high on a flash bracket. This also offers the benefit of more pleasing, natural-looking lighting.

 This isn't something you'd necessarily need right away, because you won't always need or want flash, but it's one of those things that down the road you'll realize means a real difference.


----------



## jayehs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Good luck with that. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Why do you think i put up my RS1 for sale 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think you should buy both P&S and dslr and see which one you like


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They are completely different beasts. Take your best P&S, and then even just try a D40. The D40 should blow you away._

 

A couple of comments... A few posts back, I linked to a thread that mentioned a point and shoot that outperforms a Canon DSLR. There are several reasons for this, principle among them the fact that optics in better quality point and shoots are matched to the sensor. It's a lot easier to create a tack sharp lens with a huge focal length range for a small image sensor than it is for a large one. All that glass makes it harder, not easier to get good optical quality. Also, focus is more critical with DSLRs with large aperture lenses than it is with P&S cameras that are designed to shoot one stop down (usually around 5.6) rather than the f8-11 that most DSLR lenses are optimized for.

 The main difference, aside from accessories and lenses, between P&S and DSLR is the low light performance. They both shoot great images.

 Neither DSLRs nor point and shoots are any better for creating artistic images. Artistry is 100% in the eye of the photographer, not in the equipment they use. I've seen beautiful photos taken with cameras in cell phones and Goodwill bin cameras.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is exactly what I'm worrying about. I want a good camera, but I don't necissarily want a new head-fi like hobby that is going to be a huge money sink. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That's easy. Just focus on taking pictures, not accumulating equipment. I think a good point and shoot is more than enough to keep you busy for many years. A P&S is the perfect compromise between the ease of use and portability of a pocket camera and the flexibility of a DSLR. Battery life is not an issue, and the screen is just for composing. I think you're on the right track with the DMC-FZ50k. You could get a lot of great pictures with that. You've got me seriously considering that camera to replace my Olympus C3030.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 I'm pretty jacked, I just bought my first film SLR, a chrome Nikon FE. It should be here later this week!
 __________________ 
 

You should be....they're great cameras....and a bargain thanks to the digital revolution. I've still got an FM, FE, and FE2 I've had since the early 80's. (I had another FE2 as well and several lenses which I lent to a fellow head-fier a few years ago and never got back) I haven't used any of them for several years, but they all still look and work like new.


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yea, well I disagree. So there!
 ^_^

 I would not pay someone 4000$ unless I had the peace of mind that their equipment was up to the job._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In most instances, yes. In a wedding, no. Lighting is often poor or mediocre, getting the best shots is often a matter of timing and being able to get stuff done quick (which means no AF hunting or slow shutter speeds causing subject blur), and, most importantly of all, you only get one chance.

 If I was going in for a portrait session and the photographer had a consumer zoom, I'd give him his chance since if he misses something the shot can always be re-done. If I was hiring someone to do architectural shooting, I'd let them use whatever they want as they can compose the shots, get stuff done, whatever. But a wedding is a one-shot deal - you get it or you don't. And with as much as a good photographer costs, I'm not leaving such things up to someone with less than optimal gear. Fast glass and a decent flash setup are a must._

 

I understand that, but what it comes down to is what is pro gear? For Canon, only L's are considered pro gear? I don't know what it is for Nikon. Or the right lense for the right situation is considered pro gear?

 Because the 85 1.8 is nowhere near the build quality of the 85 1.2, but I consider the 1.8 up there and should be considered pro gear, even though it doesn't sport that red L.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think you're on the right track with the DMC-FZ50k. You could get a lot of great pictures with that. You've got me seriously considering that camera to replace my Olympus C3030._

 

Thanks again for the advice. Unless I flop back to considering a full blown DSLR, I think it is between that one and the Fujifilm Finepix S100FS. Also considering the Leica V-Lux 1 since it is nearly identical to the Panasonic with Leica styling and I can get it locally for $680CDN after rebate. I can't seem to find anywhere local that sells the Panasonic, but it is listed for $540CDN on ebay.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Upon further reading, it seems that you actually can get three 'conversion lenses' for the DMC-FZ50k, a Tele, a Wide and a close-up. Not sure how good they are, but this at least gives you a bit of variety.That is what first attracted me to it. When you compare the f/2.8 LEICA DC VARIO-ELMARIT 12x optical zoom lense to what comes in most of the DSLR kits it starts looking very good._

 

Ignore whatever jargon manufactures tag on to their lens. It may have a Leica badge, but then again, I don't think Leica were ever famous for their zoom lenses. The large F/2.8 aperture is good, though. Also, I would want to look into the focus speed of the DMC-FZ50. It's insanely annoying when the focus hunts back and forwards for a second or two before it 'locks'. Combine that with a shutter lag and you'll find yourself missing shots. Since the FZ50 is one of the better "point 'n shoots", it may not be so terrible.

 DSLRs tend to focus much quicker, but I have encountered at least one which isn't quite up to scratch: Pentax K10D. I was shooting with one last night (w/ 50/1.7) and the focus hunts quite a bit.

 Another area where DSLRs would be superior is metering accuracy. Quite a few DSLRs have very sophisticated metering systems. The latest and greatest Nikons have thousand-pixel sensors that meter pretty much across the whole frame. Even the size of the center-weighted point can be adjusted
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 I don't see myself having the budget to buy a comparible lense or a slew of lenses to form that kind of range for a DSLR any time soon.I've been comparing the specs of the D40 to the DMC-FZ50k and they have the same ISO sensitivity ranges. Is there really *that* big of a difference between a 10MP 1/1.8" CCD and a 6MP DX format CCD? 
 

The DX format CCD/CMOS is _much larger_: 15.8 x 23.6mm. The 1/1.8" CCD is only 5.3 x 7.2mm. While there is a lot more to a sensor than just size, the size of each photo-diode/sensor/pixel generally determines how much noise there is in picture, ie larger photodiode = higher S/N ratio.

 On a DX/APS-C CMOS sensor like the one on my D300, I will be able to achieve cleaner pictures (higher S/N ratio) at ISO1600 (or even 3200 if the exposure is perfect) than a FZ50 at 400. That's at least three times as much light with the same aperture and shutter speed. On a full frame/FX CMOS sensor like the one in the D700/D3, the performance is even more insane: ISO 6400 looks better than ISO 2000/3200 on my D300.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_First off, that's hilarious that I see you type +ve. A teacher used that in class and no one understood what it meant. ^_^_

 

Haha. It was totally subconscious, and I wouldn't even claim to be any good at mathematics!
  Quote:


 We have to be careful though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a F/2.8 on a 1.5 crop sensor is quite a bit more narrow than a F/2.8 on a 2x crop sensor. I'm not sure why this is (it really doesn't make sense to me yet), but that's what I've been told. Actually, the more that I think about it, perhaps it does make sense. 
 

I have read that too, but honestly, it doesn't make a difference to my shooting so I haven't really bothered trying to understand this 'phenomenon'.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In most instances, yes. In a wedding, no. Lighting is often poor or mediocre, getting the best shots is often a matter of timing and being able to get stuff done quick (which means no AF hunting or slow shutter speeds causing subject blur), and, most importantly of all, you only get one chance.

 ... Fast glass and a decent flash setup are a must._

 

In fact, the newest Nikon pro glass - eg 24-70/2.8 - focusses even faster than my 50/1.4 AF-D!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_RE: DMC-FZ50k

 Turns out that you only get maybe 350 pictures with the LCD on per charge, so that's a big difference. Also, I'm wondering if the 2" screen is going to be big enough... though the ability to reorient the screen looks usefull.

 *sigh*_

 

Screen size is not as important as screen resolution. 350 pictures per charge is pretty poor though 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Is that with flash? I was just at a wedding the other day and I shot 380~ (RAW+JPEG) photos, all flashed (some +EV compensated) with a lot of viewing in between. My battery was around half way.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I understand that, but what it comes down to is what is pro gear? For Canon, only L's are considered pro gear? I don't know what it is for Nikon. Or the right lense for the right situation is considered pro gear?

 Because the 85 1.8 is nowhere near the build quality of the 85 1.2, but I consider the 1.8 up there and should be considered pro gear, even though it doesn't sport that red L._

 

Your typical wedding photographer is not going to be using primes, they are going to be using zooms. Again, you CAN'T miss a shoot by changing lenses, and it is only practical to carry two cameras at the same time.
 Usually you'll find the pro wedding photographers using the 70-200 F/2.8, and the 24-70mm F/2.8, whether 1.5x crop or not. They will have the best camera with the best high ISO performance, because sometimes you're not allowed to use a flash. ETC

 Some wedding photographers try and specialize in a certain 'type' of photography, whether it be film B&W, or other such thing in which case they may only use primes. However, that is not the norm. Some wedding photographers work as a team. One captures the typical shoots, while another tries for more artsy shots.

 You'll also find the pros will be using pro flashes with quick recharge packs, etc etc.
 Some even bring their own assistant to hold the reflector or whatnot........... but that's talking very professional.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some even bring their own assistant to hold the reflector or whatnot........... but that's talking very professional._

 

Reflectors, monopods, soft boxes, light meters, white-balance 'jobbies', step-ladders... the full monty
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 It's fun watching them hobble around with a few kilograms of gear


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A couple of comments... A few posts back, I linked to a thread that mentioned a point and shoot that outperforms a Canon DSLR. There are several reasons for this, principle among them the fact that optics in better quality point and shoots are matched to the sensor. It's a lot easier to create a tack sharp lens with a huge focal length range for a small image sensor than it is for a large one. All that glass makes it harder, not easier to get good optical quality. Also, focus is more critical with DSLRs with large aperture lenses than it is with P&S cameras that are designed to shoot one stop down (usually around 5.6) rather than the f8-11 that most DSLR lenses are optimized for.

 The main difference, aside from accessories and lenses, between P&S and DSLR is the low light performance. They both shoot great images.

 Neither DSLRs nor point and shoots are any better for creating artistic images. Artistry is 100% in the eye of the photographer, not in the equipment they use. I've seen beautiful photos taken with cameras in cell phones and Goodwill bin cameras.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I'll agree with everything you said, and I'll add that there are some things that I find a SLR makes easier. I find it easier to have a quick auto focus. I like the lack of shutter lag. I find it better to hold the camera against my face. I find I can change settings MUCH quicker on the D50. I don't have to go through menu after menu to change a setting. I simply hold a button and flick the dial a few clicks. I can adjust to the lighting conditions within about 10 seconds, whereas digging through menu after menu to change these settings would take me a long time with a P&S. It becomes a pain.
 My DSLR feels better in my hand. Feels like less of a toy, and I get a better grip on it. It helps me hold it. I like, as you said, the superior iso performance. I like the infinity superior battery life. Charging batteries is a nightmare, and is one of the great things about DSLR's that I'm so happy about. I like how easy it is to go into manual focus and focus using my fingers instead of pushing buttons. I also like how I can manually zoom without needing to push buttons. (granted, _some_ do have this now)

 Now, because of these things, I don't care if a P&S outperforms a DSLR, I'll still take the DSLR. It will make taking pictures much more of a pleasure for me. The camera will get in my way a lot less than the P&S. The DSLR will also give me a much greater flexibility for possible upgrades. 

 Because of this, I claim the DSLR outperforms the P&S as a camera in general.
 Like I said, there is no P&S I would rather have over my D50.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks again for the advice. Unless I flop back to considering a full blown DSLR, I think it is between that one and the Fujifilm Finepix S100FS. Also considering the Leica V-Lux 1 since it is nearly identical to the Panasonic with Leica styling and I can get it locally for $680CDN after rebate. I can't seem to find anywhere local that sells the Panasonic, but it is listed for $540CDN on ebay._

 

Hm, Leica V-Lux 1 for 680$cdn,
 or Nikon D40 with 18-135mm for 700$cdn 
 ( NIKON D40 DSLR W/ NIKON 18-135 LENS )
 hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 Anyone who chooses the Leica over the Nikon deserves what they get. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## milkpowder

What's special about the Leica version?


----------



## philodox

Nothing much. Its been tweaked a bit and looks better. Not really worth the premium, but I was considering it since there is currently a $250 rebate on them and I can't seem to find anywhere that carries the Panasonic.

 Towert7 - There are benefits to either choice. The D40 isn't a universally superior camera... though obviously you have a strong preference.


----------



## milkpowder

Ah I see. I would buy it for the coveted Leica badge
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Honest!


----------



## philodox

Well... there's that too. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 It is still $100 more expensive than it would be to ebay a new Panasonic though.


----------



## dj_mocok

Actually Leica Digilux has very very good colour and contrast out of the box. Impressive actually. But apart from that, it's a very very slow camera.


----------



## milkpowder

Slow to focus? That would be a deal-killer for any vaguely serious photographer.


----------



## philodox

The Digilux is a different camera, but that is definately something to investigate.


----------



## bigshot

I've done a little reading on the Panasonic DMC-FZ50k. It is VERY fast at startup, focusing and between shots. The Lumix has a TTL hot shoe for external flash, image stabilization, great color, ergonomic menus, fast startup and focus, it shoots movies and RAW, and has good battery life. Comparing it to an entry level DSLR like the D40, you would need to spend a LOT more to get the equivalent focal length range that the lens built into the Lumix provides. (35-420mm equivalent with f2.8-3.7!) For an all in one compact alternative to a DSLR, the Lumix can't be beat.

 It has one drawback compared to a DSLR... high ISO performance. The small sensor that makes it easier to create a 12x zoom with terrific optical quality, makes for more noise in low light. But the lens is relatively fast, and along with the image stabilization, it makes up for the lack of low light performance with an extra couple of f stops over most kit lenses. It will shoot MUCH better handheld in relatively low light than any 35mm camera.

 For an advanced amateur, the Lumix is more than enough camera to take great pictures. In full daylight and with a flash, it can shoot just as good images as a DSLR. From what I've seen about this camera, it's a drop dead bargain for the price. I wouldn't pay a penny more for the Leica version.

 If you're tired of shopping around, philodox, I think you've found a great camera there.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you're tired of shopping around, philodox, I think you've found a great camera there._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *towert7* 
_Anyone who chooses the Leica/panasonic over the Nikon deserves what they get. I'll leave it at that._

 

I post this again.
 Inside, I both laugh and cry.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I post this again.
 Inside, I both laugh and cry._

 

Haha. Good to know that you're like me - a die-hard Nikon fanatic. I would take my camera over _any_ point and shoot even if I was just limited to one lens, my favourite - the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Speed, accuracy, responsiveness, high ISO performance, pixel quality, ease of use, customisability, ergonomics, durability, reliability, etc... It's an _absolute dream_ to use! Boy am I happy whenever I shoot with it. It's even gotten to the point that I sometimes have it next to me when I sleep
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Haha


----------



## mightyacorn

philodox, I've read some of your posts on which camera to choose. Have you defined what you want this camera to do?

 If you want that all in one camera and not bother about multiple lenses, a Panasonic DMC FZ50 or similar camera may do the job- as long as size is not an issue.

 Found it at McBain for $549.


----------



## mbriant

This in-depth review even compares the Panasonic to an entry level Canon SLR. It pretty much sums up everything both sides of this argument have been saying. I don't think much more can be said.

Panasonic DMC-FZ50 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

 Now perhaps we should get back to discussing Nikon products in this thread. It is after all titled: *The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)*


----------



## philodox

Sorry for taking over the thread guys. I'll be sure to pop in once I've made my decision and let you know. Thanks again to everyone for all the help.

 EDIT: Thanks for the link mightyacorn. Looks like that store is in Sherwood Park... which is incidentally where I am going for my Christmas holidays. A sign perhaps? I wonder if they do boxing day sales?


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've honestly never heard of someone using autofocus for macro with a macro lens...._

 

I'm certainly not an accomplished macro shooter, but, for whatever it's worth, every single shot I've shot with the Canon EF-S 60mm macro f/2.8 was with its autofocus.

 Some examples:

Flickr Photo Download: IMG_0792_EDIT02

Flickr Photo Download: Bee At Work

Flickr Photo Download: Flies mating.

Flickr Photo Download: Butterfly working his proboscis

Flickr Photo Download: IMG_4588

Flickr Photo Download: IMG_4517

 I found that lens focused very fast, and, in servo mode, I used it to keep bugs in focus that were on flowers or plants that were moving in the wind. Is this an expert's technique? I have no idea, but I imagine not--I simply didn't think to use manual focus; and, again, that lens focused very quickly for me. (Since I switched to Nikon, I'll be putting that lens, and the 10-22mm super-wide-angle for sale here soon, by the way.)

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_....Edit: Also, just wondering...Why did you go for the D300 over the D90? The D90 is cheaper, has the D300's sensor, and offers a lot more bare functionality (such as ADR)._

 

I had actually used a friend's D300 and wanted one badly since. And, specifically, there's the build; the autofocus; the metering; the speed (I occasionally shoot action, and, with the grip, one gets up to 8 fps); the lens-specific focus fine adjustment; the bracketing; etc. I actually like its heft (just as I did the 40D's relative to the XSi). Also, the D300 has the dust and moisture resistance to go along with the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8, so they're a durable pair. The D90 does look like a _very _nice camera, but the D300 was just more what I wanted.


----------



## bigshot

The reason most people manually focus macro shots is because the depth of field is so narrow, auto focus often misses the target and focuses on something else, throwing the subject out of focus. The best is to use auto focus to get you close, then adjust manually if needed. Newer lenses will make it easy to do that at a touch without throwing a focus clutch.

 You're going to love your D300. I have a D200 and shooting with it is like butttttahhhhh. It just works, and the automation does exactly what I would do if I was shooting all manual. Smart camera.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## skyline889

Those are some beautiful macros Jude! I haven't had any luck with AF macro myself, but that's more because of my slow focusing, non-macro, 70-300mm VR than anything else.


----------



## Edwood

I almost pulled the trigger on a 70-180mm Micro-Nikkor, but I talked myself out of it with the help of a friend.

 I think I'll just wait for a decent deal for an AF-S 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor later on.


----------



## bigshot

If you don't need VR, check out the Tokina 100mm f 2.8 macro. I was looking at the 105, but realized that for the things I would be using it for (close up and formal portraits) I would be on sticks anyway. No need to pay for the VR. The optical quality and build quality are basically the same.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you don't need VR, check out the Tokina 100mm f 2.8 macro. I was looking at the 105, but realized that for the things I would be using it for (close up and formal portraits) I would be on sticks anyway. No need to pay for the VR. The optical quality and build quality are basically the same.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Get the nikon and you'll make a better investment. Nikons hold their value better than 3'rd party lenses, and for good reason.


----------



## Edwood

I had the opportunity to try a Micro-Nikkor 105 VR in person, and the VR really does make a difference for handheld shots.


----------



## SorenThorvaldsen

I agree the VS does actually work. To what degree is somewhat different...sometimes 1FS sometimes even 3FS...guess it depens on your shooting style (how still can you hold your camera


----------



## SorenThorvaldsen

I have been using a Tamron 17-55/2.8 together with my Nikon D80 and I experinced that almost every time the camera did a automtic turn-off....pressing the shutter-button did only wake up the camera itself but not the lens; I had to completly turn off the camera and the on again before the lens worked again. I have had the camera switch and the lens switched but it seems to be a bug in the Tamron lens (known to Nikon Denmark).
 I am now using the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX and it work very well indeed


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SorenThorvaldsen* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have been using a Tamron 17-55/2.8 together with my Nikon D80 and I experinced that almost every time the camera did a automtic turn-off....pressing the shutter-button did only wake up the camera itself but not the lens; I had to completly turn off the camera and the on again before the lens worked again. I have had the camera switch and the lens switched but it seems to be a bug in the Tamron lens (known to Nikon Denmark).
 I am now using the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX and it work very well indeed _

 

The chance you risk using a 3'rd party lens.


----------



## SorenThorvaldsen

At 35mm and stopping down to f8 and compare the 17-55 to the 18-55 doesn't surprise me that you don't find them to be much different. I guess you'll need to evaluate the lens' at max appeture and look at the corner sharpness to see the real difference. also you need to look at how the lens behaves when it comes to flare, ghosting, abbreation...etc...sharpness is important but not everything


----------



## dj_mocok

Took this yesterday. 

 D80 + 85mm f/1.4

 Lizard of Oz.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Took this yesterday. 

 D80 + 85mm f/1.4

 Lizard of Oz. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 [IMp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/dj_mocok/lizard.jpg[/IMG]_

 

No offense man, but I really don't get the humor in these intentionally subpar pictures.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No offense man, but I really don't get the humor in these intentionally subpar pictures._

 

2x.
 It almost looks like dj_mocok is taking a shot at Nikon.
 Not a nice thing to do in the nikon thread...


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No offense man, but I really don't get the humor in these intentionally subpar pictures._

 

What's so subpar in the picture?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What's so subpar in the picture?_

 

what in the picture isn't subpar?
 seriously


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what in the picture isn't subpar?
 seriously_

 

He doesn't know why you are criticizing his photo.

 dj_mocok, most of the photo seems to be out of focus.


----------



## dj_mocok

Geez, I didn't know I have to post only nice pictures around here! Out of focus is my forte, man. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Okay how about this one? I found this guy floating around near the surface of the water yesterday next to the opera house. I'm not sure what fish this was, but I have to say it's one ugly fish. It didn't move much if not at all and just floated there. Didn't look dead but didn't look so alive either... It's actually quite large, I think at least 40cm long.


----------



## Meta-Fi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what in the picture isn't subpar?
 seriously_

 

lolol
 harsh. maybe it's a form of blurred artistic expression?


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Meta-Fi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_lolol
 harsh. maybe it's a form of blurred artistic expression?_

 

Yes. Blurry is good.


----------



## Arainach

Slightly out of focus can be good in portraits ("soft focus"), but for most shots it's detrimental. The shot you posted is an example of that. In fact, I'm baffled as to how the heck you pulled it off since the 85 f/1.4 is incredibly sharp - even wide open it's a LOT sharper than that picture.


----------



## milkpowder

I'm sure dj_mocok was merely 'taking the piss'


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 Get the nikon and you'll make a better investment. Nikons hold their value better than 3'rd party lenses, and for good reason. 
 

While I agree with you on zoom lenses, this is not the case with macros. 3rd party macros are every bit as good as Nikons at a cheaper price. They have to be. I don't care how much my Tamron 90mm is worth compared to a Nikon, there is no need to sell it. I don't buy lenses as investments, I buy them to take pictures.


----------



## dj_mocok

Actually I bought the Tamron macro over Nikon because to me the bokeh is better than Nikon's 105mm.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_3rd party macros are every bit as good as Nikons at a cheaper price. They have to be. I don't care how much my Tamron 90mm is worth compared to a Nikon, there is no need to sell it. I don't buy lenses as investments, I buy them to take pictures._

 

What ever helps you sleep at night.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Get the nikon and you'll make a better investment. Nikons hold their value better than 3'rd party lenses, and for good reason._

 

If you are going to actually use your lens, resale value is totally moot. Resale is only important to "collectors" who churn their equipment to keep up with the latest and greatest. If you're more interested in just shooting great pictures, the better advice is to buy the tool that works for you and don't spend more than you have to.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No offense man, but I really don't get the humor in these intentionally subpar pictures._

 

He's just starting out. Give him a break.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I found this guy floating around near the surface of the water yesterday next to the opera house. I'm not sure what fish this was, but I have to say it's one ugly fish._

 

Wow! He looks like an ex prize fighter with that smashed up nose! That may be the missing link between fish and birds!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you are going to actually use your lens, resale value is totally moot._

 

Speak for yourself.
 I on the other hand want to know that if the need ever arises where I want to sell my lens, I will be getting as much as possibly. I want my lens to retain as much value as possible.

 After all, who wants to buy a used sigma? :shudder:
 I know I don't want to. Much rather have the nikon or canon.


----------



## dvessel

IMO, the value of anything is what you get back out of it. It could be resale value, it could be taking great photos and getting great enjoyment. Or even better, getting paid but if you value the former more then there might be better things to invest in. Something that actually goes up in value? Comic books, stamps, etc..? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Nothing wrong with third party lenses and the future value is never guaranteed. Once people know that first party lenses aren't always the best choice you may not get back as much money as you thought.

 I'm partly talking out my ass as I don't know how the value goes up/down but I wonder what real pros use. Strictly Nikon or Canon? Anything that's given to them by said companies. Do they even have any weight in what amateurs buy? I digress..

 Brand recognition will always play a factor but if you know your tools and its limitations, why buy into that? If Nikon works for you, then great. If it comes at the cost of overlooking great alternatives, then it's your loss. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 BTW, I don't baby my stuff so resale value always plummets. If I'm going to use it, I'll use it without worries. When I hear "resale value", I always think about collectors not getting full enjoyment on what it is intended to do. Not saying it's the case here.. Just saying.

 I guess I'm saying that I agree with bigshot.


----------



## Towert7

It comes down to what type of a person you are, and how you live.
 I'll take the BMW over the Ford Taurus, just as I take the Nikkors over the sigmas.
 If you think about if for a while, it's the same thing. Yes, it really is the same thing bigshot (that's a preemptive shhhh) .

 ^_^


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What ever helps you sleep at night._

 

This pretty much sums up the thread lately. Everybody has their own priorities and as long as you don't lose sleep, it's ok. The justification for your purchases are your own. As long as you're happy whether taking blurry photos or using 3rd party lenses, so be it.

 I avoid these kinds of conflicts just by owning all of them. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 1st party, 3rd party, expensive, cheap, Canon, Nikon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Fun stuff. It's all good.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This pretty much sums up the thread lately. Everybody has their own priorities and as long as you don't lose sleep, it's ok. The justification for your purchases are your own. As long as you're happy whether taking blurry photos or using 3rd party lenses, so be it.

 I avoid these kinds of conflicts just by owning all of them. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 1st party, 3rd party, expensive, cheap, Canon, Nikon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Fun stuff. It's all good. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

LOL, kind of like owning different headphones.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LOL, kind of like owning different headphones. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Exactly. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And equally as budget devastating. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Hide the wallets.

 Sometimes there's a gem item in a "cheaper" brand as well as duds in a more "expensive" brand.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This pretty much sums up the thread lately. Everybody has their own priorities and as long as you don't lose sleep, it's ok. The justification for your purchases are your own. As long as you're happy whether taking blurry photos or using 3rd party lenses, so be it.

 I avoid these kinds of conflicts just by owning all of them. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 1st party, 3rd party, expensive, cheap, Canon, Nikon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Fun stuff. It's all good. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

No kidding, if it does what I want, I don't really care.


----------



## Edwood

LOL, I nearly pulled the trigger on a Micro-Nikkor 70-180mm. 

 Thankfully, Iron_Dreamer helped me talk myself out of it.

 -Ed


----------



## lan

What's wrong with that lens? Too slow to be general purpose?


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What's wrong with that lens? Too slow to be general purpose?_

 

Only thing wrong with it is that it costs an average of $1500 used on eBay and I just wouldn't use it enough to justify the price. Now if I were a Pro, I'd buy it in a second.

 Heck, I spent over $3K on my Wacom Cintiq without even flinching, because I knew it would pay for itself quickly. And it did.


----------



## dj_mocok

So Edwood, can a regular LCD like the likes of Viewsonics able to display proper Adobe RGB? I thought you probably know this kind of stuff...


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Only thing wrong with it is that it costs an average of $1500 used on eBay and I just wouldn't use it enough to justify the price. Now if I were a Pro, I'd buy it in a second.

 Heck, I spent over $3K on my Wacom Cintiq without even flinching, because I knew it would pay for itself quickly. And it did._

 

Wow that is a good chunk of change. I just use a zoom lens plus extension tube.

 It's always different when you're a pro. You can even go medium format just fine.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Speak for yourself._

 

I always do. By the way, Sigma makes some excellent lenses that sell used for quite close to the same price as new. The difference is mostly the value of the four year warranty.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I avoid these kinds of conflicts just by owning all of them. 1st party, 3rd party, expensive, cheap, Canon, Nikon_

 

Me too. I get the tool that does the job and then I use it. I'd rather spend more time wearing my equipment out using it than sitting on the couch polishing the gold lettering on it with a microfiber cloth or checking ebay to see how much the current resale value is. I certainly don't judge the quality of a photographer by the cost of the equipment in his bag. That's level zero on Ken Rockwell's chart.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Me too. Ken Rockwell.[/URL]_

 

Oh no, you commited the 0'th crime! You mentioned Ken Rockwell in the nikon forum! SHAME!
 Let me know when the flame gets over.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_By the way, Sigma makes some excellent lenses_

 

I have yet to see one 'excellent' lens from sigma. They all feel cheap, which they are.
 I shudder every time I hear the word sigma.
 ^_^


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_

 I have yet to see one 'excellent' lens from sigma. They all feel cheap, which they are.
 I shudder every time I hear the word sigma.
 ^_^_

 

My 30mm f/1.4 Sigma's mostly metal body feels a lot more expensive than the mostly plastic bodies of most of their prime lenses, including the 50mm f/1.4, 35mm f/2, and even the newer AF-S 50mm f/1.4 which was a huge disappointment for me.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

The Sigma 10-20 is decidely better feeling in hand than the counterpart Nikkor 12-24, which has loose control rings, and a more plastic-y feeling body. The 50-150 is an extremely nice feeling lens, and Nikon doesn't build an equivalent.

 I can only add that I generally enjoy the finish and feel of Sigma lenses, or I wouldn't own three of them. I'm not sure how the non-EX lenses feel, but all the EX lenses I've handed have been quite nice. I also sold off my Nikkor 35 f2 and 35-70 f2.8 as didn't offer any significant image quality advantage over the Sigma 24-60 f2.8, which has usability advantages (focus doesn't rotate the filter thread, bayonet hood vs. screw-in, common 77mm filter).

 I don't doubt that Sigma have made some crappy lenses in the past, as they seem to have quite a reputation to overcome. But these days they seem to make quite a few fine lenses, and unique lenses that the likes of Canon and Nikon don't. I've had no problems with sample variation, and they are reported to have a very quick turnaround when such issues come up.

 In the end, I've found Sigmas that can get the shot I want, and generally in a cheaper, more convenient, and IMO better handling package than what I could get from Nikon. FWIW I might as soon had the Tokina versions of the Sigmas I now own, as they have even more impressive build quality, but their reputation for bad flare and CA performance killed that for me.


----------



## Arainach

.....whaaaaat? I'm not going to deny that third-party makers can make great-feeling lenses - my Tokina 12-24 is one of the best lenses I've ever owned for any system - but the Sigma 10-20 feels small, fragile, and decidedly unconvincing. Both the Nikon and Tokina offerings feel decidedly more secure in my hands.


----------



## laxx

Tokina in general makes the best feeling lenses of the third-party companies, often bettering Canon or Nikon.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have yet to see one 'excellent' lens from sigma. They all feel cheap, which they are._

 

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Both the Nikon and Tokina offerings feel decidedly more secure in my hands._

 

I have Nikon, Tokina and Sigma lenses in my kit, and they're all well built. If build quality is important to you, look at Tokina's AT-X line and Sigma's EX line. All three of the manufacturers make inexpensive plastic lenses too. I have one of Nikon's cheapies myself. It's a great lens for walking around with because it isn't as heavy as the sturdier lenses.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## hembergler

To change subject for a moment (this 1st party v. 3rd party debate is getting old anyway), I picked up the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D today. Although I can't autofocus with it on the D40, all I can say is _wow_. The fastest glass I had before this was the 18-55mm kit lens @ 18mm, which was f/3.5.

 The difference between f/3.5 and f/1.8 for light and DOF is incredible. I have a feeling I'll be using this one a lot


----------



## BigSurSpoon

It's a good lens and it's cheap too! I've shot quite a bit with this lens and I couldn't be happier.


----------



## laxx

I wish the Canon version was built better.


----------



## jterp7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My 30mm f/1.4 Sigma's mostly metal body feels a lot more expensive than the mostly plastic bodies of most of their prime lenses, including the 50mm f/1.4, 35mm f/2, and even the newer AF-S 50mm f/1.4 which was a huge disappointment for me._

 

care to elaborate on what's lacking with the newer af-s 1.4? I have the older 50mm 1.4 and has so far served me well, the 18-200 on the other hand...

 still looking for a fast and cheap 2.8 zoom all arounder


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My 30mm f/1.4 Sigma's mostly metal body feels a lot more expensive than the mostly plastic bodies of most of their prime lenses, including the 50mm f/1.4, 35mm f/2, and even the newer AF-S 50mm f/1.4 which was a huge disappointment for me._

 

I love my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 so much (which I originally picked up when I was using Canon) that I almost immediately picked up the Nikon-mount version when I made the big switch. (I'll be posting my Canon-mount Sigma 30mm f/1.4 in the Gear FS/T forums here later today.)

 In short, at least for the 30mm f/1.4 (which is the only Sigma lens I've personally ever tried or used), I liked it so much I bought it twice.


----------



## lan

I'm now considering the Nikon 35mm f/2.0D for a few reasons

 - I like the colors and bokeh of people's sample images
 - It's cheaper than the other options Sigma 30/1.4, Nikon 35-70 2.8
 - It's compact and light
 - It works on full frame

 I'm going to probably use it at this years NYC Halloween Parade. I like 35mm on crop cameras for people/events.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I love my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 so much (which I originally picked up when I was using Canon) that I almost immediately picked up the Nikon-mount version when I made the big switch. (I'll be posting my Canon-mount Sigma 30mm f/1.4 in the Gear FS/T forums here later today.)

 In short, at least for the 30mm f/1.4 (which is the only Sigma lens I've personally ever tried or used), I liked it so much I bought it twice._

 

How sharp is it wide-open on the D300?


----------



## OverlordXenu

lan, I LOVE my 35/2. It is easily the best Nikon lens I use. At least, for me. It is wide, fast, sharp, small, and light. Apparently the 28/2.8 is even sharper...and I don't know how that is possible.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jterp7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_care to elaborate on what's lacking with the newer af-s 1.4?_

 

Hard to say since it isn't out yet and no one has had a chance to shoot with it yet, but on paper, the Sigma has much better (and much bigger) optics. The Sigma has no vignetting problems and uses aspherical elements for better sharpness from corner to corner. The new Nikon appears to be very similar to the 30 year old design, just with AF-S focusing.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hard to say since it isn't out yet and no one has had a chance to shoot with it yet, but on paper, the Sigma has much better (and much bigger) optics. The Sigma has no vignetting problems and uses aspherical elements for better sharpness from corner to corner. The new Nikon appears to be very similar to the 30 year old design, just with AF-S focusing.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

But it has that magical Nikkor label on it. Of course it'll be better.


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How sharp is it wide-open on the D300?_

 

It's sharp enough, but certainly not as sharp as when it's stopped down a little.

 The key (for _me _anyway, and I'm still an admitted newb) when shooting f/1.4 is to either use continuous focus, or to use single-shot focus with a quick shutter firing (immediately after focus acquisition) to prevent me or the subject from moving out of the sliver-thin DOF at f/1.4.

 Even when spot-on, it's not as contrasty or sharp wide open as when stopped down. Compared to its sharpest, stopped-down settings, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 can seem a little hazy and softer, especially if you're the pixel-peeping type. Nevertheless, it's sharp enough to get good flashless shots that would otherwise be generally not doable without the big aperture.

 Here are a few shots taken with it recently. I know the white balance isn't optimized on them, but if you look at the larger versions, hopefully it'll help you understand (at least in my very novice hands) what kind of sharpness I'm getting with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 on my D300. (By the way, I think I'm in love with my D300. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)

*30mm f/1.4 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!*


----------



## milkpowder

Thanks for the samples and impressions Jude! I'm sure the USM helped, but that's probably still sharper than my Nikon 50/1.4D wide open. I have to say the (Sigma's) bokeh is not that great - polygonal highlights.

 Anyhow, I'm looking for something wider than my 50/f1.4D and the Sigma 30/f1.4 seems to fit the bill. I have shot with my dad's 35/f2D and it's _great_, but I want that extra stop of light. I've read that the 28mm AI-S f/2, f/2.8 and the AF-D f/1.4 are also very good, ie better than the current 28/2.8D. Sadly, the f/2.8 is too slow and the f/2, f/1.4 too expensive.


----------



## bigshot

The 50mm 1.4 Sigma is even sharper wide open than the 30mm is. In fact, it's almost as good at 1.4 as it is at 3.5. It's big and heavy, but it's designed to shoot wide open. If you're looking for a good portrait lens for DX, it's perfect.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the samples and impressions Jude! I'm sure the USM helped, but that's probably still sharper than my Nikon 50/1.4D wide open. I have to say the (Sigma's) bokeh is not that great - polygonal highlights.

 Anyhow, I'm looking for something wider than my 50/f1.4D and the Sigma 30/f1.4 seems to fit the bill. I have shot with my dad's 35/f2D and it's great, but I want that extra stop of light. I've read that the 28mm AI-S f/2, f/2.8 and the AF-D f/1.4 are also very good, ie better than the current 28/2.8D. Sadly, the f/2.8 is too slow and the f/2, f/1.4 too expensive._

 

I seriously don't see how f/2.8 is too slow with digital. I shoot f/2 handheld with 25, 40, 50, 64, 100, and 400 ISO film in low light...


----------



## milkpowder

I've been in situations where even F/1.4 ISO 3200 will barely cut it at my required shutter speeds. If the situations calls for it, then you will need it. If you shoot static objects in very low-light and have hands as steady as a tripod, then I guess ISO 100 and F/11 will be enough already. F/1.4 gives me one and two more stops of light compared to F/2 and F/2.8, respectively. If I shoot at F/1.4 ISO3200 and need at least 1/60 at 75mm (35mm equiv) for a good exposure, then there's precious little I can do than to double or quadruple the length of shutter speed if I have a F/2 or F/2.8 lens. Trying to track a moving object around the room at 1/30s is doable, but I can say for certain that I won't be able to do so with 100% accuracy and reproducibility at 1/15s.


----------



## jterp7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hard to say since it isn't out yet and no one has had a chance to shoot with it yet, but on paper, the Sigma has much better (and much bigger) optics. The Sigma has no vignetting problems and uses aspherical elements for better sharpness from corner to corner. The new Nikon appears to be very similar to the 30 year old design, just with AF-S focusing.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

lol I just read his post again and I think he was referring to the plastic build..not the optics


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've been in situations where even F/1.4 ISO 3200 will barely cut it at my required shutter speeds. If the situations calls for it, then you will need it. If you shoot static objects in very low-light and have hands as steady as a tripod, then I guess ISO 100 and F/11 will be enough already. F/1.4 gives me one and two more stops of light compared to F/2 and F/2.8, respectively. If I shoot at F/1.4 ISO3200 and need at least 1/60 at 75mm (35mm equiv) for a good exposure, then there's precious little I can do than to double or quadruple the length of shutter speed if I have a F/2 or F/2.8 lens. Trying to track a moving object around the room at 1/30s is doable, but I can say for certain that I won't be able to do so with 100% accuracy and reproducibility at 1/15s._

 

Where in the world do you shoot that you would need 1/15 at f/1.4 and ISO3200? Turn a light on!


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I seriously don't see how f/2.8 is too slow with digital. I shoot f/2 handheld with 25, 40, 50, 64, 100, and 400 ISO film in low light..._

 

I wouldn't suggest that f/2.8 is too slow (I now have f/2.8 from 24mm to 70mm with my favorite lens, and know that it's certainly light-gathering enough in most situations). But there are simply shots that f/1.4 gets that are flashlessly untouchable at f/2.8.


----------



## bigshot

1.4 is better at getting thin slivers of focus, which is great for portraits. For shooting in low light, it's helpful, but it still doesn't mean you can handhold shooting pictures of shoes in your closet with the door closed and the light off.

 Actually, there is a drawback to shooting with a 1.4 in extreme low light conditions, especially DX. It's almost impossible to judge depth of field issues or fine tune focus in the viewfinder. If you can up the ISO or shoot at a slower shutter speed to get a little more depth of field, it's better. That way you won't get home and find out you were *almost* properly in focus on your subject.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_1.4 is better at getting thin slivers of focus, which is great for portraits. For shooting in low light, it's helpful, but it still doesn't mean you can handhold shooting pictures of shoes in your closet with the door closed and the light off.

 Actually, there is a drawback to shooting with a 1.4 in extreme low light conditions, especially DX. It's almost impossible to judge depth of field issues or fine tune focus in the viewfinder. If you can up the ISO or shoot at a slower shutter speed to get a little more depth of field, it's better. That way you won't get home and find out you were *almost* properly in focus on your subject.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Maybe on a sigma, but all my nikons give me great AF wide open. I have not had a case yet where I was unhappy with the AF of my lens/camera combination.
 Nikon builds their lenses for their cameras, and it shows time and again.


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Maybe on a sigma, but all my nikons give me great AF wide open. I have not had a case yet where I was unhappy with the AF of my lens/camera combination.
 Nikon builds their lenses for their cameras, and it shows time and again._

 

I don't intend to speak for Steve here, but I think what he's saying is that in extreme low-light conditions, it can be more difficult to know that you've got your subject in focus, which becomes increasingly important with the paper-thin DOF that can come with f/1.4. I agree with him on this one, as even a Nikon-made 28mm f/1.4 would also have very shallow DOF at f/1.4 (especially at close distances). In other words, I think I understand what Steve is saying, and I think it applies no matter who's making the f/1.4 lens.

 As I stated earlier regarding the Sigma f/1.4 (when shooting wide open), I personally find it helpful to shoot as quickly after acquiring focus as possible, as even a tiny movement from me or the subject between focus lock and shutter actuation can result in an OOF image.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Where in the world do you shoot that you would need 1/15 at f/1.4 and ISO3200? Turn a light on!_

 

I need 1/60s, not 1/15s


----------



## bigshot

Yes, exactly what Jude said. When the focus range is so narrow, autofocus might focus on the plane of the eyebrow instead of the eye itself. No autofocus by any manufacturer is going to have ESP to know what you intend to be focusing on when the different focus zones are so close together and the depth of field is so narrow. An f 1.4 lens is entirely different in this regard than an f 2.8 lens.

 As an aside, I just got the Sigma 30 1.4 in the mail this morning and I just shot a test. It is VERY nice. There is an ever-so-tiny tendency to front focus a hair wide open at infinity on my D200, but it's not bad enough to notice unless you pixel peep. One stop down and it goes away. I can live with that. For long shots, I won't be shooting at 1.4 anyway.

 Now that I have both the 50mm 1.4 and 30mm 1.4 Sigmas, I can directly compare them. I haven't had a chance to take the 30mm out and shoot yet, but my initial impression is that the handling is identical, with a nice smooth and tight focus adjustment and sturdy build quality. The 50mm is larger, but that's to be expected, because it works with FF, not just DX like the 30mm. The 50mm is also a little bit sharper in the corners wide open, which again makes sense because it's a FF lens.

 Very nice lenses. Exactly what I was looking for to complete my kit... Tokina 11-16 2.8, Nikon 18-55 VR, Nikon 18-200 VR, Sigma 30mm 1.4, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tokina 100mm macro 2.8. I covered it in six.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 As an aside, I just got the Sigma 30 1.4 in the mail this morning and I just shot a test. It is VERY nice. 
 

Post a picture. It can't be worse than dj_mocok's


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_....An f 1.4 lens is entirely different in this regard than an f 2.8 lens...._

 

Agreed.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_....As an aside, I just got the Sigma 30 1.4 in the mail this morning and I just shot a test. It is VERY nice...._

 

Again, I first had it for the Canon, switched to Nikon, and _had _to get the Nikon-mount version. Yes, I'd love to be able to spring for the now-legendary (and discontinued) Nikkor 28mm f/1.4, but it's so far out of my budget that I know that's not going to happen.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_....Very nice lenses. Exactly what I was looking for to complete my kit... Tokina 11-16 2.8, Nikon 18-55 VR, Nikon 18-200 VR, Sigma 30mm 1.4, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Tokina 100mm macro 2.8. I covered it in six...._

 

Wow, Steve, that's a nice half-dozen you've got there. I'd like to someday add the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 and the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR to get me from 14mm to 200mm f/2.8 all the way through. Given their prices, however, I can't see adding either of them anytime soon. I was reading on DPreview that there's rumor of a possible update to the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR in 2009, so I'm curious to know how true that ends up being. I think one of my more immediately obtainable (and affordable) lenses will be either the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Micro (macro) or the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro--I'd like a dedicated macro lens, and want to be able to get my shots without getting as close to my targets as I had to with the Canon shooting the 60mm f/2.8 EF-S macro. So my kit could be well rounded with this very pricey collection of five total lenses. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 (And I think all but the Sigma 30mm would be full-frame capable, should _that_ decision ever be made in the future.)


----------



## bigshot

OK. Here ya go...





Full resolution version

 This is just pointing the camera out the front door in midday light. But it'll give you the idea. I'm going to shoot with it tonight. I'll see what I come up with.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think one of my more immediately obtainable (and affordable) lenses will be either the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Micro (macro) or the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro_

 

Consider the Tokina 100mm 2.8 macro. I'm very happy with mine. Tokina makes great lenses in their AT-X line. It's FF capable, but I won't be using it for that anytime soon.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't intend to speak for Steve here, but I think what he's saying is that in extreme low-light conditions, it can be more difficult to know that you've got your subject in focus, which becomes increasingly important with the paper-thin DOF that can come with f/1.4. I agree with him on this one, as even a Nikon-made 28mm f/1.4 would also have very shallow DOF at f/1.4 (especially at close distances). In other words, I think I understand what Steve is saying, and I think it applies no matter who's making the f/1.4 lens.

 As I stated earlier regarding the Sigma f/1.4 (when shooting wide open), I personally find it helpful to shoot as quickly after acquiring focus as possible, as even a tiny movement from me or the subject between focus lock and shutter actuation can result in an OOF image._

 

F/1.4 only becomes real narrow when you get to higher magnifications.
 Beyond 2 feet with your typical F/1.4 wide angle - normal angle it's not so critical, and the ability of the the lens/camera combo to Auto focus correctly is much more important.


----------



## bigshot

The Sigma 30mm 1.4 isn't a wide angle lens. It's a normal focal length designed for crop cameras. Even focused to infinity on a street scene like the one I posted above, at 1.4 everything in the nearest block would be out of focus to one degree or another. Whenever you shoot wide open with this lens, depth of field is an issue.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_F/1.4 only becomes real narrow when you get to higher magnifications.
 Beyond 2 feet with your typical F/1.4 wide angle - normal angle it's not so critical, and the ability of the the lens/camera combo to Auto focus correctly is much more important._

 

I'm not sure what the DOF calculators say, but at 30mm f/1.4, the part that's sharpest is within a thin slice, so you can see an eye sharply in focus, but a nose less in focus (if you're close enough)--or even one eye very sharp, and the other eye somewhat sharp, if the face is shot at even a mild angle at a relatively close distance.

 I know it gets more pronounced as the focal length increases, but 30mm at f/1.4 can be rather unforgiving as far as DOF goes, especially if you're shooting a person with it.

 That all being said, that shallow DOF can be fun to play with a lot of the time, too.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Honestly Jude, I don't think the 14-24/2.8 is a very good choice if/when you "upgrade" to full-frame...it is just way, way too wide. I LOVE my wide angles, they're all I use for either landscape or street photography (and portraits, but I do environmental portraits, not headshots). I think the 16-35/2.8 is a much better choice. Not as wide on crop, but it still goes from pretty wide to normal. And on full-frame, it goes from extremely wide to normal. Not to mention you can actually protect the 16-35mm with a filter. 

 That said, I do plan on pairing up a 16-35mm and 14mm soon.


----------



## jpelg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The Sigma 30mm 1.4 isn't a wide angle lens._

 

This has been my thought since this part of the thread began. I don't really understand the desire for a near-normal (45-50mm net after the crop factor) lens. Neither enough "this", nor enough "that". The first thing people used to do with film SLR's was get rid of their 50mm standard, and put on a wide-angle or telephoto.

 Wouldn't something between 20-24mm (30-36mm net) of the same speed be more desirable?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jpelg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This has been my thought since this part of the thread began. I don't really understand the desire for a near-normal (45-50mm net after the crop factor) lens. Neither enough "this", nor enough "that". The first thing people used to do with film SLR's was get rid of their 50mm standard, and put on a wide-angle or telephoto.

 Wouldn't something between 20-24mm (30-36mm net) of the same speed be more desirable?_

 

I guess it all depends what you like. A 35mm lens on crop camera is my fav event / person lens. I'll be using it for Halloween. That same lens on full frame is not the same and neither is 50mm on full frame.


----------



## bigshot

The reason I wanted a 30mm prime was to get something that approximates the way I shot back when I got my first Nikkormat with the stock 50mm f 2.8 lens. I have a good fast ultra wide, two mid range zooms that cover 18mm to 200mm and two great fast short teles for portraits. The missing link was the prime in the middle. It's definitely a specialty lens. Not everyone needs one.

 If there was one lens (aside from a mid range zoom) that everyone needs, it would be the 50mm 1.4. That's an ideal informal portraiture lens. I think everyone shoots pictures of people, and that's what the Sigma 50 1.4 does best.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Honestly Jude, I don't think the 14-24/2.8 is a very good choice if/when you "upgrade" to full-frame...it is just way, way too wide. I LOVE my wide angles, they're all I use for either landscape or street photography (and portraits, but I do environmental portraits, not headshots). I think the 16-35/2.8 is a much better choice._

 

You're right of course, but it's a waste of money to buy a lens to suit a camera that you don't even have yet. Better to get one that works best with the one you already have. If it works at all in any capacity FX cameras, all the better. But how it works now is more important.

 I see people dumping DX lenses and replacing them with FF lenses before they even have a FF camera. That's pretty silly. A FF camera will still shoot DX. Why sacrifice usability today just to salvage a couple of hundred bucks in resale value in some theoretical future?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're right of course, but it's a waste of money to buy a lens to suit a camera that you don't even have yet. Better to get one that works best with the one you already have. If it works at all in any capacity FX cameras, all the better. But how it works now is more important.

 I see people dumping DX lenses and replacing them with FF lenses before they even have a FF camera. That's pretty silly. A FF camera will still shoot DX. Why sacrifice usability today just to salvage a couple of hundred bucks in resale value in some theoretical future?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I don't understand how you don't see the benefit in buying a lens that both works on a DX camera and will also work on a FX camera. You don't buy an FX camera to use a DX lens on it, that's just silly. Be honest Steve. You can save yourself a lot of money by just buying a DX camera. You buy a FX camera to use FF lenses on it!

 I can buy a lens to use on my D50 now, and can also be used just as nicely on a D700 in a few years. Why would I buy a DX lens for use on a DX camera now, and need to sell off my DX lens when I upgrade to a D700? (and again, you don't buy a D700 to use DX lenses on it, that's silly)? That's a waste of money, and a waste of resources. With gas at 10$ a gallon, I can't afford to be wasteful. Maybe you can?

 My FF lenses give me better images than similar DX type lenses. So, I get better images now, and I don't have to buy another lens when I get a FF camera. I also save money, because I'm not taking a hit with depreciation. Plus, DX lenses are going to loose more and more of their value as more and more people are trying to sell their DX lenses off.

 I think it's VERY foolish not to consider the future. If you don't have the hindsight, you'll end up paying more. Speaking of which, I'm so glad my lenses work on FF cameras. ^_^

 I really wish I could add a 80-200mm and 17-35mm F/2.8 to my list of FF lenses.
 :sigh:


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't understand how you don't see the benefit in buying a lens that both works on a DX camera and will also work on a FX camera._

 

Just about all Nikon mount lenses post AI will work on just about all Nikon cameras... FF or DX. Say you have a D300 and a nice DX lens today. It shoots great pictures. The image quality is probably even better than you need to print. In ten years, perhaps you might want a FF camera which shoots a little better in the dark. Your DX lens will work just as well as it ever did on your D300. You aren't losing anything.

 Because of the focal length difference between DX and FF, lenses aren't really substitutable between systems anyway. Say you have a great 50mm 1.4 portrait lens for your DX rig... like the new Nikon. It isn't going to be a nice portrait lens if you get a FF camera. It's going to be a normal prime, which is an odd duck for most people who prefer midrange zooms to cover that focal length. In order to get the same use, you're still going to have to buy the 85mm 1.4.

 FF lenses are more expensive to manufacture to optical standards than DX lenses are. That isn't going to change. The smaller the sensor, the easier it is to create tack sharp fast wide range zooms and long telephotos. There's no 18-200 VR for FF, and if there ever is, you'll need a sherpa to carry it and a fortune to buy it. Just because you can afford a FF body doesn't mean that you'll want to spend all the extra money on the lenses to go with it. Even in the future, DX will still have its price advantages.

 If you can get a lens that might work well on both systems and you don't have to pay extra for it, swell. But why pay more or get a focal length that doesn't work as well for you today in the hopes that you might get a FF camera in the future? You should think about your current need first and foremost, then if it's convenient to get something that works on FF too, then get that.

 Here is how I think about my own lenses projecting into the distant future when I might be willing to drop another grand or two on camera equipment...

 18-200 VR DX: No chance that this is ever going to exist for FF. I would use this lens on a FF camera at crop happily to get this sort of range.

 18-55 VR DX: I wouldn't need this lens on FF, but who cares for $120? The image quality of this lens stopped down a couple of stops is as good as any lens Nikon sells on DX- even the "pro" lenses.

 30mm 1.4 DX: I'd probably eat this one too. But it's great on my D200. Well worth the $300 I paid for it. This lens has just about as good image quality as the Nikon 28mm 1.4 for my crop camera- at a tiny fraction of the price. I can afford to eat it.

 11-16 DX: It would work as a 16mm prime on FX without vignetting. This lens is faster, sharper and has less distortion than the closest Nikon equivalent.

 My other two lenses would work fine on FF: Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 50mm 1.4. The Tokina is as good as the Nikon stopped down a stop and the Sigma is better than the Nikon wide open and has better bokeh.

 So in a kit consisting of four DX and 2 FF lenses, only two lenses would really be useless to me with FF. But together they cost less than any single FF Nikon lens. I'll get plenty of use out of them until I go FF. I'm confident I can get my $400 out of them.

 Here is the punch line. I got a full range of great lenses for $2600. How much more would it have cost me to cover 11mm to 200mm with comparable speeds and ranges with Nikon brand pro FF glass?

 If you buy equipment as an "investment" to look at sitting on the shelf, by all means, get lots of pricey FF exotics. But if you buy an inexpensive DX lens and use the hell out of it, it doesn't matter if you throw it away and get a FF lens to replace it in five or ten years. You've gotten your money's worth out of it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## dj_mocok

I don't think Nikon will be dropping their DX line anytime soon. So like what Bigshot says, just buy the one you really want and don't bother worrying about future that you can't even predict. You'll be using it all the time anyway, so by the time it becomes obsolete, you probably already get your money's worth of shooting.
 There are a lot of DX cameras and DX lenses around, it's not easy for Nikon to just simply abandon this format.

 By the way Hayduke, got any cactus pictures yet?


----------



## dj_mocok

Anyone uses the CBL white balance lens? 

 I am interested in getting one to have as a backup when the AWB of my camera in incorrect. But I am not sure if it's worth the money though.


----------



## lan

I'm waiting to see if MX is a reality. I will then skip FX.


----------



## vibin247

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone uses the CBL white balance lens? 

 I am interested in getting one to have as a backup when the AWB of my camera in incorrect. But I am not sure if it's worth the money though._

 

I got one of those Robin Meyers digital gray cards for $14.99 US, and it's quite effective for setting a custom white balance.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm waiting to see if MX is a reality. I will then skip FX. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You would skip FX? Your typical FX camera sells for 2800-4500$, while I wouldn't expect MX to be less than 10k, for the body alone. Don't expect MX lenses to sell less than 1500$ each!

 Still, I could be 101% wrong, and if I am that would be so sweet!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Don't expect MX lenses to sell less than 1500$ each!_

 

Base price for lenses for a Nikon medium format digital camera would probably be closer to 2 to 3 times that amount. I heard someone mention that a FF sensor costs nine times as much as a DX sensor to manufacture. You can imagine how much the MX sensor is going to cost.

 DX ain't dead yet. All those folks who are dumping their DX lenses are going to have fun replacing them. FF is never going to be cheap, and MX is never going to be accessible to normal folks. Non-professionals just don't require a camera like that.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## lan

I guess it depends which market segment they're going for.

 I'm going to photoplus expo here in nyc next week. Let's see what I can dig up.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone uses the CBL white balance lens? 

 I am interested in getting one to have as a backup when the AWB of my camera in incorrect. But I am not sure if it's worth the money though._

 

I know there is some old filter from the film days that can be used for white balance. Its surface looks somewhat like quilted TP...I just can't remember what the hell it is called, or what it is used for. It might have been used for incident exposure. Bah.


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone uses the CBL white balance lens? 

 I am interested in getting one to have as a backup when the AWB of my camera in incorrect. But I am not sure if it's worth the money though._

 

Use the translucent lid from a Pringles tube or shoot RAW.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Base price for lenses for a Nikon medium format digital camera would probably be closer to 2 to 3 times that amount._

 

I'm going to call you on that one steve.
Lenses | B&H Photo Video
 I think my figure is the correct estimate.


----------



## OverlordXenu

645 is smaller than square.

 67, however, is larger, but...

Mamiya | 43mm f/4.5 for Mamiya 7 | 215-032 | B&H Photo Video
Mamiya | 65mm f/4 L-A for RZ | 212-376 | B&H Photo Video


----------



## philodox

So much attitude in this thread... sheesh.


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So much attitude in this thread... sheesh._

 

Tell me about it, this notion of a medium format by Nikon is just a rumor. I think the announcement is a 20-24 mp 35mm full frame DSLR. A medium format plus lenses is another line Nikon would have to support, very expensive for a small market. Anyway, we will find out soon enough.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm going to call you on that one steve.
Lenses | B&H Photo Video
 I think my figure is the correct estimate._

 

I was talking about a Nikon branded medium format lens. Any Mamiya lens is going to be considerably less. A better comparison would be the difference between a Nikon DX lens and a Nikon FF lens. Then factor up for the difference in proportions between sensor sizes.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A better comparison would be the difference between a Nikon DX lens and a Nikon FF lens. Then factor up for the difference in proportions between sensor sizes._

 

That's hard to do since there isn't a similar lens in a similar class in both.

 Closest off the top of my head is DX 17-55 2.8 @ $1200 and FX 17-35 2.8 at $1500.

 There's no other pro dx vs. pro fx. There's no dx nikon prime to compare to fx nikon prime.

 Going to consumer glass. What is the DX version of FX 24-120VR?


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So much attitude in this thread... sheesh._

 

That's right. Can we go back to posting crappy, out of focused pictures please?


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_FF is never going to be cheap, and MX is never going to be accessible to normal folks. Non-professionals just don't require a camera like that._

 

You know that isn't true
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Going to consumer glass. What is the DX version of FX 24-120VR?_

 

None exists. The 18-70DX more or less covers the same focal range, but doesn't have VR. The 18-105VR DX has a different focal range.


 One of my best efforts yet! I'm so pleased with it: There's some good colour on 'em shells.



 [size=xx-small](D300/35f2; 1/4s - F/2.8 - ISO200)[/size]


----------



## dj_mocok

Hey I got reptile picture too!

 Took this one on the weekend. He's not afraid of me at all.


----------



## meat01

Another great photo DJ! The shadows and shoes are especially nice


----------



## milkpowder

He did _nail_ the exposure of the following pebbles. You can almost make out the subtle colour gradients and delicate freckling.


----------



## Hayduke

It's DJ's thread. He can post whatever he wants 

 He did get the lizard to pose at least. I suspect he tried to get him to move left to be in the sunlight, but the language barrier probably made that difficult


----------



## dj_mocok

Nail what exposure? All I did was pressing a button and the camera did the decision for me. Sometime I even let the camera do the composing. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 How about picture of fish? (carp)
 Took it on the same day too.


----------



## mbriant

How about we get back to keeping this thread on topic? With that in mind, photos posted in this thread should have a direct association with discussing Nikon equipment.....not just thrown out to antagonize people. Let's not ruin an otherwise informative thread with petty arguing.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How about we get back to keeping this thread on topic? With that in mind, photos posted in this thread should have a direct association with discussing Nikon equipment.....not just thrown out to antagonize people. Let's not ruin an otherwise informative thread with petty arguing._

 

Crap, I was going to post a fat tree picture. It's very interesting.
 By the way, who is using M42 lenses with their Nikon camera here? I suspect none? I am tempted to try but not really sure...


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How about we get back to keeping this thread on topic? With that in mind, photos posted in this thread should have a direct association with discussing Nikon equipment.....not just thrown out to antagonize people. Let's not ruin an otherwise informative thread with petty arguing._

 

Wha?....You mean you don't live the angsty DPReview vibe that has overcome the thread?


----------



## lan

Went to PhotoPlus expo. I already knew I'd love them but I had to check out the Mamiya ML28 (645AFD3 + Aptus-II 6 back) and some PhaseOnes and fall in love again. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I also tried the Sigma 50 1.4 on a D3. That lens is actually smaller than I imagined. I ended up getting the Nikon 35mm f2. Let me assemble my Halloween rig now.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 I also tried the Sigma 50 1.4 on a D3. That lens is actually smaller than I imagined. I ended up getting the Nikon 35mm f2. Let me assemble my Halloween rig now._

 

We need pictures taken with your new 35mm f/2. Do you have pictures of NewYork street hot dog stand taken with your new rig? This thread is not complete without hot dog stand pictures.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We need pictures taken with your new 35mm f/2. Do you have pictures of NewYork street hot dog stand taken with your new rig? This thread is not complete without hot dog stand pictures._

 

No time to go out to mess with it now. I have to prepare for Halloween. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll be handing out some business cards to a new website which I am still working on.


----------



## dj_mocok

Damn... guess my hotdog pictures should wait then..Halloween pictures will do too. When you're ready.


----------



## lan

Do you prefer ketchup or mustard? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think I'm happy with my copy of this 35mm f/2.0D from comparing photos from flickr and pbase. It can obtain some nice colors and contrast even at ISO3200. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's important to me it's good at f2 otherwise, I'd just most likely use my Tamron 17-50 2.8 since it's more convenient. I'll have to compare to that len eventually though.

 I'll be doing some Halloween stuff tomorrow Sunday. Should be fun. It'll be a pretest of my lowlight rig. I'll be using a flash with gel and mini softbox balanced with ambient.


----------



## bigshot

Here is a picture I took with my D200 last night at Canter's Deli in Hollywood using my Sigma 30mm 1.4. This is wide open at a 30th, ISO 900.





 That's jazz guitarist, Skip Heller.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## lan

Nice shot. I like how the couple is in the background.

 Nothing beats a fast lens for indoor shots. I bet it's nice to have that extra stop. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think I can manage with f/2.0.


----------



## jpelg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I like how the couple is in the background._

 

Yes! The fact that it was natural makes it very cool.

 What do you guys think of the Sigma 24mm f1.8? I think I'd prefer more of a wide-angle on my crop camera (net ~36mm equivalent).


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jpelg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes! The fact that it was natural makes it very cool.

 What do you guys think of the Sigma 24mm f1.8? I think I'd prefer more of a wide-angle on my crop camera (net ~36mm equivalent)._

 

I never used Sigma lenses, but it would be a very tough choice between:

 Sigma 24mm 1.8 or sacrifice a bit more width to get the speed of Sigma 30mm 1.4

 on digital, 24mm for me doesn't really turn out to be that much of a wide angle anyway. I think to be considered as wide angle, the focal length should be at least 17mm or 18mm on digital. 

 I would probably rather have a Nikon 20mm f/2.8.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here is a picture I took with my D200 last night at Canter's Deli in Hollywood using my Sigma 30mm 1.4. This is wide open at a 30th, ISO 900.

http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/skipcanters.jpg

 That's jazz guitarist, Skip Heller.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

A little oversaturated in the magenta and yellows, but as others have said, very nice composition. Excellent focus for wide open. Not easy with a 1.4 lens. Making me exciting to shoot with my D200 (going to get it this week).

 -Ed


----------



## bigshot

Last night I went to a nightclub for a Halloween party. The only light was candles on the tables. I had a flash, but that totally killed the mood. So I asked people to hold candles and shot handheld braced against walls for up to a second. I got a few very interesting shots. They're going to take some photoshopping. When I get them done, I'll post a couple.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jpelg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you guys think of the Sigma 24mm f1.8?_

 

It's a nice lens, but there isn't much point to macro focusing at 24mm. You get down to two inches from your subject. If you want to shoot macro, better to get something in the 100mm range. The Sigma 30 is better optimized for shooting in low light. I got mine used for $300 which is in the ballpark for the price of the 24mm. Not much difference between 24mm and 30mm anyway.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## milkpowder

That was a nice shot Steve. Looking forward to your "candle" shots.


----------



## bigshot

Here are some shots of my visit to the California Institute of Abnormal Arts. The camera here is the D200, lens is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4...




 Mummified clown on display




 Fun with flash.




 One candle. The shutter speed on this was almost a full second. I braced myself against a wall and held my breath.




 I like to shoot a bunch of shots rapid succession in different lighting and then cobble them all together in photoshop into one impossible image. This is a collage of available light lit by Christmas lights and three different exposures randomly lit by shaking a keychain flashlight all around over the subject.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's a nice lens, but there isn't much point to macro focusing at 24mm. You get down to two inches from your subject. If you want to shoot macro, better to get something in the 100mm range. The Sigma 30 is better optimized for shooting in low light. I got mine used for $300 which is in the ballpark for the price of the 24mm. Not much difference between 24mm and 30mm anyway.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

i find that focusing that close with a wide angle lens is great for exaggerating the distorting effects of wide-angle lenses, not necessarily for the close-up itself. true macro is better left to a nice bellows setup.


----------



## lan

So I shot with the 35mm f/2 this Sunday. Hmm... I haven't analyzed all my photos but there's a certain setting. 

 -------------

 On another note. A new D300 firmware is out. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 EXACTLY the things I didn't like about the unit looks to have been fixed.

 - The range of settings available for ISO sensitivity settings > ISO sensitivity auto control > Minimum shutter speed in the shooting menu has been increased from 1/250 – 1 s to 1/4000 – 1 s.
 - Focus acquisition performance in dynamic-area AF mode has been improved.
 - Focus acquisition performance with contrast-detect AF has been improved.

 I can stop using Manual mode or Shutter priority hopefully to get higher than 1/250 shutter speed.

 I find the AF a bit sluggish compared to D3 / D700 so hopefully this fixes.

 Ok... time to find out!


----------



## lan

Confirmed. AF is faster and there are more auto ISO shutter speed options. I'm happy as a kitten playing with a ball of yarn!


----------



## milkpowder

Just upgraded. No opportunity to test AF speed, but the new auto ISO shutter speed options are a wonderful addition. I wish they could let us set the exact max ISO in auto ISO.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wish they could let us set the exact max ISO in auto ISO._

 

What do you mean? In finer than 1 stop gradations?


----------



## dj_mocok

Update:
 My Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm f/2.8 Tessar DDR that I bought cheap from eBay arrived today.

 I didn't expect much considering the price and the fact that it's an M42 mount, that means it will be used with a adapter to Nikon F, but boy was I surprised.
 I gotta say that picture quality is damn good, very sharp and contrasty, unlike what I've read about many old lenses are not as contrasty as modern ones. 

 One thing though, since the adapter is glassless one, the furthest I can focus is maybe roughly around 1.2 metre only. I wish it's a bit further than that, but I am still very happy because I probably use this lens for close distance photography anyway.

 Other thing that I notice is this lens can focus very close, and it's almost like a macro lens. I think this purchase is definitely one of the best $65 bucks I've ever spent.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you mean? In finer than 1 stop gradations?_

 

Yup. I would like the max ISO to be around 2000-2500. That's where the D300's sensor starts losing detail and where chroma noise creeps in noticeably w/ High NR set at Low. What do you think?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yup. I would like the max ISO to be around 2000-2500. That's where the D300's sensor starts losing detail and where chroma noise creeps in noticeably w/ High NR set at Low. What do you think?_

 

I see what you are saying. I usually use 1600 as max. I agree 3200 isn't as usable. The answer is probably between like you observe but I haven't spent the time figuring that out. I am never in a situation where I needed auto ISO to be over 1600. Usually when I need 3200, it's fixed 3200 and I just use my 5D.


----------



## bigshot

I believe ISO isn't a straight scale. Each doubling of the number is one step. ISO 2000 wouldn't be that much faster than 1600.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## lan

Normally I wouldn't care for 1/2 a stop or so but there are those who do.


----------



## bigshot

If 1600 to 3200 is one stop, 2000 would be a quarter stop.


----------



## Arainach

Doesn't work that way; it's a logarithmic scale, not a linear scale. Halfway between 1600 and 3200 is ISO2262; a Quarter Stop above ISO1600 would be ISO1900.


----------



## Edwood

I now have a D200 in my possession. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 So much better than shooting with the D80. The user interface with instant 1:1 zoom in image playback review alone is worth it.

 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

That's cool Ed. Do you also find that the D200 isn't much heavier or bigger than the D80?


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's cool Ed. Do you also find that the D200 isn't much heavier or bigger than the D80?_

 

No, it is certainly bigger and heavier than the D80. But it feels so much more solid. And balances better with bigger lenses. 

 -Ed


----------



## Old Pa

The spaniels' fall vacation this year was not over a period of time with great sunrises. Still, I wanted to try the D300's multiple exposure bracketing and HDR features of PhotoShop CS3. This was one of the more presentable ones, merging three images bracketed across three stops, merged in CS3's HDR, and reduced again to an 8 bit jpeg for posting. It's a great technique to have available.

 One more:


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_[ittp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3248/2991987787_b323eed920.jpg?v=0[/img]
 The spaniels' fall vacation this year was not over a period of time with great sunrises. Still, I wanted to try the D300's multiple exposure bracketing and HDR features of PhotoShop CS3. This was one of the more presentable ones, merging three images bracketed across three stops, merged in CS3's HDR, and reduced again to an 8 bit jpeg for posting. It's a great technique to have available.

 One more: [imm4.static.flickr.com/3034/2992878186_babb70113b.jpg?v=0[/img]_

 

Both look good, but the sky's highlights are slightly blown in each picture.


----------



## Old Pa

Yup. One stop down won't do it, but with one stop up on the bottom some much more "eye realistic" detail comes through. Still playing with the system.


----------



## Edwood

Here's a pic I took with my "new to me" D200.

 I think this one is with my Sigma 30mm 1.4 at f/1.4. Focusing is kind of finicky with the Sigma f/1.4 wide open.

 The D200 meters so much better than the D80 with available light. This pic has no other post processing (no changes to contrast, brightness, etc.).

 -Ed


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/imagemonkey/Pets/Edwood_MoMoBed_01.j]

 Here's a pic I took with my "new to me" D200.

 I think this one is with my Sigma 30mm 1.4 at f/1.4. Focusing is kind of finicky with the Sigma f/1.4 wide open.

 The D200 meters so much better than the D80 with available light. This pic has no other post processing (no changes to contrast, brightness, etc.).

 -Ed[/i]
 [/td] [/tr] [/table]


Ya; the D200's metering sensor is excellent._


----------



## dj_mocok

Agree, I much prefer D200's metering compared to D80.
 By the way, my "el-cheapo" Carl Zeiss I bought from eBay is here already, so far I really like it. Although as mentioned before, it doesn't focus any farther than 1m or so due to it being M42 lens and I don't have an adapter with corrective glass (it's with a glassless M42-Nikon adapter).

 For what it's worth, it's one of the best 65 bucks I've ever spent. I'm having fun with this lens especially indoor, but it's really hard to use it as an outdoor walkaround lens. Not much you can do with a lens that can focus only 1m max 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Optical performance, this lens is sharp like a macro and bokeh wise I much prefer it compared to Nikon 50mm 1.4.
 By the way, it only has 5 aperture blades, very interesting. So when I stop this down, the bokeh is really different from my other lenses.






























 I am now tempted to get more M42-based lenses although i know that I don't really need it and it's very limited.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's a pic I took with my "new to me" D200.[/i]
 [/td] [/tr] [/table]


Always a great subject. [img]http://www.head-fi.org/forums/images/smilies/wink_face.gif_


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am now tempted to get more M42-based lenses although i know that I don't really need it and it's very limited._

 

Concentrate less on equipment, more on composition. Other than maybe the book one in your recent post, basically every picture you've posted in this thread is boring, and the best camera and lens in the world can't fix that.


----------



## coolshot

Dj mocok has a running joke of posting really bad shots in this thread. Look back on all his picture posts and you will see what I mean. However, if you check his gallery, he has some nice shots. Its real night and day.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Always a great subject. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 











 Shot with 18-200mm VR Lens. SB-400 flash fired, bounced straight up.


----------



## Old Pa

^^^^ That's what I'm talkin' about! Who's your Daddy? ^^^^


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

We need to see some f/1.4 shots, Ed! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 'grats on the D200. It's a lovely little hunk o' metal.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We need to see some f/1.4 shots, Ed! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 'grats on the D200. It's a lovely little hunk o' metal._

 

Already posted it, this one is shot with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 at 1.4 at 800iso
 No flash. Only light is sunlight from windows mid day.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	









 -Ed


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Already posted it, this one is shot with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 at 1.4 at 800iso
 No flash. Only light is sunlight from windows mid day.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Haha, that's what I get for scanning the thread and not looking more closely!


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Concentrate less on equipment, more on composition. Other than maybe the book one in your recent post, basically every picture you've posted in this thread is boring, and the best camera and lens in the world can't fix that._

 

Ouch, that's painful. Maybe I should learn more from you and your pictures huh?

 PS: Well at least I am glad you liked my book snapshot. In case if you haven't noticed, the reason for my latest pictures with the Carl Zeiss Jena was to show examples of the lens' characteristics, nothing more than that. Anyway, I'm off to looking for the mystery lens that can hopefully fix my boring and crappy pics.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *coolshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dj mocok has a running joke of posting really bad shots in this thread. Look back on all his picture posts and you will see what I mean. However, if you check his gallery, he has some nice shots. Its real night and day._

 

Bad shots? What bad shots? My local camera salesman said he could see significant improvement from my picture after selling me the new lens. 
 PS: My neighbour said "glad that you like the pictures in the gallery, thanks!"


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Nothing beats a dry sense of humor!


----------



## Hayduke

Dj_mock's pictures are always superb! They are great for demonstrating what NOT to do 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 hehehe j/k Dj, I've seen your gallery and know you can take great pictures. I think it's funny that you post pictures that are less then ideal.

 I'm still waiting for a blurry picture of a kangaroo


----------



## dj_mocok

Sorry but we don't have kangaroos here in Australia. It's an urban myth. Too many travel agencies are fooling poor tourists by hiring midgets in kangaroo suits so that they think kangaroos exist and they can take pictures of em. It's a conspiracy I tell you.


----------



## bigshot

I would rather see a photo of a midget in a kangaroo suit than a real kangaroo.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 hehehe j/k Dj, I've seen your gallery and know you can take great pictures. I think it's funny that you post pictures that are less then ideal. 
 

agreed!


----------



## dj_mocok

Taking picture of offguard midgets in kangaro suits is a difficult and dangerous task, because if they know I am about to foil the big kangaroo conspiracy in Australia, the midgets will contact their HQ and send an assassin-midget squad to track me down - and you don't want to mess with ninja-midgets.

 It's safer to take pictures of cactus. I hope you like my cactus pictures below.
 See Hayduke, I can take pictures of cactus even not in Arizona. Shame on you!


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would rather see a photo of a midget in a kangaroo suit than a real kangaroo._

 

I'll take the photo of a midget in a kangaroo's pouch, thanks!


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry but we don't have kangaroos here in Australia. It's an urban myth. Too many travel agencies are fooling poor tourists by hiring midgets in kangaroo suits so that they think kangaroos exist and they can take pictures of em. It's a conspiracy I tell you._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would rather see a photo of a midget in a kangaroo suit than a real kangaroo._

 

That's what I was gonna ask for 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Taking picture of offguard midgets in kangaro suits is a difficult and dangerous task, because if they know I am about to foil the big kangaroo conspiracy in Australia, the midgets will contact their HQ and send an assassin-midget squad to track me down - and you don't want to mess with ninja-midgets.

 It's safer to take pictures of cactus. I hope you like my cactus pictures below.
 See Hayduke, I can take pictures of cactus even not in Arizona. Shame on you! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...k/cactus-1.jpg_

 

I live at 7000 ft. Yes, I'm still in Arizona, but there aren't as many cacti here as there are 50-100 miles in any direction 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'll take the photo of a midget in a kangaroo's pouch, thanks! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

x2!


----------



## Edwood

Shot with my D200 with 18-200mm VR at f/11. I used the SB-400 firing straight up, with my old Pentax FGZ-360 flash as a slave firing backwards at about a 30 degree angle. My flat, white ceiling makes for a nice huge bounce card.


----------



## Edwood

Oh, I forgot that I took the same pics with same lens and settings, but two different bodies.

 Shot with a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 at f/1.4, no flash, 400ISO. Sunlight from windows as the source of light.

*D200*





*D80*


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh, I forgot that I took the same pics with same lens and settings, but two different bodies.

 Shot with a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 at f/1.4, no flash, 400ISO. Sunlight from windows as the source of light.

*D200*
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...MoMoBed_01.jpg

*D80*
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...oBed_01D80.jpg_

 

That's odd. You're D80 seems to have underexposed the image. The D80 has somewhat of a reputation for over exposing images.

 The poor metering of my D80 sometimes makes me wish I had a different body, but I take mine backpacking, so size and weight are real concerns for me. A D200 or D300 would be too large and heavy

 Edit: I just realized that's a Touch Pro in your picture. I'm jealous


----------



## dj_mocok

Not really Nikon talk but still camera nonetheless, I was thinking to get either Canon G10 or Panasonic LX3 for my 'compact' camera. But I am not sure why I want one. Or maybe should I just save the money for future D400?
 Actually I think I am leaning more towards LX3, it's really one unique point&Shoot. Damn I shouldn't have read about it...


----------



## lan

I was looking at the LX3 myself. DPreview showed it to have more detail in higher ISO. I think I'm going to hold off for micro 4/3 cams. Do you have a P&S already? I'm most interested in upgrade as these cameras have RAW and hotshoe.


----------



## dj_mocok

I do, but my P&S is closer to Piece of s**t than point&shoot. 
 But I don't really need point&shoot anyway. It's really just the gear head talking. Actually thinking whether to get an LX3 or a new lens or to save up for a new DSLR body.

 What I like the most about the LX3 is the f/2-2.8 speed. That's awesome. I took a look at G10 this afternoon with my partner. She hated it - I think it's beautiful. But she may be right, it's a bit too big, although it might produce better picture, I mean with that size I might as well just carry my DSLR.

 Are you waiting for Panasonic G1 or you mean you're waiting for something in the future?

 I hope someone would take one for the team and report back on how well the LX3 performs...


----------



## Old Pa

There has been a bunch of stuff in the photo mags I get about the Sigma DP1 as a serious photog's P&S. 3x4.7MP 3 layer sensor, 2.5" LCD, 28mm equivalent f/4, ISO to 800, 9 zone AF array with cross-type sensors. I seem to remember Popular Photography had a feature on an established photog using the DP1 as his primary and a gallery of his work that was rather nice; you can probably find it on PopPhoto's website. I think it also shoots RAW. I was not impressed with the zoom range of its lense and I've got a perfectly good Casio Exlim EX-Z600 to fit in between the camera in my Treo 650 and my D70 knockabout.


----------



## lan

I wouldn't use a P&S unless it has a fast lens. The LX3 is pretty nice. I'm going to wait for Olympus micro 4/3rd as it's smaller than that panasonic G1. I don't need a large camera.

 The Sigma DP1 is a prime lens and f4 at that. It's too slow IMO.


----------



## Old Pa

Don't you love seeing folks holding their dinky sensor P&Ss out at the end of one shakey arm to shoot?


----------



## bigshot

The zoom range on the LX3 is too short for me. If I can't change the lens, I want all the necessary focal lengths to be built in.


----------



## Edwood

My D200 has a lot of dust on the sensor. Can't get them all off with my Giotto ROcket Blower even. 

 Anyone try Sensor Brush. I've been eyeing Visible Dust sensor brush, the motorized spinning kind. Anyone have experience with that one?

 I'd like to avoid wet cleaning method, but if it's the safest and best method, so be it.

 Any recommendations?


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The zoom range on the LX3 is too short for me. If I can't change the lens, I want all the necessary focal lengths to be built in._

 

24-60 is a great range for a PnS. You're not gonna be shooting wildlife in the first place if you're considering an LX3.


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My D200 has a lot of dust on the sensor. 

 Any recommendations?_

 

Maybe you should send it to Nikon for them to clean it.


----------



## dj_mocok

Check this thread out for samples of LX3's bokeh. Crap now I am more tempted than ever.


----------



## mortonjl

Just bought my first DSLR, a D40 with 18-70 and 55-200 lenses. Last SLR camera I had was a Canon AE-1, I've got so much to learn.


----------



## dj_mocok

Congrats on the purchase! Don't forget to post some (cactus) pictures.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My D200 has a lot of dust on the sensor. Can't get them all off with my Giotto ROcket Blower even. 

 Anyone try Sensor Brush. I've been eyeing Visible Dust sensor brush, the motorized spinning kind. Anyone have experience with that one?

 I'd like to avoid wet cleaning method, but if it's the safest and best method, so be it.

 Any recommendations?_

 

I ran across the same problem a couple months ago. Did the wet cleaning with sensor swabs and methanol, came out clean as a whistle, no problems. I think the difficulty of the process is highly overrated. Just use a headlamp and be in a room with as static air as possible. You might have to use a couple swabs if it is really dirty, and use each swab for no more than one swipe per side (i.e. two per swab).


----------



## Dimitris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My D200 has a lot of dust on the sensor. Can't get them all off with my Giotto ROcket Blower even. 

 Anyone try Sensor Brush. I've been eyeing Visible Dust sensor brush, the motorized spinning kind. Anyone have experience with that one?

 I'd like to avoid wet cleaning method, but if it's the safest and best method, so be it.

 Any recommendations?_

 

There are cheaper products out there. I have used the copperhill brush on my 1Ds and it worked great!

Sensor Cleaning


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_24-60 is a great range for a PnS. You're not gonna be shooting wildlife in the first place if you're considering an LX3._

 

60mm isn't even long enough to be a decent portraiture lens. The whole advantage of smaller sensors is the ability to have better and more flexible lenses. On a camera that doesn't have interchangeable lenses, I would much rather have a wider zoom range than one stop of speed.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My D200 has a lot of dust on the sensor. Can't get them all off with my Giotto ROcket Blower even. 

 Anyone try Sensor Brush. I've been eyeing Visible Dust sensor brush, the motorized spinning kind. Anyone have experience with that one?

 I'd like to avoid wet cleaning method, but if it's the safest and best method, so be it.

 Any recommendations?_

 

There is no way around a wet clean. A rocket blower is only good for those big dust speckles that are not adhered to the filter. 

 Get a set of swabs from Photographic solutions that ought to leave a nice dust free sensor. Photographic Solutions, Inc. - Digital & Photographic Cleaning Solutions

 It is not advisable to use a brush before you do a wet clean of the sensor especially not if you have some serious dirt on it. I think you should read the copper hill guides on cleaning.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_60mm isn't even long enough to be a decent portraiture lens. The whole advantage of smaller sensors is the ability to have better and more flexible lenses. On a camera that doesn't have interchangeable lenses, I would much rather have a wider zoom range than one stop of speed.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I think it all really depends on individual's needs and style. I personally don't need 12X or so, but at least 5 times I think is handy. But the thing is, the lens is so exciting (the f stop that is), it makes me forgive the short range.
 Plus from someone who is perfectly fine walking around with a 11-16mm as street, I think I can live with LX3's limited zoom.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

The LX3 sounds like a pretty rockin' little camera to me. I'd gladly live with that zoom range for the image quality benefits of a faster lens. Sure, it is not a camera for sporting events, wildlife, or paparazzi, that doesn't mean it couldn't be a very useful tool for many.


----------



## coolshot

I just ordered a d300 w/16-85 kit and a sb900. Looking around I see a limited selection on FX compatible glass for around 1k on the tele end. If I was still with canon, I'd be looking at the 70-200 F4IS,135L or even a 24-105F4IS. There so much dead space on 'budget' constant aperture glass for nikon.


----------



## dj_mocok

Just curious, if that's your preference, then how come you got a Nikon? Don't tell me you got it because you like D300?


----------



## coolshot

ultimately, I love the 24-70 and 14-24, the nikon counterparts are better. I just don't have the money right now for both of those, along with a d700. Hell, I think 17-55 would be great too. I just happen to pick up the 16-85 because it came with the body for only 1829 from B&H. So I have an awesome body but only decent glass for now. I mainly like to shoot people indoors and I feel that nikon has better wide/midrange telephoto and a better flash system. Add a great body like a d300 and there is your answer.


----------



## milkpowder

The 16-85VR is a superb piece of kit. Build quality is up there with the upper-midrange Nikon glass. Apart from the small aperture, it shouldn't be a limiting factor at all.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *coolshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There so much dead space on 'budget' constant aperture glass for nikon._

 

Not if you investigate third party lenses like Tokina, Sigma and Tamron. They make some excellent lenses for DX.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not if you investigate third party lenses like Tokina, Sigma and Tamron. They make some excellent lenses for DX._

 

Yeah, the 24-70 f/2.8 by Sigma in particular is an excellent deal for $485.


----------



## milkpowder

Absolutely! I am awaiting reviews of the new HSM version.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I ran across the same problem a couple months ago. Did the wet cleaning with sensor swabs and methanol, came out clean as a whistle, no problems. I think the difficulty of the process is highly overrated. Just use a headlamp and be in a room with as static air as possible. You might have to use a couple swabs if it is really dirty, and use each swab for no more than one swipe per side (i.e. two per swab)._

 

Which sensor swabs did you use?

 Would 100% isopropyl alcohol work as well? (stuff used to clean video and audio tape heads)

 -Ed


----------



## meat01

I wouldn't use 100% alcohol, methanol is preferred for cleaning optics.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wouldn't use 100% alcohol, methanol is preferred for cleaning optics._

 

Methanol is actually an alcohol. But you mean that Methanol (Methyl Alcohol) is better than Isopropyl Alcohol?


----------



## meat01

yes, I just didn't want to spell isopropyl 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. I am not exactly sure why, but in various optical companies I worked for, they never used isopropyl, because it was bad and always used methanol.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yes, I just didn't want to spell isopropyl 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. I am not exactly sure why, but in various optical companies I worked for, they never used isopropyl, because it was bad and always used methanol._

 

I'm guessing Methanol is cleaner than Isopropyl Alcohol?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Which sensor swabs did you use?

 Would 100% isopropyl alcohol work as well? (stuff used to clean video and audio tape heads)

 -Ed_

 

Here is what I used, mostly because a local camera shop had it, and I needed a quick clean:Photographic Solutions | SENSOR SWAB+ TYPE 2 w/ECLIPSE | PE2C

 You can read more about the ins and outs of sensor cleaning at the following links. Suffice to say that 100% isopropyl alcohol + cotton swabs /= methanol/eclipse + PEC pads.

http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com/

http://www.bythom.com/cleaning.htm


----------



## lan

Ed, I use some of that Eclipse and pec pads and sensor swabs also. Not as a kit since I own 1.5, 1.6, 1.255, and 1x crop cameras. Good stuff though but it's so much I could clean 1000 cameras. If you were close I'd let you borrow some.


----------



## coolshot

canon to nikon switch! Still waiting on my 85mm 1.8 though.


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *coolshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_....canon to nikon switch! Still waiting on my 85mm 1.8 though._

 

Man, I'm having a déjà vu! I did the same thing, moving from Canon to Nikon. We went with different lenses, but the D300, MB-D10, SB-900, we're twins with. Enjoy it, man! I certainly do. And post your photos, too.


----------



## Teraflame

Hi guys, I bought my first DSLR: a used D200. I honestly didn't really do a lot of research on Nikon's competitors though, only looked at the Rebel line and 30D. I guess I'm having second thoughts about it now.

 Instead of D200, should I have bought a 40D? I could have gotten it for around $10 cheaper. Tell me this isn't so.


----------



## dj_mocok

It all depends on what lenses you are ended up with. Both cameras are great.


----------



## Teraflame

Will the difference in high ISO noise performance be that significant? How much do people shoot 1600 or 3200 anyway? Since I'm stuck with the D200, is cleaning them up in programs effective? Can I shoot high ISO with confidence? x_x


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Teraflame* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Since I'm stuck with the D200, is cleaning them up in programs effective? Can I shoot high ISO with confidence? x_x_

 

ROTFLMAO! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That camera body is better than 95% of still photographers. Don't worry about the D200. Worry about yourself, your technique, and your vision.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Teraflame* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Will the difference in high ISO noise performance be that significant? How much do people shoot 1600 or 3200 anyway? Since I'm stuck with the D200, is cleaning them up in programs effective? Can I shoot high ISO with confidence? x_x_

 

The camera is not the limiting factor. Not by a far fetch! You are the limiting factor at this point.


----------



## dj_mocok

Jpg noise wise I am sure that 40D is better than D200. But with D200 Anything up to ISO800 is okay. Why? Do you do lots of flashless photos at dim area? (pushing it to 1600 range?)

 If so you might as well get a D300 or get a 40D. But I think since you asked how much people shoot at 1600 that means you don't really do that, so D200 is perfectly fine for you I guess.
 It's a great camera - and the last thing you want to worry is the camera not performing up to your standard.

 By the way, did it come with lens or do you already have some lenses?


----------



## Teraflame

I received the camera today, body only. Bought Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D AF Lens that shipped separately.


----------



## bigshot

This shot was made by the light of one candle using a D200 and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. (More here.) No need to worry about high ISO performance. The D200 is a killer-diller of a camera.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *coolshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_canon to nikon switch! Still waiting on my 85mm 1.8 though._

 

Ha. So you're strikeout on hardforum? I noticed the same picture.


----------



## dj_mocok

Not really a Nikon-related topic, but hey.

 This guy is selling camera for cheap. Too bad I couldn't catch that many insects to trade with him...

 Cameras/Electronics for sale ad.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not really a Nikon-related topic, but hey.

 This guy is selling camera for cheap. Too bad I couldn't catch that many insects to trade with him...

 Cameras/Electronics for sale ad._

 

He sells genuine Cannons?


----------



## BigSurSpoon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not really a Nikon-related topic, but hey.

 This guy is selling camera for cheap. Too bad I couldn't catch that many insects to trade with him...

 Cameras/Electronics for sale ad._

 

Haha are bigger bugs worth more? Or are they all the same?


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not really a Nikon-related topic, but hey.

 This guy is selling camera for cheap. Too bad I couldn't catch that many insects to trade with him...

 Cameras/Electronics for sale ad._

 

Do they ahve to be different bugs? or would 100 ants work?

 Dip a stick into a jar of peanut butter and shove it into the ground. You'll have your 100 bugs in no time!

 Or if it can be software bugs, just send a Windows CD


----------



## ozz

Go to the NIKON site if your interested in black friday deals also enter
 to win gear in their 75th anniversary sweepstakes.


----------



## dj_mocok

I think I will cancel my LX7 order. Been waiting for a month almost and it's still out of stock.
 I think I will sell my D80 and get a FUJI S5 Pro instead.


----------



## Poohblah

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think I will cancel my LX7 order. Been waiting for a month almost and it's still out of stock.
 I think I will sell my D80 and get a FUJI S5 Pro instead._

 

Why? Certainly won't make your photographs any better.


----------



## milkpowder

Odd switch indeed, but given the *absolutely stunning* pictures he takes I don't think it matters what camera he uses.


----------



## RYCeT

Hi guys, I'm still using capture nx ver. 1 mac ver., included w/ my d300. I am a jpeg shooter. I noticed when I edit my photo using capture nx, it shrinked my files significantly, ex: a 3.6mb came to 1.6 mb after I do some editing.
 Why do they shrink files?
 Is it lesser my image quality?
 Is there a way doing some editing w/ capture nx and not shrink my files?


----------



## milkpowder

Odd. What JPEG quality are you outputting/exporting/saving as? JPEG Fine is about 98.


----------



## dj_mocok

_ Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Poohblah* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
Why? Certainly won't make your photographs any better.

 

_

 Now you are just asking for it... Be prepared for waves of mediocre pictures I'll submit here with the S5 Pro. Hmm, let's see where do I start? Maybe some out of focus pictures or maybe half-cropped ones... ah the possibilities.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




_ Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
Odd switch indeed, but given the *absolutely stunning* pictures he takes I don't think it matters what camera he uses.

 

_

_*Milkpowder*_: Thanks, I'll let my neighbour know that no matter what camera he uses, the pictures will always be nice. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .

 Seriously, the reason why I switched? I don't really have very strong reasons to be honest, and part of the reason why I didn't really get D200 last time was it was considerably more expensive than D80, and it has more noise on high ISO compared to D80.

 Now I just came back from the shop, it has a special for brand new Fuji S5 Pro + Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for AUS$1,499.

 With that kind of price, it is hard to resist. I am going to sell the D80 and hopefully I can still get some decent price for it, and maybe I will also sell the Tamron 17-50mm that comes with the S5 to recover back some of the money (if I can't get at least AUD$500 for it, I might just keep the lens).

 But if you ask why I switched from D80, that's because:

 - AU$ 1,499 (US$1,000 roughly) for a brand new Fuji S5 + brand new Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is a very good bargain. (remember this camera used to be more expensive than D200) - especially if I sold my D80 and the new Tamron lens that comes with S5.

 -I have 4 Ai-s lenses which I use very often (most of the time it's the 85mm 1.4), so I think it benefits me not having to manually meter all the time (although I am afraid that I will lose the skill over the time because I am getting very good at judging the exposure manually)

 - Handling wise, it is much better than D80. I've always liked D200's handling, so finally I get to use one (well sort of D200 at least)

 - I've seen the noise comparison for S5 and D80, and unlike D200, S5 actually beats D80 in terms of high ISO performance (even 3200 is usable).

 - I know it is a much slower camera than D200, but I never used burst speed and shoot mainly JPGs, so hopefully I won't be affected by the slow write speed of this camera. I'll keep you guys posted on this.

 - I know menu is not as user friendly as D200, but again, I hardly fiddle with menus and tend to leave them as it is after initial setup. I think I can live with it (hopefully).

 - Apart from crappy snapshots that you saw from this thread a few posts back, I shoot a lot of portraits. And S5 has very very good colour when dealing with skin tones (at least that's what they told me, haha...) I rarely shoot landscapes with tiny details too, which according to some, S5 is not so good, but I doubt the difference is that noticeable in real life.

 - Excellent dynamic range, which is very useful when you are shooting very contrasty scenes.

 - According to the salesman, one of the features of S5 Pro is the ability to take nice cactus pictures, so hopefully with this camera my cactus picture will improve dramatically.

 Come to think of it, those are a lot of reasons for me to switch.

 Well, apart from that, I actually feel kinda weird having a "FUJI" brand as my DSLR because I am very used to either Canon or Nikon as DSLR brand, not Fuji. 

 Anyway, yeah, so I think I got a very good deal with the camera, but I will keep you guys posted on how well this camera can perform (the battery is still charging).

 Would you like some S5 Pro body pictures in the mean time? I can take those with the D80.


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Odd. What JPEG quality are you outputting/exporting/saving as? JPEG Fine is about 98._

 

I can't find the save setting options, I tried preference. The only save setting available was on batch processing. I don't do batch processing, usually I see my pics one by one on view nx and edit some of them w/ capture nx


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi guys, I'm still using capture nx ver. 1 mac ver., included w/ my d300. I am a jpeg shooter. I noticed when I edit my photo using capture nx, it shrinked my files significantly, ex: a 3.6mb came to 1.6 mb after I do some editing.
 Why do they shrink files?
 Is it lesser my image quality?
 Is there a way doing some editing w/ capture nx and not shrink my files?_

 

Probably the .jpg settings you are saving it as. Try and save a .jpg and look for settings for quality, or compression.


----------



## milkpowder

*dj_mocok*: Oh so you've already got it! I've booked marked your Photo.net portfolio. The pictures over there are just a little bit better than your "cactus pictures".
 You bet I'll be "stalking" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





*RYCeT*: The option for JPEG quality/compression won't be in preferences. I'm a Lightroom 2 user so Capture NX is a complete mystery to me, but it should be in the 'save as' window. When you select the output format as JPEG, you should see the options for quality/compression.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*dj_mocok*: Oh so you've already got it! I've booked marked your Photo.net portfolio. You bet I'll be "stalking" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




*RYCeT*: The option for JPEG quality/compression won't be in preferences. I'm a Lightroom 2 user so Capture NX is a complete mystery to me, but it should be in the 'save as' window. When you select the output format as JPEG, you should see the options for quality/compression._

 

Hehe, thanks. But I doubt you'll see an improvement in actual results though. I think the improvement are mostly in ease of use.


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Probably the .jpg settings you are saving it as. Try and save a .jpg and look for settings for quality, or compression._

 

When I used the save button, it directly saved any adjustment I made and give me no option for quality or compression. When I used the save as button, it gave me the option of the quality saving however it did not save any adjustment I made. This is frustrating.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When I used the save as button, it gave me the option of the quality saving however it did not save any adjustment I made. This is frustrating._

 

Aww shucks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My 30-day trial has already ended...


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When I used the save button, it directly saved any adjustment I made and give me no option for quality or compression. When I used the save as button, it gave me the option of the quality saving however it did not save any adjustment I made. This is frustrating._

 

I'm not sure what the problem with saving your edits are, but yes, when you 'save as' and are given options for quality/compression that is what will effect the file size.


----------



## dj_mocok

Here is the S5Pro - taken with my old D80 - probably one of a few last pictures I will take with D80 before it leaves me. I might miss this beautiful camera 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






















 Initial impressions after a few hours with the S5: 
 The colour of this camera is really different, I am not sure if it's just the difference in setting or it's also the "Fuji" thing that makes it different from Nikon. All I know is it takes a bit to get myself adjusted to the 'new' colour feel. The D80 feels brighter and colours have more pop in them, whereas the S5 I think is more accurate and polite. It really does have a film-like look in them. 

 One thing I really don't like: After snapping one shot, it takes maybe 1 to 1.5 second before the image is displayed on the LCD, and this is very annoying for me personally because with D80 the picture comes out instantly on the LCD. This camera is for sure not a fast-action camera. But focusing speed wise and everything, it is very fast. 

 Viewing/replaying images and deleting is also a bit annoying and not as spontaneous as D80, but I think I can adjust myself to this. But I don't know if it's just me or not, the optical viewfinder on S5 looks a tad brighter compared to D80. ISO-wise, the S5 performs a tad better than D80. 

 This is getting long, maybe I should make a mini-review, hehe...


----------



## Towert7

DJ, the Fuji digital camera is known for having a very wide dynamic range. The downfall, as you have and probably will continue to notice, is that things look very dull.

 So you get more lowlight and highlight details, but the downside is that you need to do selective photo edits to get the 'pop'. I'm sure you can change the saturation and contrast to get it more like the Nikon though.

 The Fuji is a very niche camera, and people usually get it primarily for the increased dynamic range.
 If that's not important to you, I'm not sure why you went with the Fuji vs. Nikon..........


----------



## bigshot

Maybe I didn't read carefully enough, but if you wanted a D200, why didn't you buy a D200?


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_DJ, the Fuji digital camera is known for having a very wide dynamic range. The downfall, as you have and probably will continue to notice, is that things look very dull.

 So you get more lowlight and highlight details, but the downside is that you need to do selective photo edits to get the 'pop'. I'm sure you can change the saturation and contrast to get it more like the Nikon though.

 The Fuji is a very niche camera, and people usually get it primarily for the increased dynamic range.
 If that's not important to you, I'm not sure why you went with the Fuji vs. Nikon.........._

 

The dynamic range, you can actually set between normal to 400% which at the moment I set to auto. I think the dull colours that happen to some people is due to setting up max dynamic range (max dynamic range setting makes the colours dull because it will try to preserve everything), or using RAW, and some Fuji users got into the bad habit of slightly overexposing the image just because the ability to recover so much highlight details of the camera. I shoot JPG 99% of the time. 

 But the colours are indeed different, especially if you set it under film mode (S5 has either 'standard' mode or 'film' mode with a few selections under film mode to mimic different fuji films colours). Yes, result from Nikon is very different from Fuji. 
 Don't take this as a fact (since it also depends on camera settings), but the colours from my D80 looks brighter and 'poppy' whereas from the S5, the colours are deeper. 
 I think image wise, Nikon is like Grado - bright and punchier, whereas Fuji is like Sennheiser, darker but smoother. (I'm not saying if you like Sennheiser, Fuji is your camera because headphone-wise, I prefer Grado actually, haha...)

 But then again, as you said, you can always adjust the camera according to your taste, and if that's not good enough, there's always photoshop.
 However at the moment I am very happy with the camera which I set under film mode. I am going out today and hopefully I can take some pictures to share with you guys.
 The images are definitely not dull though.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Maybe I didn't read carefully enough, but if you wanted a D200, why didn't you buy a D200?_

 

Well, I don't really want D200 because of the noise performance and because the Fuji can produce excellent jpg straight from the camera, and most of all the deal that I got for the fuji camera was too hard to resist.

 I paid AUS$1500 for brand new Fuji S5 + Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, that's roughly only US$1,000. 
 If you check the price at B&H, Fuji S5 + Tamron 17-50mm will cost you US$ 1,300 brand new.

 They are still selling new body only D200 for AU$1,600 - so considering what I got for AU$1,500 I think this is a no-brainer deal. I'm actually quite surprised with the price considering brick and mortar shops here in Australia are notorious for having ridicolous price compared to online shops.

 Anyway, yesterday I did a quick snaps just to compare the S5 and D80's noise performance, the results are below. But since then I've changed the colour mode on the S5 to suit my liking, so hopefully I can post a bit more pictures later.

 They are camera JPGs straight from the camera, resized and the crops are from the 100% crop.

*[size=medium]ISO 800:[/size]*











*[size=medium]ISO 1600:[/size]*


----------



## M0T0XGUY

There really isn't much different to be honest...


----------



## milkpowder

I don't know which picture is from which camera so treat this as a blind test. The bottom one has more chroma noise and the luminance noise is lower frequency, which IMHO is ugly compared to the higher frequency noise of the top picture.

 (The two pictures don't have the same exposure. This could alter the way the noise appears. Was any in camera noise reduction applied?)


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There really isn't much different to be honest..._

 

One noise is a little bit softer with more color variation, while the other is more grainy with almost no color variation.

 The softness _could _be due to sharpness settings in camera or noise reduction. 

 Either way, with an S5 the camera is not your limiting factor. I hope you enjoy it!


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There really isn't much different to be honest..._

 

That's exactly why I bought it. The reason why I didn't really like the D200 is the jpg's noise performance (it's visible even at 800). 
 But if you notice, from those 2 sets, one of them performs better. 

 Milkpowder and Towert:
 Exposures are actually the same (so that pretty much tells you the difference in ISO sensitivity on both cameras although same in value)
 Both cameras have their Noise Reduction set to lowest (I hate NR), but as you said, one is better than the other. 

 The bottom one is the D80, and top one is Fuji S5. As you said, the details and colours of bottom one looks smeared and the noise is not as nice as the S5, which looks more monochromatic. 
 I am not sure how this translates in real life performance, but it's good to know that it's different.

 One other thing to note, I've been reading a lot people saying that this camera is not really sharp, but I think it is perfectly fine. Well maybe if you blow it up to ridiculous magnification there is a difference, but from what I'm doing so far, I don't really feel that my D80 is sharper although it has full 10MP compared to Fuji's.

 By the way, what do you think of the colours? It's a bit different isn't it? But as you see, it's not flat looking though. The people who produces flat looking pictures with their F5s are too obsessed with the DR, I think they lost the plot a bit. Good pictures always start from proper exposure to begin with, not from purposely exposing (or setting the of camera) so that you can get the details later. Although I know in some extreme situation you can't help but use the 400% Max Dynamic Range feature of the camera, but it's rare in my case.

 So far the only thing I miss from D80 is the speed and the intuitive menu.


----------



## dj_mocok

By the way, the camera comes with Tamron 17-50mm 2.8; I wonder whether I should use it or just sell it... (don't really like the plasticky feel)


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By the way, the camera comes with Tamron 17-50mm 2.8; I wonder whether I should use it or just sell it... (don't really like the plasticky feel)_

 

The Tamron is not as plasticky as the other lenses. To me it feels nice and is pretty dense. How do you actually like the images?

 I would've loved to get an S5 Pro also. They're getting cheaper now. But... I stumbled upon something else today. Something full frame. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 My 17-50 is now obsolete as Towert7 would put it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Also arriving here is the 80-200 AF-S. It will be doing a huge battle with my Canon 70-200s. The winner will decide the fate for me... Canon vs. Nikon. Supposedly this Nikon lens has a legendary pedigree. I can say that the build is great and the balance of the lens is supurb. The motor makes some noise though and it's not as silky smooth in operation of the zoom ring. I'm kind of getting used to primes though. :/ There's just something I find fascinating with the 35/2 and 50/1.8.


----------



## lan

Oh yeah and the D3x is coming.

Nikon unveils 24.5MP D3x digital SLR: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But... I stumbled upon something else today. 
 Something full frame. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Which would be.....................

  Quote:


 My 17-50 is now obsolete as Towert7 would put it. 
 

Lucky for you you are one of the quicker adopters of digital full frame. Your 17-50 still sells for a good price because there is still a demand.
 In a year or two I doubt the same will be said.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh yeah and the D3x is coming.

Nikon unveils 24.5MP D3x digital SLR: Digital Photography Review_

 

targeted at the Medium format crowd, Nikon is really raving about the EXPEED processor. I want to see some images of it compared to a Hasselblad. That'll be the true test.


----------



## Arainach

dj: Which shots are which? The "better high ISO performance" appears to just be increased noise reduction, since it sure looks like it's coming at the expense of sharpness to me.


----------



## dj_mocok

bottom ones are Nikon D80. Both cameras are set to lowest NR.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Which would be.....................

 Lucky for you you are one of the quicker adopters of digital full frame. Your 17-50 still sells for a good price because there is still a demand.
 In a year or two I doubt the same will be said._

 

I'm sure you can guess. There are only 2 options. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Just testing it out though. I don't buy based on speculation but testing so I don't own it permanently yet. There are millions of crop cameras. I think somebody is still willing to upgrade.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm sure you can guess. There are only 2 options. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Just testing it out though. I don't buy based on speculation but testing so I don't own it permanently yet. There are millions of crop cameras. I think somebody is still willing to upgrade._

 

I saw in the canon thread you are demo'ing the D700.
 That must be fun!
 ^_^


----------



## lan

It'll be tough to acquire a 5D MKII so I needed to mess around with something for a little. The video mode on that camera is something I can really take advantage of. The rest to me is "blah".

 Quick update 80-200 AF-S to me has some annoying obvious distortion. It's most obvious taking things with lines like buildings. I'm not sure I like that at all. Sharpness and vignetting are easily fixable compared to this. I wouldn't want to post process every image for distortion.


----------



## bigshot

For all intents and purposes, those tests are interchangeable. They're a little bit different, but neither is better. And I bet the D200 would be no different either. The Tamron 18-50 2.8 is an excellent walk around lens. It's light, fast and just as sharp as the Nikon equivalent.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It'll be tough to acquire a 5D MKII so I needed to mess around with something for a little. The video mode on that camera is something I can really take advantage of. The rest to me is "blah".

 Quick update 80-200 AF-S to me has some annoying obvious distortion. It's most obvious taking things with lines like buildings. I'm not sure I like that at all. Sharpness and vignetting are easily fixable compared to this. I wouldn't want to post process every image for distortion._

 

Any zoom lens (and most prime lenses) will suffer some form of distortion or other.


----------



## dj_mocok

Just won a 200mm f/4 Ai lens on eBay (AU$100). Reviews said this lens is pretty good. I hope it performs well. But to be honest I am more worried about the condition of the lens more than anything else. 

 I actually skipped the 80-200mm f/4 and 80-200mm f/4.5 Ai zoom version for this one. I hope it's a good decision.


----------



## Towert7

The Nikkor 80-200 F/4.5 Ai is actually a very nice lens for what it is! I wouldn't expect the 200mm F/4 nikkor to be anything less considering it's a prime.


----------



## dj_mocok

Well I hope so. But I do hope there is no fungus in the lens... 

 Before it finished I actually asked the seller: "are there any scratches on the back/front of the lens / any fungus in the lens / how's the focusing mechanism and aperture..."

 She replied: "It's fine". 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Although on the auction description it (only) says: GOOD CONDITION NO MOULD.

 I hope she's the type of person who understates stuff not conceals/mislead stuff.


----------



## Towert7

I know that exact feeling! I was worried with my 80-200 too. Would the glass have scratches, fungus, lots of dust inside....

 With buying on ebay though, you do take that risk. That's why I would only ever buy budget lenses.
 Let's hope she is an honest seller!


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For all intents and purposes, those tests are interchangeable._

 

My feelings also. These images are not significantly different.

 The S5Pro needs to be taken outside at noon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Not this bookcase stuff.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Any zoom lens (and most prime lenses) will suffer some form of distortion or other._

 

Maybe, but I usually don't notice them to care enough. With this lens, I took note immediately as I'm not used to seeing the NYC skyline this bent. :/

 It's a seemingly nice sports lens though. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I tracked some people ice skating with it and it was fine.

 On a crazy note, I tried my DX lenses @ FX. 55-200VR creates a natural vignetting. Tamron 17-55 creates a hard circle. Strange.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My feelings also. These images are not significantly different.

 The S5Pro needs to be taken outside at noon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Not this bookcase stuff.

_

 

Ian: It's still weekdays so I can't really go out taking pictures yet. Well I could but I'd stand out like a sore thumb if I go carrying around a big camera in a suburb where I live (it's not a touristy spot). That's the thing I don't like about DSLR, people notice. Like the other day when I was accompanying my partner doing clothes shopping, the shopkeeper asked: "So where are you from?" Apparently my camera makes me look like a tourist. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But you are right, I haven't actually taken this camera out yet. So it might be terrible for outside shooting for all I know.. 

 So in the meantime you guys just have to stand my bookshelves pictures a little bit more, haha...
 Also I mentioned that the S5 came with the Tamron lens; I decided to pick up the lens today instead of choosing another type of lens because the shopkeeper jacked up the price so much when I asked to swap the Tamron with other ones. 

 I actually asked, instead of Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, could I get the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 instead? Guess what, I had to pay AUS$250 extra for that. Yeah right. so I decided to stick with the 17-50mm. It was actually someone else's on-hold lens and I still had to wait for new batch to be delivered to the shop, but since the person is not picking it up soon, I hijacked it. That person must be so pissed, haha... Mine is the older version without motor one. Apparently if I want the motorised one (new version) the price will be different too. Geez... 

 Came home tried it on, and I must say optically this lens is excellent. Very sharp and it focuses accurately across all points wide open both at wide and tele end. One thing I really hate is the zoom ring is so stiff it's like someone forgot to apply some lubricant or something (maybe they did forget). And the front ring rotates when the lens focuses. Also the front element is wayyy to near the lens cap. This is the only lens I might actually put a filter because the glass is just too close to the cap.

 But it's very contrasty and sharp. I can completely trust this lens as walkaround (image-wise) if I am too lazy to carry my others. I hope it doesn't crap out on me in a month or so.
 Here, another book shelf picture for you. This time is taken with the Tamron though. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	









 Would you like to have more crappy bookshelf shots ?


----------



## lan

S5Pro has one of the best JPEGs supposedly. It should do nicely outside also. 

 That's unfortunate people look at you strangely for carrying your DSLR around. Even in big cities it's sometimes not normal to see people with larger than average cameras especially in the subway. I saw this girl with a D2X a few weeks back. It was the first time I ever saw somebody carry a "big" camera like it's nothing. Tourists usually have smaller cameras. I hardly see anybody with telephoto lenses also. I once got stopped at H&M clothing store to get warned not to take photos. I just had my D300 + 55-200VR. I guess it was slightly larger than normal rigs. 

 That's absurb you had to pay more to swap for the Tamron 28-75 especially when it's the cheaper lens! I have that same Tamron 17-50 without motor and also think it's pretty sharp and contrasty.


----------



## dj_mocok

The S5 Pro indeed has a very good JPG out of camera - this is perfect for me since I shoot jpg 99% of the time. Now I even use SRGB, I think I am getting really lazy. But the outcomes are still very nice though. 
 One other thing I really love about S5 is the metering system, it's very reliable even in weird lighting condition. I suppose it's the same with D200.

 About the Tamron, is the zooming on your lens very stiff too? I am not expecting MF lenses kind of smoothness, but it's so hard sometimes it feels like zooming in with a dry, unserviced old manual focus lens.
 My Tokina zooms much much better than the Tamron. I guess they really dumped all the money in the glass, huh.
 I am actually glad that I got the old no motor version because I read the new one is slower in focusing compared to old one. Also that means one less moving mechanism with electronic that I have to worry about - especially if it's a third party one.

 Now about carrying DSLR around, nowadays I even hesitate to go to local park alone with a big lens in case people confuse me with pedophile.


----------



## lan

If you shoot JPEG, it's essential your auto white balance and metering are correct.

 Yeah my Tamron's zoom is stiff but this new 80-200 AF-S I got is stiff also. My other lenses are not as stiff but it's not the same as a butter smooth manual focus lens. Oddly, the smoothest AF lens I have is Tamron 17-35. I'm not sure why they're all so different.

 Why that's most unfortunate that you have a bunch of people around you scared of cameras. Is there any reason for them to be suspicious like was there a case of of a "threatening" person with a camera in the past?


----------



## dj_mocok

No, nobody actually felt uncomfortable with my presence yet so far (I don't shoot strangers' pictures and I am usually accompanied by my partner), but you'll never know - these days people might get paranoid with big cameras.

 I shot some tall buildings last time (and I was using my old Panasonic FZ20) and a security came out and told me it's not allowed. I mean if I really had a bad intention (eg. scouting for terrorism target or whatever) I think I'd try to be less obvious to the security and I can always get the shot at night when there are nobody there anyway. 

 But aside from that, when you are lugging your camera, people sometime look at you (or your camera) in a curious way, which also makes me uncomfortable. Maybe I should be more thick-skinned and not worry about this kind of thing.

 I only handled 80-200mm quickly at the shop before, so I can't quite remember how smooth the zoom felt like, but I assume for that pro grade lens and considering the range of zoom, it should be at least pretty decent in terms of zoom feel? 

 Or maybe they do that on purpose to prevent lens creep - although I might be completely wrong here.
 Anyway, just wondering - you got the funds to buy an FF, so I assume you can also afford a 70-200mm VR. Why you didn't get that one instead? I remember that the 70-200mm's zoom is not stiff at all.


----------



## lan

The security guard is just bored. Can't blame him. lol

 I think lens creep only affects push/pull zooms not the twist type.

 Well I don't really need VR. When I shoot action, I'm either at 1/125 to 1/500. When I'm in low light, I just prefer faster than 2.8. Vignetting is also an issue on 70-200VR on FF. 200mm is where VR is most it's needed but I prefer the super teles for long range stuff as the quality is better.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think lens creep only affects push/pull zooms not the twist type._

 

Some twist types can also creep. The only one that comes to my mind is the Nikkor 18-200VR though. That thing creeps more than my push/pull 35-70mm.


----------



## RYCeT

Hi guys, I'm considering adding a flash to my system. Is SB900 worth $80 more than SB800? Reading amazon's review, it seems SB900 has some issues w/ reliability while SB800 seems more reliable but have more confusing menu. So anyone using SB900 here? Is it worth it to buy the sb900 instead of SB800?


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi guys, I'm considering adding a flash to my system. Is SB900 worth $80 more than SB800? Reading amazon's review, it seems SB900 has some issues w/ reliability while SB800 seems more reliable but have more confusing menu. So anyone using SB900 here? Is it worth it to buy the sb900 instead of SB800?_

 

I use an SB-900, but can't say whether or not it's worth $80 more than the SB-800, as I've not used the SB-800 at length.

 As for reliability: I've never had an issue with mine. It cycles very quickly, and does a nice job of keeping up with the D300's with-grip rapid-fire for some quick flash shots in succession (assuming the metering doesn't ask for full blasts).

 I believe the reliability issue you might be referring to would be what some have experienced to be a too-sensitive thermal shutdown. Mine hasn't yet done that, and, in fact, I haven't ever run its "thermometer" indicator up nearly high enough to trip it. That being said, I believe a firmware fix that was recently released may address this. (The firmware fix, however, can currently only be run from a D300, D700 or D3, if I understand correctly.) I haven't applied the firmware update yet, but will likely do so very soon.

 Keep in mind that it's physically quite a bit larger than the SB-800.

 As for controls: Again, I can't comment on the SB-800, as I haven't spent but a moment with one, but the SB-900's controls are very easy to use, with the nice control wheel/button being the centerpiece of it. I don't yet use anything more than the TTL and TTL-BL modes, and switching between modes can be done pretty much instantly. It also has dedicated remote/master settings (part of the rotary on-off switch). The display is very nice and easy to read and understand, too.

 I don't know if the SB-800 comes with a STO-FEN-type diffuser, but the SB-900 does, which is nice to use from time to time.

 My one big criticism is that it doesn't come with a weather-resistant cover to shield the bottom contacts like my Canon 580EX II did.


----------



## lan

Hmm 18-200VR creeps? The one I got for my friend didn't but that was when it was new. I don't know how it will age.

 I played with SB800s and they are really annoying to use. That's the only reason I own SB600. lol. The 900, it's cool but I can't justify spending that much on a flash when it doesn't do much more for me. When I do strobist off camera stuff, I prefer 580EXII in full manual for recycle and power, Vivitar 285HV for cheapness and SB600 for CLS.


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm 18-200VR creeps? The one I got for my friend didn't but that was when it was new. I don't know how it will age...._

 

I don't have this lens, but I did see *this thread* regarding a possible mod/remedy for it.


----------



## bigshot

I have no problems with creep on my 18-200 VR. But I don't walk around with it bobbling around my neck. I carry my camera in a side messenger bag that I can reach in and have the camera in my hand quickly.

 Obviousness of giant klunky DSLRs with big honking lenses is a serious issue that not enough people admit. Perhaps not that many people actually take their cameras out into the public to shoot. I've found that I have to keep my camera under wraps when I'm shooting or people around me won't act naturally. My solution to that is to keep the camera in a side bag most of the time, and sometimes leave the DSLR home and go out shooting with my P&S.

 A good pocket camera can get pictures you could never get with a DSLR.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have no problems with creep on my 18-200 VR._

 

Nikkor AF-S DX VR 18-200mm 3.5-5.6G IF-ED DSLR lens full review Cameralabs video tour






  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ian* 
_Hmm 18-200VR creeps?_

 

It sure does! It's a pain when using it on a tripod!
 Tilting it up/down more than 45-60º will cause creep.


----------



## Towert7

Seems like Nikon has been making the newer 18-200VR's tighter with the zoom ring, but people still say the lens creeps after being used a lot. Mine creeped from day one, but then again I picked mine up near when they first came out (same time as Gordon Laing). Looks like they tweeked something to make the zoom stiffer.


----------



## milkpowder

My dad has a 18-200VR. It has crept from the start too. Fortunately it hasn't gotten any worse and it's 9 months old. I also have a friend who shoots with a creeping 18-200VR. It's not really a problem at all but I did expect better from a mid-range Nikkor.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My dad has a 18-200VR. It has crept from the start too. Fortunately it hasn't gotten any worse and it's 9 months old. I also have a friend who shoots with a creeping 18-200VR. It's not really a problem at all but I did expect better from a mid-range Nikkor._

 

Yup, same here. Mine crept from the start, but it hasn't got worse.
 Hand holding it I never have a problem. At worst I just apply pressure to the zoom ring and it says there.

 Shooting on a tripod though is where it does become a pain, because I don't want to be holding onto the camera while using the tripod.

 I think my old Nikkor 80-200 F/4.5n is the king of creep though! That thing is so loose!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## choomanchoo

Just purchased a coolpix S5500, not a bad little thing for just under 150.


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My dad has a 18-200VR. It has crept from the start too. Fortunately it hasn't gotten any worse and it's 9 months old. I also have a friend who shoots with a creeping 18-200VR. It's not really a problem at all but I did expect better from a mid-range Nikkor._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yup, same here. Mine crept from the start, but it hasn't got worse.
 Hand holding it I never have a problem. At worst I just apply pressure to the zoom ring and it says there.

 Shooting on a tripod though is where it does become a pain, because I don't want to be holding onto the camera while using the tripod.

 I think my old Nikkor 80-200 F/4.5n is the king of creep though! That thing is so loose!!!!!!!!!!!!!_

 

In case you missed this, guys, you might want to check out *this link* for what might be a helpful tip for "fixing" the lens creep on the 18-200mm.


----------



## dj_mocok

Who's going to get the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS?

 By the way, I am thinking to sell my Tamron 17-50mm because I really don't like the plasticky feel of the lens and the zooming feel... but do you think I might regret it later? (because this lens is really good optically even compared to much more expensive ones)

 I am guessing if I sold the lens, I can only get roughly AUD$400-500 only (US$ 250-300) 
 I know it's not much but at least I can use it to help fund some other lens that I really like (or get an LX7). But then again, I really like the image quality of this lens and there is no way I can get this kind of quality with this price anymore, especially the copy that I have is a very good one (focuses accurately and very sharp wide open). I really can't decide. What do you guys think?


----------



## lan

Well I guess that depends how you take photos. Some like only image quality related stuff no matter how they got there. Then there are the tangible things when you use the camera like smooth controls, big viewfinders, fast AF which is part of the experience. I kind of like a mix of both. There are some things which are cheap and give enough back that it doesn't make sense selling them. It sounds like you could use the LX7 as a small cam so it might give more back. A pic is better than none especially if you don't want to carry the DSLR.


----------



## lan

LOL. 55-200VR, a DX lens, nearly works fine on the D700. A little vignetting control and a crop to about 10MP and it's useable. fascinating. I was worried I wouldn't have a light VR zoom lens but I guess I'm going to keep this little bugger. I've always really like this lens.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Who's going to get the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS?

 By the way, I am thinking to sell my Tamron 17-50mm because I really don't like the plasticky feel of the lens and the zooming feel... but do you think I might regret it later? (because this lens is really good optically even compared to much more expensive ones)_

 

I'd get the Sigma 50 1.4 over the new Nikkor (based on what I've read about the latter thus far). If I were to use a 1.4 lens, I'd want performance at 1.4, and it sounds like the Sigma with its' giant front element really delivers there. Not to mention that the 77mm thread is more convenient for me, and that I generally prefer the Sigma EX build quality over the plasticky Nikkors.

 I did not regret getting rid of the 17-50 even a bit. The Sigma 24-60 I replaced it with is just as sharp, if not better in the corners, with less vignetting and CA. The cheap plastic and slow/funky sounding AF motor of the Tamron also got on my nerves.


----------



## dj_mocok

I just realised that my bread box is getting full (I use it to store lenses). Maybe it's time do downsize a bit, I don't know. The thing is, it's hard to part with equipments you like. 

 By the way, my oldie Nikon 200mm f/4 Ai that I won from eBay arrived today. Now I figured that she (the seller) was the person who likes to understate things. It is in excellent condition. No ding, fungus, etc. Focus is so very smooth and aperture clicks solidly. 

 It did however come with smudgy front and back element, but I spent a good 1/2hr or so cleaning every inch of the lens and I have to say now it looks like 97% brand new. I'm glad I could actually got rid of the smudge. I think this is definitely one of the best 100 bucks I've ever spent. 

 Also tried some snaps too, first thing that came to my mind was: "holy cr@p!". Bokeh is so beautiful and it's very sharp and contrasty even at f/4 wide open. I really suggest you guys to start hunting one of these on eBay because this is one heck of a lens. 

 I haven't got the chance to try it outside, but tomorrow I will. For indoor maybe not a good idea since it's so long and with the f/4 you really have to crank up the ISO and even then it's still not really fast enough to be used without tripod (because with 200mm you might want to have at least 1/200 or around that). Doesn't mean that it's not doable, but you might have to take a few attempts. 

 But the picture quality makes me want to cry tears of joy. It also makes me a bit sad because today they don't make lenses like this anymore - unfortunately the consumers have driven the market more towards practicality and price than a solid build and first class workmanship. (AFS this, VR that... I mean I don't know - I'm not a lens engineer - maybe it's very difficult to have a lens with current technology but with Ai lens' built, or maybe it's not cost effective at all, who knows)

 Anyway, if you guys are interested in some pictures, let me know I will post some.


----------



## Towert7

I would indeed be interested in some pictures, specifically if you take some outside in sunlight.

 Glad to see you lucked out! I too sometimes miss the days when all lenses felt that solid!


----------



## dj_mocok

I'll see if I can take some pictures tomorrow and post it here. 

 By the way, from quick eBay search I found at least 2 similar lenses are on auction at this very moment (1 in UK, 1 in US, both in very good condition), in case if you guys want to get one. Providing you can get a good working copy one, you really can't go wrong with this lens. Just to prevent confusion, the one I got is not the micro one.
 The picture below is taken from the actual auction that I won (as you can see it didn't look like a clean lens, but it's actually very clean).


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By the way, I am thinking to sell my Tamron 17-50mm because I really don't like the plasticky feel of the lens and the zooming feel... but do you think I might regret it later?_

 

That's my most often used lens. I love how lightweight and fast it is. It's great for walkaround. I bought mine used for $200. A bargain.


----------



## OverlordXenu

The SB900 is not worth the extra $80. Not even to most pros, unless they want a faster recycling time without an external battery pack.

 I would get an SB800 and start reading Strobist.


----------



## Mellow Mushroom

Keep in mind that flashes are meant to be diposable, so don't invest too much money into them. I've just had the 3rd Nikon flash die on me. Seems like they are only good up to 50,000 flashes or so. This applies too all flashses in general, not trying to single out Nikon.


----------



## dj_mocok

Well the trick is to buy what you really need. No point getting the fancy ones with all the bells and whistles if you're not going to utilise it. But if you do, then even if it works for 50,000 flashes only, it would be money well spent.


----------



## oogabooga

Heck - I use an SB-600 and it's fine for everything I do - I can't think of any reason to shell out $$ for the -900, except possibly the zoom function (it would be nice to have some flash to boost my 300 f/4!). 

 One important addon is the $20 sto-fen diffuser - works wonders for the -600.


----------



## OverlordXenu

I've got a somewhat old SB-28 (non DX) that is still going strong, so, who knows. Anecdotal evidence is useless.

 Why I would get the 800 over the 600 is because it has a PC-port, which is necessecary if you want to do off-camera flash (execept for CLS, but I wouldn't use CLS without a Pocketwizard, anyway).


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The SB900 is not worth the extra $80. Not even to most pros, unless they want a faster recycling time without an external battery pack.

 I would get an SB800 and start reading Strobist._

 

Well I frequently use 1/4 to full power so I need as much recycling speed as possible. You can't shoot anything fast with a Vivitar 285HV or older flash with slower recycling. This is valid as a strobist or a pro if you use light modifiers which eat that much light to need that much power. I see the flash's power limitation in nearly all circumstances I use it. Maybe those using single shoot through umbrella it's ok but I use reflective umbrella (which is farther away from subject), double diffused softbox with grid, diffused grider barndoors, or some other combination of light eaters.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why I would get the 800 over the 600 is because it has a PC-port, which is necessecary if you want to do off-camera flash (execept for CLS, but I wouldn't use CLS without a Pocketwizard, anyway)._

 

I just add a hotshoe adaptor for pc sync port so I can use SB600 or any flash off camera. But yeah the SB800 has it built in. I prefer it built in but the $ savings lets me buy other things instead. I find the 800 not much more powerful than 600 and I prefer my Canon 580s to them for off camera purposes.

 CLS is great because there's no wires and it's cheap way to do things. You can work very fast also. I love it when I can use it.


----------



## OverlordXenu

I usually just use studio stobes, but yeah, CLS is great.

 The SB600 is really that much cheaper?

 And the strobist himself somewhat recomended against the SB900, because the SB800 is going to tank in price as trust-funders drop them for the SB900.


----------



## lan

SB800 has been discontinued a while ago already. They were heavily discounted which was cool but at normal price, the SB800 was about $125 more. Used the SB800 is probably twice the price.


----------



## lan

On another note, who's the wise guy who decided to use mini-HDMI on the D700? I dislike small connectors as they're more fragile. I never liked mini usb, mini firewire either. I would've preferred the pro cams having normal size firewire and HDMI.


----------



## dj_mocok

Ha, my weekend outing for taking pictures turned out to be not so great. All crappy pictures and my partner wasn't cooperative because it was too hot and sunny. But nonetheless I promised to post some pictures regardless.
 So for picture-police around here please excuse the crappy pictures (yes, this time unfortunately it's not intentional 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





). Please just look at the image characteristics only.

 By the way, I posted a for-sale for my Tamron and got offered AU$520 for it, but I decided not to sell it because unfortunately as much as I don't like the handling and built, I really can't fault the image quality. It's like you have a not-so-attractive girlfriend but she has a really nice heart - can't really let it go. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I guess in this case I just need to live with the shortcoming considering how much it can actually offer me. Once I can get past the feel, I really don't see why I need to spend big bucks for lens like Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 because this cheap Tamron really delivers. 

 Anyway, this is the old Nikon 200mm f/4. As you can see, it has a built-in lens hood which is very handy. All you need to do is slide it up and voila, lens hood! Very convenient indeed, I don't know why they don't do this anymore.






 Now bokeh wise, I personally feel this lens is very similar to 85mm 1.4. I don't know it's because they both have 9 blades, or it's the construction inside. The difference is with 85mm wide open, you get this dreamy feel that you don't really get with the 200mm since at f/4 it doesn't isolate as tight as 85mm @1.4. 

 But for a whole body portrait (not only part of the face is in focus), this lens is excellent. Wide open, it will isolate the person (the whole face and body), and nicely blur everything else behind it. 
 To get a nice result, you really need to use tripod though. But it will be worth all your hassle of carrying it. Sorry I can't post the portrait sample because it's a family picture but maybe next time I can pick some unassuming strangers as sample.

 The picture below was shot with 200mm f/4 wide open, object was underexposed because background was so bright. But I pulled out the shadow a bit so that it looks clearer.






 Now this one shows the difference in point of lights, Nikon's one is more delicate and smooth, but I'm not saying that Tamron's one is bad, it still looks very good for me, but especially at night time, the point of light has rings within it, so some people won't like it. My Tamron 90mm 2.8 has better bokeh than this one but it's expected.






 However I am perfectly fine with how it renders background object blur. So far my experience with Tamron lenses have been very good bokeh wise, I just wished that they made the lens 100 bucks more expensive and give us a better built lens instead. 






 By the way, have you guys looked for the 200mm on eBay yet? It's selling so cheap now, you gotta try one.


----------



## Towert7

Oh, no need for test photos. If you happen to take a photo that you like with the 200mm F/4, then I would like to see that picture!


----------



## lan

The D3x is indeed expensive and not all people are too happy about that... ....rants about D3x 

 This clip seems popular to subtitle over it seems. lol


----------



## vibin247

"There there. I hear he only shoots JPEG." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Brilliant film to parody, especially that particular scene. 

 While I'm excited about the D3X, I'm not upset at the price. Try obtaining a medium format DSLR, or back for that price. I myself am gravitating towards a D3 + D700. I don't regret getting a Canon DSLR, and have been enjoying it, but in case the 1D Mark IV is a letdown, I'm switching in the future.


----------



## oogabooga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"There there. I hear he only shoots JPEG." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

And then they shout-out to JPEG king Ken Rockwell! Golden!


----------



## dj_mocok

But they are right, that Sony is really excellent value for money. Now if it was only in Nikon F mount like Fuji DSLRs....


----------



## dj_mocok

I took this ad at the train station on the weekend.
 I might be wrong, but if you look closely, that camera doesn't have a viewfinder does it? And it doesn't look like it's turned on too.
 It's one of the Canon Ixus models - I can't make out which one. But trying to take picture with the camera off and sticking your eye onto the back of LCD as if it's an optical viewfinder doesn't look really smart to me. 

 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/dj_mocok/What.jpg


----------



## Towert7

must be nearsighted.


----------



## dj_mocok

You mean macrosighted. But how do you explain the camera that is not even on?


----------



## oogabooga

He's using the force! 

 Seriously though - some photographers want you to do what looks "cool", even if it's wrong. When they took promo photos at my school, the photographers wanted me to make it look like I was pouring something into our research instrument (worth $1 mil) - something that NO ONE would ever do and would trash the instrument. I said no, b/c any real scientist would look at wonder what kind of education we get here!


----------



## lan

There's a new version of Capture NX & Camera Control Pro out. Does anybody use Capture NX 2? I find I'm fine with Photoshop. I like Camera Control Pro though when I shoot tethered.


----------



## oogabooga

I use Camera Control Pro for copy work or research (once took 400 macro photos of specimens in one day!). Don't use it in another other siutations - I'll use my remote if I just want to reduce vibration.

 I gave up on Capture NX - I use Photon (for the Mac) to quickly cull photos before importing into Lightroom where I'll crop and apply desired WB/Tone changes. Don't really do much beyond that, and LR has great Flickr exporting using the LR/mogrify plugins. 

 LR/mogrify is amazing - after setting it up, with one click I can resize, apply USM, add black outer and white inner borders, overlay my logo, convert to JPEG, and send to Flickr Uploadr with tags intact!


----------



## vagarach

The glaring lack of sharp observation skills on the part of whoever made the billboard is probably a result of taking the first stock image that suited and slapping it on there!

 But then this is so common...wired headphones being listened to with no cables visible, looking into non-existent viewfinders, it's all the same 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## RYCeT

Hi guys, I finally pulled the trigger and bought sb900. I haven't got the item yet but what battery do you suggest to be used with SB900? I have a rayovac rapid charger and I'm thinking of either buying a sony 2700 mah nimh or sanyo eneloop, so which one do you think is a better choice?


----------



## oogabooga

I have like 20 eneloops and LOVE them. So good at holding charge - I always keep spares in my bag and don't have to worry so much about dead batts.


----------



## vibin247

What's nice about the pre-charged NiMH batteries is that they're ready to use right out of the package. I haven't tried the higher capacity NiMHs on my 580EX II, but I use the Duracell pre-charged ones and they work just fine.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I just picked up a nice little stash o' Nikon loot thanks to craigslist. An Older couple was selling an even older, late relative's camera equipment, and of course had next to no idea what it was worth.

 Probably the best piece was a Micro Nikkor AF-D 60mm. Whew, this lens is SHARP!!! Even at f/16 on a D200.

 I also ended up with a Relfex Nikkor 500mm f/8. Odd lens, and not the sharpest thing ever, but fun to play around with, and good for this:






 Not bad for handholding at ISO800 to combat vibration!

 The SB-24 and SB-26 both seem to be firing along just fine. I don't know if I'll use the N80, or just ebay it. I might be fun to run through a few rolls of Vevia, and see what all the fuss was about. There were a few other little odds and ends, all in all, it was a pleasant little surprise find!


----------



## oogabooga

Nice moon shot! I've got a 300 f/4 - when I finally buy the 1.7x TC I'll be able to take shots like that one!!

 The 60mm AF-D is an AMAZING lens. So versatile. I've used it for copy work, nature macro photos, as a portrait lens, and to take some landscapes even. Stopped down a bit it gives amazing starpoints for night-time shots. It's also the sharp as a tack - one of Nikon's sharpest, IMO.


----------



## dj_mocok

I bought a cheap Helios off eBay (roughly around US$20). I think it's 58mm f/2 Helios M44 or something. 
 I hope I get the crazy bokeh version... Will post pictures again once I've received it and take some shots. Damn I'm accumulating 50mm range MF now... ironically none of them auto focuses.


----------



## lan

Ok. Sorry fellas, D700 went back. I was not impressed with it. It's not enough of an improvement over D300 to be worth it to me. I can do everything I want with the D300 with the D700. I also prefer the feel and build of my D300. I need the reach when I telephoto. The AF points move totally accross the frame on a D300 which I use to NOT focus and recompose.


----------



## dj_mocok

I thought the AF points on D300 and D700 are the same?


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I thought the AF points on D300 and D700 are the same?_

 

Since I haven't yet used a D700, I'm guessing that they are the same (the AF points arrangement), so then the focus points don't cover as much of the total sensor area because the D700 has a full-frame sensor.

 Again, I'm assuming that's the case (that the AF points arrangement and area are the same in the D300 and D700), but lan (or some other D700 user) will have to confirm.


----------



## milkpowder

The 51 AF points definitely don't cover the whole of the viewfinder on the D700. The arrangement and area seems identical the same, but the coverage is not nearly as comprehensive simply because of the FX/DX viewfinder size difference. I've shot with one and can see why it may be a slight problem. That being said, the lateral AF points aren't cross-point sensors and I find them much less sensitive than the centra column of 15 X-point sensors.

 If the AF sensor is the same size, is it fair to say that the metering sensor is also the same size?


----------



## lan

Indeed the spacing is different across the frame. 

 The D700 viewfinder
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/ni...finderview.jpg

 The D300 viewfinder
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/Ni...finderview.jpg

 Viewfinder is also 100% on D300. So yeah composing can be a tad better.

 True the lateral sensors are not as sensitive but the eyes are high contrast enough and are oval so it's fine IMO.


----------



## dj_mocok

That's a lot difference. I can see someone with 1.2/1.4 lenses are having difficulties with D700...


----------



## milkpowder

Well at least we're not alone and it doesn't seem like we're at a loss at all considering...

 EOS-1Ds MkIII






 EOS 5D MkII





 EOS 50D





 Of course, Nikon does make the D60 and it's probably not such a great camera for tracking birds or capturing challenging scenes with huge DOF contrast:


----------



## oogabooga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Of course, Nikon does make the D60 and it's probably not such a great camera for tracking birds or capturing challenging scenes with huge DOF contrast:_

 

I used to have the D40 and it was impossible to track ANY moving object - I could never manage to keep it in the centre AF point and the L/R points didn't lock on quickly. 

 Now I have a D300 and can lock on to anything!! I took so many bird photos this past summer


----------



## Eagle_Driver

I am planning to upgrade my D50. Now, with 2GB cards at the bottom of the memory card market in most mass-market superstores, it is only a matter of time before 2GB cards will disappear completely from store shelves (making the 4GB SDHC cards the _smallest_-capacity card widely available). And Nikon still has not released new firmware for the D50; it is still in its very first version (which does not support SDHC cards at all).

 And I thought of a Nikon D90 to replace the D50. The trouble is, the superstores sell that camera only in a kit with the mediocre-performing 18-105mm VR lens - and they want well over $1200 for the kit. (I could buy the D90 as body only, but I would have to go to a photo-specific store just to get it that way.) If I buy the D300, I would have to pony up a few extra hundred bucks, and then buy all new CF cards for that camera (which in mass-market stores, they cost much more money per GB than SDHC cards, and rarely go on sale although they offer much faster write speeds than the maximum write speed of current SDHC devices - the newest CF-based digital cameras can write at well over 30 MB/s, while the fastest current SDHC cameras just began to surpass 15 MB/s for their write speed).

 And I have ruled out the D60 because it is not a true Generation 2 DSLR - that camera has a few Generation 2 features but only Generation 1 guts. And of course, I could always switch to Canon... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 In any case, whichever Nikon body I get (D90 or D300), I will either continue to use my existing 18-55mm Nikkor zoom lens and my 50mm f/1.8D lens, and/or get a new better zoom to supplement the two lenses (or to replace my existing zoom).


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Eagle_Driver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am planning to upgrade my D50. Now, with 2GB cards at the bottom of the memory card market in most mass-market superstores, it is only a matter of time before 2GB cards will disappear completely from store shelves (making the 4GB SDHC cards the smallest-capacity card widely available). And Nikon still has not released new firmware for the D50; it is still in its very first version (which does not support SDHC cards at all).

 And I thought of a Nikon D90 to replace the D50. The trouble is, the superstores sell that camera only in a kit with the mediocre-performing 18-105mm VR lens - and they want well over $1200 for the kit. (I could buy the D90 as body only, but I would have to go to a photo-specific store just to get it that way.) If I buy the D300, I would have to pony up a few extra hundred bucks, and then buy all new CF cards for that camera (which in mass-market stores, they cost much more money per GB than SDHC cards, and rarely go on sale although they offer much faster write speeds than the maximum write speed of current SDHC devices - the newest CF-based digital cameras can write at well over 30 MB/s, while the fastest current SDHC cameras just began to surpass 15 MB/s for their write speed).

 And I have ruled out the D60 because it is not a true Generation 2 DSLR - that camera has a few Generation 2 features but only Generation 1 guts. And of course, I could always switch to Canon... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 In any case, whichever Nikon body I get (D90 or D300), I will either continue to use my existing 18-55mm Nikkor zoom lens and my 50mm f/1.8D lens, and/or get a new better zoom to supplement the two lenses (or to replace my existing zoom)._

 

Am I missing something? Flash cards aren't disposable. Just pick up a few for a good price and be happy with your D50.......... No need to worry about upgrades.

 The only thing that camera is limiting you is it's viewfinder and it's high ISO performance. If those don't apply in a big way, you would be much better off getting better lenses. Well.... that's at least what I would do.


----------



## oogabooga

Bah - forget the superstores! Go to a real camera dealer and get them to give you a package deal on a D90, the 16-85 (or 18-200 if you want the reach - the 16-85 is a touch sharper, has less distortion and no zoom creep... but it's max is 85...) and an SB-600 flash. Flashes are like headphone amps - you don't realize how cruddy built-in flashes are until you get a dedicated one! Ditto for VR... unless you get 2.8 lenses!

 Besides, if you have a truly good camera store in your area, you'll get much better service than the big boxes, and they're far more willing to make a deal. 

 BTW, when I went all the way up to the D300 from my D40, I had only two lenses I was planning to sell anyway... so I did seriously consider switching to Canon. You could too... but do you really want a camera that has the ergonomics of a brick?


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Am I missing something? Flash cards aren't disposable. Just pick up a few for a good price and be happy with your D50.......... No need to worry about upgrades.

 The only thing that camera is limiting you is it's viewfinder and it's high ISO performance. If those don't apply in a big way, you would be much better off getting better lenses. Well.... that's at least what I would do._

 

It's true that the cards aren't really disposable. In fact, of the 18 or so SD and SDHC memory cards I have accumulated over the years, six of them are SDHC cards which don't work at all in the D50. And of all of those, only a 1GB "150x" card from RiDATA failed on me - and that wasn't because the memory pooped out on its own, but because its flimsy plastic casing split apart.

 And it's true that the D50 is best left at ISOs no higher than 800. ISO 1600 performance looked no better than my point-and-shoot compacts' performance at ISO 200.

 And the memory write performance? Well, the D50 does not take full advantage of any high-speed cards (its write speed barely reached 4 MB/s in my testing), although its shooting performance might slow down somewhat with the slowest of the currently available cards.

 Even so, I might still pick up a new body and/or new accessories (lens, flash, etc.) to supplement what I already have.


----------



## oogabooga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The only thing that camera is limiting you is it's viewfinder and it's high ISO performance._

 

Not entirely... the D50's AF systems is over a generation behind the D90... more points and faster AF makes a huge difference for action/sports/nature photography - also the faster FPS (2.5 vs 4.5) for action/sports. The high ISO performance shouldn't be understated - having an extra "stop" or two can make or break indoor shots w/o flash, etc. Also, if you're like me and want to review shots to make sure you didn't screw up, the LCD on the D90 is important.


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oogabooga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not entirely... the D50's AF systems is over a generation behind the D90... more points and faster AF makes a huge difference for action/sports/nature photography - also the faster FPS (2.5 vs 4.5) for action/sports. The high ISO performance shouldn't be understated - having an extra "stop" or two can make or break indoor shots w/o flash, etc. Also, if you're like me and want to review shots to make sure you didn't screw up, the LCD on the D90 is important._

 

Very true. Also, I would be getting an upgraded viewfinder with the D90 versus the D50: The D90 uses a glass pentaprism versus a "pentamirror" on the cheaper models. But even so, the D50's "pentamirror" viewfinder is decent enough for everyday shooting.

 And right now, the biggest reason for me to go for a D300 instead of a D90 would be to gain metering capability with pre-AF lenses (such as Ai or Ai-S). The D90, like the D50, has an autofocus motor inside the body which allows autofocus with older AF and AF-D lenses.


----------



## Towert7

18 Cards!!!???
 Holy cow.

 I've taken over 40,000 pictures with just two cards.....

 Either way, if you want a new body, the D90 and D300 are the serious ones to consider. Here's the thing though. The D90 is using the same sensor as the D300 (roughly), just in a smaller size with a few different features.

 The D90 is 1000$ roughly, the D300 is roughly 1500$. Only you can say whether the difference is worth 500$.

 For me, the sweet spot would be a D90 for the current lineup (and assuming price is an issue).
 It retails for 1000$, but you can find it for a bit less at stores like bhphoto.com (850$us with free shipping, wow what a steal!!!)


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oogabooga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not entirely... the D50's AF systems is over a generation behind the D90... more points and faster AF makes a huge difference for action/sports/nature photography - also the faster FPS (2.5 vs 4.5) for action/sports. The high ISO performance shouldn't be understated - having an extra "stop" or two can make or break indoor shots w/o flash, etc. Also, if you're like me and want to review shots to make sure you didn't screw up, the LCD on the D90 is important._

 

All very true points.


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_18 Cards!!!???
 Holy cow._

 

Mainly because I buy them for benchmark testing. They will see use in my cameras. And right now I have only one digital camera which is compatible with SDHC cards - a P&S Canon SD750.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well at least we're not alone and it doesn't seem like we're at a loss at all considering..._

 

True. In that case, the cam with the best viewfinder to manually focus well wins. The answer is medium format. LOL. Or you could add a nice focusing screen. 

 But yeah that's one of the reasons why I think D300 is special.


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oogabooga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bah - forget the superstores! Go to a real camera dealer and get them to give you a package deal on a D90, the 16-85 (or 18-200 if you want the reach - the 16-85 is a touch sharper, has less distortion and no zoom creep... but it's max is 85...) and an SB-600 flash. Flashes are like headphone amps - you don't realize how cruddy built-in flashes are until you get a dedicated one! Ditto for VR... unless you get 2.8 lenses!

 Besides, if you have a truly good camera store in your area, you'll get much better service than the big boxes, and they're far more willing to make a deal. 

 BTW, when I went all the way up to the D300 from my D40, I had only two lenses I was planning to sell anyway... so I did seriously consider switching to Canon. You could too... but do you really want a camera that has the ergonomics of a brick? _

 

I had to go to the city's downtown just to find a photo-specific store. The trouble is, a lot of so-called "camera stores" near where I live don't carry all that much more than the usual big-box superstore. In fact, most of those stores' business is not sales, but photofinishing (printing).

 And even the one that I ultimately went to (and pulled the trigger on the purchase) does not officially sell any D90 kits (outfits) other than with the mediocre all-plastic 18-105mm VR lens (the other D90 alternative is body only). I pondered about getting the 18-200mm, but since I did not really want to spend more than about $1500 total (the D90 plus 18-200 would have not only shattered my $1500 maximum budget, but also busted my $1700 maximum single-visit outlay after sales tax - and even the 16-85mm VR lens costs almost as much money as the 18-200 over there), I ended up getting a 70-300mm VR lens at a big discount with this D90 purchase - $379.95 for the lens (after a $100 discount from that store's regular price), much less than the $629.99 price that Best Buy sells that lens for.

 As for the flash, I will pick it up at a later date.


----------



## RYCeT

Buy online, try amazon, adorama or B&H.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Buy online, try amazon, adorama or B&H._

 

I agree, just the opposite order


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I agree, just the opposite order 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Looking at my SLR related purchases, Amazon is my favourite store. Sometimes they have better prices than B&H and Adorama with free shipping included (not all items though) and 3% of total purchases going to amazon gift card credit sweeeeet. They have good return policy. Just make sure you buy it from Amazon itself, not other store. B&H is my 2nd choice. I order from B&H when amazon can't give me a better price.


----------



## Braver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's a new version of Capture NX & Camera Control Pro out. Does anybody use Capture NX 2? I find I'm fine with Photoshop. I like Camera Control Pro though when I shoot tethered._

 

I use Capture NX, it just gives me the best color. Control Points also seriously rule. And I find the step by step approach where you can easily access and change or undo any action enormously intuitive. It's also not very expensive. Everything else about it though, like speed, stability, remembering settings, look and feel, feel like something that should have never left beta. In fact, I've used beta (not just anything Google, cause they keep everything in beta for ever) or even pre-beta (typing this from Windows 7) software that was more reliable and fast than CNX.
 Ah well, when it works it's powerful yet easy and basically gets the job done.


----------



## dj_mocok

My Helios came. It's one Hel of a lens I can tell you.


----------



## lan

What is the Helios?

 I just got a Nikon 35-70 3.5 AIs yesterday. I'm trying it out on my 5D. Thinking of using it eventually for video purposes.


----------



## milkpowder

*Eagle_Driver*, you shouldn't have any negative preconceptions about the 18-105VR based solely on the fact that it is plastic mount.


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*Eagle_Driver*, you shouldn't have any negative preconceptions about the 18-105VR based solely on the fact that it is plastic mount._

 

Actually, it's not just the plastic mount; it's that it's soft on the corners at most focal lengths which doesn't improve when stopped down.


----------



## milkpowder

Doesn't look that bad here:
Nikon Lens: Zooms - Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

 Every single lens is soft in the corners.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What is the Helios?

 I just got a Nikon 35-70 3.5 AIs yesterday. I'm trying it out on my 5D. Thinking of using it eventually for video purposes._

 

This is Helios, a 20-bucks lens from Russia. 






 When I looked at the picture samples, it has a tendency to do 'swirly' bokeh like the Kinoptik lens (although not as awesome) - that's why I got it straight away - love the bokeh. I hope this can be the poor man's Kinoptik. I'll take it with me for some outdoor shots tomorrow if possible. I am still dreaming that one day I could own a lens that produces bokeh like there's a bokeh-vortex happening at the background of the subject.


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Doesn't look that bad here:
Nikon Lens: Zooms - Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

 Every single lens is soft in the corners._

 

True. But I was going on a "review" from the guy we all love to hate...

 Anyway, all zoom lenses which cover a wide range do suffer from distortion, especially at the wide end.


----------



## Towert7

dj, which picture (the one you posted as an example or this one) would you say has a more 'kinoptik' like bokeh?





_(Sorry about the large picture)_


----------



## dj_mocok

It's a little bit different in terms of the characteristics (but it is nice though). But maybe I am a little bit picky, don't know. By the way, check out this link, it has really beautiful and crazy bokeh produced by Helios lenses. 

 Looking at the pictures makes me want to buy Helios 85mm but I have to source it from Russia... (and expensive).


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Fun is....mirror lens bokeh!


----------



## Mellow Mushroom

ewww... a mirror lens.


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Eagle_Driver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_True. But I was going on a "review" from the guy we all love to hate..._

 

Yep. I was thrown off simply by that guy's review. Maybe he got his hand on one of the bad samples of that lens...


----------



## dj_mocok

what guy?


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 what guy? 
 

Ken Rockwell?


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ken Rockwell?_

 

Yes, that's him. Though I do agree with _some_ of his reviews, he might have gotten his hands on one of the "bad" samples of that 18-105mm VR kit lens. Other samples of that lens are "excellent" for the price that it costs.


----------



## dj_mocok

Oh Ken Rockwell. Guy has a family to feed you know. Gotta keep the revenue stream going and obey what advertisers told him to do so.

 By the way I just ordered a Panasonic LX3 - looks like I am not strong enough to resist a good camera that is not made from marketing crap. Hopefully it will be here before New Year. Anyone would like a review?


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh Ken Rockwell. Guy has a family to feed you know. Gotta keep the revenue stream going and obey what advertisers told him to do so._

 

That makes sense.

 By the way, I also read his "review" of the new AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G lens. He said that it is only an evolutionary improvement overall over the previous (and stll-available) AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D despite its newer optical design (slightly sharper than the older lens at larger apertures, a bit more distortion than the older models). Still, the AF-S is the one lens to consider (outside of the two f/1.4 offerings from Sigma) if you want an f/1.4 lens which can autofocus on a D40, D40x or D60. (Be advised, however, that the consumer Nikon SLR bodies might not achieve accurate autofocus with such large-aperture lenses; their autofocus systems are optimized for apertures between f/2.8 and f/5.6.)


----------



## dj_mocok

For some reason my 30 bucks Helios has very similar bokeh as the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS


----------



## bigshot

Ken Rockwell doesn't say that the 18-105 is a bad lens. He says that it's overpriced compared to other lenses in the Nikon line. He points out that the 18-55 VR has slightly better sharpness at less than 1/3 the price, and if you need a little more long end that that, it's worth paying a little more and getting the either the 18-200 VR or the 16-85 VR. I'd say that's pretty practical advice.


----------



## oogabooga

I think his infatuation with the 18-55 VR is what throws me off - I've used the non-VR version which he's also spoken of highly and found it to be soft and annoyingly slow to focus. It has good colour reproduction and is more than worth the very cheap price, but I think the 16-85 has much better sharpness and less distortion, while the 18-200 has more general utility while retaining good colour and image (except for distortion, but what can you expect for an 11x zoom!), and anyone with the prosumer's itch will want to grab either of those two. 

 Perhaps if you always shoot in JPEG with ungodly amounts of saturation then the 18-55 is fine... I'll stick with my 17-55, please and thank you!

 Also - you've got love how KR makes "reviews" without having ever tried a lens (something he even cops to in the reviews). His site is useful to get some quick specs about lenses, but I don't trust it too much beyond that, myself.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For some reason my 30 bucks Helios has very similar bokeh as the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS_

 

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?


----------



## oogabooga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For some reason my 30 bucks Helios has very similar bokeh as the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS_

 

How is the new AF-S version? I've got one of the older AF-Ds... it's OK...


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is that a good thing or a bad thing? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Actually, after looking at it properly, it's quite different and I think (yes, flame me, go on...) the 30 bucks Helios has much better bokeh than 50mm 1.4 AFS.

 By the way, I don't own 50mm 1.4 AFS but just by looking at the bokeh samples posted by owners.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oogabooga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think his infatuation with the 18-55 VR is what throws me off - I've used the non-VR version which he's also spoken of highly and found it to be soft and annoyingly slow to focus._

 

I own one myself, and I don't find either of those things to apply to that lens. It's lightweight plastic, but optically, it's as good as any Nikon lens, with the single exception of speed. Rockwell is right on this one.


----------



## Towert7

"Here we go again"
 :sigh:


----------



## oogabooga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I own one myself, and I don't find either of those things to apply to that lens. It's lightweight plastic, but optically, it's as good as any Nikon lens, with the single exception of speed. Rockwell is right on this one._

 

bigshot, which body are you using? I'll admit I found the 18-55 sharp enough when I was using a 6MP D40, and I have 5x7 prints I made from it that look great. However, I find it soft compared to the 17-55 when I'm looking at 100% crops on my D300. I tend to play with my photos and crop heavily nowadays, so I need all the sharpness I can get. 

 I do have to strongly disagree that it's as good optically as any Nikon lens though! Setting aside primes and the exotic 200-400, the 14-24 and 17-35 blow both our lenses out of the water.


----------



## dj_mocok

Ha! My 30 bucks Helios is sharper than your lenses guys. 

 *Runs away...


----------



## Redcarmoose

Hello
 They gave me a degree in photograghy in 1985 and this is what I was taught about that filter. It is a UV filter. UV rays bend at a different angle and are not brought into focus on the film the same thus they muddy up a sharp image. Some film sees it, we do not. This also may effect the photographic reproduction of haze on a landscape photos as they used to be called uv/haze filters in the old days. Remember I am talking film here not digital. It may effect digital too I do not know. I remember stories of the filter protecting the lens, but most of all there is a number coatings on the outside of the lens that let light run into the glass and not reflect out so the lens gathers more light. The filter helps keep those coating from being rubbed of by lens cleaning. Check by taking a photo with, then without look for contrast and sharpness. Do it also on a hazy day look for sharpness.


----------



## koconder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ha! My 30 bucks Helios is sharper than your lenses guys. 

 *Runs away..._

 

M42 Lenses Kick Ass!.... the Carl Zesis Biotar 50mm f2 with 14 disc's is a baby!... sharpest thing ever, and only 110$ or so on eBay. A good idea would also to mod the focusing screen with the rangefinder ones!


----------



## oogabooga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ha! My 30 bucks Helios is sharper than your lenses guys. 

 *Runs away..._

 

Go stick your Helios in your F-mount


----------



## Buggs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oogabooga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_bigshot, which body are you using? I'll admit I found the 18-55 sharp enough when I was using a 6MP D40, and I have 5x7 prints I made from it that look great. However, I find it soft compared to the 17-55 when I'm looking at 100% crops on my D300. I tend to play with my photos and crop heavily nowadays, so I need all the sharpness I can get. 

 I do have to strongly disagree that it's as good optically as any Nikon lens though! Setting aside primes and the exotic 200-400, the 14-24 and 17-35 blow both our lenses out of the water._

 

The sharpest kit lens from Nikon is the 18-70. You can find them used for ~$100USD. It is not VR, but I have not needed it. I don't care what Rockwell says, I have had a couple 18-55 and neither were as sharp as the 18-70.

 Of course the 50mm AF is sharp as a tack and costs less than $90 used.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, after looking at it properly, it's quite different and I think (yes, flame me, go on...) the 30 bucks Helios has much better bokeh than 50mm 1.4 AFS.

 By the way, I don't own 50mm 1.4 AFS but just by looking at the bokeh samples posted by owners._

 

If you like it, that's all that matters. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I tried out Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 and returned it. I preferred the Nikon 35-70 f/3.5 Ais I've been trying. I've grown quite accustomed to this little old Nikon. It'll make a good movie lens for me. The performance is even across the frame, across the zoom range and across all focus distances. That's my kind of zoom. No nonsense.


----------



## dj_mocok

Helios with Bokeh pictures coming out soon guys. It'll be fun for me to shoot.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

It's all about the fun!


----------



## OverlordXenu

Why is everyone going so crazy over sharpness? It isn't that important...


----------



## oogabooga

I disagree - if I want blur or a soft picture for artistic reasons then I'll open up the aperture, but usually I want nice, sharp photo. I've compared cityscapes taken with the 18-55 to those with the 60mm micro, and the ones from the 60mm look much better as there is less blur. I like sharpness in all my nature shots - birds and ducks really pop out when they are razor sharp and the background is nice and milky.


----------



## dj_mocok

But generally speaking, most lenses will be sharp if you stop them down anyway. I think the difference between a good one and a not so good lens is the good one will be sharper "faster", meaning maybe it will be sharp wide open or stopped down a notch whereas a not so good one you have to stop it down further before it is decently sharp.

 To me sharpness is important to a degree but I am not really crazy about very sharp results. What I can't stand the most about 18-55mm is the cheap and plasticky feeling. And it's slow. But you can't expect much from zoom lens at that price anyway. Speaking of which, I have to give Tamron kudos for being able to produce a 17-50mm zoom which is very sharp at wide open 2.8 and with very decent price too (albeit the build quality is not as solid as, say, Tokina lenses). I am sure Nikon can do it if they want to but I guess they need to make money from selling their proprietary lenses...

 I think the Nikon 18-55mm is targeted for customers who doesn't care that much about optimum image quality and just after something simple and decent (a step up from P&S), and they'll be most likely using auto/flash all the time anyway (and selling it as part of the kit). Anyone with a bit of a clue will skip the kit and get something like Tamron one.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oogabooga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I disagree - if I want blur or a soft picture for artistic reasons then I'll open up the aperture, but usually I want nice, sharp photo. I've compared cityscapes taken with the 18-55 to those with the 60mm micro, and the ones from the 60mm look much better as there is less blur_

 

What you are seeing between your 18-55 and 60mm micro isn't the difference in optics... you're seeing the difference between an f3.5-5.6 lens wide open and an f2.8 lens stopped down. At f8 and on sticks, the sharpness of the 18-55 is very close in sharpness to the sharpest lenses Nikon makes.

 Sharpness is primarily dependent on technique. Even the best lens can seem fuzzy with camera shake from too low a shutter speed, diffraction from stopping down too far, softness from shooting wide open, or just plain old focus error. With proper technique- choosing the optimal shutter speed and f-stop, bracing yourself or using a tripod, focusing precisely, etc- any modern lens can produce sharp images.

 If you are really seeing night and day differences in sharpness between lenses, either the lens is defective or you are using it for a purpose it isn't designed for. If you're pixel peeping to see the difference, you aren't seeing a night and day difference. You're seeing a miniscule difference blown up to the size of a wall of a house. A sense of proportion is important in these things.

 Henri Cartier-Bresson shot with basically one lens his whole career. That lens wouldn't even come close to matching the image quality of your 18-55.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think the Nikon 18-55mm is targeted for customers who doesn't care that much about optimum image quality_

 

You've missed that one... At f8, there is nothing to apologize for when it comes to image quality with the 18-55. Even the bokeh on that lens is good. The only drawback to that lens is the lightweight build, but to a backpacker or person shooting travel pictures who don't want to be loaded down with heavy glass, it's perfect. The Tamron 17-50 is better, but not so much in sharpness, but in speed (which also means bokeh). It's also heavier.

 I think your impression of the 18-55 is based on things other than image quality. It's the best kit lens Nikon makes.


----------



## oogabooga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What you are seeing between your 18-55 and 60mm micro isn't the difference in optics... you're seeing the difference between an f3.5-5.6 lens wide open and an f2.8 lens stopped down. At f8 and on sticks, the sharpness of the 18-55 is very close in sharpness to the sharpest lenses Nikon makes._

 

IIRC the photos I'm thinking of were at 5.6 and on a tripod. The starpoints on the 60mm (from streetlights) are infinitely clearer and better defined compared to those on the 18-55, which is something clearly visible on a 5x7. I crop a lot, so quality at 100% is important to me. 

 I'm of the mind that a well constructed prime lens will trounce even the best of Nikon's zooms in sharpness and distortion when stopped down an equivalent number of stops. 

 And yes, having f/2.8 is a HUGE advanatage! What if there's not enough available light to stop down to f/8? With my 17-55 at 2.8 I've been able to take warm, ambient light shots that would have looked harsher and flatter if I'd had to use the flash b/c I was at f/4 or worse.


----------



## bigshot

Starpoints are created by the blades of the diaphragm, not the optics themselves. The 60mm micro has nine rounded blades and the 18-55 has seven. Two different animals there. 5.6 is just about wide open for the 18-55, and it's stopped down for the 60... again, apples to oranges.

 If you compared the two lenses at f8 in daylight, you would be hard pressed to tell between them. If you're going to compare a fast lens to a slower one with night shots, naturally the slower one isn't going to perform as well. It wouldn't be fair to criticize the 60mm micro because it isn't as good a landscape lens as the 18-55, because the focal length isn't designed for that. The 18-55 isn't designed for low light work, the 60 2.8 is. Different tools for different purposes. 

 As for primes trouncing zooms, that may have been the case twenty years ago, but it isn't now. Nikon has been introducing up to date aspherical elements in its zooms, but many of the primes are still less sharp spherical designs.

 The area where primes might conceivably beat the 18-55 is in the area of distortion. At the wide end, the 18-55 has a bit of barrel distortion, but it's totally correctable in post processing. The Nikon 20mm 2.8 has less distortion, but it's more complex, making it impossible to entirely eliminate in post processing. At 60mm, neither the 18-55, nor your 60mm micro has any distortion at all.

 The 18-55 is a better lens than you realize. Don't let the plastic body fool you, it's a modern, optically sound design.


----------



## john_jcb

Going down a different road for a minute. I am looking for a camera that would meet the following requirements.

 1. Light weight fits in an inside coat pocket.
 2. Takes pretty good pictures
 3. Inexpensive
 4. Reasonable battery life

 Any comments on the Nikon S550 for this?


----------



## oogabooga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *john_jcb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Going down a different road for a minute. I am looking for a camera that would meet the following requirements.

 1. Light weight fits in an inside coat pocket.
 2. Takes pretty good pictures
 3. Inexpensive
 4. Reasonable battery life

 Any comments on the Nikon S550 for this?_

 

The Canon ELPH series is worth looking at, so long as you can find one within your third requirement. While I'm a pure Nikon shooter for SLR, I've found Canon's will do an excellent job of #1,2,4.


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *john_jcb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Going down a different road for a minute. I am looking for a camera that would meet the following requirements.

 1. Light weight fits in an inside coat pocket.
 2. Takes pretty good pictures
 3. Inexpensive
 4. Reasonable battery life

 Any comments on the Nikon S550 for this?_

 

While Nikon is great for SLRs, its point-and-shoot compact cameras have missed the mark more often than not. The S550, in particular, lacks some of the features which the better (sub)compact cameras have (it does not have any real VR feature, which is necessary in these small cameras due to their extremely light weight, at all), while it is also lacking in shooting performance (its shutter lag is longer than on most other cameras in its class) as well as image quality in low-light situations - and it is too expensive for such sparse features and performance/quality. Its successor model, the S560, has an optical VR feature but the same sluggish performance. Spend a little more, and you will generally get a quicker-responding camera.


----------



## dj_mocok

Agree with Oogabooga and EagleDriver here, as much as I like Nikon but I am not really a fan of their P&S range, considering what have been offered so far. I am not saying they are bad, some of them are pretty decent, but the thing is, with the asking price, I usually can find a better similar-priced alternative.

 For cheap but still okay P&S, either Panasonic or Canon comes to mind. As mentioned, I'd probably be interested in Canon Elph series too (we call them Ixus here). 

 For Panasonic, from what I read, I like FX37 or maybe FX35 if you want to get it cheaper (they are also rebranded as Leica cameras if you want more 'luxury'). But gotta admit that the branded Leica ones look much nicer though, although they are practically the same but cost double of the equivalent Panasonic. The LX37 is also a wide angle lens too, and very pocketable.
 I also like FX500, it has lots of neat features and looks very handsome... too many choices...

 Regarding battery life, I always think that ANY P&S regardless of the model, they all require you to buy at least 1 additional battery because the battery is just not as good as DSLR. You can always get a third-party battery very cheap anyway, don't really need to spend so much on expensive proprietary batteries.


----------



## dj_mocok

Speaking about compact, my LX3 that I ordered arrived today. It has lots of features which I am not sure whether I need them or not, haha... But so far the picture taken with this cam is very nice. I am thinking to set this camera under dumb mode permanently but I think then it will be a waste. Anyway, I hope it can take cactus pictures. Review?


----------



## milkpowder

cactus pics would be nice 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Enjoy your new toy!


----------



## sawyer

Is there any Fujifilm DSLR (S1, S2, S3 and S5 pro) around? I got a S5 pro for a few days and I'm very happy with it. It's a great upgrade from D80: better iso, neutral colors, tank-like built quality (based on D200 body), high dynamic range.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sawyer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is there any Fujifilm DSLR (S1, S2, S3 and S5 pro) around? I got a S5 pro for a few days and I'm very happy with it. It's a great upgrade from D80: better iso, neutral colors, tank-like built quality (based on D200 body), high dynamic range._

 

You are a smart man. If you read a few posts back you'll find that I actually bought an S5 and sold my D80. It is one heck of a camera. I can comfortably shoot at ISO1600 now without worrying so much. Serious.
 Colour wise (this is what I like the most about the cam), I am not sure if it's neutral or not (at least from what I've set my camera at), but it's very film-like and I totally fell in love with the colour characteristics (don't really care about DR actually, since I don't rely on that much...)






  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_cactus pics would be nice 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Enjoy your new toy!_

 

Milk, I can tell from your style of photography that you will love LX3. If you are thinking to get a compact, give this one a serious thought. So far from playing with it for a few minutes and taking some quick snaps, what I like most are the fast lens, nice LCD, and the 16:9 format. It's like a poor man's version of Hasselblad Xpan. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Oh, and the Dynamic B&W setting rocks!

 I can use this little cam until up to ISO800 - combined with the camera's IS technology and fast lens, this will make a very, very good low light street camera.


----------



## sawyer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are a smart man. If you read a few posts back you'll find that I actually bought an S5 and sold my D80. It is one heck of a camera. I can comfortably shoot at ISO1600 now without worrying so much. Serious.
 Colour wise (this is what I like the most about the cam), I am not sure if it's neutral or not (at least from what I've set my camera at), but it's very film-like and I totally fell in love with the colour characteristics (don't really care about DR actually, since I don't rely on that much...)
_

 

What is your shooting setup? Here are my settings:
 - Film simulation: standard
 - D-range: auto
 - Color: high
 - Tone: m-hard
 - Sharpness: hard

 I rarely use the film simulation mode. I tried F2 mode and the colors look over-saturated.

 You will benefit from the high DR when we should in mix lightning, high contrast (wedding, church, ...)

 iso 1600 on S5 pro looks even better than iso 400 on D80


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sawyer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What is your shooting setup? Here are my settings:
 - Film simulation: standard
 - D-range: auto
 - Color: high
 - Tone: m-hard
 - Sharpness: hard

 I rarely use the film simulation mode. I tried F2 mode and the colors look over-saturated.

 You will benefit from the high DR when we should in mix lightning, high contrast (wedding, church, ...)

 iso 1600 on S5 pro looks even better than iso 400 on D80_

 

F2 is _Ken Rockwell Mode_, bro. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I never use F2.
 I use F1C, Contrast +1, Colour +1, Sharpness -2. That's my permanent setting. Unless I am faced with some very difficult lighting situation and either way of exposing is still not good enough, then I will use standard mode. But so far I've never needed to use it.
 If you want something that is not so strong, I think F1B with the the settings toned down a bit is more towards more neutral, clinical type. 
 I did some own comparison awhile ago, and I figured F1C with those settings look the best for me. I can use something that looks more neutral, but I am sure after I post process, it will look closer to F1C anyway, so I might as well use F1C. Plus F1C looks like film, it has this special feel to it that I like so much.

 About the ISO, it is not THAT good, but it's really good enough for me. Maybe unless you have a lot of super slow lenses even ISO1600 can't help you.


----------



## Towert7

Wow, sharpness -2...
 That comes as a big surprise.


----------



## dj_mocok

Because I like to do sharpening myself, not that I don't apply sharpness at all. But even at -2 you can really still get away without any sharpening though.


----------



## john_jcb

Thanks for the input. I went with the DMC-FX35. I am sure it will meet my needs for a pocketable camera. 

 I still cannot part with my F4 and film just yet, maybe someday. While I would love to get started down the digital road I am not ready to reinvest in a new body and newer lenses. My favorite film Kodachrome is now down to one speed but I have not used it lately.


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Regarding battery life, I always think that ANY P&S regardless of the model, they all require you to buy at least 1 additional battery because the battery is just not as good as DSLR. You can always get a third-party battery very cheap anyway, don't really need to spend so much on expensive proprietary batteries._

 

Be careful with third-party batteries: Some of them, usually the cheapest ones, are of substandard quality. I have read horror stories about some of those cheap aftermarket batteries actually overheating badly or catching fire in the camera, completely destroying the memory card inside the camera and rendering the camera itself permanently unusable.

 As for the camera manufacturers' own branded batteries, you can shop around for a lower price. In fact, I got a genuine Nikon EN-EL3e battery at a photo equipment-specific store (read: camera store) for $20 less than what Busted Buy charges for a third-party battery equivalent.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *john_jcb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the input. I went with the DMC-FX35. I am sure it will meet my needs for a pocketable camera._

 

A pretty good choice. The only major failing (which is shared with many other small compact digital cameras) of the FX35 is the somewhat aggressive noise reduction (which tends to smear detail) at higher ISO settings. (But then again, you'd seldom use the pocket camera in anything dimmer than a cloudy day without using a flash.)


----------



## dj_mocok

Nah mine is okay, maybe the only thing is that it's not as high capacity as advertised. But I got 2 of them, so it's okay. 

 John: Congrats on the new camera, it is a neat camera. Don't forget to post some pictures here.


----------



## bigshot

I got a chance to run my Sigma 50mm 1.4 through its paces this holiday season. Posted a bunch of interesting bokeh samples on my blog, suitable for pixelpeeping...

Late Night Coffee Shops

 Some lores samples...














 ...and the ever popular pet in cute clothing picture!






 The pooch has the narrowest field of focus I've ever gotten. Her snoot is barely an inch long.


----------



## oogabooga

Nice shots - the lens has great bokeh. Were the portraits at 1.4 or smaller? (they seem 2 or 2.8 ish)


----------



## bigshot

Believe it or not, they're all f1.4 at a 30th. This lens is super sharp, even wide open. I finally figured out the trick to focusing with such a narrow plane of focus. I set the camera for just one focus point and I focus and recompose. When I was using more than one focus point, it was all over the place. Check out the full size versions on my blog. It's neat how stuff goes in and out of focus with a smooth even gradation. That's the mark of really good bokeh.


----------



## sawyer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Believe it or not, they're all f1.4 at a 30th. This lens is super sharp, even wide open. I finally figured out the trick to focusing with such a narrow plane of focus. I set the camera for just one focus point and I focus and recompose. When I was using more than one focus point, it was all over the place. Check out the full size versions on my blog. It's neat how stuff goes in and out of focus with a smooth even gradation. That's the mark of really good bokeh._

 

How much is the Sigma 50 1.4? I can't believe that you shot with f/1.4, my nikkor 50 1.4 is soft even at f/2.8


----------



## dj_mocok

That Nikon shouldn't be soft at f/2.8, no way. My 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 are sharp even wide open. Did you try it with tripod yet? If you did, you might have a bad copy.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sawyer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How much is the Sigma 50 1.4? I can't believe that you shot with f/1.4, my nikkor 50 1.4 is soft even at f/2.8_

 

The Sigma definitely is a bit sharper at 1.4 than even the new Nikon 50mm 1.4. (See DPReview's Review of the Sigma 50 1.4 and the Nikon 50 1.4.) DX tends to be more demanding than FX when it comes to center sharpness. The Nikon needs to be stopped down a little more than the Sigma because the Nikon is an older spherical design, while the Sigma includes a modern aspherical element.

 But there are a couple of other reasons you might not be getting sharp shots with your Nikon lens... It may be out of align, backfocusing or front focusing slightly; or it might be that you are focusing inaccurately. When you shoot wide open, the depth of field can be extremely tight. (See the dog picture with a depth of field of less than an inch.) It takes perfect calibration and some practice to get the technique of focusing where you intend to focus.


----------



## john_jcb

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...............John: Congrats on the new camera, it is a neat camera. Don't forget to post some pictures here._

 

I will when I get it. I am trying to be patient to save a few $ so I opted for free ground shipping. I fear that this small step into the digital realm may set me off again taking pictures. The new SLR's do look inviting.

 My photography hobby was a little better than self sufficient years ago as I would take action and candid shots at kids sporting events and sell prints to the parents. It was easy then with my 2 kids in tow or playing but now with all the privacy concerns and such I might be looked at as a lecherous old man taking pictures. One thing that I always found funny when I was doing this was that the kids that took the best pictures had parents that never attended the games.


----------



## dj_mocok

By the way, how much did you pay for the FX35? 
 Who knows if you are happy with this little digital P&S you might be interested in getting Nikon DSLR too - especially considering how cheap they are nowadays (D80, D200).


----------



## oogabooga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *john_jcb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My photography hobby was a little better than self sufficient years ago as I would take action and candid shots at kids sporting events and sell prints to the parents._

 

Also, with the proliferation of SLRs and consumer super-zooms, I'd dare say most of the parents attending the game (at least the tech-happy ones) are going to be snapping their own photos nowadays.


----------



## john_jcb

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By the way, how much did you pay for the FX35? 
 Who knows if you are happy with this little digital P&S you might be interested in getting Nikon DSLR too - especially considering how cheap they are nowadays (D80, D200)._

 

$179


----------



## john_jcb

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oogabooga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also, with the proliferation of SLRs and consumer super-zooms, I'd dare say most of the parents attending the game (at least the tech-happy ones) are going to be snapping their own photos nowadays._

 

Or making a movie. Video gear is also so much better they probably record every move the kid makes for further analysis at home.


----------



## sawyer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That Nikon shouldn't be soft at f/2.8, no way. My 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 are sharp even wide open. Did you try it with tripod yet? If you did, you might have a bad copy._

 

I mean the details, not the blurry edge issue. Maybe the Sigma one is macro lens and it tends to be crisp, instead of being smooth like the normal 50mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4?

 By the way, my favorite lens is 85mm 1.8, it's sharp, produces great bokeh and quite cheap. I mostly use it for outdoor shooting. Some photos taken by my 85mm 1.8 and D80


----------



## dj_mocok

You mean details as in f1/.8 focused to infinity or detail as in f/1.8 on the point of focus? 
 But the thing is, if you compare it with a macro lens (especially they are mostly 2.8) of course macro one is sharper. But 50mm 1.8 is sharp enough to get the job done. 

 I'll try posting some examples for you later if I am not lazy.


----------



## sawyer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You mean details as in f1/.8 focused to infinity or detail as in f/1.8 on the point of focus? 
 But the thing is, if you compare it with a macro lens (especially they are mostly 2.8) of course macro one is sharper. But 50mm 1.8 is sharp enough to get the job done._

 

I mean the details of "in focus area". However sometimes sharper doesn't mean better 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Cheers!


----------



## dj_mocok

Okay I just took some quick lazy shots, so please excuse the not so thoughtful object or composition. 

 The 2 sets of picture below were taken with my 50mm 1.4 @1.4, as you can see, it still gives perfectly enough detail (complete with minor fringing too!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) and sharpness even though the area of focus is very limited.

 Resized for Web:





 100 Crop of focus point:





 Resized for Web:





 100% Crop of focus point:





 As you can see, it still makes up enough detail. So either my standard of sharp is much lower than you, or maybe either your object (or you) moved, or you just simply got a bad copy. 

 Mind you the 2 pictures above were taken handheld and at un-ideally low shutter speed (first one is 1/14 sec and second one is 1/25 sec) and my camera JPG sharpness setting is set at -2 (lowest), so even the pictures above still have plenty of room for improvement in sharpness.

 But then again, if you after sharp, I still recommend Helios though,


----------



## dj_mocok

Just for fun shots:





 The only thing that the Olympus wins is it has an optical viewfinder... oh yeah, and a built-in lens cap....

 I was planning to make a shoot-out between the two, but that would be cruel...
 By the way, Olympus was once very formidable in prosumer P&S (especially their C8080 Wide zoom - I am still excited by that one even now) market, but I am not sure which direction they are going now... They are sort of lost and just go along following the market like an old sheep...

 PS: If you think what this got anything to do with Nikon thread, well, the pictures were taken by someone who used Nikon before (and still own a few Nikon lenses).


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As you can see, it still makes up enough detail. So either my standard of sharp is much lower than you, or maybe either your object (or you) moved, or you just simply got a bad copy. 
_

 

I don't know about other people, but I would consider those 100% crops to be on the soft side.

 This is what I would consider pretty good for a DX format picture at 100% crop. No sharpening has been done to either.







 or 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2009/...a3b86542_o.jpg


 I also would much rather have my camera set to a sharpness of +2 instead of -2. You can always soften up detail, but to try and sharpen up what is already blurred does not work very good. That's at least what I have found.


----------



## dj_mocok

Note that I mentioned that I took my previous one handheld at 1/15, but if I stopped it one or two notch (say, f/2 or f/2.8), I would get the same sharpness as your cat picture too (especially if I crank my camera's sharpness). My point was that I was just explaining to Sawyer who said that his 50mm 1.4 was soft at f/2.8 - that really shouldn't happen at all. For me even wide open, sharpness is adequate, although with the tiny bit of focused area, it would make your picture look soft because everything surrounding it is soft.

 About in-camera sharpening, (me personally) I don't need everything is sharp sharp sharp in my picture. I choose what I want to sharpen later on from my PC.


----------



## Hoppergrass

can anyone recommend a decent tripod. i need an upgrade from my el cheapo with its loose head. $100 give or take $40. the taller the better. bonus points if it is a tripod/monopod combo. i saw the quantaray qsx 9002 wolf camera but it doesn't have great reviews. thanks.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't know about other people, but I would consider those 100% crops to be on the soft side._

 

His focal plane was less than a half an inch, while your cat picture appears to be shot stopped down to 2.8 with a depth of field that reaches from one side of the cat's head to the other. Two different things.

 Properly focused and stable, the amount of softness wide open with most modern lenses isn't going to be an issue unless you are cropping down an awful lot.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_His focal plane was less than a half an inch, while your cat picture appears to be shot stopped down to 2.8 with a depth of field that reaches from one side of the cat's head to the other. Two different things._

 

I know this already, and yet I still posted my comment.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_His focal plane was less than a half an inch, while your cat picture appears to be shot stopped down to 2.8 with a depth of field that reaches from one side of the cat's head to the other. Two different things.

 Properly focused and stable, the amount of softness wide open with most modern lenses isn't going to be an issue unless you are cropping down an awful lot._

 

What he said.


----------



## oogabooga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hoppergrass* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_can anyone recommend a decent tripod. i need an upgrade from my el cheapo with its loose head. $100 give or take $40. the taller the better. bonus points if it is a tripod/monopod combo. i saw the quantaray qsx 9002 wolf camera but it doesn't have great reviews. thanks._

 

I have a Manfrotto - the 190XPROB. It's decent, has the 'swinging arm' for macro shots, versatile legs that let you have different angles for each leg, and is not too heavy. Their ball heads aren't so great though - with my D300 and 300 f/4 the ballhead doesn't cut it. I was going to get a better head (arca or RRS) but then I joined head-fi and blew my money on this stuff!


----------



## Kicksonrt66

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just for fun shots:

 By the way, Olympus was once very formidable in prosumer P&S (especially their C8080 Wide zoom - I am still excited by that one even now) market, but I am not sure which direction they are going now... They are sort of lost and just go along following the market like an old sheep...

 PS: If you think what this got anything to do with Nikon thread, well, the pictures were taken by someone who used Nikon before (and still own a few Nikon lenses)._

 

They still seem to have the best stuff out there for P&S ruggedized (underwater, droppable) models.

 Be nice if they would give up on the proprietary memory (oddball format, and only their brand is full function)


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kicksonrt66* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They still seem to have the best stuff out there for P&S ruggedized (underwater, droppable) models.

 Be nice if they would give up on the proprietary memory (oddball format, and only their brand is full function)_

 

Some of the very recent Olympus P&S cameras have begun to accept microSD cards in addition to xD cards. But as the Olympus cameras are currently not microSDHC-compatible, the maximum supported memory capacity of the Olympus cameras when used with microSD cards is only 2GB.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Eagle_Driver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some of the very recent Olympus P&S cameras have begun to accept microSD cards in addition to xD cards. But as the Olympus cameras are currently not microSDHC-compatible, the maximum supported memory capacity of the Olympus cameras when used with microSD cards is only 2GB._

 

I only buy 2GB cards anyway. Any bigger, and you're risking too many photos IMHO. Imagine losing 6GB of your last vacation because the card breaks! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 And I use the 2GB on my D80 shooting RAW. Most P&S will fit more photos on a card then I do. Something to think about at least. I initially looked into getting larger cards, but decided more smaller cards was better then 1 large one. I have 4 2GB cards in my bag. That's ~700 pictures. Plenty for me so far.

 Edit: oh ya, and the smaller cards are cheaper! Can probly get 2 2GB SD cards for less than the price of a 4GB card 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I got a sale at Staples, 3 2GB SD cards for $40. That was in August. Probly cheaper now.


----------



## dj_mocok

For me I think the sweet spot is 4GB. 8GB or 16GB is way to expensive.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I also like 4GB, it usually fills up just as the D200's battery takes a dump as well.


----------



## lan

I used to like 4GB as that's a great size to backup to DVDs but now that my raw files at 25MB each and I can shoot video, 16GB is more reasonable.

 Hoppergrass, what kind of weight are you supporting on the tripod. The way I see it, to have more stablility, you shouldn't have too many sections nor use the center rail that much. But, getting taller requires using more of the center rail or having more leg sections though. You should just checkout bhphotovideo.com and read the specs of various tripods to figure out it's heights.

 I use the carbon fiber version of this one but this is in your budget.
Bogen / Manfrotto | 190XB Tripod Legs (Black) | 190XB | B&H

 It might not go high but I'm sure it's solid.


----------



## dj_mocok

Anyone uses Gordy's camera straps? I just bought a string wrist strap from him. Looks good and affordable too. I've been trying to find a proper leather wrist strap but couldn't find it anywhere. I could get some from eBay but I am not sure if it's a real leather or not. He sort of reminds me of Headphile of headphones. There's also one from Luigi from Leicatime but damn looking at the price, I know why it's called "LEICA"time. But it's indeed really nice though. I guess if you can afford a Leica, you can also afford to buy accessories from him.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I also like 4GB, it usually fills up just as the D200's battery takes a dump as well._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For me I think the sweet spot is 4GB. 8GB or 16GB is way to expensive._

 

4GB is a pretty good size for me too but I also carry 8GB for convenience. I shoot 12.3MP 12-bit lossless compressed RAW, and an 8GB card will hold close to 600-700 of them depending on the images. The D300's battery will last perhaps another 300 shots. That has been my most recent experience on holiday. We travelled with two D300 and interestingly, my camera with which I primarily used an AF-D 50/1.4 and 35/2 outlasted my dad's by a couple hundred photos, which primarily had the AF-S/VR 18-200 attached to it. I also used a SB-80DX and SB-800. Of course, this wasn't a controlled experiment so there could've been numerous variables which would inevitably lead to bias.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone uses Gordy's camera straps? I just bought a string wrist strap from him. Looks good and affordable too. I've been trying to find a proper leather wrist strap but couldn't find it anywhere. I could get some from eBay but I am not sure if it's a real leather or not. He sort of reminds me of Headphile of headphones. There's also one from Luigi from Leicatime but damn looking at the price, I know why it's called "LEICA"time. But it's indeed really nice though. I guess if you can afford a Leica, you can also afford to buy accessories from him._

 

Wow thanks for that. I wasn't aware of Gordy's. Leicatime straps look pretty nice too, but yeah, a tad pricey. Then again, the Nikon wide straps are fairly pricey too at around ~$40-50 a pop. I would consider the wide strap a necessity if you have any camera D200/300/700 or bigger and you use a midrange zoom lens +/- SB600/800/900/MB-D10. I use one even when I only have a prime attached. It's a bit of a hassle to wrap around your wrist if you're the sort of person who does so.


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone uses Gordy's camera straps? I just bought a string wrist strap from him. Looks good and affordable too. I've been trying to find a proper leather wrist strap but couldn't find it anywhere. I could get some from eBay but I am not sure if it's a real leather or not. He sort of reminds me of Headphile of headphones. There's also one from Luigi from Leicatime but damn looking at the price, I know why it's called "LEICA"time. But it's indeed really nice though. I guess if you can afford a Leica, you can also afford to buy accessories from him._

 

That thing is the bee's knees. Lately, I've been nothing but annoyed with neck straps. I just picked up a Gordy. Thanks. 

 The one full size strap that I've come to tolerate is a BlackRapid RS-2. I love that the camera slides along the strap, so the actual strap stays put on your neck. It's comfortable enough and you can adjust the strap to have the camera hangs at exactly where it's most convenient for you to grab it. The only issue is on gripped bodies; the hardware gets in the way when shooting portrait if you're not using a lens with its own ring. 

 Here's the video:
Intro to the R-Strap

 Edit: We need a General Photography Gear thread, one where us Canon and Nikon people can put away our blood lust for each other and yammer about tripods, filters, straps, PP, bags, P&S, etc.


----------



## Hayduke

I could see 4GB being the sweet spot with a higher end camera. With a D80, shooting RAW, I get close to 200 photos on a 2GB card.

 If you take into account battery life, then maybe you would come up with a different preference. The D80s battery life is phenomenal! I've yet to completely kill one, although I did buy a second one recently when I bought my SB-600. I've shot well over 1000 photos on a single charge 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I would not be comfortable using a memory card large enough to hold 1000 photos. I *have* had memory cards fail on me. Maybe some of you haven't experienced that, but for me, once was enough to make me wary. Someday I'll own a professional level body that has 2 card slots. Then I'll buy much larger cards. Until then, I'll continue to carry lots of little ones.


----------



## ozz

I am going to have to replace the batteries in my sb-600 so whats the
 best bet considering Energizer since the copper tops went rather quickly.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ozz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am going to have to replace the batteries in my sb-600 so whats the
 best bet considering Energizer since the copper tops went rather quickly._

 

I'm using Sanyo Eneloop rechargeables. They are designed to hold their charge longer. There are probly batteries that will hold more juice or last longer, but since these mostly just sit in the camera baf, I wanted batteries that would maintain their charge in storage.


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ozz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am going to have to replace the batteries in my sb-600 so whats the
 best bet considering Energizer since the copper tops went rather quickly._

 

Energizers would be no improvement at all whatsoever over the copper tops. This is because all disposable (throwaway) alkaline batteries have a high internal resistance, which in turn results in poor handling of high current draw.


----------



## oogabooga

Eneloops. That way if you've left your flash in the camera bag for a month ununsed, you'll still have some juice left.


----------



## dj_mocok

I also like this leather strap from Gordy's too. It looks very simple yet durable. The colours are very customisable too - from thread to the actual leather. I might get one after my wrist strap arrives.
 I personally think this is much better than using that Nikon strap that screams "[size=medium]NIKON[/size]" in bright yellow colours - it's a bit difficult to go low profile with that.

 Did you guys read the strength test he did on the site? I was a bit skeptical with the string wrist strap, worrying that the little string might slip off from the leather connection after prolonged use, but after reading his test and his explanation, I pressed order straight away, lol.


----------



## john_jcb

Well its not Nikon but I started out talking about a Nikon P&S and it was recommended that I look at a Panasonic DMC-FX35. Well I bought it and it arrived Thursday. I have charged the battery and inserted the memory card and will take some shots this weekend. I also printed out the manual that they supplied on CD. 161 pages to explain all that it does. We will see and I will report back with some examples.


----------



## roastpuff

Eneloops or Imedions are what I use. The Imedions have a slight advantage in power and retention but are harder to source in North America.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *john_jcb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well its not Nikon but I started out talking about a Nikon P&S and it was recommended that I look at a Panasonic DMC-FX35. Well I bought it and it arrived Thursday. I have charged the battery and inserted the memory card and will take some shots this weekend. I also printed out the manual that they supplied on CD. 161 pages to explain all that it does. We will see and I will report back with some examples._

 

Excellent. You might wanna get one more extra battery because I always find it one battery is not enough.


----------



## john_jcb

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Excellent. You might wanna get one more extra battery because I always find it one battery is not enough._

 

I already did. Memory card did not come with it so I got a 4GB and an extra battery. A lot of pictures fit on 4GB so I will play around with it tomorrow.


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I also like this leather strap from Gordy's too. It looks very simple yet durable. The colours are very customisable too - from thread to the actual leather. I might get one after my wrist strap arrives.
 I personally think this is much better than using that Nikon strap that screams "[size=medium]NIKON[/size]" in bright yellow colours - it's a bit difficult to go low profile with that._

 

Canons ship with an equally gaudy strap. It's about as comfortable as a garrote. 

  Quote:


 Did you guys read the strength test he did on the site? I was a bit skeptical with the string wrist strap, worrying that the little string might slip off from the leather connection after prolonged use, but after reading his test and his explanation, I pressed order straight away, lol. 
 

I did. Not exactly scientific, but I won't be swinging the camera from it either. I'm surprised; the Gordy already shipped. I'm giddy. Thanks again for pointing it out. I like that it attaches with a split ring. I've seen some modifications to the that strap I linked above. A lot of people don't like the hardware used to attach the BlackRapid, so they use a split ring on the camera lugs instead of the tripod threads. I'll be able to use the same ring on the Gordy (I'm going to double them up) to attach the BlackRapid. That's PERFECT for me, considering I don''t like neck straps. I'll be able to remove the Rapid in seconds and use the camera in portrait mode when it is attached. I'll take some pics of the set up; I assume this is probably confusing to picture.


----------



## dj_mocok

Actually yes, lol. Picture is probably easier to understand.


----------



## vagarach

Well after a very long time, I finally got the 50mm f1.8! I can't wait til there's daylight to shoot in, but it makes for awesome indoor portraits.

 The crop factor from using a DX sensor and lack of zoom haven't irritated so far, so my two biggest worries are for now put to rest. The guy at the shop even called it the 'nifty fifty'


----------



## oogabooga

Bah - the f/1.8 don't need no stinkin daylight! Take that puppy out at twlight!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vagarach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well after a very long time, I finally got the 50mm f1.8! I can't wait til there's daylight to shoot in, but it makes for awesome indoor portraits.

 The crop factor from using a DX sensor and lack of zoom haven't irritated so far, so my two biggest worries are for now put to rest. The guy at the shop even called it the 'nifty fifty' 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

"nifty fifty" is what those crazy people over in the canon camp call it. Us Nikon users have more dignity and respect for our equipment. We call it, the Nikkor 50mm F/1.8.

 ^_^

 I just used my 50mm F/1.8 the other day to take a picture of me in my work environment. Excellent color reproduction and sharpness. It was the perfect FOV for what I used it for.





 I'm happy with the result.


----------



## lan

lol. This Nikon 50 1.8 was what pulled me into getting more Nikon lenses. I love that little thing.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm happy the result._

 

But doesn't your subject know how to smile? Or was that the reaction to the photographer's grotesque facial tattoos?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But doesn't your subject know how to smile? Or was that the reaction to the photographer's grotesque facial tattoos? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Crap, now you are the second person who commented on the fact that I am not smiling. I took quite a few shots (since it's not so easy to get a good pose when taking your own self portrait). For some reason I picked this one, but I think I'm going to have to go back through them and find one where I look happier.

 Thanks for the heads up Iron_Dreamer.


----------



## dj_mocok

Okay. I need a hit of some crappy sample pictures. Someone please post some crappy pictures.


----------



## Samgotit

Done! Here's the Gordy's wrist strap. I dig it.


----------



## dj_mocok

Darn it! Didn't I order the strap BEFORE you did? 
 How come mine is not here yet?

 That's one nice looking strap though. IMO Gordy needs to put bigger and maybe more detailed pictures for the colour and maybe the texture of the leather because I have the feeling that those pictures on the website don't really do justice to how the strap looks like in real life?


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Darn it! Didn't I order the strap BEFORE you did? 
 How come mine is not here yet?

 That's one nice looking strap though. IMO Gordy needs to put bigger and maybe more detailed pictures for the colour and maybe the texture of the leather because I have the feeling that those pictures on the website don't really do justice to how the strap looks like in real life?_

 

I ordered the day you posted on the 7th. I got it on the 10th. Shocked me. I'm looking forward to wearing/breaking it in. 

 His pics are not the best, and mine make it look a little less "rugged" than it is. Oh well, when you finally get yours you'll understand.


----------



## dj_mocok

Will post pictures of it when I got it. Did he tell you to send some pictures for him so that he can put it under his gallery? I think it's like a customary thing because there are so many customers giving him pictures of his straps with their equipments.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay. I need a hit of some crappy sample pictures. Someone please post some crappy pictures._

 

How about we keep this thread related to nikon stuff, and post intentionally awful pictures in this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f11/po...iendly-256063/


----------



## dj_mocok

But crappy pictures taken with Nikon can also be considered as part of Nikon thread. Or crappy pictures taken by someone whose last or first name is Nikon can also considered as part of Nikon thread. I mean have you visited Dpreview before? Look at how many crappy pictures there posted daily and they all are part of the Nikon/Canon/Olympus/WhateverCamera thread (Warghh !! **runs away from Dpreview mob)


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But crappy pictures taken with Nikon can also be considered as part of Nikon thread. Or crappy pictures taken by someone whose last or first name is Nikon can also considered as part of Nikon thread. I mean have you visited Dpreview before? Look at how many crappy pictures there posted daily and they all are part of the Nikon/Canon/Olympus/WhateverCamera thread (Warghh !! **runs away from Dpreview mob)_

 

I know you are joking of course, although deep down I bet you half believe it.
 My point? This thread can serve a much better purpose than posting intentionally crappy pictures *taken* with a nikon camera. That is why I suggest keeping this thread more related to nikon equipment, and posting awful pictures over at this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f11/po...iendly-256063/

 God only knows you'll get enough response from the people in that thread.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But crappy pictures taken with Nikon can also be considered as part of Nikon thread. Or crappy pictures taken by someone whose last or first name is Nikon can also considered as part of Nikon thread. I mean have you visited Dpreview before? Look at how many crappy pictures there posted daily and they all are part of the Nikon/Canon/Olympus/WhateverCamera thread (Warghh !! **runs away from Dpreview mob)_

 

We are not dpreview now, are we?


----------



## Hayduke

If someone posted a crappy picture taken with a Nikon, we could all learn something form it, no?

 I'm thinking something with a finger in it would be perfect! I haven't taken a photo of my finger in years though (OK, I admit it. It's only like 1.5 years hehe). Nobody ever admits that the real reason they use SLRs is to avoid this common mistake. It's much harder to get your finger into the shot with a SLR. If you use a nice long telephoto, it's darn near impossible!


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Will post pictures of it when I got it. Did he tell you to send some pictures for him so that he can put it under his gallery? I think it's like a customary thing because there are so many customers giving him pictures of his straps with their equipments._

 

I never heard a peep from the guy. The strap just showed up unannounced. 

 His site should have a few pictures of old, well-used straps.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Samgotit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I never heard a peep from the guy. The strap just showed up unannounced. 

 His site should have a few pictures of old, well-used straps. 

 (my server is down, so picture in my post above ain't showin' up)_

 

I saw it at home this morning and now I'm seeing it at work. Looks like your server is up after all?


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I saw it at home this morning and now I'm seeing it at work. Looks like your server is up after all?_

 

Thanks, it is. What a strange issue. I can see it on my laptop but not my PC. Oh well.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If someone posted a crappy picture taken with a Nikon, we could all learn something form it, no?_

 

Yea, but do it in another thread. Lets keep this related to Nikon equipment.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yea, but do it in another thread. Lets keep this related to Nikon equipment._

 

But according to the title of the thread _( The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here_) ), this is not a Nikon gear thread but thread about any Nikon stuff here. Stuff = anything and can be this and that sort of thing. Plus it's not like there are so many Nikon gears conversations going on at the moment anyway. So strap for Nikon camera also belongs here, also occasional pictures taken with Nikon cam (or some sort of Nikon related cam or a person somewhat indirectly linked to some sort of Nikon gear). And didn't you just post a self-picture a few posts back - the one with radio equipment or something like that? Now how do you explain that? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 And if say, I made a "The BMW Thread (Talk About BMW stuff here)", would you not expect to see some pictures posted about some owners' cars, or a third party modification to the BMW- be it seats, exhaust, audio, etc? Or if I made a "The Scanpan Thread (Talk about Scanpan stuff here) - wouldn't you think it's normal when someone posts a few recipes, or maybe pictures of food they just cooked using the Scanpan - or does it have to be in "Post Your Photography" thread? 
 And if I use your rule, then there shouldn't be any posts/comments at all on "Post Your Photography" thread because it's only for you to post your pictures. If that's the case, then if you happen to see any conversation there, would you mind telling them to post it in this thread then? (that of course if the pictures related are taken with Nikon)


----------



## milkpowder

OK, let's talk about Nikon *gear*.

 I recently got the SB-800, which I find far superior to the SB-80DX I was using! At least I no longer have to manually dial in the ISO, f-length and aperture setting for every single darn shot 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The on-flash AF light, TTL preflash make shooting much easier too...


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_OK, let's talk about Nikon *gear*.

 I recently got the SB-800, which I find far superior to the SB-80DX I was using! At least I no longer have to manually dial in the ISO, f-length and aperture setting for every single darn shot 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The on-flash AF light, TTL preflash make shooting much easier too..._

 

Do you have pictures of that?


----------



## Hayduke

Grats Milkpowder!

 What made you choose a 800 over the 600?

 I purchased a 600 recently and I am very happy with it. I wanted to have it fire off camera, and the D80 handles this perfectly. Put the camera in commander mode and it's all automatic 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I can't recall what the 800 added, just that I didn't think I would make enough use of those extras to justify the increased cost.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But according to the title of the thread ( The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here) ), this is not a Nikon gear thread but thread about any Nikon stuff here. Stuff = anything and can be this and that sort of thing. Plus it's not like there are so many Nikon gears conversations going on at the moment anyway. So strap for Nikon camera also belongs here, also occasional pictures taken with Nikon cam (or some sort of Nikon related cam or a person somewhat indirectly linked to some sort of Nikon gear). And didn't you just post a self-picture a few posts back - the one with radio equipment or something like that? Now how do you explain that? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And if say, I made a "The BMW Thread (Talk About BMW stuff here)", would you not expect to see some pictures posted about some owners' cars, or a third party modification to the BMW- be it seats, exhaust, audio, etc? Or if I made a "The Scanpan Thread (Talk about Scanpan stuff here) - wouldn't you think it's normal when someone posts a few recipes, or maybe pictures of food they just cooked using the Scanpan - or does it have to be in "Post Your Photography" thread? 
 And if I use your rule, then there shouldn't be any posts/comments at all on "Post Your Photography" thread because it's only for you to post your pictures. If that's the case, then if you happen to see any conversation there, would you mind telling them to post it in this thread then? (that of course if the pictures related are taken with Nikon) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I read the first few words of your post and then stopped because I realized you are just trying to annoy me. You sir, are not nice.

 Thankfully you are the only person posting up tasteless photos and others have better judgment.


----------



## dj_mocok

How did you know that I was trying to annoy you if you just read some part of it? I might be saying something nice later who knows. And you did post your own picture with that radio equipment here. But anyway, Milkpowder, how's the SB800?


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you have pictures of that? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








_

 

I'm only too happy to oblige 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Grats Milkpowder!

 What made you choose a 800 over the 600?

 I purchased a 600 recently and I am very happy with it. I wanted to have it fire off camera, and the D80 handles this perfectly. Put the camera in commander mode and it's all automatic 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I can't recall what the 800 added, just that I didn't think I would make enough use of those extras to justify the increased cost._

 

To be totally honest with you, I didn't _need_ an SB800. All the SB800 has over the SB600 spec-wise is power. It's got more reach. As a result, it actually takes longer to recycle after a full-power discharge. In real-world use, the SB800 is supposed to have a more even coverage, even after simultaneous discharge. Anyhow, I have to admit I got it over the SB600 because of toy factor more than anything else


----------



## Old Pa

I've been very happy for the last couple of years with my SB-600, but then I'm an existing light kind of guy.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have to admit I got it over the SB600 because of toy factor more than anything else
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Often the best reason for a purchase. At least on head-fi 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've been very happy for the last couple of years with my SB-600, but then I'm an existing light kind of guy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I got the 600 because my wife has asked me to take some interior shots of the rooms at the hotel she works at for some marketing materials. I tried it once, but they didn't come out that great using the built-in flash. Of course I haven't been over there to take pictures with the new flash yet


----------



## dj_mocok

Thanks for the pic Milkpowder. I don't own SB800 but my brother has one - I don't remember seeing that extra bulk on the side of his SB800. Is that additional accessory? I don't use flash at all that's why I have very limited knowledge in flash related accessories.


----------



## bigshot

Here is a pic for you DJ... It was taken with a Nikon!




 D200 / Sigma 50 1.4 wide open

 I have an SB800, but lately I have had fun shooting at night with a super slow shutter speed while I shake a flashlight over the subject. More fun than a flash.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the pic Milkpowder. I don't own SB800 but my brother has one - I don't remember seeing that extra bulk on the side of his SB800. Is that additional accessory? I don't use flash at all that's why I have very limited knowledge in flash related accessories._

 

That's the included SD-800 extra battery compartment so you can use five batteries. It shortens recycle time to 2.9s (rechargeables) and around 4 seconds on normal alkalines.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here is a pic for you DJ... It was taken with a Nikon!

http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/dannyyoungbw-lil.jpg
 D200 / Sigma 50 1.4 wide open

 I have an SB800, but lately I have had fun shooting at night with a super slow shutter speed while I shake a flashlight over the subject. More fun than a flash._

 

I like the quirky portrait! Ah light-painting
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I've never tried it, but it sounds like fun.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I like the quirky portrait!_

 

I specialize in quirk!


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Samgotit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Done! Here's the Gordy's wrist strap. I dig it. 





_

 

Hey did yours smell a bit like lacquer or something? Mine does (all black colour) and what I also don't like is when I rub off the inside of the leather, the black colour will come off and stick to the cloth. Is yours also the same? 

 Apart from that, everything else is fine.


----------



## milkpowder

Ah... Looks like pretty shoddy staining. But anyhow, it looks fab. Does the colour stick to your hands too? I imagine it would be an absolute nightmare to use on a hot summer day.

 The build quality looks very decent. Have you tried swinging your rig (over a bed or sofa) to test its strength? Does it give you a sense of security?


----------



## dj_mocok

No it doesn't stick to my hand when I am holding the camera. Only when I purposely rub it strongly with a cloth. I wonder if it's all like that or only mine.

 Mine is a string one, and I just realised that it's actually made of a few smaller strings banded together (if I twist the string it will break into a few smaller ones) but they do look strong. I am too chicken to do a swing test but I can safely say that I am confident enough to swing it around when I am carrying it. Now if I can just find out how to get rid of the lacquer smell... 
 Maybe I should try hairdrying it.


----------



## bigshot

If it's leather try saddle soap.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah... Looks like pretty shoddy staining. But anyhow, it looks fab. Does the colour stick to your hands too? I imagine it would be an absolute nightmare to use on a hot summer day.

 The build quality looks very decent. Have you tried swinging your rig (over a bed or sofa) to test its strength? Does it give you a sense of security?_

 

You should check out the tests on his site. They certainly convinced me it will hold the camera just fine.


 DJ, this sounds pretty typical for stained leather. I've always had that problem with colored leather products. I'm not sure if there is anything you can do to fix it. Try contacting him and asking? Or maybe some Google-Fu on the problem?


----------



## dj_mocok

Maybe I'll just wipe it as much as I can til there's not much stain to come off from the leather huh.


----------



## Hayduke

hmmm I looked around a bit to see what I can find, and I didn't find much. Most folks say a quality leather product should bot be rubbing off dye, but in some places they say it's normal during cleaning (this was on a site about purses). One suggestion was to try treating it with mink oil, but in the same thread someone (who runs a leather care site), said don't use mink oil 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'd send Gordy an email and get his opinion before I did anything.


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey did yours smell a bit like lacquer or something? Mine does (all black colour) and what I also don't like is when I rub off the inside of the leather, the black colour will come off and stick to the cloth. Is yours also the same? 
_

 

No stink on mine. So far no color rub off, either. 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 The build quality looks very decent. Have you tried swinging your rig (over a bed or sofa) to test its strength?_

 

That would be NO. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 Does it give you a sense of security? 
 

Personally, I'm not at all worried.


----------



## NeObliviscaris

just bought a nikon d90 and 18-105mm pack today! so excited!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_just bought a nikon d90 and 18-105mm pack today! so excited!_

 

Pimpin!

 That's one heck of a starter kit. You'll be able to take countless nice photos. Hope you enjoy it.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Samgotit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No stink on mine. So far no color rub off, either. _

 

I just emailed Gordy about this. I think it's the wax he uses on the string that has this waxy smell. And the colour might be because I didn't choose natural colour. Hopefully he can help me fixing this. 

 By the way, Feedmetrance, congrats on the camera!


----------



## GTRacer

My D80+Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 got stolen last week. :/

 So now I'm looking at a Fuji S5 Pro, completely switching to film or waiting a while for a D90...


----------



## NeObliviscaris

anyone know the head-fi equiv for photography?


----------



## dj_mocok

You can join Nikonian if you want to.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can join Nikonian if you want to._

 

I personally spend more time on NikonCafe.com, but recently bought a membership to Nikonians.org. Main reason was to get them off my tail about their paid memberships. To my greatest horror, they still send you with emails about their memberships...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Should I go for 'gold' and buy the platinum membership? Maybe then they'll shut up
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




*GTRacer*, that's really unfortunate.


----------



## john_jcb

I started by asking about a Nikon P&S camera and ended up getting a Panasonic DMC-FX35 based on recommendations from here. I have taken a few pictures using the factory settings. I am still getting use to the picture in the back rather than the trusty viewfinder my F4 has. Here are a couple I took with no adjustments:


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My D80+Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 got stolen last week. :/

 So now I'm looking at a Fuji S5 Pro, completely switching to film or waiting a while for a D90..._

 

Wow that sucks. What's the story behind this? How did it happen?


----------



## dj_mocok

John_JCB: hehe... I think you posted your pictures on the wrong forum mate, it was on Watches thread. By the way did you try taking the pictures without the flash? I generally hate using flashes especially when the object is shiny. Man I can't even remember the last time I used flash.


----------



## john_jcb

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_John_JCB: hehe... I think you posted your pictures on the wrong forum mate, it was on Watches thread. By the way did you try taking the pictures without the flash? I generally hate using flashes especially when the object is shiny. Man I can't even remember the last time I used flash._

 

I moved the post to here, I must have had the pointer on the wrong thread, what a dolt. 

 I will try not using the flash. When I was using my Nikon I most often used a diffuser or bounce. This is not so easy with the little one I have now. I want to try some outdoors pictures but the weather has been so miserable and everything is covered in snow.


----------



## dj_mocok

With point&shoot since it doesn't have bounce or diffuser I find it tends to ruin the image most of the time and I'll probably need it only for fill flash when doing sun-at-the-back photos or something similar.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *john_jcb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_and everything is covered in snow._

 

arguably some of the best photos have been taken in the snow. ^_^


----------



## lan

I went to B&H to test out 85 1.4 AF-D and Zeiss 85 1.4. The Zeiss is a beast to use. I don't mind manual focusing but it was a bit stiff AND you have to turn it around a bit. Minimum focusing distance is shorter with the Nikon.

 I was just playing though. I was really interested in 105mm f2 DC and 105 2.5 AI. I'm testing them now. I love being in such close proximity to B&H. It's madness, you get to try a lot of things.


----------



## Zodduska

Hey all, I just bought a D80 and I'm interested in any suggestions you guys might have as a general purpose, not too expensive lens to start out with.

 I'm a total newbie when it comes to DSLRs, (and photography in general) my previous camera was an older point and shoot digital elph but I was frustrated with the lack of options on it.

 I'd like to take some close up pictures for ebay listings, some nice shots of friends/family and my pets too. I really like the pics I see where the subject is crisp with a blurry background. Outdoor landscape type photos would be of lower priority but would be nice too.

 Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey all, I just bought a D80 and I'm interested in any suggestions you guys might have as a general purpose, not too expensive lens to start out with.

 I'm a total newbie when it comes to DSLRs, (and photography in general) my previous camera was an older point and shoot digital elph but I was frustrated with the lack of options on it.

 I'd like to take some close up pictures for ebay listings, some nice shots of friends/family and my pets too. I really like the pics I see where the subject is crisp with a blurry background. Outdoor landscape type photos would be of lower priority but would be nice too.

 Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The 18-135 is a good all-around lens for the conditions you describe. It has a nice wideangle, the ability to zoom in on a subject closely, and is sharp in most cases. The build quality is fine for its $250 asking price. 

 Tamron also makes an excellent 17-50 f/2.8 lens. It's lower f number allows for a tighter depth of field, meaning that when properly focused, your subject will appear razor sharp, and the background smoothly blurred. The lower f number also allows you to use faster shutter speeds without increasing your ISO, so you won't necessarily need to stick to ISO 1600 in dimly lit scenarios, and you'll end up with less-blurry photos. The Tamron sells for around $400.


----------



## Zodduska

Thanks M0T0XGUY!


----------



## [AK]Zip

What do you guys do about dust on the sensor? I have tried the pump thing, but its not removing everything and I still have some on there. Send it in somewhere for cleaning or buy some sort of cleaning kit?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *[AK]Zip* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you guys do about dust on the sensor? I have tried the pump thing, but its not removing everything and I still have some on there. Send it in somewhere for cleaning or buy some sort of cleaning kit?_

 

I cleaned my sensor using E2 fluid and sensor swabs from a kit I bought at a local photo store. Knowing your steady hand, I would have no worries about doing it yourself. As long as you don't scratch the low-pass filter, it's all good. It is virtually impossible to remove every last spec (i.e. that you'd see shooting a white wall at f/22 and jacking the contrast in PS), but I had no problem removing the ones that were big enough to annoy in pictures at normal apertures.

 Here is the swab type I used:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ab_Type_2.html

 My store had a kit that included E2, four of these swabs, and some lens cleaning pads, for about $20. Type 2 is the size for Nikon DX cameras (which I'm assuming you have).


----------



## dj_mocok

Zodduska, the Tamron 17-50mm is a godsend for someone looking for an affordable performance lens. I can post you some snaps if you want to. If you didn't read my previous post, I mentioned that I was already putting this lens (got it as a combo with my new DSLR) on sale and got a buyer but then I backed off last minute because I just can't fault the image quality. Very beautiful.


----------



## Zodduska

Thanks dj_mocok, I bid on a slightly used 18-135mm last night for hopefully a decent all around lens.. but I definitely have my sights set on the Tamron for my next purchase. Is it a good lens for macro type work? I would love to see some snaps with it if it's not too much trouble.


----------



## Towert7

You may laugh, but the kit 18-55mm lens is rather nice for macro work. It's not a dedicated macro lens, but it's still quite nice!


----------



## Zodduska

Cool, I'm far from a pro and it seems like tons of cash can easily be dumped into lenses so affordable ones that have the capability to do the things I want would probably be the smartest route to go, at least starting out.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You may laugh, but the kit 18-55mm lens is rather nice for macro work. It's not a dedicated macro lens, but it's still quite nice!_

 

Can you even get 1:1 with this lens? I have one, and it focuses closer then my larger zoom, but I still find it lacking. I think I just want to magnify things and make them larger then 1:1


----------



## jc9394

no 1:1 on kit lens, only macro specific can do that. try a reverse 50mm to get 1:1, the cheapest route


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jc9394* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_no 1:1 on kit lens, only macro specific can do that. try a reverse 50mm to get 1:1, the cheapest route_

 

I think I'd rather just wait until I can get a "real" macro lens. I find that macro photography is something that really interests me. Maybe something in the 180-200mm range.

 I will say that the 18-55VR kit lens does a wonderful job for a zoom. I'm just often frustrated with it's limitations 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Any recommendations on a "real" macro lens?


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks dj_mocok, I bid on a slightly used 18-135mm last night for hopefully a decent all around lens.. but I definitely have my sights set on the Tamron for my next purchase. Is it a good lens for macro type work? I would love to see some snaps with it if it's not too much trouble. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

If you buy the 18-135, you probably won't ever need the 17-50 f/2.8. The extra wide-angle range and aperture are nice, but on the whole both lenses fill the same niche, and are thus redundant. Either one is a good purchase, however.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can you even get 1:1 with this lens?_

 

Not with the lens itself. Add a few extension rings (if possible) and YOU BET!
 A very budget and nice macro setup (again, if possible).

 Can also do it with diopters, but that's less than ideal.


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Grats Milkpowder!

 What made you choose a 800 over the 600?

 I purchased a 600 recently and I am very happy with it. I wanted to have it fire off camera, and the D80 handles this perfectly. Put the camera in commander mode and it's all automatic 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I can't recall what the 800 added, just that I didn't think I would make enough use of those extras to justify the increased cost._

 

I recently got myself an SB-600 Speedlight, as well. I was trying to decide between the SB-900 (the replacement for the SB-800) and the SB-600, and decided that I would not be using flash often enough to justify spending the extra $250 or so over the SB-600.

 Also, with the i-TTL flash system, I can bounce the flash without having to worry about underexposure - as long as the subject in the image is within reasonable distance limits. My previous SLR flash experience was with an old Nikon film SLR (FG-20) which had no TTL flash metering capability whatsoever, plus a Vivitar-branded flash unit dedicated for Nikon; the only automated feature was that the camera automatically set the shutter speed to the maximum X-sync speed of 1/90 sec in the A mode; there was no P or S mode on that camera, and I had to rely on the non-TTL auto mode or full-power manual mode to determine flash exposure.

 By the way, if I were to use the SB-600 on an FG-20, I would have been stuck in the manual flash mode since the SB-600 lacks a non-TTL auto mode. The SB-800 and its replacement SB-900 both add a non-TTL auto mode. No big loss for the SB-600 since I would be using it strictly on my two Nikon DSLRs which both support i-TTL flash metering.


----------



## ozz

I like my SB-600 and my D-80 and tried the remote flash recently may
 get a second SB-600 and experiment more.


----------



## kbug

Any film user's out there? I still keep a Nikon F2A and 28mm f/2.8 AIS, 35mm f/2 AI and 105mm f/2.5 AI lens. I seldom take pictures with it now. It's a pure joy to play with it though.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ozz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I like my SB-600 and my D-80 and tried the remote flash recently may
 get a second SB-600 and experiment more._

 

lol. The first time I used the SB600 remotely, my immediate thought was, "this is awesome, I need another one!" haha

 why are all my hobbies so damn expensive


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks dj_mocok, I bid on a slightly used 18-135mm last night for hopefully a decent all around lens.. but I definitely have my sights set on the Tamron for my next purchase. Is it a good lens for macro type work? I would love to see some snaps with it if it's not too much trouble. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Alright, I took these just now to give you an idea how the lens is in terms of isolating object. It can actually go much closer than this and you can actually use it for semi macro works (eg. flower shots, the fine details of your watch - but not insect's hair shots) due to it's close minimum focusing distance.














 Considering the price and what it offers you, it's definitely a no-brainer. Initially I almost gave up on this lens because I was so used to metal Ai lenses but now I am adjusted to it already. I can confidently go toe to toe with this lens versus the more expensive Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 pro grade one. 

 The bad thing (or good) is, it doesn't look like much lens at all, so if you walk around with this little lens and you see a Nikon snob with their D3/D700 and 17-35mm, you might get the occasional "pfftt.. cheapy Tamron - I win" look from them.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But I'm not really worried personally, because this lens kicks arse in terms of picture quality.

 About Nikon 18-135mm, I wouldn't bother if I were you, UNLESS you really need the extra reach. I'd personally much rather get this than Nikon 18-135mm or 18-70mm because for me they are just too slow. But if you don't mind slower lenses, those Nikons are great value for money too.


----------



## jc9394

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kbug* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Any film user's out there? I still keep a Nikon F2A and 28mm f/2.8 AIS, 35mm f/2 AI and 105mm f/2.5 AI lens. I seldom take pictures with it now. It's a pure joy to play with it though._

 

I still have my F3HP with 28/2.8, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4, mostly playing with it and take some slide once in a blue moon.


----------



## jc9394

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_lol. The first time I used the SB600 remotely, my immediate thought was, "this is awesome, I need another one!" haha

 why are all my hobbies so damn expensive 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

photography is more expensive than head-fi (at least for me). this is exactly reason I end up with 2 sb800 and 2 sb600


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you buy the 18-135, you probably won't ever need the 17-50 f/2.8. The extra wide-angle range and aperture are nice, but on the whole both lenses fill the same niche, and are thus redundant. Either one is a good purchase, however._

 

the 18-135 is already on its way to me, thanks for the info. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_About Nikon 18-135mm, I wouldn't bother if I were you, UNLESS you really need the extra reach. I'd personally much rather get this than Nikon 18-135mm or 18-70mm because for me they are just too slow. But if you don't mind slower lenses, those Nikons are great value for money too._

 

Nice pics! thanks for posting them, that does look like a really nice lens for the money. When you say "slower lens" do you mean the f-stop or focus/zoom speed? sorry I'm a noob.. I'll probably play around with the 18-135 for a while and see how it does but from what I gather I might need one that lets a bit more light through for lower light indoor shots since the D80 isn't so hot in low light or high ISO to begin with.


----------



## OverlordXenu

I just picked up an 85/2 AIS...It is a little beaut of a lens. Now I want a 200/4 and a 24/2! And an FM3a...


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...the D80 isn't so hot in low light or high ISO to begin with._

 

For that matter, neither are its direct competitors which were available at the time the D80 was introduced. The Canons may be less noisy at the same ISO, but are also less detailed and sharp at higher ISO settings or in low light due to their increased use of noise reduction at their default settings (the somewhat heavy-handed use of NR is evident in the aliasing artifacts). The Nikon D80's noise reduction can be turned on; however, it is turned off by default. In this case, then, pick your poison.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the 18-135 is already on its way to me, thanks for the info. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Nice pics! thanks for posting them, that does look like a really nice lens for the money. When you say "slower lens" do you mean the f-stop or focus/zoom speed? sorry I'm a noob.. I'll probably play around with the 18-135 for a while and see how it does but from what I gather I might need one that lets a bit more light through for lower light indoor shots since the D80 isn't so hot in low light or high ISO to begin with._

 

At the wide(er) end of the range, the 18-135 should be fine indoors with adequate lighting. In dimly lit scenarios and towards 135mm, the lens may indeed yield some blurry shots. Luckily, you'll probably never (or at least, not often) use a longer telephoto lens indoors - its impractical and tactically difficult. 

 Honestly, if you plan to do a lot of indoor shooting, even the Tamron's f/2.8 aperture won't be ideal. Prime or fixed focal lenses will serve you better in this area, because they can be manufactured with large apertures (f/1.8 or greater) for a low price. 

 (P.S. Generally, people talk about aperture values in terms of "lens speed." They'll usually refer to a lens's autofocusing capabilities directly by identifying its autofocusing speed).


----------



## Zodduska

Thanks for taking the time to explain this stuff guys. I was looking at this lens for macro: Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Honestly, if you plan to do a lot of indoor shooting, even the Tamron's f/2.8 aperture won't be ideal._

 

That's true but for larger objects or groups of people, you are better off stopped down to get enough depth of field. If those cases, you are better off using flash or having IS.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for taking the time to explain this stuff guys. I was looking at this lens for macro: Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro_

 

That's one of Tamron's best lenses. It's very sharp.


----------



## lan

Wow, I'm really digging the 105 f2 DC. It quite a bit better than the 105 2.5 AI I got here also to compare. This lens is sharps on crop and on full frame. Here it is on my Canon 5D II.

 Bottom part half is 100% in that near far corner and this is shot through my dirty window also.






 I'm wondering how the 85 1.4 AI-S vs 85 1.4D is now.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the 18-135 is already on its way to me, thanks for the info. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Nice pics! thanks for posting them, that does look like a really nice lens for the money. When you say "slower lens" do you mean the f-stop or focus/zoom speed? sorry I'm a noob.. I'll probably play around with the 18-135 for a while and see how it does but from what I gather I might need one that lets a bit more light through for lower light indoor shots since the D80 isn't so hot in low light or high ISO to begin with._

 

What I meant was the speed. Unfortunately for D80 I would only comfortable using it up to around ISO800/1000 or so, and maybe ISO1600 when it's really necessary. But with my current S5 I am very comfortable at doing 1600 and with f/2.8 constant it is really fast enough for me even in a dimmer rooms. (Hence why I didn't really want to recommend non constant, slower aperture lenses for you)

 Coincidentally I also have the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 dimacro that you were enquiring. It's indeed excellent, excellent lens and the bokeh is to die for. Get it without hesitation. Although honestly I don't really use that lens that much anymore since I don't do that type of macro much (1:1). 

 If you are just doing regular closeup not extreme macro shots, don't worry about the Tamron 90mm - unless you are also looking for a portrait lens, which in this case the Tamron 90mm macro is very good for. I think it serves more as a portrait lens than a macro lens for me.


----------



## Towert7

*Ian*... all my lenses are that sharp when used with a tripod.......... and I don't even have a full frame camera....
 I'm not seeing anything above normal from the crop.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*Ian*... all my lenses are that sharp when used with a tripod.......... and I don't even have a full frame camera....
 I'm not seeing anything above normal from the crop._

 

It's at the edge which is a weaker point on lenses on full frame. If your sensor is not out resolving the lens, you can't tell the difference. I think there's good micro contrast here. I also enjoy the 35-70 3.5. It has very even performance across the frame which is rare.

 I'm just wondering what people were thinking about the 105 2.5. Some say it was pretty good. It's clearly a worst lens compared to the 105 f2 and I have 2 of them here to compare. I'm verifying focus with live view also so I'm not misfocusing.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, I'm really digging the 105 f2 DC. It quite a bit better than the 105 2.5 AI I got here also to compare. This lens is sharps on crop and on full frame. Here it is on my Canon 5D II.

 Bottom part half is 100% in that near far corner and this is shot through my dirty window also.

 [IMGhttp://i43.tinypic.com/29vap3q.jpg[/IMG]

 I'm wondering how the 85 1.4 AI-S vs 85 1.4D is now._

 

Did you use a Nikon to Canon mount adapter here?


----------



## ArmAndHammer

I'll also echo that the Tamron 90mm is a fantastic lens. I use mine often. I also just got the Sigma "Dirty Thirty" 30mm f/1.4. Another really nice affordable third party lens.


----------



## kbug

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jc9394* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I still have my F3HP with 28/2.8, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4, mostly playing with it and take some slide once in a blue moon._

 

F3HP is a very sexy toy.


----------



## kbug

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just picked up an 85/2 AIS...It is a little beaut of a lens. Now I want a 200/4 and a 24/2! And an FM3a..._

 

Why not consider a F series camera? I think FM3a is overpriced now and F3 or F2 are better values. The build quality of these F series cameras are superb!


----------



## kbug

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm wondering how the 85 1.4 AI-S vs 85 1.4D is now._

 

I haven't used both lenses. But the general opinion is that the bokeh on 85 1.4D is better than that of the AIS version


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Did you use a Nikon to Canon mount adapter here?_

 

Yep pretty much. I'm using the Nikon 35-70 3.5 for movies since it has very little distortion and is very even performance accross the whole frame and focal lengths. It's a no surprise lens.


----------



## dj_mocok

I have the 85mm 1.4 Ais version, and looking at pictures made by 85mm 1.4 AF version, it hasn't made me want to get the AF version.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm just wondering what people were thinking about the 105 2.5. Some say it was pretty good. It's clearly a worst lens compared to the 105 f2 and I have 2 of them here to compare. I'm verifying focus with live view also so I'm not misfocusing._

 

I've been under the impression that the 105 2.5 is generally liked for its' bokeh. I shot one once, and found the resolution in and of itself nothing remarkable. That a newer, faster, more expensive lens out-resolves it is hardly a surprise.

 That 135 DC looks like a very nice lens also. A "poor man's" 200 2.0 on DX, and a candidate for portrait heaven on FX.


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's at the edge which is a weaker point on lenses on full frame. If your sensor is not out resolving the lens, you can't tell the difference. I think there's good micro contrast here. I also enjoy the 35-70 3.5. It has very even performance across the frame which is rare._

 

There have been two versions of the 35-70mm f/3.5 (constant aperture) manual-focus zoom lens: the Ai and the Ai-S. The later Ai-S version is slightly smaller (62mm filter size) and slightly better than the earlier Ai version (72mm filter size) but both of them are very good performers.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm just wondering what people were thinking about the 105 2.5. Some say it was pretty good. It's clearly a worst lens compared to the 105 f2 and I have 2 of them here to compare. I'm verifying focus with live view also so I'm not misfocusing._

 

Yes, the 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S is a very good lens for its original price, but the wider-aperture, more expensive 105mm f/1.8 Ai-S is better. (The manual-focus 105mm f/2 was available in pre-Ai and Ai versions, but was updated to an f/1.8 lens when the Ai-S version came out.) And the current AF Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC is stellar. (It's often overlooked because a lot of people thought of the DC as a soft-focus lens, but DC really controls the bokeh and not the focus - in other words, the focused subject remains razor-sharp while the out-of-focus highlights in the background can be made as creamy smooth as the scene allows.)


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That 135 DC looks like a very nice lens also. A "poor man's" 200 2.0 on DX, and a candidate for portrait heaven on FX._

 

200 2.0 lol. My dream lens. The superteles are always in another class though. Usually already insane sharp wide open.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Eagle_Driver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And the current AF Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC is stellar. (It's often overlooked because a lot of people thought of the DC as a soft-focus lens, but DC really controls the bokeh and not the focus - in other words, the focused subject remains razor-sharp while the out-of-focus highlights in the background can be made as creamy smooth as the scene allows.)_

 

Yeah I have the 67mm version of the 35-70 3.5. It's pretty sweet. That and the 105 f2 DC are great because of their very even performance. I wonder who thought to invent DC. I'm going to try playing with it a little.

 So today's the first day of price hikes eh? Let me go check prices...


----------



## dj_mocok

I might have to put a stop on lens buying for now. Figure out that I don't use them all that much especially since I got an LX3 for casual snaps. Up to ISO400 it is really acceptable and I love the handiness.


----------



## Zodduska

My first DSLR: Nikon D80 arrived today! Paired with the 18-135mm lens here is a couple pics I took.. sorry for the poor lighting.


----------



## dj_mocok

Congrats on the purchase! That combo will make a nice all purpose photography (as long as the room isn't too dark)


----------



## Zodduska

Thanks dj_mocok!


----------



## dj_mocok

That feeling of holding your first DSLR is great isn't it? Especially when you're coming from a P&S, it's such a great joy to hold a solid camera and hears that lovely shutter sound.

 If you want a completely different experience, you can try scoring some cheap second hand Nikon 50mm 1.8 Ai (or Ais) and use that with your D80. (I think you can get it for less than 100 bucks - maybe around US$70-ish depending on the condition)

 It won't meter for you, so that means you have to manually guess the shutter speed and setting the aperture yourself (also manual focus), but you will feel good once you've managed to take a nice shot out of it. It also makes you learn quicker too, and it makes you appreciate taking the time to make one nice picture. And then when you are already bored of thinking about making nice pictures, you can start doing some random crap pictures like me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You were mentioning about Macro lens - if your macro is still life not bug-chasing macro, you can also get Nikon 55mm 2.8 Ais, that will be a good lens for macro and enjoying fully manual works (as long as the object doesn't move - because chasing bugs or kids with a manual focus lens is a pain)


----------



## Zodduska

For sure! Though the D80 is a monster compared to the tiny elph P&S that I gave up on a while ago, makes me feel a bit nervous holding it and setting it down. Thanks for the suggestions on the other lenses, I'll be looking into them in the coming weeks. 

 One question I have is with the 18-135mm, only has A or M select for focus, is it ok to manual focus this lens in auto mode? I was reading somewhere that it was but the camera manual leads me to believe only lenses with A/M - M have this ability. The lens did try to move when I was trying to manual focus a bit yesterday with it on auto in P mode and I really don't want to break it.


----------



## dj_mocok

I don't have 18-135mm but as far as I know it also depends on the lens. Some lenses direct override but they are pro grade ones. With normal lenses I usually try not to be lazy and set it to MF first if I wanna do MF and switch to auto once I'm done.

 But with 18-135mm you really don't need to do manual focus anyway, it's very accurate already. Plus the MF is not that nice at all.


----------



## Zodduska

Ok, the only time I tried to do manual was when the auto focus had trouble finding what I wanted to shoot because of the dim lighting.. next time I'll be sure to switch focus modes before messing with it.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ok, the only time I tried to do manual was when the auto focus had trouble finding what I wanted to shoot because of the dim lighting.. next time I'll be sure to switch focus modes before messing with it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Just so it is known, manually 'forcing' the lens focus while still in auto mode can break the focusing elements in the lens.

 My mom tried that with the kit 18-55mm. Yup, it went in for repair.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For sure! Though the D80 is a monster compared to the tiny elph P&S that I gave up on a while ago, makes me feel a bit nervous holding it and setting it down. Thanks for the suggestions on the other lenses, I'll be looking into them in the coming weeks. 

 One question I have is with the 18-135mm, only has A or M select for focus, is it ok to manual focus this lens in auto mode? I was reading somewhere that it was but the camera manual leads me to believe only lenses with A/M - M have this ability. The lens did try to move when I was trying to manual focus a bit yesterday with it on auto in P mode and I really don't want to break it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

With that lens, you want to use the switch. Your manual is accurate. It must say A/M - M. I've used that lens, and it's like the 18-55 and 55-200. You have to move that switch or you could damage it like Towert said.

 The only thing I'm not clear is whether or not I need to change the switch on the body. Sometimes I forget that one and only change the lens. I do recall reading something about trying to avoid changing the lens with auto focus turned on, but I pretty much always forget that part


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_With that lens, you want to use the switch. Your manual is accurate. It must say A/M - M. I've used that lens, and it's like the 18-55 and 55-200. You have to move that switch or you could damage it like Towert said.

 The only thing I'm not clear is whether or not I need to change the switch on the body. Sometimes I forget that one and only change the lens. I do recall reading something about trying to avoid changing the lens with auto focus turned on, but I pretty much always forget that part 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

With AF-S lenses you can leave your D80 on AF mode and control the lens with its own switch; there's no physical link between the AF mechanism of the lens and the body anyway.

 Personally, I always change the lens with the screwdrive retracted. Something tells me it makes little difference either way, but I generally play it safe.


----------



## dj_mocok

I actually wanna try a Voigtlander SL lens with my camera but unfortunately I can't afford anymore purchase for the time being. They look really interesting though.














 I LOVE the looks of that 40mm lens with a unique hood. Maybe that would be my next lens purchase if I were to get a new lens.


----------



## vagarach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 The only thing I'm not clear is whether or not I need to change the switch on the body._

 

Yeah, I also wondered as much until I started using the 50mm 1.8, it doesn't have a AF/M slider switch, and so the body's AF/M switch becomes useful!


----------



## Towert7

Wow, just learned about this.
Nikon’s stereoscopic Microscope now fits Nikon DSLR, Extreme Macro anyone? - SlashGear

 I was expecting it to cost about 10,000$ but I am surprised to see it's 1200$. That's the price of a single lens.

 66x magnification? 66:1 HOLY COW!
 Can you imagine the bug macro's you could get with it?


----------



## ozz

Saw that and was hoping they would have posted some pictures and list
 what lens work with the microscope.


----------



## dj_mocok

3518


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_3518_

 

4474

 I'm not sure I understand the rules of this game though Dj


----------



## lan

35mm f/1.8 AF-S but DX! ahhh. has just been announced.


----------



## vagarach

Wow. Just after buying the 50mm 1.8 Nikon goes and seems to be releasing a much wider but just as fast lens 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Aye, but it seriously doubt it'll be readily available at $150


----------



## Zodduska

Oh sweet! I almost bought the 50mm 1.8 but Amazon was out of stock.. I think I'll wait a bit and pick this one up when the price comes down for indoor low-light shooting.


----------



## vagarach

It's official! AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G from Nikon

 Now the price...


----------



## fureshi

i'm really looking forward to it and really glad to see that nikon is starting to put out more AF-S primes. not sure if focus speed will be faster but a quietly focusing lens is always welcome. this makes it easier for me to want to pick up a small camera like a D40/60 for travel. it's not always fun to lug my D300 around during a business trip.


----------



## triode12

I feel that putting SW motors into primes and taking away the aperture rings are a bad idea. Good for Nikon from a marketing stand point but bad for consumers. 

 I've had first hand experience with the SWM in my 80-200 zoom fail after one year of light use . The resultant cost of repair and replacement of the SWM was very expensive(the lens was just out of warranty). 

 SWMs do wear out as well - more often than usual, I see worn out AFS 17-35, 80-200 zoom lenses for sale on Ebay but not of the equivalent AF/AF-D models (20-35/ 80-200).

 AFS is not necessary in wide angle zooms esp these days with multiple focussing points in modern SLRs. It may be useful on lenses 85mm (for portrait photography) and above though. 

 You can't meter with G lenses on older manual focus film cameras because they lack the aperture ring either. This failing also means that they cannot be used mounted (or reverse mounted) on bellows for greater magnification.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I finally got my D3 and I love it so much. I can feel myself becoming one with it in a way that I never have with a digital camera. And by this I mean that when I want something to happen, it just happens, there's no fiddling with menus and buttons, it is seamless and I can just focus on making pictures. 

 I feel this way about my Hasselblad, and my 4x5 when I used it. But this is the first time with a digital camera, which is quite an accomplishment by Nikon. It just gets out of the way. 

 It's really a lot like our quest on head-fi, we're looking for gear that lets us just enjoy the music without thinking about the stupid treble spikes, etc. Like a pair of HP2's and a nice tube amp, that just let the music flow! (Or my Starving Student and Yamaha YH100 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## Towert7

Yea, I too sometimes wonder what Nikon is thinking.
 A prime.......... DX?

 I don't know, but my 35mm F/2 is lightning fast, small, lite, and is fully compatible with both FX and DX cameras. I personally don't see the use for introducing a new 35mm F/1.8. Anyone know of any pluses to it?

 @Triode12: I'll echo your sentiments. I too really love my non SWM lenses! They do not break, and some of them are VERY fast. I have no intention of using a film camera, but I like the thought of having the aperture ring on the lens. Perhaps someday nikon will release a whole no camera format that will not meter with these lenses, in which case being able to manually set the aperture would be important (such is the case with my old 80-200mm F/4.5n AI on my D50). The lens still works perfectly!


----------



## Towert7

@DJ. I too love the looks of that 40mm with the lens shade. WOW, beautiful.


----------



## triode12

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yea, I too sometimes wonder what Nikon is thinking.
 A prime.......... DX?

 I don't know, but my 35mm F/2 is lightning fast, small, lite, and is fully compatible with both FX and DX cameras. I personally don't see the use for introducing a new 35mm F/1.8. Anyone know of any pluses to it?

 @Triode12: I'll echo your sentiments. I too really love my non SWM lenses! They do not break, and some of them are VERY fast. I have no intention of using a film camera, but I like the thought of having the aperture ring on the lens. Perhaps someday nikon will release a whole no camera format that will not meter with these lenses, in which case being able to manually set the aperture would be important (such is the case with my old 80-200mm F/4.5n AI on my D50). The lens still works perfectly!_

 


 Gosh! I missed the fact the new 35mm f1.8 was also DX. 

 Yes I agree - DX on a prime - what the hell?!!
 Nikon has lost it.


----------



## Zodduska

Looks like the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens is gonna be $199.95, you can preorder it on Amazon by searching "nikon 2183"


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *triode12* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Gosh! I missed the fact the new 35mm f1.8 was also DX. 

 Yes I agree - DX on a prime - what the hell?!!
 Nikon has lost it._

 

Aimed at D40 users who want a fast prime. It competes with Sigma's 30mm f/1.4

 Quite a good move from Nikon IMO.


----------



## vagarach

Plus it's made by Nikon, so you don't have to worry about Sigma's niggling problems that show up in some copies and not others and all that hassle.


----------



## GTRacer

Though it does work on FX, albeit with some vignetting:

D3 + DX NIKKOR 35/F1.8G - To Taste ¡Á I Love Nikkor with Friends


----------



## Zodduska

I picked up a Bogen Manfrotto 681B monopod and 234RC head today at a local camera shop.. man this thing is a lot of fun! it's way easier to move around with compared to my tripod and very solid, if I had any complaint it is a little heavy and kinda big.. but I'm loving it so far.


----------



## Towert7

monopods rock.


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_monopods rock._

 

 heck yeah! this is my first, the freedom and stability they offer almost feels like cheating.


----------



## NeObliviscaris

planning on buying this one for my d90:

Nikon | Imaging Products | AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G (4.3x)


----------



## Towert7

It's a quirkey lens, but it's got some real nice features for the price.


----------



## Braver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *triode12* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nikon has lost it._

 

How is that? They make a lens that is interesting to about 75% of their customers. DX (that format is here to stay for a few decades at the consumer side of things) cameras like the D40 and D60 is where brand loyalty is built and Nikon was the only brand without primes for that class of cameras. I'd say they 'found' rather than lost it.


----------



## NeObliviscaris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's a quirkey lens, but it's got some real nice features for the price._

 

i am craving some new gear and i cant afford much, so hopefully that 70-300mm with a new gorillapod tripod shud sort me out


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i am craving some new gear and i cant afford much, so hopefully that 70-300mm with a new gorillapod tripod shud sort me out_

 

Yea, you'll have fun with it.
 The lens doesn't have any fancy optics, so you can get some phenomenal bokeh with it!


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_planning on buying this one for my d90:

Nikon | Imaging Products | AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G (4.3x)_

 

I'm afraid that that particular lens is not one of Nikon's better performers at any price point. You see, the D90 at full native resolution will clearly show the limitations of that lens. And it has no VR feature at all, which means that with a crop sensor body a tripod is strongly recommended if you're going to be shooting at shutter speeds slower than 1/500 second (at the 300mm maximum zoom setting since the 1/focal length shutter speed guide is based on a 50mm image circle while the D90's sensor is significantly smaller than that and thus magnifying the image by 1.523x, giving you the focal length equivalent of 456.6mm). This would force you to use a higher ISO setting than you would have liked even in slightly hazy sunlight. Plus, it has a plastic mount, not a metal mount.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Eagle_Driver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm afraid that that particular lens is not one of Nikon's better performers at any price point. You see, the D90 at full native resolution will clearly show the limitations of that lens. And it has no VR feature at all, which means that with a crop sensor body a tripod is strongly recommended if you're going to be shooting at shutter speeds slower than 1/500 second (at the 300mm maximum zoom setting since the 1/focal length shutter speed guide is based on a 50mm image circle while the D90's sensor is significantly smaller than that and thus magnifying the image by 1.523x, giving you the focal length equivalent of 456.6mm). This would force you to use a higher ISO setting than you would have liked even in slightly hazy sunlight. Plus, it has a plastic mount, not a metal mount._

 

Eagle Driver, do you know of any other nikon mount lens that can give the 200-300mm range for under 140$? You see, I'm going to disagree with you and say it's a nice performer at it's price point. It's worth what it sells for. And as I have said before, the bokeh you can get out of it is nothing short of amazing. Some of my shots taken with this lens can be compared to the nikon 300mm F/4 or F/2.8 in terms of bokeh, it's that good. 

 No offense eagle driver, but what difference does it make if the mount is plastic or metal? The 70-300G weighs practically nothing, and very little torque is put on the mount. I'll be interested to see why you brought up that point, because I honestly don't see why it's a key factor when buying a lens of this sort.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i am craving some new gear and i cant afford much, so hopefully that 70-300mm with a new gorillapod tripod shud sort me out_

 

It sure will. It'll fill your need for a telephoto lens. Plus, if you wanted to go crazy you could put an extension tube on and make it a macro lens or use a diopter for some wacky effects.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I picked up a Bogen Manfrotto 681B monopod and 234RC head today at a local camera shop.. man this thing is a lot of fun! it's way easier to move around with compared to my tripod and very solid, if I had any complaint it is a little heavy and kinda big.. but I'm loving it so far._

 

I miss my monopod. I used to have a hiking pole that had a wooden top piece that unscrewed. My current hiking poles don't have a mount. I've thought about putting a mount on top of one of them, but I often hold the top of my poles.


----------



## NeObliviscaris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It sure will. It'll fill your need for a telephoto lens. Plus, if you wanted to go crazy you could put an extension tube on and make it a macro lens or use a diopter for some wacky effects._

 

whats this extension tube you speak of?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_whats this extension tube you speak of?_

 

nikon extension tube | B&H Photo Video
 It moves the lens farther from the sensor, so it effectively lets the lens focus closer (so instead of 5ft, it can focus closer), making it like a macro lens.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bhphoto.com* 
_The Nikon PK-12 Auto Extension Tube provides 14mm of extension, and can be used with any Nikon SLR lenses longer than 50mm, or with a reversed 50mm lens (using a reverse adapter).

 Extension tubes are designed to enable a lens to focus closer than its normal set minimum focusing distance. Getting closer has the effect of magnifying your subject (making it appear larger in the viewfinder and in your pictures). They are exceptionally useful for macro photography, enabling you to convert almost any lens into a macro lens at a fraction of the cost while maintaining its original optical quality.

 The extension tubes have no optics. They are mounted in between the camera body and lens to create more distance between the lens and film plane. By moving the lens father away from the film or CCD sensor in the camera, the lens is forced to focus much closer than normal. The greater the length of the extension tube, the closer the lens can focus.

 Provides perfect coupling and retains both AI aperture and meter coupling. Does not support AF operation._


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Eagle Driver, do you know of any other nikon mount lens that can give the 200-300mm range for under 140$? You see, I'm going to disagree with you and say it's a nice performer at it's price point. It's worth what it sells for. And as I have said before, the bokeh you can get out of it is nothing short of amazing. Some of my shots taken with this lens can be compared to the nikon 300mm F/4 or F/2.8 in terms of bokeh, it's that good. 

 No offense eagle driver, but what difference does it make if the mount is plastic or metal? The 70-300G weighs practically nothing, and very little torque is put on the mount. I'll be interested to see why you brought up that point, because I honestly don't see why it's a key factor when buying a lens of this sort._

 

It is pretty good for what it is, I'd have to admit. But if sharper images is the user's goal, then (s)he would have to spend more.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Eagle_Driver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is pretty good for what it is, I'd have to admit. But if sharper images is the user's goal, then (s)he would have to spend more._

 

That I can not disagree with. (s)he would have to spend considerably more.
 ^_^

 I think the 300mm F/4 or 80-400mm is about 1400$, and a 80-200mm + 1.7x tele converter is about 1550$us.
 While they will be sharper, they cost about 1300$ more........................

 300mm F/4............ :drool:


----------



## Old Pa

I've been pretty happy with my Tamron SP AF Di LD IF 200-500 f5-6.3. It's optically adequate and man-portable. This shot was lightly "PhotoShopped" to get a more artistic quality.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_nikon extension tube | B&H Photo Video
 It moves the lens farther from the sensor, so it effectively lets the lens focus closer (so instead of 5ft, it can focus closer), making it like a macro lens._

 

Any idea what ratio I could get with the 27.5mm extension tube mated to my 55-200 lens? Or how can I figure it out? This sounds like a much cheaper option to get me a serviceable macro lens. I'd really like to get to 1:1 at least, but 2:1 or more is preferred. Of course, then how close would I have to get to that bug I'm trying to shoot? lol


----------



## NeObliviscaris

yeah id like to know what hayduke is after well


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Any idea what ratio I could get with the 27.5mm extension tube mated to my 55-200 lens? Or how can I figure it out? This sounds like a much cheaper option to get me a serviceable macro lens. I'd really like to get to 1:1 at least, but 2:1 or more is preferred. Of course, then how close would I have to get to that bug I'm trying to shoot? lol_

 

I actually am not sure how to calculate these things.
 To give you an idea of what you can do with them though, this person did a little test:
http://imageevent.com/crazycritter/c...tterfirstalbum
 I doubt you'll get to 2:1 without some serious extension on a lens that already had a good magnification rating.


----------



## Hayduke

interesting link

 It appears the tubes help shorter lenses more then longer ones? Maybe I could get one and try sticking it on my 18-55@55?

 I should probly just keep looking into a real macro lens. This just sounded like a way to get something adequate for a lot less money.


----------



## triode12

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_planning on buying this one for my d90:

Nikon | Imaging Products | AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G (4.3x)_

 

FMT,

 You are much better served getting the 70-300mm AF-D ED version - the first version of this lens. 

 The optics are better in the AF-D version than the one you are looking at. Plus, it sports an aperture ring and metal bayonet mount (sorry Tower 7, but plastic mounts don't inspire confidence in me).

 The AF-D model usually sell for AUD$200-300 used. Sometimes less.

 I used to own one and it was great -good colour rendition and bokeh. Of course, use of a tripod or monopod is mandatory (being a telephoto zoom).


----------



## NeObliviscaris

$150 was just in my price budget, so cant really opt for more luxury, ive ended up with:

 $150 30mm-700m lens
 $8 uv filder
 $80 slr zoom gorilla pod tripod
 $50 shipping
 ------------
 $298 all up geez!


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That I can not disagree with. (s)he would have to spend considerably more.
 ^_^

 I think the 300mm F/4 or 80-400mm is about 1400$, and a 80-200mm + 1.7x tele converter is about 1550$us.
 While they will be sharper, they cost about 1300$ more........................

 300mm F/4............ :drool:_

 

And that's not to mention that those pricier lenses are considerably larger and heavier than the cheap 70-300 or even my AF-S 70-300G ED-IF VR (which cost me about $400).................

 Anyway, my 70-300 ED-IF VR is optically adequate, with the chromatic aberration marring the images with the aperture set wide-open (worse near the longer end than at the short end). Stopping that lens down does bring the CA under control...............................


----------



## lan

Wow the prices are really up. I was looking for the 35 1.8 on B&H site and came across the 17-35 2.8 for $1,759.95. That's killer!


----------



## NeObliviscaris

random q: anyone got spare nikon lens they want to give/trade to me


----------



## Zodduska

Hey guys, I need some help spending my tax return!

 Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens ($472.95 Amazon Prime)
 or
 Tamron Telephoto SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF ($449 B&H) 

 I can't decide. The only lens I have so far for my D80 is the 18-135mm kit lens.


----------



## dj_mocok

Tamron.


----------



## Weimar

Those are two COMPLETELY different lenses. For completely different purposes.. the Tamron is a Macro lens, with the Nikon one being a telephoto lense with a minimum focus distance of 5 feet... It really depends on what you want to photograph.

 I actually have the D80/18-135 myself, as well as the 70-300 VR, and I love it to bits. Very sturdy, nice bokeh, awesome focusing speed.. You can't really go wrong with it. I use it for nature photography, animals and the like.. don't regret it one bit.


----------



## NeObliviscaris

whoo hoo, my 30-700mm oops 70-300mm came, so here are some shots:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f11/po...ml#post5426590


----------



## dj_mocok

You meant 70-300mm. Yes I'm a smartarse.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys, I need some help spending my tax return!

 Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens ($472.95 Amazon Prime)
 or
 Tamron Telephoto SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF ($449 B&H) 

 I can't decide. The only lens I have so far for my D80 is the 18-135mm kit lens. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Personally, I think the 70-300 VR has always been a bit overpriced for its performance. The lens' image quality is roughly matched by the cheaper 70-300G, and its image stabilization - while handy - is no substitute for a faster aperture when shooting moving subjects.

 That said, I'm not sure the 90mm lens is what you're looking for. Technically, you've already covered that focal length with your zoom lens; and unless you're consistently turning out blurry images with the 18-135, I doubt you'll fully appreciate the larger aperture of the Tamron. If you're genuinely interested in macro photography, however, the Tamron is an excellent option.


----------



## Zodduska

Thanks for the input guys! I decided to order the Tamron 90 because I think I'll have more opportunities to make use of it, while the 70-300 VR would be a great addition too I would really only use it when I make dedicated trips for nature shooting and need the extra reach beyond what the 18-135 can provide. 

 I really am interested in getting some nice close up macro shots come spring of insects and flowers and from what I hear the Tamron makes a damn fine portrait lens too! It should be here wednesday which happens to be my birthday, I can't wait!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_whoo hoo, my 30-700mm came, so here are some shots:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f11/po...ml#post5426590_

 

Hope you get a lot of enjoyment with the lens! Cool pictures by the way.


----------



## NeObliviscaris

dj: yeah i was very excited

 tower: yeah ive had it for less than a day and its a good spend of $150!


----------



## NeObliviscaris

great now i dont know whcih primary lens to use as default, 18-105 or 70-300

 why cant i invent a machine and hav a 18-300!


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_great now i dont know whcih primary lens to use as default, 18-105 or 70-300

 why cant i invent a machine and hav a 18-300!_


----------



## NeObliviscaris

?


----------



## ozz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_great now i dont know whcih primary lens to use as default, 18-105 or 70-300

 why cant i invent a machine and hav a 18-300!_

 

They have a nice 18-200vr just wish it was not close to 800.00.


----------



## F-100

The only filter I would put on my lenses is B+W. No Tiffen or $20 filter.


----------



## dj_mocok

Tamron 18-270mm. Close enough for you? But I have a strong feeling that the picture quality is crap though.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ozz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They have a nice 18-200vr just wish it was not close to 800.00._

 

You mean close to 700$.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tamron 18-270mm. Close enough for you? But I have a strong feeling that the picture quality is crap though._

 

This lens is ridiculous slow. I wouldn't go there even if it's image quality was good.


----------



## NeObliviscaris

the 18-200vr will set me back $1000 here in Australia!


----------



## ozz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You mean close to 700$._

 

Not locally with tax in my area .


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ozz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not locally with tax in my area ._

 

bhphoto.com my friend, bhphoto.
 (Assuming you don't mind buying lenses from online stores).


----------



## ozz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_bhphoto.com my friend, bhphoto.
 (Assuming you don't mind buying lenses from online stores)._

 

I do buy online for some things just leary in case of defect or malfunction
 of the vr types but they have been out a while so I should just get over that
 fear.


----------



## Zodduska

My Tamron 90mm 1:1 Macro copy arrived! Got a few test shots today at work, it was pretty dark so I had to use a low shutter speed and high iso but I think they came out ok.. really liking this lens so far.

 1/125 f/13 ISO 800







 1/50 f/8 ISO 800





 crop for detail..


----------



## Zodduska

I am a bit confused about something though, the T90 specs say the minimum focusing distance is 0.29m (0.96') but the 1:1 macro is only in focus a couple inches away from the subject.. I was expecting a bit more working distance. You won't be seeing any vicious spider 1:1 macro shots from me.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_crop for detail..



_

 

Purple and green fringing up the kazoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 I thought my nikon 60mm micro lens had excessive purple / green fringing, but I think this tamron takes the cake.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am a bit confused about something though, the T90 specs say the minimum focusing distance is 0.29m (0.96') but the 1:1 macro is only in focus a couple inches away from the subject.. I was expecting a bit more working distance. You won't be seeing any vicious spider 1:1 macro shots from me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Focusing distance from the subject to the film plane / sensor, not the front of the lens. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 You think you have it bad, try using a 60mm!!


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Purple and green fringing up the kazoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!_

 

 I'm pretty sure its ink 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Focusing distance from the subject to the film plane / sensor, not the front of the lens. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

ahhhh, that makes sense, thanks


----------



## Weimar

Get a tripod. It's an absolute must for Macro shots. No worries about mis-focusing, long shutters times, high iso, aperture settings.. yadayadyada..


----------



## Zodduska

Got one, monopod too but didn't have either handy at the office today


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Focusing distance from the subject to the film plane / sensor, not the front of the lens. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 You think you have it bad, try using a 60mm!!_

 

Ah yes! I've used the AF-S 60/2.8 and it can focus on something that's literally a couple centimeters away from the front element
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ozz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They have a nice 18-200vr just wish it was not close to 800.00._

 

The 70-300*VR* is much sharper at 70-200mm than the 18-200vr.


----------



## ka-boom

How did I miss this discussion?

 I shoot with all Nikon equipment; D40, D300, 50mm 1.8, 18-200VR, SB-600, etc. Ive had and sold the Sigma 18-50 f2.8, Sigma 50-150 f2.8, and Nikon 70-300VR. Here is my flickr link.

 I am eyeing up the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 as I recently booked some shoots with a No Fear and SoCal Clothing sponsored street bike rider.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ka-boom* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am eyeing up the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



_

 

Might be worth waiting a few days to see how the Nikon 10-18mm F/4 turns out, unless you need F/2.8.


----------



## ka-boom

Yeah definitely. The Tokina is getting rave reviews, plus there is no substitute for fast glass. Knowing Nikon, they'll price that lens in the range of the 12-24, almost twice the cost of the Tokina.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *F-100* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The only filter I would put on my lenses is B+W. No Tiffen or $20 filter._

 

IMO B+W filters are overpriced hunks of crap. I always buy Hoya, they're well made, inexpensive, and coated.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ka-boom* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah definitely. The Tokina is getting rave reviews, plus there is no substitute for fast glass. Knowing Nikon, they'll price that lens in the range of the 12-24, almost twice the cost of the Tokina._

 

You don't buy a Nikkor because it's cheaper than a sigma/tamron/tokina, etc.


----------



## OverlordXenu

AF-S Nikkor 10-18mm f/4 G ED N | Nikon Rumors

 Anyone got $10,000 to lend me?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_IMO B+W filters are overpriced hunks of crap. I always buy Hoya, they're well made, inexpensive, and coated._

 

I think it's wrong to call B+W filters hunks of crap, no matter what they cost.

 I am very impressed by my B+W filters and adapter rings. I am also impressed by my nikon filters. Both are fantastic, and well deserving of their price.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_AF-S Nikkor 10-18mm f/4 G ED N | Nikon Rumors

 Anyone got $10,000 to lend me? _

 

Yea, if you have 20,000$ to lend me.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ozz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do buy online for some things just leary in case of defect or malfunction
 of the vr types but they have been out a while so I should just get over that
 fear._

 

If you buy from someone like B&H or Adorama, you should not have any worries. They have both been around a very long time and didn't develop a good reputation by not taking care of customers. I never worry about ordering from either of them. There are plenty of other good online dealers, those are just the 2 I know best as camera supply retailers. J&R is a really good one too, and you can get a great price on Sennheisers while you're there (they sell the most Sennheisers in the US, according to them of course).


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ka-boom* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah definitely. The Tokina is getting rave reviews, plus there is no substitute for fast glass. Knowing Nikon, they'll price that lens in the range of the 12-24, almost twice the cost of the Tokina._

 

Check my sig for review. After that, go and buy it.


----------



## Zodduska

Towert7 you were right about the blue/green fringing, I just noticed quite a bit in this poor picture I took of my goldfish:





 Both of the images were shot at 800 ISO and my camera is set to sRGB so I wonder if those could somehow be a factor. I'll try and see if a UV filter makes any difference tomorrow.

 here is the sharpest one I got of the fish to make up for the blurry pic


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 70-300*VR* is much sharper at 70-200mm than the 18-200vr._

 

That's true, as far as sharpness is concerned. But both of those lenses suffer from significant purple/blue color fringing near the edges of the frame at wider apertures/longer focal lengths (though it's not as easy to see with the 18-200 because it's softer all over at such wide apertures).


----------



## NeObliviscaris

anyone wanna trade a 18-105mm VR, klipsch x10, sleek sa6 wireless, for a 18-200mm vr? pweeezzz!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Towert7 you were right about the blue/green fringing, I just noticed quite a bit in this poor picture I took of my goldfish:





 Both of the images were shot at 800 ISO and my camera is set to sRGB so I wonder if those could somehow be a factor. I'll try and see if a UV filter makes any difference tomorrow._

 

Oh, and here I thought you were just joking about it being ink............
 ^_^

 It's the lens doing it, through and through. No ISO / color settings will fix it (save for going to greyscale). UV filters won't help either because it will still be produced in the lens. The only way to combat it is to avoid pictures with quickly changing brightness (which most of the time is not possible).


----------



## Csidinim

color fringing can definitely be taken care of in software. capturenx or even photoshop probably.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Csidinim* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_color fringing can definitely be taken care of in software. capturenx or even photoshop probably._

 

Yes, but you can not deny that it is far more ideal to have a lens without chromatic aberration than one with and having to fix it in software.


----------



## bigshot

It depends... Chromatic aberration is a typical side effect of aspherical lens designs. The same thing that makes lenses that are sharp wide open, makes for chromatic aberration. It's easier to correct a little CA in post processing than to try to simulate sharpness by cranking up the unsharp mask filter in Photoshop... as long as it's lateral and not longitudinal chromatic aberration. Life is a tradeoff- no perfection- just smart compromises.

 By the way, there are other causes of purple fringing around blown out whites... lens flare can cause it too.


----------



## Zodduska

Heh, well I think I broke my D80 today.. I've only had it a few weeks. I bought a kit to clean the sensor and I must have somehow damaged something
 higher shutter speeds of floruescent give me images like this..







 took me a while to really notice it because I've been shooting in dim conditions.. any idea what's wrong with it? Should I start looking for a new body already? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 This is also the first time I've taken pictures under the floruescent lights so maybe this is just an effect they have at high shutter speeds? Hopefully I'm just being paranoid


----------



## PerformanceFirst

I believe you're right. The lights flicker with alternating current (60 Hz I think) and cameras will capture it with high enough shutter speed.


----------



## Zodduska

Whew, I think its ok. I took a few daylight shots this morning and everything is looking fine except for some faint horizontal lines showing up in my pictures at higher apertures, probably scratches or streaks.. which are quite preferable to huge color shifts


----------



## Zodduska

Alright, its not OK, scratches suck! After much scrubbing of the already ruined filter it made no difference.. feast your eyes on the results of my clumsy misfortune











 It's definitely scratches because I can see the big one glinting on the sensor filter with my bare eyes, this sucks. I'll never be taking that risk of destroying my sensor(s) by touching one again.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

The scratches are indeed a shame, but you've pronounced their effects by shooting flat (in terms of color) and unobstructed subjects. Try taking pictures of more dynamic and detailed scenes and I'm sure the scratches will appear less obvious.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PerformanceFirst* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I believe you're right. The lights flicker with alternating current (60 Hz I think) and cameras will capture it with high enough shutter speed._

 

Ditto. I get it with LCD monitors too (@ very high shutter speeds).

*Zodduska*, have you tried taking it to a "pro" shop to have the sensor cleaned? I've got my fingers crossed that it's just dirt


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The scratches are indeed a shame, but you've pronounced their effects by shooting flat (in terms of color) and unobstructed subjects. Try taking pictures of more dynamic and detailed scenes and I'm sure the scratches will appear less obvious._

 

Thanks, its not so bad at apertures larger than f/8, still really bugs me though. I'm kinda stuck trying to decide what to do about it.. seems like my only options are either live with a messed up camera while saving for a newer body (which really sucks since I just bought this one) or send it in to lifepixel to get the filter replaced for $325. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ditto. I get it with LCD monitors too (@ very high shutter speeds).

*Zodduska*, have you tried taking it to a "pro" shop to have the sensor cleaned? I've got my fingers crossed that it's just dirt
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Thanks milkpowder. I did notice the same thing with my lcd monitor too, that's a relief. I really scrubbed the heck out of the sensor with Eclipse and a Pec-Pad wrapped around a Sensor Wand in a hopeful effort that it might not have been a scratch. I must have went over it 15-20 times until I was convinced the filter was already damaged and it didn't really matter if it got messed up more by scrubbing it repeatedly. I also took before and after pictures with no changes in the scratch's appearance.


----------



## bigshot

Ken Rockwell had a link to a refurb D40x at Adorama for under $300. If your lenses will work with a D40, that would be a better alternative than to replace the sensor.


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ken Rockwell had a link to a refurb D40x at Adorama for under $300. If your lenses will work with a D40, that would be a better alternative than to replace the sensor._

 

That looks like a really good deal! I don't think my Tamron macro lens will autofocus with it though. If I decide to go with a new body I'll probably end up saving for either a new D90 or used D300.


----------



## dj_mocok

That's the thing - people sometimes get too obsessed with perfectly clean sensors. I've had my D80 for more than 2 years before selling it, never had a dust in a sensor. As long as you are careful when changing the lens, you really don't need to do those extreme measures. 

 My S5 got a dust before, but with blower it went away. If you can't see the dust in real life picture, don't bother looking for it. Same thing with lens' elements. Just use blower for dust, don't be too obsessed with perfect front/back element, you might end up scratching it instead.


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's the thing - people sometimes get too obsessed with perfectly clean sensors. I've had my D80 for more than 2 years before selling it, never had a dust in a sensor. As long as you are careful when changing the lens, you really don't need to do those extreme measures. 

 My S5 got a dust before, but with blower it went away. If you can't see the dust in real life picture, don't bother looking for it. Same thing with lens' elements. Just use blower for dust, don't be too obsessed with perfect front/back element, you might end up scratching it instead._

 

My D80 was had big dust speckles across the sensor when I bought it used. They showed up at f/6 and smaller. That was incredibly annoying to look at. A blower could not remove it, but sensor swabs with E2 liquid did the trick.


----------



## Hayduke

Bummer Zodduska

 $325 sounds like a lot to replace the part that's scratched. The sensor itself is fine I'm sure. Can't they just replace that cover?


----------



## Zodduska

Yeah, that is the cost of replacing just the filter. I have a feeling the main cost is the labor since they have to remove the whole sensor unit to replace the filter on it in a clean room. 

 I'm just gonna live with it for a while, it can still take nice pitcures I just have to be careful with the settings, composition and possibly a bit of post processing. In the mean time I'll save up for another DX camera then after I get it I'll let my girlfriend use the D80 so she's not bored when we go out taking pictures, or if I'm by myself it would be pretty handy to not have to change lenses in some cases. I might even have it converted to IR down the road if I find its not getting much use.


----------



## vagarach

The upside is that the clone stamp will make short work of touching up any scenes which highlight the scratches...and using a plain white sheet, overexposed, you can make a sort of 'overlay' in photoshop and then check zoomed well in to 400% or so in case the image is too busy to quickly identify the spots.


----------



## Zodduska

The healing tool seems to work pretty well too. I hadn't thought of using the overlay though, thanks.


----------



## archosman

I've got a chance to pick up a Nikon D700 for $700. Was wondering if it's worth it. 

 I'm a Canon man myself. 40D. Wouldn't mind having both platforms though.


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've got a chance to pick up a Nikon D700 for $700. Was wondering if it's worth it. 

 I'm a Canon man myself. 40D. Wouldn't mind having both platforms though._

 

That's an insanely good deal if you can verify the camera is in good working condition.. could be a scam though that price seems too good to be true.


----------



## third_eye

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've got a chance to pick up a Nikon D700 for $700. Was wondering if it's worth it. 

 I'm a Canon man myself. 40D. Wouldn't mind having both platforms though._

 

That would probably be a scam or it's very "hot"; the camera is $2500 new and $2000 used.


----------



## archosman

It's a manager that works for a friend of mine. Gonna check into it a little bit more.


----------



## archosman

Slight communication error. It's a D200 for $700.


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Slight communication error. It's a D200 for $700._

 

That's too much for the moment unless it includes a lens. BestBuy has a smoking deal for a new D200 going on right now from their online store @ $599
Nikon - 10.2MP Digital SLR Camera - Body Only - D200 - Body Only


----------



## NeObliviscaris

can anyone comments of flash guns

 i am tossing up between 600, 800 and 900

 im just a hobbyist, but want to ensure im equipped for all situations


----------



## ozz

I have the 600 and it serves me well for the amount of flash photography I do and the price was reasonable thinking about a second one for using remote flash. I think in order
 to gain from all the extras the 800 and 900 offer you need their premium bodies.


----------



## Hayduke

I have the SB600 as well. It does everything I need it to. The advantages the more expensive models have are higher power and some remote commander functionality.

 The higher power also means longer cycle time and quicker battery drain. Only you can decide if you need the more powerful flash.

 Your D90 can remote command the SB600 fine (my D80 does). That was the one required feature I needed from a flash. Having the flash on the camera (almost) always makes the lighting look very harsh. At least I've never been happy with it. With the SB600, I can set it off to the side somewhere (it comes with a little stand that attaches to the foot) or hold it in my hand. The built in flash on the D80 (and I assume the D90 as well) controls it. I had to read the manual twice until I learned how to make it work, but it IS simple. I was just having one of those days when the brain wasn't cooperating 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The main difference in remote functions are when you are using several flashes and want them to behave in groups. You can still do some of this with 600s, but it works better with the more expensive models. As a hobbiest, I would guess you're only going to have 1 (maybe 2?) flashes.


----------



## HD_Dude

The D200 is great, although obviously slightly dated, compared to the newer models, like the D700, D90 etc.

 Whenever you buy used, however, ask what the shutter count is. That's the equivalent of mileage in the world of cameras.

 Nikons have anticipated life spans and they're measured by shutter clicks. You can find the number by Googling them...for instance, the D700 is 150,000clicks, the D3 is 300,000 clicks.


----------



## Old Pa

Tucson Botanical Society, Nikon D200, Sigma 18-200mm f:3.5-6.3D @200, Gitzmo MonoPod


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_




 Tucson Botanical Society, Nikon D200, Sigma 18-200mm f:3.5-6.3D @200, Gitzmo MonoPod_

 

Nice picture. I have the Sigma 18-200 OS (on my D300) and like it.
.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice picture. I have the Sigma 18-200 OS (on my D300) and like it.
._

 

It's my light traveling kit lense for motorcycle (with D70) or general (with D200) with Gitzmo monopod. The D300 is with the heavy traveling kit. I got a 62mm polarizing filter and a 62mm color gradient for the Sigma 18-200 and a LumiQuest soft screen which fits any of my Nikon bodies to soften the built-in flash. Together, this is a neat little kit for travelwildlife, landscape, and general.


----------



## Braver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i am tossing up between 600, 800 and 900_

 

What I get form reading is that the advantages of the 800 and 900 lie mostly with the ability to use them to command other flashes (aside from power). If you have only one, the 600 will do. Ken Rockwell has a comparison, and while I hate the way he puts his opinions, it does put the specs next to each other in a comprehendable way.


----------



## ka-boom

The SB600 is more than capable of what you need.

 I use mine off camera from my D300 wireless using CLS + onboard flash to trigger it, and when I dont want the onboard flash I use a V2 trigger and it works fine.

 In hindsight, if I had to do it all over again I would probably get the SB800 because you can use that as the commander to fire the SB600 as a slave.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's my light traveling kit lense for motorcycle (with D70) or general (with D200) with Gitzmo monopod. The D300 is with the heavy traveling kit. I got a 62mm polarizing filter and a 62mm color gradient for the Sigma 18-200 and a LumiQuest soft screen which fits any of my Nikon bodies to soften the built-in flash. Together, this is a neat little kit for travelwildlife, landscape, and general._

 

...motorcycling... 

 We have some more things in common. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			










 Maybe you (or somone) can answer my question: I'm toying with the idea to replace my Tokina 12-24 with a Sigma 10-20, possibly the new upcoming 3.5, and give/sell the Tokina to my son, which is new to this hobby and looking forward to a D90. What do you think?
.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Maybe you (or somone) can answer my question: I'm toying with the idea to replace my Tokina 12-24 with a Sigma 10-20, possibly the new upcoming 3.5, and give/sell the Tokina to my son, which is new to this hobby and looking forward to a D90. What do you think?
._

 

I've got the Nikkor 12-24mm and picked up the Tokina zoom fisheye last year for fun. It is. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My '93 F2 is running well, but this gets more use:


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice picture. I have the Sigma 18-200 OS (on my D300) and like it.
._

 

Very nice indeed! How is the focussing at F/6.3?

 I'm really excited about the new Sigma 24-70/2.8 and 10-20/3.5.

 Anyone planning on getting the 35mm f/1.8 DX?


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Very nice indeed! How is the focussing at F/6.3?_

 

The D200 tends to hunt a bit at f6.3, so the monopod is a help. That was at 200mm/f6.3, so you tell me.


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone planning on getting the 35mm f/1.8 DX?_

 

Yep! I'm keeping my eyes peeled for when they start showing up in stock at online shops.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How is the focussing at F/6.3?_

 

No problem here. Focusing in relative darkness can be a problem, but that's not reserved to 200 mm (and f/6.3).
.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone planning on getting the 35mm f/1.8 DX?_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yep! I'm keeping my eyes peeled for when they start showing up in stock at online shops._

 

BTW, the Tokina AT-X 2.8/35 mm PRO DX Macro has got a super-excellent test in the German «ColorFoto» magazine. Well, it's not 1.8, but in return it's a macro.
.


----------



## Zodduska

It also costs more than twice as much as the 1.8 though


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yep! I'm keeping my eyes peeled for when they start showing up in stock at online shops._

 

Some shops in the UK already have it, but it's listed at 198GBP. A tad on the high side. Test shots and MTFs look great. It has the AF-D f/2 beat, but sadly doesn't focus as close.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_BTW, the Tokina AT-X 2.8/35 mm PRO DX Macro has got a super-excellent test in the German «ColorFoto» magazine. Well, it's not 1.8, but in return it's a macro.
._

 

I wasn't aware of this lens. The Tokina Pro line has such amazing build quality. I'm tempted, but for that price, I would probably consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Large aperture vs macro. This one is difficult... I must say 35mm is rather wide for a macro though, even on a DX body. I would be more tempted to get a dedicated macro lens like the 60mm, 105mm AF-S or the 90mm Tamron.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It also costs more than twice as much as the 1.8 though 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

True. But the build quality is to die for


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wasn't aware of this lens. The Tokina Pro line has such amazing build quality. I'm tempted, but for that price, I would probably consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4._

 

I've seen only very bad tests of this lens. Maybe just the usual Sigma manufacturing tolerances?

  Quote:


 _This one is difficult... I must say 35mm is rather wide for a macro though, even on a DX body._ 
 

True -- and the reason I would hesitate as well. On the other hand, with my F601 I have coped with a modest Sigma 2.8/50 mm -- not bad at all. And 35 is 52.5 nowadays, after all. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've seen only very bad tests of this lens. Maybe just the usual Sigma manufacturing tolerances?

 True -- and the reason I would hesitate as well. On the other hand, with my F601 I have coped with a modest Sigma 2.8/50 mm -- not bad at all. And 35 is 52.5 nowadays, after all. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



._

 

Well that's always been the problem with 3rd party lens (with the exception of Zeiss). My camera has AF tune though so front/back focus can be corrected to some extent.

 Come to think of it, there have been many a time when I wished the 35/2 focussed closer. This leads me to think that the Tokina is actually an easier buy. Ideally one would have the Tokina for macro, the Sigma for speed, and the Nikon AF-D for everything in between 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




... A D700 would make the Sigma totally redundant even IF it was a FX lens, considering its stunning high iso performance.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A D700 would make the Sigma totally redundant even IF it was a FX lens, considering its stunning high iso performance._

 

So the D700 it is! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (Why not the D3x, actually?)
.


----------



## milkpowder

I've thought of a situation where the Tokina 35/2.8's wideish-macro ability would be useful:

 The situation - imagine dinner at a nice restaurant, chest pretty much against table. Gorgeous food was just served. You have your camera with you and want to take a picture of the food.

 If you use the 60/2.8 AF-S -> you'll have to stand up and back a little just to *get the whole plate in the frame*. Awkward & embarrassing!

 If you use the 30/1.4 Sigma -> you'll have to stand up and back a little just to *be able to achieve focus*. Awkward & embarrassing!

 BUT! If you had a 35/2.8 Tokina -> just shoot from where you are. No awkwardness or embarrassment whatsoever! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (In fact, the 35/2 AF-D might just about get the job done too).


 [size=xx-small]why am I trying to talk myself into buying one
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/size]


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_[size=xx-small]why am I trying to talk myself into buying one
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/size]_

 

ummmm... this IS still head-fi isn't it? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That's what were all here for. A support group to help each other jsutify spending large sums of money on our hobbies 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Enjoy your new lens


----------



## NeObliviscaris

anyone got experience with 55-200vr?


----------



## lan

55-200VR is my favorite cheap zoom lens. Sharp, good consistent performance, good color, and no chromatic abberation.


----------



## Zodduska

Anyone use an ExpoDisc? They sound pretty nice and I'm thinking of picking one up, the only thing I have reservations about is how to use it in mixed lighting, since from what I gather they require pointing it at a light source to set the white balance.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone use an ExpoDisc? They sound pretty nice and I'm thinking of picking one up, the only thing I have reservations about is how to use it in mixed lighting, since from what I gather they require pointing it at a light source to set the white balance._

 

You can just white balance using your white undies and saves you some money.


----------



## NeObliviscaris

well i decided to get the 70-300mm and keep my 18-105. then when the time is right (or i hav a buyer for the 18-105) ill get 18-200!

 as for flash,. going with the sb600


----------



## dj_mocok

Who got the new 35mm here? 

 I am not planning to get any new lens sometime soon so unfortunately I am out when it comes to trying out new lenses.


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can just white balance using your white undies and saves you some money._

 

Thanks for the tip, I tried it out but I keep getting a warmer patch straight down the middle of my pics.. 

 all kidding aside this isn't useful to me because I go commando.


----------



## J.D.N

Has anyone got Photoshop CS2 and use it with their Nikon Camera? Im having major problems trying to open my D40x's NEF files and its starting to bug me! 

 I have tried updating the Camera RAW plug in but it won't seem to work. It is currently version 3.0 and im trying to update to 3.7 

 I have downloaded 3.7 and copied the .8bi to Library/Application Support/Adobe/Plug Ins/File Format 

 Also ended up downloading something for CS4 but i know that won't work. 

 Ok, strange turn of events, everything in my Library/Application Support/Adobe has disappeared.... 

 This is really starting to bug me! I just want to edit my RAW files! Can someone please try to help me out? If i have to start from the beginning then so be it... so long as i get it sorted!


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Who got the new 35mm here? 

 I am not planning to get any new lens sometime soon so unfortunately I am out when it comes to trying out new lenses._

 

I was planning on it but decided to go with the time tested 50 f1.8 instead and I'm glad I did, it's a wonderful little lens.


----------



## 2deadeyes

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Who got the new 35mm here? 

 I am not planning to get any new lens sometime soon so unfortunately I am out when it comes to trying out new lenses._

 

I got the 35mm and liking what I see so far.


----------



## J.D.N

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *J.D.N* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Has anyone got Photoshop CS2 and use it with their Nikon Camera? Im having major problems trying to open my D40x's NEF files and its starting to bug me! 

 I have tried updating the Camera RAW plug in but it won't seem to work. It is currently version 3.0 and im trying to update to 3.7 

 I have downloaded 3.7 and copied the .8bi to Library/Application Support/Adobe/Plug Ins/File Format 

 Also ended up downloading something for CS4 but i know that won't work. 

 Ok, strange turn of events, everything in my Library/Application Support/Adobe has disappeared.... 

 This is really starting to bug me! I just want to edit my RAW files! Can someone please try to help me out? If i have to start from the beginning then so be it... so long as i get it sorted!_

 

It would seem a shutdown/restart prompted everything back into its right place and now the Camera Raw 3.7 shows up, but I still can't open the NEF files... this is all getting very frustrating. Has anyone else experienced this?


----------



## lan

I messed with the 35/1.8 AF-S in the store a bit. The 35/2 AF-D focus faster, focuses closer, and has less chromatic aberration. Since I have the older lens, there's no need to go with the newer I think.


----------



## bigshot

I'm sticking with my Sigma 30 1.4... faster, sharp wide open, focuses fast and accurate, and no problems with CA.


----------



## Steggy

Hey guys. I'm browsing at camera's, and have been eyeballing the nikon d40. Is it really worth the extra bucks than those megazoom camera's or whatever?(the ones that are sort of in purgatory between point and shoot and DSLR's). Does the d40 have liveview at all in the lcd? And would I need anything else besides the stock equipment if i would just be taking pictures of people and maybe things for ebay? Speaking of which, i'm liking the prices of used d40's on ebay. Basically the same price as a point and shoot camera at that point.


----------



## NeObliviscaris

I dont think the D40 has liveview, you would probably also need to get a decent lens. id probably suggest looking at the d80 instead, at least (anyone correct me here) some of the autofocus lenses dont work properly with the d40?

 steggy, try going to KenRockwell.com and search for the d40 and read his review!


----------



## NeObliviscaris

argh dlbt post, ah well, i bought my 70-300 today, will get it soon!


----------



## ozz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_argh dlbt post, ah well, i bought my 70-300 today, will get it soon!_

 

I like my 70-300 vr still learning, trying to freeze a bird in flight harder than
 i thought.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys. I'm browsing at camera's, and have been eyeballing the nikon d40. Is it really worth the extra bucks than those megazoom camera's or whatever?(the ones that are sort of in *purgatory *between point and shoot and DSLR's). Does the d40 have liveview at all in the lcd? And would I need anything else besides the stock equipment if i would just be taking pictures of people and maybe things for ebay? Speaking of which, i'm liking the prices of used d40's on ebay. Basically the same price as a point and shoot camera at that point._

 

Purgatory cameras, hehe... AKA half-arsed camera. If you want to get used, just get a used D80 on eBay - much much better camera unless small package is what you after. But if you're not planning to go proper on lens, just get a very very good purgatory camera.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys. I'm browsing at camera's, and have been eyeballing the nikon d40. Is it really worth the extra bucks than those megazoom camera's or whatever?_

 

yes
  Quote:


 Does the d40 have liveview at all in the lcd? 
 

Liveview is for wimps.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Liveview is for wimps._

 

In the alternative, "liveview" is an invitation to unsharp images by encouraging unbraced shooting positions. Just say no.


----------



## Steggy

sorry for the wimpiness. I just like the option .

 But yea, it looks like during the summer when i work fulltime i will be going for this gem off ebay.


----------



## Zodduska

Liveview is supposed to be really good for nailing manual focus on macro shots.


----------



## Steggy

one thing i saw that was pretty sweet was that the sony a....350? maybe? the 800 dollar one, has liveview, but the lcd screen that you use can pop out and is on a sort of...well it's easier to show






 hey i was right about the a350 haha. anyways, that feature would be nice for those tough low angle shots.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

The A350 is a fine camera, but the D40 will probably serve you better for less money. Look for Nikon's Image Stabilized (VR) kit lens on eBay in tandem with your D40 search; its an exceptionally sharp lens, and is light as well. 

 A relatively undocumented advantage of the D40 is its ability to accept Nikon's line of _exceptional_ manual focus prime and zoom lenses. The nature of digital capture makes exposure easy to guess, and focus can be confirmed electronically in the viewfinder. AI-S and AI lenses were built with amazing precision and feel more solid than nearly all Nikon lenses on the market today. The fact that these lenses were designed first as manual focus lenses also means that they remain easier to use as such than kit lenses or other AF lenses. A wide aperture fixed focal length lens, such as the 50mm f/1.8, can be had for under 30 dollars in excellent condition if you bargain hunt on eBay.


----------



## NeObliviscaris

liveview on the d90 is good when ur doing awkward shots!, using liveview this is what i was able to produce:


----------



## dj_mocok

I found liveview (as Kirosia might agree) is very useful for upskirt shots.


----------



## Steggy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I found liveview (as Kirosia might agree) is very useful for upskirt shots._

 

damnit i wish there was a +rep function on this site. haha


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I found liveview (as Kirosia might agree) is very useful for upskirt shots._

 

I don't believe you. I know you're joking, but how do you use live view when the LCD is facing the ground?


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_well i decided to get the 70-300mm and keep my 18-105. then when the time is right (or i hav a buyer for the 18-105) ill get 18-200!

 as for flash,. going with the sb600_

 

hmmm I just realized that my response to your question about the 55-200 VR didn't get posted 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 oh well, I agree with Ian that it is a nice lens. I posted a picture here that I shot with it. I know I posted on this thread because that's why I put the picture on the other thread 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 oh well, grats on your new lens!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *J.D.N* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It would seem a shutdown/restart prompted everything back into its right place and now the Camera Raw 3.7 shows up, but I still can't open the NEF files... this is all getting very frustrating. Has anyone else experienced this?_

 

Sorry I mostly use Lightroom for my post processing. And my Photoshop is from CS3.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I dont think the D40 has liveview, you would probably also need to get a decent lens. id probably suggest looking at the d80 instead, at least (anyone correct me here) some of the autofocus lenses dont work properly with the d40?

 steggy, try going to KenRockwell.com and search for the d40 and read his review!_

 

I would also recommend the D80 over the D40. It let's you use more auto focus lenses and it has a "real" shutter. If you want something more compact however, the D40 is smaller and still takes good pictures. I've had my D80 for about 6 months now and I'm only just getting to the point where I think I am completely comfortable with it.


----------



## Braver

The 'not-real' shutter of the D40 does get you a faster flash sync though 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 it does seem to work pretty real too.
 I think it's a brilliant little package as the kit lens is also pretty decent and together it's not quite pocketable but you can carry it with easy from one or two fingertips. However, onze you start to look at more lenses, and you will want something faster than 3.5-5.6 at some point, the more expensive D80 and up will work with cheaper lenses. Sounds backwards but its true. 

 I just bit the bullit on the 50mm 1.4 AF-S. It's a lotta cash, but the right length and faaaast 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Have been looking forward to this since the announcement last summer, and I'm hoping it will rock my boat


----------



## Zodduska

I bought a used expodisc on ebay and it arrived today, I'm liking it a lot so far. Here's a quick comparison I did with the D80's in camera settings vs expodisc in incandescent light.





 ^Auto





 ^Incandescent 





 ^expodisc pre

 IMHO both incandescent and expodisc shots look good, incandescent settings seems a bit more natural but the expodisc whites look a lot more white on my spyder calibrated monitor.


----------



## dj_mocok

It might be the colour space setting (and also the difference between our monitors) but something is not quite right with the colour there. Or maybe it's white balance or maybe your camera's saturation setting. Did you crank the saturation up? Or maybe it's just your difficult light bulb.


----------



## Zodduska

I used sRGB IIIa which is a bit more vivid than the standard Ia, saturation adjustment set to "normal".


----------



## dj_mocok

I can't quite remember if I used IIIa before or not, but I know there is one setting that Ken Rockwell prefers, and I generally avoid that one because it's too saturated for my taste.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can't quite remember if I used IIIa before or not, but I know there is one setting that Ken Rockwell prefers, and I generally avoid that one because it's too saturated for my taste._

 

IIIa is more vivid, but only slightly.


----------



## Braver

the expodisc looks a bit colorless, the incandescent setting seems to look much more like it probably looked to the eye...more natural yeah.

 just to reply myself, the 50mm does indeed rock my boat 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 man, it looks so chunky on my D40, it a fistful of camera 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 shots so far (the cat mostly) are great too.


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Braver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the expodisc looks a bit colorless, the incandescent setting seems to look much more like it probably looked to the eye...more natural yeah.

 just to reply myself, the 50mm does indeed rock my boat 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 man, it looks so chunky on my D40, it a fistful of camera 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 shots so far (the cat mostly) are great too._

 

I don't know about colorless, I'd say its a bit more "tintless" which is what its supposed to do for white balance. I have the neutral version which appears a bit cold compared to our natural senses, the "portrait" version is supposed give a little warmer results. 

 I'm quite happy with my cheapy 50 1.8 I'm sure the 1.4 would be awesome, congrats!


----------



## NeObliviscaris

i dont know if it's head-fi or what, but i have bought 2 lenses in the span on 3 days! very naughty, now sitting with 18-200 and 70-300 a very nice range. next up 105mm vr macro!


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i dont know if it's head-fi or what, but i have bought 2 lenses in the span on 3 days! very naughty, now sitting with 18-200 and 70-300 a very nice range. next up 105mm vr macro!_

 

Consider the 105 f/2.8D if you don't need VR. It's built just as well as the new model and costs hundreds less; I think it may even autofocus faster.


----------



## Zodduska

The Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro is nice too.


----------



## NeObliviscaris

but im mostly a handheld shooter, and i think vr will make a big difference to my macro shooting!


----------



## Hayduke

My next lens will be a macro lens as well. I'm interested to see what you settle on FMT.

 Motoxguy, why would I be concerned with autofocus speed on that lens? I guess it could serve as a portrait lens too?

 When I shoot macros, I tend to use larger apertures and small DoF, so I usually manually focus to make sure the part I am interested is in focus.

 Thanks Zodduska, I'll see if my local shop has that one.

 Are there any lenses that let you shoot higher then 1:1? I like larger then life images. I'd like to be able to take pictures of very fine details of things using as much of the sensor as possible. This way I can avoid cropping to blow up the image.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My next lens will be a macro lens as well. I'm interested to see what you settle on FMT.

 Motoxguy, why would I be concerned with autofocus speed on that lens? I guess it could serve as a portrait lens too?

 When I shoot macros, I tend to use larger apertures and small DoF, so I usually manually focus to make sure the part I am interested is in focus.

 Thanks Zodduska, I'll see if my local shop has that one.

 Are there any lenses that let you shoot higher then 1:1? I like larger then life images. I'd like to be able to take pictures of very fine details of things using as much of the sensor as possible. This way I can avoid cropping to blow up the image._

 

True. I only mentioned the faster AF as perhaps a perk, rather than a dealmaker. As for going beyond 1:1, I don't think any reasonably priced Nikon or third party lenses can achieve a greater than life size ratio when used properly. I know that reversed 50mm lenses, in conjunction with special adapters, can be made to act as magnifying lenses; though with questionable results.


----------



## NeObliviscaris

i will be getting the 105mm vr but not until xmas, hav already got two decent lenses for everyday uses, need to save up for my holiday now!


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_but im mostly a handheld shooter, and i think vr will make a big difference to my macro shooting!_

 

The only problem with that is when shooting macro stuff close to 1:1 you want to stop down quite a bit (to f/14 or so) to get more of the subject in focus which means slower shutter speeds, a tripod makes this possible and if you decide to go that route VR isn't needed.

 here's an example of a flower bud at 1:1, shot at f/22 and the depth of field is still not nearly enough, imagine if I used f/2.8!


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_but im mostly a handheld shooter, and i think vr will make a big difference to my macro shooting!_

 

You don't handheld a macro shot. If that's what you want, go P&S - even then it's not really recommended.


----------



## NeObliviscaris

hrmm, well i dont do macro yet, so that is a long time away.

 im still using my new 18-200 and 70-300 lenses, macro can wait - mainly because a) saving for a holida, and b) just got in a car accident


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_and b) just got in a car accident_

 

Bummer 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I hope you're OK.

 Where's the pics of the wreck?


----------



## Sherwood

My word cameras add up quick...

 A month ago I was content with my little D40 with the kit lens and the 55-200 (non VR). Then I read that the 35mm F/1.8 was coming out, which was a lens I was really excited about.

 Here I am now, with a D200, 105mm f/2.8 (non VR), 35mm f/1.8, manfrotto tripod and ball head, 18-200 VR, Gps unit and a crumpler bag to hold it all.

 This is seriously more addictive than headphones.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_hrmm, well i dont do macro yet, so that is a long time away.

 im still using my new 18-200 and 70-300 lenses, macro can wait - mainly because a) saving for a holida, and b) just got in a car accident_

 

For what it's worth, the 18-200 at full zoom is a very serviceable macro lens.


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sherwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My word cameras add up quick...

 A month ago I was content with my little D40 with the kit lens and the 55-200 (non VR). Then I read that the 35mm F/1.8 was coming out, which was a lens I was really excited about.

 Here I am now, with a D200, 105mm f/2.8 (non VR), 35mm f/1.8, manfrotto tripod and ball head, 18-200 VR, Gps unit and a crumpler bag to hold it all.

 This is seriously more addictive than headphones._

 

Oh man, you aren't kidding! I've been buying something new camera related every week since getting into the hobby a month or so ago. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 step up rings for most of my lenses, circular polarizer and neutral density filters just arrived today! Right angle viewfinder should be here next week.

 I hope nobody got hurt FMT


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For what it's worth, the 18-200 at full zoom is a very serviceable macro lens._

 

Well, as much as are most of their other kit lenses, generally attaining about 1:4 magnification at full zoom and MFD. Hardly "macro," but about as good as most non-true-macro prime lenses get, aside from a few anomalies like the Nikkor 28-105mm D and Sigma 17-70mm DC.


----------



## dj_mocok

I want pictures from Nikon owners or else I'd be posting me crappy pictures again.
 Actually we haven't got that many full equipment pictures. (not pictures from your rig but pictures of your rig)
 Let's post all your camera rig here.


----------



## Sherwood

Pictures of camera gear is far too meta for me. The only headphone equivalent I can come up with is 60hz hum.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I want pictures from Nikon owners or else I'd be posting me crappy pictures again.
 Actually we haven't got that many full equipment pictures. (not pictures from your rig but pictures of your rig)
 Let's post all your camera rig here._

 

Let's avoid that unless we run into unique / new (in terms of release) gear.


----------



## Zodduska

I'm bored so I'll bite.. here's everything except my D80 and 18-135, don't have another camera to take the pic.






 Need more lenses....


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Let's avoid that unless we run into unique / new (in terms of release) gear._

 

Why not? Sometimes you will run into interesting items, you never know. Like that Zodduska's orange camera bag, that looks nice. I don't even know what brand it is, because usually it's the Lowepro/Tamrac kind of bags. Yeah, what bag is that Zod?
 You also reminded me that I have to buy a new lenspen.

 I am also waiting to see Majid's killer rigs, hehe..


----------



## Zodduska

Thanks, I really like that bag it's a Tenba - Messenger: Large


----------



## dj_mocok

Thanks for the site - I just had a look and they have a lot of interesting camera bags. But they are a bit costly huh, especially considering how weak AUS dollar to US now.


----------



## Zodduska

No problem. They are somewhat costly, most resellers let them go for a bit less though.. I got mine from amazon. I'm keeping an eye out for a backpack type with a tripod holder, Lowepro Flipside looks like it might fit the bill then again Domke shoulder bags are tempting me too...


----------



## NeObliviscaris

i went to a flwer show yesterday with my mates new 105mm VR Micro, here are the results:

Picasa Web Albums - Jai - Flower and Ga...


----------



## ozz

Some very nice shots.


----------



## Hayduke

I like #20 the best FMT 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 DJ, I don't have any pictures of my camera gear. The closest I have is the one I posted back in September of the boxes 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Maybe I'll use my old P&S to take a pic of the D80.

 I still owe ya a cactus pic, so here ya go...

 It's not the mean type with pointy spines. It's the cuddly kind with little fur patches. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	









 If you want to see it yourself, just hike down the Grandview trail towards Hance Creek. It's along the traverse just above the creek


----------



## dj_mocok

Hey! Finally a cactus picture! I wonder if we can eat them though...


----------



## dj_mocok

Have Nikon prices gone up around your area? They sure did here but fortunately I am not planning on getting anything at the moment.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey! Finally a cactus picture! I wonder if we can eat them though..._

 

I'm not sure. I'm not even sure of the species  I'll see if I can find out. I have a book about edible plants of the region.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have Nikon prices gone up around your area? They sure did here but fortunately I am not planning on getting anything at the moment._

 

Not that I have noticed, but I haven't been shopping for photo gear recently. 

 It's starting to feel like Spring here, so I've been spending my disposable income on outdoors stuff. In the last month or so I bought a down coat on clearance, a soft shell coat (Mountain Hardware Android in black), a DeLorme PN-20 GPS which comes with Topo 7, and a new Gregory Z65 pack. I'm kinda broke atm, but ready for a backpacking trip next weekend if the weather cooperates.


----------



## Sherwood

I am in the process of graduating my gear from the experimental D40 I purchased 1 1/2 years ago to something that will suit my needs a little better. Currently I'm demoing a D90 and a D200, and leaning towards the former. Nonetheless, the quickmount plate was on the D200 last night when the light was perfect, and I snapped this off:






 Anyone else with musings on the D200 vs. the D90? I've done my homework, without a doubt, but a few anecdotes wouldn't be looked at sideways.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I want pictures from Nikon owners or else I'd be posting me crappy pictures again.
 Actually we haven't got that many full equipment pictures. (not pictures from your rig but pictures of your rig)
 Let's post all your camera rig here._

 

Here's a little family photo for you:






 Taken with my Fuji F100fd and Nikon SB26. For some reason, the flash would only get exposed if used directly, not bounced. Go figure. It's nice having an external flash that works remotely with a P&S though.

 And here is a shot from yesterday as a storm rolled in:


----------



## dj_mocok

There's a lot of gears but for some weird reason I feel like something is missing from that setup but I am not sure what.


----------



## Zodduska

Awesome picture Sherwood!


----------



## NeObliviscaris

nikon and canon prices are going up


----------



## ka-boom

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's a lot of gears but for some weird reason I feel like something is missing from that setup but I am not sure what._

 

I think you're thinking of "D300".


----------



## Sherwood

I'm taking the D90 for a spin this weekend on a little local photo tour my wife was kind enough to plan for my birthday. My brief, inital impressions are that I vastly prefer the feel, IQ, and overall "ness" of the D90. It makes the D200 feel slow and old.

 A quick note, if anyone shoots HDR, the D90 is the first camera with a workable hands-free HDR mode. Once you set bracketing to three frames at your desired exposure, set the shooting rate to continuous low -- timer. The timer can be set (through the menu) for 2 seconds, and it automatically exposes 3 shots. No mirror movement on the initial metered shot, and no futzing with cable releases for the concurrent shots. I hope they include this feature on every camera from here on out.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's a lot of gears but for some weird reason I feel like something is missing from that setup but I am not sure what._

 

tripod?


----------



## JaZZ

My Equipment:







 Main lenses: Sigma 2.8/50 Macro, D300 with Sigma 3.5-6.3/18-200 OS, Tokina 4/12-24, Nikon 4.5-5.6/70-300 G VR
 (picture taken by my son's D90)






 Sigma 2.8-4/28-105, 3.5-4.5/70-210 APO, 3.5-4.5/28-70, 3.5/18, Nikkor 2.8/24, 2/35, 1.4/50
.


----------



## 2deadeyes

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_tripod?_

 

I see a Giottos ballhead sticking out behind the D200


----------



## Hayduke

Nice stuff there JaZZ. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *2deadeyes* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I see a Giottos ballhead sticking out behind the D200 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Well looky there!


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's a lot of gears but for some weird reason I feel like something is missing from that setup but I am not sure what._

 

Uhmmm.....well I didn't put my filters, cleaning supplies, memory card readers, misc. cables, or original boxes in the shot 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My equipment set is a bit of a motley collection, driven by what really good deals I could find, rather than review-site-approved shopping list. For what I paid, I have no complaints. Are there things I'd rather have? Sure, but isn't that what almost everyone says? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ka-boom* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think you're thinking of "D300".



_

 

The D200 suits my current work just fine. I find the pre-processed look of the D300's files a bit less appealing than the grainier but more realistic (IMO) output of the D200. Add in the fact that I mostly use a tripod or flash, and high ISO isn't that important to me (I'd rather have great high ISO in my P&S). I'd be more temped by the D700, but at this point it's not worth the cost for what I do. The camera that would get me going would be the D3x sensor in a D700 body (a better CF door, and 100% viewfinder instead of pop-up flash wouldn't hurt either).


----------



## dj_mocok

[size=medium]Nikon D5000
[/size]
 I must say that model number came out of nowhere. But actually quite understandable since they've used almost all the relevant numbering range.
 It's a "baby" D90 with features like: a swivel LCD, live view, 720p movie, sensor cleaning, 11 point AF, etc... 
 I bet you this will sell like hot cakes.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

It looks cool, but for $50 more the D90 seems like a more compelling option. That high resolution LCD screen, slightly higher frame rate, and in-built focus motor are alone worth the premium.


----------



## dj_mocok

ISO looks better on the D5000 too. And the target market for this is first time owners / prosumer enthusiasts, so I guess Nikon figures that those people will mainly use lens with built-in motor anyway. Considering the new lens offering from Nikon, I think they have enough AFS lenses to satisfy most beginners.


----------



## Zodduska

My guess is the price difference will end up being a bit wider unless Nikon are planning on replacing the D90 and D300 soon.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I bet the D400 should be out before the holidays. Nikon seems to stick to a pretty regimented replacement schedule. Although who knows exactly what they could do to make it sell as well as the 300 did.


----------



## triode12

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I bet the D400 should be out before the holidays. Nikon seems to stick to a pretty regimented replacement schedule. Although who knows exactly what they could do to make it sell as well as the 300 did._

 

An FX sensor would be nice.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Yeah, but wouldn't that be the D800?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

n/a


----------



## M0T0XGUY

It could be the lens, but some of the shots in DPReview's sample blogs really do appear soft. I'm not one to pixel peep, but it seems as though fine detail is (somewhat unobtrusively) lost even at lower ISO settings. It could also just be me.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

I just bought a 12-24 f/4 on eBay; I'll give everyone my impressions when it arrives.


----------



## triode12

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, but wouldn't that be the D800?_

 

I was just hoping that Nikon would bring down the price of an FX format camera to the level of a D300. Hopefully sooner rather than later. I dislike the DX format.


----------



## dj_mocok

I wonder what Nikon will bring with the (hopefully soon) upcoming D400. My guess is the usual live view, sensor cleaning, not sure about tilt LCD though, what else... You can only add so much in a new camera, really.


----------



## triode12

What a few people are wanting (so I've read on photo.net) and I too would like to see is a FX dSLR based on the FM3a.

 There are just to many features and gadgets in cameras today that get in the way of (which takes the enjoyment out of) the photo taking process.

 I still enjoy shooting B/W film on my Rollei 6x6 TLRs. My favourite Rollei is the Rolleicord Vb.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wonder what Nikon will bring with the (hopefully soon) upcoming D400. My guess is the usual live view, sensor cleaning, not sure about tilt LCD though, what else... You can only add so much in a new camera, really._

 

A new DX sensor (more mega pixels, better S/N, wider ISO range), new "EXPEED" allowing higher fps for 14-bit NEFs, video/audio (at least 1080p/24fps), auto AD-L, better implementation of Live View, more accurate auto WB, cross-AF sensors distributed more evenly across the frame, even brighter viewfinder, factory provided alternative focusing screens, built in Wi-Fi/Bluetooth sync, etc...


----------



## dj_mocok

Funny enough, I figured that I don't really need all those new fancy bell and whistles to be honest. What I really want from a camera is (providing everything is at least as good as current gen one), a viewfinder as large as film SLR camera and a big, bright, high-res LCD - that's all I ask.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *triode12* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are just to many features and gadgets in cameras today that get in the way of (which takes the enjoyment out of) the photo taking process.

 I still enjoy shooting B/W film on my Rollei 6x6 TLRs. My favourite Rollei is the Rolleicord Vb._

 

I like having all those features but just ignore them when not needed. When I shoot all manual they do become mostly irrelevant.

 I do lust after the Medium format viewfinders though. I don't like manual focusing on 35mm without split prism.


----------



## milkpowder

If you're doing sports, action or nature photography, all the bells and whistles do help. After all, Nikon has to cater for every need.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

The 12-24mm came today, and it's really quite impressive. I've never handled or shot with a true wide angle lens before, but composition seems incredibly interesting given the easily distorted perspective of the image. 

 Here's a quick and dirty snap of the kitchen; shot laying down on the floor:


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Funny enough, I figured that I don't really need all those new fancy bell and whistles to be honest. What I really want from a camera is (providing everything is at least as good as current gen one), a viewfinder as large as film SLR camera and a big, bright, high-res LCD - that's all I ask._

 

i totally agree with you. i really don't need live view or video capabilities. my dream camera would basically be a D300 in a size somewhere between the D50 and D60 with the 3" LCD and a large and bright viewfinder. again, no need for live view or video in this camera but i would also want it to have a screw drive. i can wish but i get the feeling that this is a camera that nikon wouldn't make. this dream cameras seems like it'd be a good backup for a professional or enthusiast when he/she doesn't want to carry the main camera.


----------



## spookygonk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's a quick and dirty snap of the kitchen; shot laying down on the floor:



_

 

Nice work, I recently bought a Tamron 12-24 and it's taken me a while to get used to shooting with it. I have it permanently on my D70. I also have a D50 which is a great camera as well, but there's an offer of a mint D300 for £300 less than store price and I'm sorely tempted to sell the D50 kit and get the D300. Which seems sorta wrong in a forum dedicated to (spending money on) headphones and amps.


----------



## vagarach

So after using the 50mm 1.8 exclusively for a while, I needed to focus closer than 45cm, so I replaced the 50mm with the kit 18-55 (D50 days, not the new VR), and the lens' autofocus motor is dead! It managed one last focus and then died, now all I get is a grinding sound. SWM ain't silent anymore 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Thankfully it meters fine and I can focus manually.

 However, after using the 50mm so much, the focus ring on the kit lens just feels cheap! What irks me is that it hasn't had any bashes, or seen any situations where I had to run with it or something, and after sitting in the camera bag for a month or two it just conks out. Lame, and apparently I'm not the only one this has happened to.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i totally agree with you. i really don't need live view or video capabilities. my dream camera would basically be a D300 in a size somewhere between the D50 and D60 with the 3" LCD and a large and bright viewfinder. again, no need for live view or video in this camera but i would also want it to have a screw drive. i can wish but i get the feeling that this is a camera that nikon wouldn't make. this dream cameras seems like it'd be a good backup for a professional or enthusiast when he/she doesn't want to carry the main camera._

 

If Nikon continues the trend of making AFD DX lenses I don't think there will be any screw-drive entry level DSLR anytime soon.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vagarach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 However, after using the 50mm so much, the focus ring on the kit lens just feels cheap! What irks me is that it hasn't had any bashes, or seen any situations where I had to run with it or something, and after sitting in the camera bag for a month or two it just conks out. Lame, and apparently I'm not the only one this has happened to._

 

Could be worse - if you are used to Ai (MF) lenses, everything else even pro ones from Nikon won't feel good enough.


----------



## Teraflame

Man I can't find the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 anywhere at a reasonable price. No one is selling it used and everyone is out of stock. I sold my tokina 12-24 a while back and I miss wide angles. =(


----------



## dj_mocok

Here. Have a review. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Seriously, I think our local shop might still have this one. But are you willing to have a lens shipped from Aus?


----------



## Teraflame

haha, not really. I guess I'll search for it in my local stores, I've been reluctant to because of sales tax.


----------



## Zodduska

Nice pic and lens M0T0! I'm really wanting a wide angle lens now. I've got my eye on the tokina 11-16 but have the same problem as Teraflame.


----------



## dj_mocok

Here in aus we don't get tax for order less than $1000 AUD. Not sure about US though.


----------



## Zodduska

For online orders in the US there is no sales tax as long as the store is out of state. BTW cool review of the tokina lens DJ, thanks.


----------



## h.rav

I like the Tokina 11-16mm. It's probably the best wide angle DX lens out there. It's sharp corner to corner and rugged. The color rendition seemed to be better than other wide angle lens. That's probably one lens that I miss so much after leaving DX format. I sold mine shortly after I got the D700.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For online orders in the US there is no sales tax as long as the store is out of state. BTW cool review of the tokina lens DJ, thanks. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Let me know if you still can't get the lens, I will ask the local shop and see if they can ship to US (I think they can).


----------



## Braver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i totally agree with you. i really don't need live view or video capabilities. my dream camera would basically be a D300 in a size somewhere between the D50 and D60 with the 3" LCD and a large and bright viewfinder. again, no need for live view or video in this camera but i would also want it to have a screw drive. i can wish but i get the feeling that this is a camera that nikon wouldn't make. this dream cameras seems like it'd be a good backup for a professional or enthusiast when he/she doesn't want to carry the main camera._

 

I'm still hoping for a digital FM3A, or FE, as mentioned above. They could put a monochrome-only sensor in there for all I care, as long as it is fullframe and has a split prism so I can properly use my AI(S) glass. The joy of using a camera where the only controls are aperture and shutterspeed is just unsurpassed. Sure, a DSLR is built to work in any situation, but I'm no pro, I just like taking pictures in my spare time, like probably 90% of DSLR users. Perhaps I should save up for an M8


----------



## Arainach

It'll never happen because the sensor is the expensive part; digital controls like that are comparatively cheap and easy. Plus there's nowhere near enough demand. Just buy a real camera and only _use_ those modes. Set your exposure to Manual and your lens to MF.


----------



## dj_mocok

That's what exactly I am doing. I never used those bracket button AF lock or whatever buttons it has on my camera. 
 The good thing about using it with my MF lens is, AF is always locked automatically. That's a feature.


----------



## triode12

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It'll never happen because the sensor is the expensive part; digital controls like that are comparatively cheap and easy. Plus there's nowhere near enough demand. Just buy a real camera and only use those modes. Set your exposure to Manual and your lens to MF._

 

I used to think exactly the same way when I first started out in the hobby, but once you have used a manual focus camera with just the basic controls, you will understand the joy/philosophy behind it. I can also understand that it is not every ones cup of tea. As one grows older, one tends to favour the simpler things in life. 

 Or perhaps I am a luddite. I even consider the FM3a too automated. Once I was introduced to a Rollei TLR by a pro photog, I was hooked.


----------



## Braver

Yeah, you can theorize about it all you want, but a classic manual camera is just not the same as 'just not using the features'. I consider the 'real camera' comment as flame-bait by the way, such is not needed here.
 I bet such a camera will generate plenty demand, if perhaps only from collectors. Just watch the discussions about a B&W-only camera: plenty interest in such niche things, and from people that don't mind paying for it. Even the ridiculous D3X has demand man...


----------



## Teraflame

dj_mocok, just out of curiosity how much is your local shop selling the 11-16 for? with shipping costs if you can calculate that. thanks.


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Teraflame* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_dj_mocok, just out of curiosity how much is your local shop selling the 11-16 for? with shipping costs if you can calculate that. thanks._

 

I'd be interested to find this out as well if it's not too much trouble.


----------



## dj_mocok

It's AUS$989 for the lens. I think that makes it around US$720? That's not cheap at all. although when I bought it, it was more like US$550. 
 But they already increased the price since then.


----------



## Zodduska

Ouch, it seems like all the vendors that still have these figured out there is a demand for them and decided to price gouge. There is one vendor on amazon selling them for $699, BH has it listed for an honest $599 but out of stock.


----------



## dj_mocok

Did you try sourcing it from HongKong? They are usually cheap too.


----------



## Teraflame

I just bought the tokina from a seller on fredmiranda for $580. Can't wait to get it


----------



## hmai18

Question: so I'm looking at getting a D90 after finishing grad school. I shot with an F80 for a couple of years, but bought it right before digital exploded onto the market.

 In terms of glass, I'd love to pair the D90 with a fixed aperture standard zoom to start. Is the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM still a viable alternative to the Nikkor 17-55 2.8? I'd really like to use something with an internal focusing motor instead of the screw drive.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *triode12* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I used to think exactly the same way when I first started out in the hobby, but once you have used a manual focus camera with just the basic controls, you will understand the joy/philosophy behind it. I can also understand that it is not every ones cup of tea. As one grows older, one tends to favour the simpler things in life. 

 Or perhaps I am a luddite. I even consider the FM3a too automated. Once I was introduced to a Rollei TLR by a pro photog, I was hooked._

 

I own a Nikon FE. Fully MF, nothing automatic except Aperture-Priority Exposure. Yes, it can be enjoyable, but I'll take my D50 any day of the week, thank you very much.


----------



## Teraflame

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hmai18* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In terms of glass, I'd love to pair the D90 with a fixed aperture standard zoom to start. Is the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM still a viable alternative to the Nikkor 17-55 2.8? I'd really like to use something with an internal focusing motor instead of the screw drive._

 

The Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 is very popular


----------



## dj_mocok

Very good image quality too, that Tamron lens. I find it a bit on a warmer side and when combined with my "film" setting in my S5Pro, the result is beautiful!


----------



## bigshot

The screw drive Tamron actually focuses faster than the HSM one. It's not sold under the Tamron name any more. It's rebranded as Promaster. It's the exact same lens though.


----------



## bigshot

Here is something interesting... A 36 megapixel, 180 degree panorama shot with the Tokina 11-16 (vertical)...





 Click through to my blog to download the monster size image.


----------



## hmai18

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The screw drive Tamron actually focuses faster than the HSM one. It's not sold under the Tamron name any more. It's rebranded as Promaster. It's the exact same lens though._

 

Interesting to hear. How's the noise level on the focus?


----------



## dj_mocok

If you are talking about the one with screw drive one, I don't know because I don't own one. But I heard it's noisier than the old one without motor one.

 I have the older version, and focus is reasonably quiet but not like AFS PRO quiet. But since it focuses fast, you won't complain about it. Don't worry about noise.

 That's a nice panorama. Maybe one day I should try it too, considering we have the bridge and all that here. But too lazy to carry tripod...


----------



## Teraflame

You don't need a tripod for panoramas.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hmai18* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interesting to hear. How's the noise level on the focus?_

 

It's really not that loud, because it has such a short throw, and relatively light elements. I find the sound a complete non-issue. It's not as quiet as an AFS/HSM lens, of course, but it is much quieter than, for instance, a Nikon 75-300 AF-D or 80-200 AF-D, since they have longer focus throws, and larger glass to move.

 I much prefer my Promaster screw-drive lens to the Tamron built-in-motor version I had last year. Optically, they are the same (both excellent), but the Promaster focuses much more quickly and reliably (on the D200).


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Teraflame* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You don't need a tripod for panoramas._

 

How do you do a proper panorama without a tripod?


----------



## Teraflame

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How do you do a proper panorama without a tripod?_

 

handhold it in one spot, spin around to take pictures. Overlap them by at least 30% and depending on the distortion of the lens you'll need to overlap them more. I use ptgui for stitching.


----------



## bigshot

That panorama I posted was handheld. I shot vertical so there would be plenty of room to crop top and bottom.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Teraflame* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_handhold it in one spot, spin around to take pictures. Overlap them by at least 30% and depending on the distortion of the lens you'll need to overlap them more. I use ptgui for stitching._

 

But then if I accidentally took a step back/forward/sideway, I'd be screwed yeah?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

You can take a panorama handheld, or with a bunch of this stuff: Really Right Stuff ... Panorama Equipment

 It's still a panorama regardless. Just as a Ford and a Ferrari are both autos.


----------



## bigshot

The software aligns the segments and corrects the distortion to join them. It makes it easier for the software to do its job if you are careful about alignment and overlap, but it is pretty forgiving considering.

 To be honest, I can't see much purpose to those fancy tripod mounts. If you can point your camera with the same general vertical alignment each time and shoot a lot of segments to guarantee overlap, you won't be needing them at all. I suppose they might help with film, but I wouldn't want to do a panorama without doing it digitally.


----------



## dyrmaker83

Is anyone else waiting on a 35mm f1.8?

 This sucks, and I haven't seen any word on when new ones arrive.


----------



## dj_mocok

Can't you get it from greymarket?


----------



## dyrmaker83

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can't you get it from greymarket?_

 

Nope, it's unavailable everywhere (in the US at least). Apparently you can luck out and get one occasionally at local shops...for $50 more.


----------



## DaMavs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dyrmaker83* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nope, it's unavailable everywhere (in the US at least). Apparently you can luck out and get one occasionally at local shops...for $50 more._

 

Sounds like a lot of lenses are currently unavailable. Lots of folks waiting on the 35/1.8 at Nikon Cafe (and thanks to someone here who recommended that site - it's been another enjoyable, yet expensive timesink for me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





).

 There's an interesting read at LensRental explaining some of the shortages in lenses and why prices are going up.

 Good luck finding the lens - sounds like it's a good one...


----------



## ka-boom

My 85 f1.8 should be here any day now. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I had the Tokina 100 f2.8 macro in the cart at the same time I had the 85 but just couldn't bring myself to buy both. The Tokina was only $325 on KEH.


----------



## Sherwood

I'm trying to make use of the price jack on 35 f/1.8 and sell mine on the 'bay. It's interesting -- lots of people want to buy it, but they don't want to pay over retail. I've been yelled at over the phone, had angry emails -- crazy stuff. It seems to really upset people that I'm selling a used lens for more than new, but that's supply and demand. What people will do for $50.


----------



## ka-boom

I'm guessing the 35 f1.8 is selling for $200?

 If you tack on $50 that brings you to $250, now you're getting close to the price of a used 35 f2 AF-D which is widely popular and known to be very sharp.


----------



## GTRacer

Finally have a DSLR again after my D80 got nicked, and it's an upgrade:






 Should arrive by Monday at the latest. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Can't wait for some delicious skin tones and dynamic range!


----------



## dj_mocok

That's a wise decision there (as long as you know and can live with all the drawbacks of S5Pro).
 I have S5Pro myself too and couldn't be happier. 
 I don't really make use of the crazy DR of S5Pro but sure as hell I make use of the film mode - I just love the film mode it's on my permanent setting.

 I was also a D80 owner, but the difference is, I sold mine (after I nicked it from you) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 It is slow in previewing image after you take the shot (unlike D80) but you'll get used to it. Just prepare yourself for a very different colour tone.

 Would you like some teaser shots of S5Pro while waiting for yours to arrive on Monday?


----------



## lan

Nice, I've always wanted an S5 Pro myself but don't really need another camera at the moment.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I've pondered the S5, but if I am going to buy another camera, it's going to be FX.


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's a wise decision there (as long as you know and can live with all the drawbacks of S5Pro).
 I have S5Pro myself too and couldn't be happier. 
 I don't really make use of the crazy DR of S5Pro but sure as hell I make use of the film mode - I just love the film mode it's on my permanent setting.

 I was also a D80 owner, but the difference is, I sold mine (after I nicked it from you) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 It is slow in previewing image after you take the shot (unlike D80) but you'll get used to it. Just prepare yourself for a very different colour tone.

 Would you like some teaser shots of S5Pro while waiting for yours to arrive on Monday? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Got it today. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Love the film settings, especially F2. Huge step up from my D80 in all areas (well aside from the slightly wacky UI and slow write times).


----------



## akg702

Hi 
 I'm new here in head fi and a photography hobbits too. 

 The D3 and 200 F2 is my favorite setup. I love the Nikon AFS 60mm too with the D3. 

 The 200mm F2 VR is a magic lens to shot .....


----------



## Teraflame

Can anyone comment/critique my shots? I'm fairly new and will be taking a B&W photo class this summer

Flickr: terranersa's Photostream


----------



## NeObliviscaris

anyone got any advice on the 17-55m 2.8 dx lens? thinking of buying for my d90


----------



## bigshot

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is good alternative to that lens at a much lower price. It's lighter too, which is important for a midrange walkaround lens.


----------



## ka-boom

Tokina 16-50 f2.8


----------



## NeObliviscaris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is good alternative to that lens at a much lower price. It's lighter too, which is important for a midrange walkaround lens._

 

all the reviews i read really point toward being lucky to get a good lens. people have front focus issues, and having dirt etc inside the lens when they take out of box!


----------



## M0T0XGUY

If you have the money, I'd say the 17-55 is worth what they charge for it. It's one of those lenses that makes you shoot more because of its fantastic feel and exceptional image quality. Still, consider your current lens lineup (I don't know what you own). If you already have a few lenses to cover the range you need, then the 17-55 is a smart choice. If you find your lens lineup lacking however - for example, perhaps you're interested in wide angle photography and don't own a wide angle lens - then remember that you're $1200 can easily buy 2 or 3 third party lenses (new) of all kinds. Multiple lenses that cover a variety of perspectives and subjects, no matter how cheap, are always better than a single well built lens that leaves you wanting for more range.


----------



## lan

Let's not forget you can get a few primes for that price with quality AND range AND they'd be full frame capable.


----------



## Teraflame

It seems that I have a dilemma. 

 Grado HF2 or IR converted D50? 
 both are $430

 and I don't have an amp for HF2


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_all the reviews i read really point toward being lucky to get a good lens. people have front focus issues, and having dirt etc inside the lens when they take out of box!_

 

That isn't true. In the photography forums, the threads on the Tamron 17-50 are always packed with people. There isn't any problems with quality control on this lens at all.

http://www.bythom.com/1750lens.htm

 The only problem I've heard of with this lens is that the filter ring can develop a wobble. But it's easy to fix yourself with a jeweler's screwdriver.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FeedMeTrance* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_all the reviews i read really point toward being lucky to get a good lens. people have front focus issues, and having dirt etc inside the lens when they take out of box!_

 

That's cause it's a Tamron.... Seriously, there's a reason it's cheaper than the nikkors (or else it wouldn't be).


----------



## dj_mocok

Regarding internet:
 People usually post bad experience more often than good experience. 
 If one person makes a thread about it, it might be read by 500 people, whom then may post something like: "I read a guy that had a problem with..." whose posts then might be read by another hundreds of people etc etc.

 I got 2 Tamrons and they are both fine. I guess I'm the lucky one then.
 If you ask me why Tamron is cheaper than Nikon, first of all, OF COURSE they had to do that, or else who'd bother to get a third party if the price is the same as proprietary one? (unless you are talking like Carl Zeiss or something like that - which is clearly have better quality lens)
 Secondly, price wise, the compromise is usually in build quality. It usually isn't build as nice as Nikon. Except some Tokina pro lenses which I think are build as good (if not better) than Nikon pro lenses.

 Speaking of which, now would you like to have some Tamron 17-50mm sample shots to help your decision?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Unless one absolutely need the build quality of AF-speed of the 17-55, I think all that extra change would be better spent on other lenses, or saving toward an FX body.


----------



## spookygonk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Teraflame* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It seems that I have a dilemma. 

 Grado HF2 or IR converted D50? 
 both are $430

 and I don't have an amp for HF2 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

If you think you can make a lot of use with the IR D50 then go for that. I bought a D50 kit especially to get someone like LifePixel to convert it. A converted camera should hold its price [somewhat] so if you don't want to keep it there should be someone else out there eager to take it off your hands.

 Yes, it's not the HF2, but your SR60 will do you for now until you can raise some more cash for an upgrade.


----------



## dj_mocok

It's the same thing anyway. If you wanna buy D50 you need to factor in the at least decent lenses as well. Unless you already have some.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Regarding internet:
 People usually post bad experience more often than good experience._

 

True and more people would own the cheaper Tamron than the Nikon so there would be more "bad" comments.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Speaking of which, now would you like to have some Tamron 17-50mm sample shots to help your decision? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yes, please!

 I've been interested in the Tamron 17-50 since a while – if only it had an image stabilizer. Instead I'm seriously considering the Nikon 16-85 as my standard zoom. Any objections? Maybe waiting for the new Sigma 18-50?
.


----------



## dj_mocok

Why do you need IS for such a short range focal length anyway? One of the main attractions of the Tamron is constant f/2.8, that's very good. If you consider other lens that has no constant f/2.8, I'd personally would stick with Tamron. You'll be thanking yourself when the day is getting darker if you have 2.8

 What sort of sample picture you want from the Tamron? I'm at home now, so I can only take pictures of random boring objects if you don't mind.


----------



## dj_mocok

Okay, we got images. 
 Sorry for lack of objects. I took these just now. All f/2.8 just to help you with your decision making.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 But actually it's a bit difficult to stop it down a bit more because I was doing ISO1000 and low shutter speed. 

 Pictures were unaltered apart from resizing so to give you honest representation of the lens. Although you have to put in mind that the colour tone of my camera is a bit different (I use film mode because I like it this way) and default sharpening of my camera is set to low. 
 But don't worry, this lens is sharp wide open and very contrasty. It's a very good lens for people everyday-type of photography. 
 As mentioned before, the only drawback that I can really feel is build quality isn't as good as Nikon pro lens (but definitely better than Nikon lower end lenses)

 Also mine is older version without built-in motor one, if it makes any difference.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why do you need IS for such a short range focal length anyway?_

 

With wide-angle shots I usually want as large a depth of focus as it gets – hence an image stabilizer would be great for covering all possiblities, especially lower-light conditions. I really appreciate it on my Sigma 18-200 (and the Nikon 70-300 as well).


  Quote:


 _One of the main attractions of the Tamron is constant f/2.8, that's very good. If you consider other lens that has no constant f/2.8, I'd personally stick with Tamron. You'll be thanking yourself when the day is getting darker if you have 2.8._ 
 

Of course this feature is extremely attractive, and my dream lense would certainly be a constant 2.8. The Tamron is still on my shortlist.


  Quote:


 _What sort of sample picture you want from the Tamron? I'm at home now, so I can only take pictures of random boring objects if you don't mind_ 
 

Thanks for you effort! They're okay – you really made the best out of the situation, taking interesting pictures from trivial objects... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Of course the full format would have been even more significant, but I have seen several Tamron 17-50 sample pictures before, I just like to view teaser photographs. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_With wide-angle shots I usually want as large a depth of focus as it gets – hence an image stabilizer would be great for covering all possiblities, especially lower-light conditions. I really appreciate it on my Sigma 18-200 (and the Nikon 70-300 as well)._

 

At wide angle, the depth of field is wider anyway. You don't have to stop down much at all to get everything in focus. I've found that IS is mostly needed above 50mm. I haven't missed it at all on my Tamron 17-50. But I couldn't live without it on my 18-200.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_At wide angle, the depth of field is wider anyway. You don't have to stop down much at all to get everything in focus._

 

Yeah, sure, but in critical (low-light) situations I could still get away with say F8 whereas without image stabilizer I would have to go to F4 or the like, or accept a higher ISO value, thus higher noise.


----------



## bigshot

The solution then would be to carry a $100 18-55 VR in your pocket. That doesn't weigh much of anything, and both the Tamron and the 18-55 would be a heck of a lot less expensive than the Nikon 17-55 2.8


----------



## NeObliviscaris

i tend to be very brand concious, so that is why id be wanting the nikon more. i might try and go into a camera store and try out a tamron


----------



## Zodduska

What do you guys think, Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 for $480 or hold out for the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 at $599? I'm itching for a super wide angle lens and getting tired of waiting for the 11-16 to show up, I really don't want to chance ordering a copy from overseas either..


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I've been very happy with the Sigma. But it is no 2.8 lens, so if you need the speed, the 11-16 is the only game in town. Unless you wait for the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5!


----------



## dj_mocok

11-16mm is a beautiful lens.


----------



## Zodduska

Thanks guys. The Sigma 10-20 3.5 seems like its gonna be closer to $800, and at 10mm isnt much faster than its older sibling. I don't tend to shoot wide open very often anyway and with the close minimum focusing distance of both lenses I'll probably end up stopping down even more to get front to back sharpness on foreground objects and the background. I'm not patient enough to see if the Tokina ever comes back in stock so I'll probably just take the Sigma, even though I would rather have the 11-16.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Well, then I'd tempt you to go with the current Sigma. I have no qualms about its' performance, and you can find them second-hand for $300-350. The distortion is more complex, but it is a lot less noticeable (IMO) than the much higher "standard barrel" distortion of the Tokina. I usually correct out distortion with PTLens anyway.

 The main sell of the Tokina is f/2.8, and if that is not of major use for you, I don't see why you should wait around and pay out the wazoo for it. For me the build quality of the Tokina is a wash with the Sigma's HSM (and it is built pretty nicely as well).


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, then I'd tempt you to go with the current Sigma. I have no qualms about its' performance, and you can find them second-hand for $300-350. The distortion is more complex, but it is a lot less noticeable (IMO) than the much higher "standard barrel" distortion of the Tokina. I usually correct out distortion with PTLens anyway.

 The main sell of the Tokina is f/2.8, and if that is not of major use for you, I don't see why you should wait around and pay out the wazoo for it. For me the build quality of the Tokina is a wash with the Sigma's HSM (and it is built pretty nicely as well)._

 

Thanks Iron_Dreamer, that's exactly what I needed to hear but didn't think to ask. I also have PTLens (awesome app and well worth the asking price btw) but wasn't sure if it could correct the distortion from the 10-20, that's great news! I was pretty shocked when I noticed the 11-16 didn't have a built in focus motor, not really a big deal since I have a D80 but it would be nice.. another plus for the Sigma. I'll be picking up the 10-20 next week.


----------



## bigshot

You won't find an 11-16 by waiting for it to come in stock. They have waiting lists. Just order it from Adorama or B&H and it won't take too long.

 With third party lenses, sometimes screw drive focus is better than BIM.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks Iron_Dreamer, that's exactly what I needed to hear but didn't think to ask. I also have PTLens (awesome app and well worth the asking price btw) but wasn't sure if it could correct the distortion from the 10-20, that's great news! I was pretty shocked when I noticed the 11-16 didn't have a built in focus motor, not really a big deal since I have a D80 but it would be nice.. another plus for the Sigma. I'll be picking up the 10-20 next week. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Just remember that PTLens automatically corrects the optical distortion of the lens, but not necessarily the perspective distortion inherent in an ultra-wide-angle lens (though you can do so, somewhat, manually). You probably already realize this, but I just wanted to toss it out there for anyone else who doesn't.

 Enjoy the the 10-20. Here's one image that began at the front element of mine:


----------



## ka-boom

I was just in Midwest Photo (mpex.com) yesterday and saw they had 2 of the Tokina 11-16 in stock, I played with one.


----------



## NeObliviscaris

so i ended up buying a 2nd hand 17-55mm f/2.8, should be getting it next week


----------



## Zodduska

Very cool image Iron_Dreamer. 

 I guess I could get in queue for the Tokina at BH but I'm one for instant gratification. Thanks for the heads up ka-boom, fifty dollar premium but may be worth it.. now I'm back on the fence lol. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Grats on your new lens FMT!


----------



## fureshi

for the price, i also think that the tamron 17-50mm can't be beat. yes it doesn't have the build of the nikon 17-55mm but i'm not sure that i need weather sealing or its tank-like build. as long as you take care of your equipment and treat it with respect, you shouldn't have problems. i've had this lens for over two years and it's on my camera most of the time. i'm not a pixel peeper and am usually too lazy to do much pp other than fixing brightness and cropping but on most pictures taken with this lens, i've not noticed any optical problems. 

 here are some pictures that i took during a trip to paris last year. most of them were taken with the tamron 17-50mm at f/2.8. i'm sure that if i didn't have the speed, i couldn't have gotten the shot or the shallow DOF.


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_



_

 

Peter ...

 I will resemble that image in approximately 8 days time. The burning question is, who else will pose with me in front of those esteemed establishments? 

 I'll bring a 14-24 to capture any willing subjects. Do you uave a tripod? Don't really want to schlepp one cross country.

 See you in 8 days.


----------



## Teraflame

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's the same thing anyway. If you wanna buy D50 you need to factor in the at least decent lenses as well. Unless you already have some._

 

the 18-55 kit lens is actually one of the best for IR. I think I'll be fine with that and the 11-16 which is apparently okay.


----------



## dj_mocok

That headfi canjam looks like a strip club in a glance.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agile_one* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Peter ...

 I will resemble that image in approximately 8 days time. The burning question is, who else will pose with me in front of those esteemed establishments? 

 I'll bring a 14-24 to capture any willing subjects. Do you uave a tripod? Don't really want to schlepp one cross country.

 See you in 8 days._

 

Definitely gene!

 The tripod lives in the back of my car, so it shall be there. Arca-compatible ballhead if you've already got the plates.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Here is a favorite shot from the Tammy 17-50 (+CPL). Not that you can tell here, butit is wicked sharp at 100% on screen.


----------



## bigshot

There is a definite advantage to a lighter build on a walkaround midrange zoom. I'll put up with a heavier build on a specialty lens, but for everyday, I'd much rather have something like the Tamron or the Nikon 18-55 VR than a heavy pro build lens.


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Definitely gene!

 The tripod lives in the back of my car, so it shall be there. Arca-compatible ballhead if you've already got the plates._

 

Great, Peter ... a RRS L-Plate is welded to the body.


----------



## milkpowder

I'm lucky enough to be able to have this lens to play around for the next week or so. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's very nice indeed, but doesn't really balance very well on the D300. 





 I love the perspective distortion! It's an immensely fun lens to shoot with 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Razor sharp wide open at 14mm and the bokeh ain't half bad either.


----------



## ka-boom

Ive been flip flopping around between the Tokina 16-50 and the Tamron 17-50 for weeks now.
 I'm about 98% sure the Tamron is going to be the one for me. Thanks for all the above feedback!


----------



## OverlordXenu

On camera flash...eh...


----------



## dj_mocok

I am thinking to trade my Gordy Camera strap (for P&S - colour all black) for a Lady Gaga album. Anyone interested?

 This: (mine's regular one and in all black)






 For this:







 Because I feel like listening to Poker Face and I am not using the strap ever since I bought it (actually prefer my cam without strap)


----------



## ka-boom

I recently bought a Black Rapid RS-1 strap and love it.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Hmmm...all packed up for Can Jam...taking the Promaster 17-50, Sigma 10-20 and 50-150, and Nikon 60 micro. Of course the D200 and SB800, and an SB26 if I feel the need for some more advanced lighting.


----------



## Teraflame

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ka-boom* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I recently bought a Black Rapid RS-1 strap and love it. _

 

There are so many issues with quality control and stuff that I'd rather avoid buying from that company.


----------



## ka-boom

What issues?

 Besides the most recent issues with the brand new FastenR-2 coming unscrewed, I have never heard anything bad about them.

 Black Rapid caught wind of the fastener problem, and sent out free, fixed replacements to all those who purchased them. This was a problem with a new release, nothing to do with the first couple generation straps.

 What else have you heard?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmmm...all packed up for Can Jam...taking the Promaster 17-50, Sigma 10-20 and 50-150, and Nikon 60 micro. Of course the D200 and SB800, and an SB26 if I feel the need for some more advanced lighting._

 

Whoa, sooooooooooooooooooooo much gear...
 If I were going, it would be a camera and two lenses at the very most. One all purpose lens, and one fast one for people shots.


----------



## beerguy0

Just wanted to say how much I like the Nikon center-pinch lens caps. Much better than the Canon caps.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Man, why are so many people in this thread obsessed with "normal" range zooms? A fast normal fixed lens is so much more practical...


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Man, why are so many people in this thread obsessed with "normal" range zooms? A fast normal fixed lens is so much more practical..._

 

Not at all in my book.
.


----------



## fureshi

i can understand but when traveling a single lens is so much more practical than having to bring several.


----------



## ka-boom

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Teraflame* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are so many issues with quality control and stuff that I'd rather avoid buying from that company._

 

Care to elaborate on this? What other "quality control issues" have you heard besides the one I mentioned?

 Is there something I need to be aware of?


----------



## wanderman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Man, why are so many people in this thread obsessed with "normal" range zooms? A fast normal fixed lens is so much more practical..._

 

+1 I could live with 50+full frame body.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_+1 I could live with 50+full frame body._

 

Of course you could live with it, but that doesn't make it more practical than a standard zoom.


----------



## ka-boom

When is a prime _ever_ "more practical" than a zoom?

 Sharper pictures? Probably.
 Faster aperture? Most likely.
 Better built? Probably.
 "More practical?" No.


----------



## Zodduska

My Sigma 10-20 arrived Friday from Amazon, so far I'm really digging it and it seems like I got a decent copy. I even kinda like the distortion..


----------



## OverlordXenu

Heavy, massive, expensive 24-70/2.8 or 50/1.4 and feet?


----------



## dj_mocok

Zodduska, are you the one who bought the S5 Pro? I can't remember.
 Reason why I'm asking is because those pictures got very similar colour tones like my S5, especially the indoor shots.


----------



## nineohtoo

I love how no one has taken up Dj Mocock on his offer for "The Fame" haha. 

 I can't laugh too much though. Lady GaGa is my guilty pleasure. If you like Poker Face, you should listen to the version with Kid Cudi, Kanye, and Common. Soooo much better than the original, and the original is already not so bad. 

 But yeah, I feel so wrong for enjoying that album and having it on my iPhone lol.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Heavy, massive, expensive 24-70/2.8 or 50/1.4 and feet?_

 

It's not as black and white as you make it out. Both serve a purpose.

 Still, 8 times out of 10 I would pick the heavy, massive, expensive 24-70mm F/2.8. I'm no wimp, so the weight doesn't bother me. All that means is I take more pictures that make use of a zoom rather than a fast midrange prime. Doesn't mean one is better than the other.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I love how no one has taken up Dj Mocock on his offer for "The Fame" haha. 

 I can't laugh too much though. Lady GaGa is my guilty pleasure. If you like Poker Face, you should listen to the version with Kid Cudi, Kanye, and Common. Soooo much better than the original, and the original is already not so bad. 

 But yeah, I feel so wrong for enjoying that album and having it on my iPhone lol._

 

I must admit that it's my guilty pleasure listening to Just Dance and Poker Face.

 I am not sure if Gordy (the strap maker) should feel offended or not that no one took the offer of his strap for a Lady Gaga CD.

 Saying that, I also don't mind trading the strap with 2 Lady Gaga singles - Just Dance and Poker Face.

 Offer still valid guys.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's not as black and white as you make it out. Both serve a purpose.

 Still, 8 times out of 10 I would pick the heavy, massive, expensive 24-70mm F/2.8. I'm no wimp, so the weight doesn't bother me. All that means is I take more pictures that make use of a zoom rather than a fast midrange prime. Doesn't mean one is better than the other._

 

Why? It makes you more conspicuous. And it doesn't make me lazy or a wimp to not want 2lbs. of lens adding to the weight I have to carry. Aside from that, it is simply a _massive_ lens.

 To be honest, I don't see any need for such a lens when it covers so little. 24-70? Really not all that much. One body with a wide-angle zoom or prime, another with a 50/1.4 and I've got all of my up close and personal ranges covered. If I think I'll be on something farther away I'll slap on a 200mm prime or 70-200 zoom or whatever else I can get my hands on.

 Weight matters when you're on your feet all day with multiple cameras strapped to you.


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Zodduska, are you the one who bought the S5 Pro? I can't remember.
 Reason why I'm asking is because those pictures got very similar colour tones like my S5, especially the indoor shots._

 

Its a D80, the indoor shots were mostly all long exposures at dusk and I tweaked the curves.. the one down the hallway I had to keep a bit dark because a tripod leg was in the shot.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zodduska* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Its a D80, the indoor shots were mostly all long exposures at dusk and I tweaked the curves.. the one down the hallway I had to keep a bit dark because a tripod leg was in the shot. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I see. You should get the S5 then, saves you from tweaking the curve because it will look like that straight away 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 But nice work though, I like the colour tone like that.


----------



## Zodduska

thanks, I'd like an S5 but I'm holding out for the D300 to become affordable.. maybe next year.


----------



## dj_mocok

I hope by next year S6 will come out. 
 But it's not like I'm gonna get it anyway cause I am content with what I have now.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why? It makes you more conspicuous. And it doesn't make me lazy or a wimp to not want 2lbs. of lens adding to the weight I have to carry. Aside from that, it is simply a massive lens.

 To be honest, I don't see any need for such a lens when it covers so little. 24-70? Really not all that much. One body with a wide-angle zoom or prime, another with a 50/1.4 and I've got all of my up close and personal ranges covered. If I think I'll be on something farther away I'll slap on a 200mm prime or 70-200 zoom or whatever else I can get my hands on.

 Weight matters when you're on your feet all day with multiple cameras strapped to you._

 

Who said anything about the 24-70? Tamron's 17-50 covers the same range for DX cameras and weighs little more than a 50mm lens. 

 Plus, composition with a single lens is a little more complicated than feet shuffling. Often times the impact of a scene, especially in the case of landscapes, can be diminished by the slightly tight viewpoint of a normal lens.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Weight matters when you're on your feet all day with multiple cameras strapped to you._

 

Ah, but that's what I was trying to say. Weight doesn't bother me (well it does, but I'm strong enough to tough it out).
 I can do a full day with a mid range zoom on one body, and a tele zoom on another body.

 It gets me the best pictures.


----------



## glennjamin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Share your thoughts, questions, etc, about Nikon (or other related SLR products, but no brand war please) here. 
 Or if you wanna share your pictures from your brand new camera or lens, or if you wanna see any particular kind of sample pictures from any lenses. 

 Okay, ready, start talking ! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Oh yeah, I wanna ask a question. Some people have recommended me to take off the Nikon L37c filter from the lens (got it along with the lens). To be honest the only reason why I keep it there is probably because I don't want any dust/finger prints on the lens, and the filter itself is quite expensive, sort of a waste for not using it. 
 According to them it will affect image quality (plus my filter has some tiny scratches which I think came from wiping the lens when there were still some dust particles). But then again, I haven't seen the real comparison, side by side pictures of a shot taken with and without lens that is showing the difference. Also I assume this L37c is a pretty good filter, won't degrade image quality? 

 So should I take it off?_

 

DJ, 
 Keep the Nikon filter on, it's less expensive to replace than the front element. They are made to the same optical standards as the Nikon front element. Slight scratches are bad if you are picking up highlights or bright spots in the viewfinder, then those scratches will create flare and halos. If you had to replace, go with the HOYA Super Multi Coat in the Black Box. It's the BEST they make in terms of coatings, optics are the same. HOYA makes the glass stock for Leica....so you know it's great glass. I have a few years in the Photo Industry so I know a few things.


----------



## nineohtoo

On the mid range zoom vs. normal prime debate, I'd do both. I can definitely see the argument for both sides. I personally love shooting with primes myself, but understand where someone would rather have a slightly slower zoom that can cover a wider range. IMO people tend to use zooms to fit subjects and objects into a frame and snap away, whereas people use primes more creatively and select their shots given their restrictions. Of course there are exceptions, but this is what I tend to see.

 I used to swear by a 50mm equiv. FOV, but I found it a little restricting indoors and for street shooting, which is what I enjoyed outside of shows. I think I loved that it got me close enough to artists on stage, and the prime lens gave me some nice bokeh. Now that I only use compacts, I keep my camera at 24mm all day(though I'm contemplating an adapter to get 19mm). When with friends and family, it gets me plenty close and intimate, and if I take photos of things farther away I can frame photos to be more epic and larger than life.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *glennjamin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_DJ, 
 Keep the Nikon filter on, it's less expensive to replace than the front element. They are made to the same optical standards as the Nikon front element. Slight scratches are bad if you are picking up highlights or bright spots in the viewfinder, then those scratches will create flare and halos. If you had to replace, go with the HOYA Super Multi Coat in the Black Box. It's the BEST they make in terms of coatings, optics are the same. HOYA makes the glass stock for Leica....so you know it's great glass. I have a few years in the Photo Industry so I know a few things._

 

Thanks for the tip (although I asked that like ages ago, haha...)
 But since I am very careful person, I decided to just go bare without filter instead. I don't go to beaches or extreme places, so I think as long as I am careful, everything should be okay.

 So far the glass has accumulated only dust particles which I occasionally blow away using blower.


----------



## dj_mocok

Hey how come nobody bought D5000? Cmon.
 I wanna see some D5000 with beautiful results. (although I think image quality is pretty much the same as D90 and the likes)


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey how come nobody bought D5000? Cmon.
 I wanna see some D5000 with beautiful results. (although I think image quality is pretty much the same as D90 and the likes)_

 

Image quality?
 If you put up two pictures side by side, one from a D50 and one from a D300, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

 The lenses used on the other hand make a difference in image quality.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Image quality?
 If you put up two pictures side by side, one from a D50 and one from a D300, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

 The lenses used on the other hand make a difference in image quality._

 

This may be true, but only under optimal lighting conditions. 
.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Whoa, sooooooooooooooooooooo much gear...
 If I were going, it would be a camera and two lenses at the very most. One all purpose lens, and one fast one for people shots._

 

Unless it is completely impractical, I like to have all the gear with me that I think I'd like to use in a given instance. I ended up working at this meet, more than I figured I would, so the 60 micro and 10-20 barely left the bag, and the extra flash never did.

 Then again, I usually take 3 lenses (superwide, normal, tele) with me on hiking trips. I'd generally rather get the shot I want, than wonder what if.


----------



## dj_mocok

Funny thing is nowadays I carry my P&S more often than my DSLR.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I would say that is true as well. I try to have a P&S with me all the time.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Bringing every piece of equipment you own is a waste of effort and time.

 When my tele broke while I was out, and I was left with a 17-35, I still got every shot I wanted to get. I had to get a bit close at times, but I view that as a good thing. 

 If you need to carry more than 2 lenses you're doing it wrong.


----------



## h.rav

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Image quality?
 If you put up two pictures side by side, one from a D50 and one from a D300, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

 The lenses used on the other hand make a difference in image quality._

 

If you print them large enough, you will be able to find differences. But if printed in smaller sizes, you won't be able to differentiate them.

 Yes, IMO, good glasses make huge difference in IQ.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bringing every piece of equipment you own is a waste of effort and time.

 When my tele broke while I was out, and I was left with a 17-35, I still got every shot I wanted to get. I had to get a bit close at times, but I view that as a good thing. _

 

Yes, I can see the sense behind such an attitude: self-restriction as part of the art.


  Quote:


 _If you need to carry more than 2 lenses you're doing it wrong._ 
 

That's too dogmatic to me. You may have your attitude, but don't project it to others! Note: A closer perspective with a wide-angle or standard lense doesn't provide the reduction of depth of field looked for by many nor the tele-specific compression of depth. You simply give up some creative aspects by your minimalistic approach.
.


----------



## wilpower

just got that new 35mm 1.8 nikkor lens and love it on my d60. small compact and takes great pictures. allows me to do so much more with my camera than previously


----------



## ka-boom

Just sold my 18-200 VR on ebay in 24 minutes, wow. Makes me think I should have had a higher "buy it now" price.

 Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is on it's way.


----------



## vagarach

Just like 3 or so weeks after getting the 50mm 1.8 for my D50, the 35mm 1.8 comes out, and I'm still kicking myself 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. More FOV, no moving front element, and grab-to-MF. Granted, it costs $130 CDN more 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Still, the 50mm makes some absolutely stunning portraits, so it's all good, and hey it has all those cool focal length/aperture markings on it!


----------



## bigshot

I agree that carrying more than two lenses is a waste of time. If you are going to the mountains to shoot eagles, you know you need a long lens and a midrange zoom for landscapes. If you are shooting portraits, a midrange zoom and a fast prime. If you really don't know what you're going to be shooting well enough to know if you need a wide or a tele, you might as well carry something like the 18-200 and add a fast midrange prime for low light and cover all your bases.

 You don't get pictures by lugging a bunch of glass around- and you don't get many pictures changing your lens every few minutes.


----------



## bigshot

On DX, 50mm and 35mm are quite different. One is a portrait lens and the other is a normal prime.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ka-boom* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just sold my 18-200 VR on ebay in 24 minutes, wow. Makes me think I should have had a higher "buy it now" price.

 Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is on it's way. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You made a smart move there.


----------



## ka-boom

Yeah, Im hoping so. I couldn't stand to read more positive reviews of it.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

You shouldn't be disappointed, at least not optically.


----------



## Zodduska

I guess there is an iphone app that can be (or soon will be) used as a remote for Nikon DSLRs, sounds pretty cool.. Gizmodo - iPhone DSLR Camera Remote Coming To Nikon Users - Dslr remote


----------



## dissembled

A guy from POTN has supposedly researched the issue and concluded that the Sigma 50 1.4(NIKON mount) suffers from less front/back focusing issues than the one for the Canon mount. 

 Has there been rampant reports of AF troubles with the Nikon mount as well? 

 I plan to purchase the D700 soon enough to replace my 5D. Many thanks!


----------



## vagarach

Why not just get the Nikon 50mm 1.4D? The D700 has the motor to drive it; the 1.4D is cheaper, lighter, and smaller (52mm vs 77mm filter). Apart from relative softness wide open and less creamy bokeh, the Nikon is the better buy, and you don't have to deal with Sigma's qc problems.


----------



## bigshot

I have the Sigma 50 1.4 for my D200, and it focuses spot on every time. I think a lot of the problems people are having with focus is due to the narrow depth of field wide open. You can grab a focus using AF-S and take a breath and shift out of the proper focus plane. It's that sensitive.

 The Sigma is heavier, but it is sharper and has less vignetting wide open. Vignetting is an issue with the Nikon on FF. The new Nikon G has a bit of distortion, which is unusual for a normal prime. Both are excellent lenses, but the Sigma is a little bit better when it comes to image quality. The older Nikon 50 1.4 isn't in the same league. You need to stop it down more than the others to get sharp images.

 I wouldn't trade any of these for any other of them, but if you are choosing a 50 prime for the first time, you might as well get the Sigma.


----------



## dissembled

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vagarach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why not just get the Nikon 50mm 1.4D? The D700 has the motor to drive it; the 1.4D is cheaper, lighter, and smaller (52mm vs 77mm filter). Apart from relative softness wide open and less creamy bokeh, the Nikon is the better buy, and you don't have to deal with Sigma's qc problems._

 

I'm thinking of buying either the 50G or the Sigma 50/1.4. Both have pretty dreamy bokeh that I really, really, reaaaaly like. For me, creamy bokeh, sharpness and relatively fast/accurate AF speed are important characteristics I want to see in a lens. (In that specific order.)

 Though admittedly the 50G focuses relatively slowly. I do like that it focuses accurately, however.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dissembled* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For me, creamy bokeh, sharpness and relatively fast/accurate AF speed are important characteristics I want to see in a lens._

 

Bokeh: Sigma wins
 Sharpness: 1.4 to 2.8 Sigma wins 2.8 to 8 Nikon wins by a hair
 Fast AF: Sigma wins
 Accurate AF: Tie

 They're both good lenses.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

If you want a good reason to buy the Sigma 50 f/1.4 just look at the following thread: NikonCafe.com

 Of course the Nikon lens is smaller, if you prefer/need that. Or if you are just a Nikon>everything else type of snob. The 50 f/1.4g does have sharper corners when stopped down, according to the DP review tests.

 I'd personally go for the Sigma, because the main reason I'd want a 1.4 lens is to use it at 1.4. So give me the most sharpness, and best bokeh, please.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you want a good reason to buy the Sigma 50 f/1.4 just look at the following thread: NikonCafe.com

 Of course the Nikon lens is smaller, if you prefer/need that. Or if you are just a Nikon>everything else type of snob. The 50 f/1.4g does have sharper corners when stopped down, according to the DP review tests.

 I'd personally go for the Sigma, because the main reason I'd want a 1.4 lens is to use it at 1.4. So give me the most sharpness, and best bokeh, please._

 

Nikon > everything.


----------



## dj_mocok

If it was me, I would have a very hard time deciding between Nikon and Sigma 50mm 1.4.
 But then again if I were to spend that much money just for a 50mm, I'd most probably get a Carl Zeiss 50mm 1.4 MF.


----------



## Edwood

I have a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 that I'm pretty sure has the back focusing problem. It really pisses me off, it rarely focuses accurately, and hunts like crazy indoors. I absolutely hate it.

 I've gone back to shooting with the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8d. Despite it being not having ultrasonic motor, it focuses a lot faster since it doesn't hunt like crazy, and it focuses much much much much much much more accurately.

 I'd probably get the Nikkor 50mm F/1.4G based solely on my hating Sigma so far. 

 Then again, I'm about abandon buying anything more for Nikon...


----------



## dj_mocok

Are you switching format/brand?


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you switching format/brand?_

 

Yes and Yes. Probably maybe.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes and Yes. Probably maybe._

 

Now you are confusing me. Is it a probably yes, or is it a probably maybe a possibility?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 that I'm pretty sure has the back focusing problem. It really pisses me off, it rarely focuses accurately, and hunts like crazy indoors. I absolutely hate it._

 

In low light wide open, try setting your camera to AF-C instead of AF-S. I bet you'll get more "keepers" letting the lens find the focus.

 The problem is that wide apertures, like 1.4 have such a narrow sliver of focus that even taking a breath can shift to front or back focus. If you are like me, you brace yourself just before you squeeze the shutter release. This can move your focus plane enough to throw your focus off. I find that the Sigma 30 and 50 both find focus easily in AF-C with my D200. Trust "the force" and use continuous focus and see if it works better.


----------



## wanderman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_..._

 

Ed, I had a 40d and wanted to get that lens but I was worried about those issues. I sold my 40d and now have the 5d + 50 1.8 combo, which is the same price as the 40d + 30 1.4 combo. 1.8 on a full frame is stop wider than 1.4 on a crop, but I am managing.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Ed, I'll have to play with that 30 1.4 the next time I come by. Did your father ever have that problem when he owned the lens? It's strange, because the 30 1.4 is more known for front-focusing out of the box.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ed, I had a 40d and wanted to get that lens but I was worried about those issues. I sold my 40d and now have the 5d + 50 1.8 combo, which is the same price as the 40d + 30 1.4 combo. 1.8 on a full frame is stop wider than 1.4 on a crop, but I am managing._

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "a stop wider than 1.4 on a crop." Aperture isn't affected by crop factor, and f/1.8 is not a full stop slower than f/1.4.


----------



## wanderman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure what you mean by "a stop wider than 1.4 on a crop." Aperture isn't affected by crop factor, and f/1.8 is not a full stop slower than f/1.4._

 

aperture IS affected by crop factor.Crop bodies don't have equivalent dof if you just match the framing based on focal length alone. It is super obvious when you start shooting with a full frame body.

 5D, 105mm f/2.8.........vs........40D, 60mm, f/2.8...




DoF calculator 

 30mm 1.4 full frame equivalent would be 48mm 2.24, so I did my math wrong. It would only be a 3/5's of a stop faster. Aperture and focal length are both subject to the crop factor.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_aperture IS affected by crop factor.Crop bodies don't have equivalent dof if you just match the framing based on focal length alone. It is super obvious when you start shooting with a full frame body.

 It would only be a 3/5's of a stop faster. Aperture and focal length are both subject to the crop factor._

 

Let's get something straight, aperture and focal length are neither affected by crop factor. They just are what they are.

 In applications, if it's DOF you are concerned about, then different film/sensor sizes give different results.


----------



## wanderman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Let's get something straight, aperture and focal length are neither affected by crop factor. They just are what they are.

 In applications, if it's DOF you are concerned about, then different film/sensor sizes give different results._

 

thanks I always get my vocabulary confused. crop factors change angle of view and depth of field.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In low light wide open, try setting your camera to AF-C instead of AF-S. I bet you'll get more "keepers" letting the lens find the focus.

 The problem is that wide apertures, like 1.4 have such a narrow sliver of focus that even taking a breath can shift to front or back focus. If you are like me, you brace yourself just before you squeeze the shutter release. This can move your focus plane enough to throw your focus off. I find that the Sigma 30 and 50 both find focus easily in AF-C with my D200. Trust "the force" and use continuous focus and see if it works better._

 

Not to sound contrary, but if he is not having trouble with the 50mm F/1.8, I doubt it's a problem with him moving since the DOF of a 50mm F/1.8 is going to be as tight as a 30mm F/1.4. Probably just that the sigma is a POS.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Probably just that the sigma *needs adjustment*_

 

Fixed it for ya!

 Glad I'm not stuck taking pics with only Nikon lenses. I have f/2.8 normal zooms for my DX and film cams that cost me a total of $380. And a lens covering the 70-200mm f/2.8 equivalent on DX, at half the weight. And I could go on.


----------



## wanderman

the sigma 50mm 1.4 is sharper than the sharpest canon and nikon copies


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not to sound contrary, but if he is not having trouble with the 50mm F/1.8, I doubt it's a problem with him moving since the DOF of a 50mm F/1.8 is going to be as tight as a 30mm F/1.4. Probably just that the sigma is a POS._

 

The reason I suspect that the problem may be with technique is that I have both the Sigma 30 and the Sigma 50 and they are great lenses and focus perfectly if used with the proper technique. If you don't use AF-C, there is a very good chance that you would end up with images exactly like the ones he is describing. The Sigma focuses faster than the new Nikon, so AF-C is more useful on the Sigma.

 The Nikon is lighter weight and cheaper. The Sigma is sharper wide open, more solidly built and focuses faster. Whether or not the advantage of the Sigma is worth the difference in price is up to the individual, but Sigma lenses are far from being POS. I have Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses and they all perform as well or better in the attributes that matter to me than the Nikon. Nikon's big advantage is in VR in longer lenses. Third party VR isn't as good.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The reason I suspect that the problem may be with technique is that I have both the Sigma 30 and the Sigma 50 and they are great lenses and focus perfectly if used with the proper technique. If you don't use AF-C, there is a very good chance that you would end up with images exactly like the ones he is describing. The Sigma focuses faster than the new Nikon, so AF-C is more useful on the Sigma._

 

I still have my doubts, but your point is well taken.
  Quote:


 but Sigma lenses are far from being POS. 
 

Yup, I know. I don't care for them, but there are some who do.... so for them they are certainly not a POS.


----------



## dj_mocok

** cough ** ni..kon ** snob.. *** cough ****

 Calling Sigma lenses in general POS is the same as calling all catholic priests boylovers. Heck I don't even own a Sigma but I bet you it can still produce excellent images ESPECIALLY in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. 

 It reminds me when I went to the Photo Show last week. This smarty looking dude was asking for a 70-200mm VR lens to try out and acted as if he knew his sh1t. 
 Guess what, he put the lens on his DSLR, snapped some pictures (I assume it's under retard mode since the flash popped out and flashed), looked at the LCD, and sort of making this "yeah nice, nice" gesture. Yea right you can tell that much from shooting auto and viewing it from the back of your LCD (not even magnifying it). Geez.
 After that a smarty looking kid came in, asked to have a look at 200mm f/2.8 VR, again, attached it to his cam, snapped some pictures (handheld by his shaky skinny arms), looked at the back of the LCD, and made this sort of look as if he knew what he was doing. And his made was too busy taking pictures of him snapping with a 200mm VR. I guess that's to show that he handled the lens before so he can start bragging in the forum about how he got experience with the lens and yada yada yada... goddarn it.

 By the way I was queuing there to try my Ais lens with a D700. It was awesome. And I also made the sort of as if I knew what I was doing look just to blend in. hehe...
 They also had three Nikon bazookas style lens (I don't know which particular lenses those were) attached on D3s for people to try out. I made a mistake of too lazy to queue up to try. I should've because that was probably the only time I could try those lenses that cost more than car. And at least if I queued up and tried it for a few seconds, I could start writing my review for those lenses like what Ken Rockwell did.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_After that a smarty looking kid came in, asked to have a look at 200mm f/2.8 VR, again, attached it to his cam, snapped some pictures (handheld by his shaky skinny arms),_

 

They should try the Sigma 200-500 2.8

http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_file...00-500_2-8.jpg






 That's really the price of a car and for body builders.


----------



## dj_mocok

That thing looks more like an industrial sized pipe than a lens to me. It would be funny to see it hanging on a neck strap.

 By the way I am contemplating to get a Nikon 50mm 1.2...
 Too bad it's a bit expensive now. I should've bought it before this whole price increase happened.

 But maybe it's better to save up some money and get whatever the D700 replacement is...


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_** cough ** ni..kon ** snob.. *** cough ****_

 

** cough ** And proud of it *** cough ****



 Gotta have a little fun in life, ea?


----------



## bigshot

I used to have a manual focus Nikon 50mm 1.2 and the contrast went all milky wide open. Lots of flare problems too. The Nikon 1.4 was much better at 1.4, and the Sigma is even a little better than that. If you really need the extra speed, I suppose the 1.2 is OK, but personally, I don't see the point in a fast lens that has to be stopped down to look good. I sold mine.


----------



## dj_mocok

Should've sold it to me, haha...

 No really I saw some pretty interesting shots posted by the owners, but yeah for portrait maybe it is not an effect that you want to do for all your portraits, but it's a great still objects lens.


----------



## wanderman

have you tried the nikkor 58mm 1.2. I love that lens. It is super easy to blur stuff out with that for portraits.


----------



## vagarach

It also costs an arm and a leg! I read on Ken Rockwell that it also has some specialised scientific applications, which is pretty cool.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_have you tried the nikkor 58mm 1.2. I love that lens. It is super easy to blur stuff out with that for portraits._

 

It would help to be on full frame also


----------



## Hayduke

I'm in the market for a wide zoom. Of course, I'll be using it for plenty of landscape shots as that's most of my photography, but I also want to take interiors of buildings/rooms. So I'm kind of the mind of, "as wide as possible". That being said, I'd like your opinions of the various wide zooms. Keep in mind this will be on a APS-C sensored D80, and I don't intend to go to full frame anytime soon, if ever.

 I was pretty decided on the Nikon 10-24. The few reviews out there so far are pretty favorable, but I want to at least consider some of the 3rd party lenses. The others that I'm considering are the Sigma 10-20 or the Tamron 10-24. I've ruled out the Tokina because it only goes to 11mm and it has a very small range.

 I made $100 shooting pictures of a hotel. They liked the pictures I was able take using my 18mm lens. I suspect I could produce some better images with a wider angle lens. The company that owns this hotel has 10 properties around the Southwest. I think I can swing a deal to visit each property and take photos for them. So if I can get them to pay me ~$100 + travel for each hotel, the lens can pay for itself (even the Nikon).

 So should I get the Nikon lens or should I get the Sigma or Tamron and put the $$ saved towards a macro lens (the 105 VR is what I have my eye on)?


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm in the market for a wide zoom. Of course, I'll be using it for plenty of landscape shots as that's most of my photography, but I also want to take interiors of buildings/rooms. So I'm kind of the mind of, "as wide as possible". That being said, I'd like your opinions of the various wide zooms. Keep in mind this will be on a APS-C sensored D80, and I don't intend to go to full frame anytime soon, if ever.

 I was pretty decided on the Nikon 10-24. The few reviews out there so far are pretty favorable, but I want to at least consider some of the 3rd party lenses. The others that I'm considering are the Sigma 10-20 or the Tamron 10-24. I've ruled out the Tokina because it only goes to 11mm and it has a very small range.

 I made $100 shooting pictures of a hotel. They liked the pictures I was able take using my 18mm lens. I suspect I could produce some better images with a wider angle lens. The company that owns this hotel has 10 properties around the Southwest. I think I can swing a deal to visit each property and take photos for them. So if I can get them to pay me ~$100 + travel for each hotel, the lens can pay for itself (even the Nikon).

 So should I get the Nikon lens or should I get the Sigma or Tamron and put the $$ saved towards a macro lens (the 105 VR is what I have my eye on)?_

 

I would rule out the Tamron 10-24, as it is reportedly soft at most apertures. I'm also not particularly fond of the build quality of Tamron lenses in general, but perhaps I'm just a bit too anal. 

 I've found Nikon's DX wide angle zooms overpriced considering their maximum apertures, build quality and the competition. Personally, I would question the value of buying Nikon's ultrawide over Sigma's 10-20, even if you get paid to take shots with the lens.


----------



## wanderman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vagarach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It also costs an arm and a leg! I read on Ken Rockwell that it also has some specialised scientific applications, which is pretty cool._

 

sorry I meant rokkor. IIRC it was 350 bucks. This lens is the reason I am OBSESSED with wide apertures. You can find this lens on ebay with a nikon or canon mount. It has a super solid feel and it is all manual. This lens was impossible for me to focus because I don't have the precision screen, but liveview saved me.





 I apologize for the canon graffiti :[


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Grrr.....D700 lust plagues me these days....I never should have played with one.

 Selling my DX gear would basically cover it, though.

 I'd be left with these lenses:
 Nikkor 28-105D f/3.5-4.5
 Nikkor 60D micro f/2.8
 Nikkor 70-300 VR f/4.5-5.6
 Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 EX

 I've been using the 70-300vr most of the time these days, and the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 has only been coming out for indoor events, i.e. rarely. Other than that loss of speed in the tele section, I'd just need to pick up something wider than 24mm for landscapes (thinking Sigma 12-24).

 I guess more than anything, I am held back by the insane depreciation of DSLR bodies. I really don't want to spend $2k on a body, to have it be worth $800 in a year or so. Then again, looking at the way resale values on the original 5D have held up, maybe I don't have so much to worry about.


----------



## wanderman

what what your widest lens on your dx body. 24mm on a full frame is really wide.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Currently, I use the Sigma 10-20, and I do find times where the diffence between having 10mm vs. 12mm can make or break the shot. I realize how wide 24mm is on full-frame, I use it on my N80. However, I do find places where I need wider.


----------



## dj_mocok

I want a D700. 
 I really shouldn't have tried that cursed thing. 
 Too many hobbies. If I get a camera, then I can't get a watch anymore. But if I get the watch that I like, I can't possibly get a camera anymore. 
 But I still like my S5Pro very very much though. I am just thrilled with the idea that most of my lenses will be normal again with full frame D700. I'm so glad that my headphones hobby is already finalised and very happy with what I have or else I will have to consider another thing.


----------



## Braver

Just sit it out for a year and take advantage of that depreciation. Buying new pro bodies without being a pro just doesn't make financial sense.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I guess more than anything, I am held back by the insane depreciation of DSLR bodies. I really don't want to spend $2k on a body, to have it be worth $800 in a year or so. Then again, looking at the way resale values on the original 5D have held up, maybe I don't have so much to worry about._

 

Yeah these full frame bodys don't depreciate much. Nikon doesn't have many so there's no competition there unlike Canon 1DS, 1DS II, 1DS III and 5D.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I want a D700. 

 I'm so glad that my headphones hobby is already finalised and very happy with what I have or else I will have to consider another thing._

 

LOL. That's true. I've been done here for quite a while also. Going outside and taking photos is the opposite of staying indoors and listening to music. I like using my speakers now also. It's too hot in the summer to wear headphones. 

 Unfortunately for my wallet, I like using a bunch things for different purposes. So 1 camera is not enough. :/ I must be the only person here who's sold his D700. LOL. If I had one camera, that would be it but I don't so it became of limited use. I much prefer the added resolution of the 5D II.

 I'm more of a telephoto person anyhow.


----------



## bigshot

For a DX ultrawide, I have the Tokina 11-16. It's great for interior low light shooting because the distortion is very correctable in post, and the fast 2.8 aperture makes it possible to hand hold, even at night. It's a great lens, but it is often sold out. The best way to get one is to put in an order at one of the big camera dealers and be put on the list. They usually are shipped the first week of the month.

 I have no problem with the gap between 16mm and the 17mm of my Tamron 17-50 2.8. The faster f stop of the Tokina more than makes up for the narrower range of focal lengths.


----------



## dj_mocok

I wonder when the D800 will be released? I think I might just skip the D700 and just get whatever the real successor of D700 is (not D700x).
 D700 has been out for a year, I don't want to kick myself for buying a D700 now and find out in 8 months time that a D800 is out.


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wonder when the D800 will be released? I think I might just skip the D700 and just get whatever the real successor of D700 is (not D700x).
 D700 has been out for a year, I don't want to kick myself for buying a D700 now and find out in 8 months time that a D800 is out._

 

I think at the soonest it would be 12 months and not 8 months. But the way the world economy is right now can change all that- slower sales.


----------



## lan

What if they just add video to the D700?


----------



## dj_mocok

I want a D800 with a viewfinder as big as D3 (and D4 will have even bigger viewfinder).
 Apart from that maybe one more stop of usable ISO, and maybe 3.5" LCD.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Is it sheer size, or 100% you're after? The latter would be the most sought-after for me.

 I'm not sure if ISO performance will really improve that much over the D3/D700. MAYBE, but it would likely be in the increased-NR way the D300 improved over the D200. I'm not a fan of NR in general, and to me increased NR does not constitute better ISO performance. Lower A/D or amp noise are more what I'd be looking for. Will it happen, who knows?


----------



## dj_mocok

Size. I dont mind 96-98% coverage.


----------



## bigshot

I'm headed the other direction. My D200 is great, but it is too klunky to carry around everywhere with me. I'm thinking about a D50 or D80 that I can use all my DX lenses on that won't be as heavy and big.


----------



## Sherwood

Any reason you're not interested in the D90, Bigshot? 3rd generation sensor is a nice piece of kit, even if no one will ever use the video feature.


----------



## bigshot

I'm looking for a body I can find used for $200 or less. It's going to be a second camera. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I dug this up and I'm getting ready to put it into action...


----------



## Sherwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm looking for a body I can find used for $200 or less. It's going to be a second camera._

 

Fair enough. My D90 was $50, but I don't expect anyone else to stumble upon that deal any time soon.


----------



## wanderman

$50... you forgot to include the price of the gun


----------



## Sherwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_$50... you forgot to include the price of the gun _

 

That's a sunk cost.

 Actually, the dude dropped it in a pool and sold it to me as a movie prop. A little DI water (and a fresh lens) and it works beautifully.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Eh...I went ahead and did it. D700 incoming Monday. $2325 shipped after eBay coupon, Bing Cashback, and Chase Rewards; from Cameta with the MB-D10 and extra battery.

 DX gear will be going bye-bye. Not that it is exactly gaining in value anyway. After re-reading Thom Hogan's D3x review, I became pretty convinced that the D700x (or whatever it will be) would end up needing a level of lens quality I won't soon be able to afford.


----------



## bigshot

This hobby is pretty strange. I just picked up this lens for under $100...






 It's the equivalent of an 85mm portrait lens. It goes with the Mamiya RB67 above which sells for around $400 with a normal lens... except instead of 12 megapixels with a DSLR, it's the equivalent of 120 megapixels. Absolutely no distortion, beautiful bokeh, built to last for a hundred years and sharp as a tack.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Eh...I went ahead and did it. D700 incoming Monday.

 I became pretty convinced that the D700x (or whatever it will be) would end up needing a level of lens quality I won't soon be able to afford._

 

Congrats. What was the deciding factors of a new body instead of lenses with that $?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This hobby is pretty strange. I just picked up this lens for under $100...

 It's the equivalent of an 85mm portrait lens. It goes with the Mamiya RB67 above which sells for around $400 with a normal lens... except instead of 12 megapixels with a DSLR, it's the equivalent of 120 megapixels. Absolutely no distortion, beautiful bokeh, built to last for a hundred years and sharp as a tack._

 

Will you be content with prints, or have you thought of a nice way to digitize them as well?

 In the past I have not had much luck with scanning prints, but then again I never had expensive gear.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Congrats. What was the deciding factors of a new body instead of lenses with that $?_

 

Well, essentially the fact that it is mostly recycled $ anyway. I'm not increasing my overall investment level in camera gear by much (about $300 or so), so it wouldn't have gone too far into another lens anyway.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* 
_In the past I have not had much luck with scanning prints, but then again I never had expensive gear._

 

If you have scans done by a pro lab, I have seen some very impressive results. And you need not use the expensive drum scanning method that would potentially yield a 100mp image. Since I don't think I'll be developing my own film any time soon, having the film developed and scanned at the same time is quite convenient.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, essentially the fact that it is mostly recycled $ anyway. I'm not increasing my overall investment level in camera gear by much (about $300 or so), so it wouldn't have gone too far into another lens anyway._

 

Ah ok. Buy and sell hehe. I was considering getting a medium format and back also (but a digital one). I'd have to sell a bit of stuff though. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I love those viewfinders. I just don't even try and look into one of those.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Will you be content with prints, or have you thought of a nice way to digitize them as well?_

 

I plan to get the negs scanned at the lab.


----------



## OverlordXenu

bigshot, please, don't do lab scans if you can help it. I do, and they're not that great. Even NCPS scans.

 Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED <3.


----------



## vagarach

So if this info is to be trusted, there's a new 17-65mm f3.2-4 DX lens coming out in August! 

 I wonder if the little extra zoom will be worth it over the standard 18-55mm kit lens, though this one is f4 at its slowest, which is rather nice. It's a fat lens though, 72mm filter size. Maybe I should just buy another kit lens to replace my broken one, there's no chance this new lens will be less than $200 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I think that list sounds rather ridiculous, as do the focal lengths of more than a few of the proposed lenses. I could be wrong, but am quite suspecting that I am not.


----------



## DaMavs

Most people seem to think it's someone's "wish list" rather than anything real from Nikon. Some interesting lenses on there though if they were true...


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I think the biggest tip-off that this is not real is the sheer number of lenses, way more than Nikon generally releases per year. Considering that they are not that large a company, it is hard to conceive that they would upgrade their production capabilities to drastically, during an economic recession. Of course economics haven't stopped them from drastically increasing their prices, so who knows, eh?


----------



## JaZZ

In this context I somehow doubt the release of the AF-S DX 17-65/3.2-4 G VR. It would certainly compete against the not-so-old 16-85 VR. But who knows.

 I'm in the process of evaluating a new wide-angle zoom. I've sold my Tokina 12-24 to my son and am now eyeing the new Sigma 10-20/3.5. Maybe I'll go for the old version if the optical improvements aren't worth the higher price. 

 Has the new lens already been tested anywhere?
.


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Eh...I went ahead and did it. D700 incoming Monday. ... <snip>_

 

Congrats, Peter ... never know when that iso 6400 will come in handy.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agile_one* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Congrats, Peter ... never know when that iso 6400 will come in handy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

Yeah, coulda used it at CJ'09, no doubt!


----------



## wanderman

forget 6400. 25600 with some fast 1.2 glass and you can suck light out of a black hole.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Noise.


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Eh...I went ahead and did it. D700 incoming Monday. $2325 shipped after eBay coupon, Bing Cashback, and Chase Rewards; from Cameta with the MB-D10 and extra battery...._

 

Congratulations, Peter! Philip O'Hanlon let me play with his D700 at AKFest, and the big, bright viewfinder was awesome. The full-size sensor is something I'll eventually go to (I'm using the D300 now)--I'm sure you'll make great use of that performance boost. Good call on the MB-D10--I use that, too, and love it. I tried taking it off recently to shave some weight, but went right back to it (after just a day with it off), as the vertical shooting controls are handy, and, of course, the added surface area makes the camera so much easier to grip and handle.

 D700....dreamy, man. Enjoy, and please share your first shots with us (like I had to request that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




).


----------



## wanderman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Noise._

 

if it is between noise and not getting a shot, I will take the noise. Shooting raw and the dfine plugin makes noise super easy to deal with.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

It's here!







 I've only taken some test shots with my various lenses so far. Nothing worth posting except for pixel peepers. The 70-300vr is wickedly sharp, even wide open at 300mm (it's supposedly weak point).


----------



## Zodduska

Awesome! Congrats Iron_Dreamer.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's here!
_

 

I'm curious, why the tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 instead of the nikon 17-35mm F/2.8?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm curious, why the tamron 17-35mm F/2.8-4 instead of the nikon 17-35mm F/2.8?_

 

It's MUCH cheaper.

 I'm not so hot with the Tamron though. :/ But I don't shoot much wide angle so I'm fine with that.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's MUCH cheaper.

 I'm not so hot with the Tamron though. :/ But I don't shoot much wide angle so I'm fine with that._

 

I had a hunch that was the case.......


 For some reason though, I have it drilled into my mind that if someone buys a D700, they are going to get equally nice lenses to go with it.


----------



## lan

I'd probably be interested in 14-24 more than 17-35 though. 17-35 was ok at it's old price but now? No way.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

It was essentially because I need a lens wider than 24mm, and the Tamron was the best-regarded of the readily available, non-expensive options. $250 shipped, with a $10 rebate is less than I paid for any of my DX lenses, by far, and less than it is selling for on most photo forums.

 Why not the Nikon 17-35? Well aside from its' ridiculously inflated price recently, it isn't even the best ultrawide Nikon sells anymore. If I'm paying the premium for a high-end Nikkor, I'm going to make sure I get the best, the 14-24.

 Anyway, here are a few shots I got at a local lake after work today. First two are with the Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5, the latter with the Tamron.
















 Whether it is a weaker anti-aliasing filter, lower pixel density, or just plain better sensor technology, I am amazed at how much sharper the files (RAW) are coming out of the 700, compared to the 200. I am comparing shots using the same lens, and same RAW converter (ACR 5.4). Go figure.

 There definitely are a lot of small nicities on the 700 that add up to a more pleasant photographic experience. Live view came in handy a few times near the ground. I definitely like having the built-in viewfinder shutter, and the multi-controller on the MB-D10 is a godsend.

 Funny though, that the change I am having the hardest time getting used to is the CF card slot, I keep looking for the release slider from the 200!


----------



## fureshi

iron dreamer and jude, is there a reason why you didn't get the D3 instead? it seems like the D700 and MB-D10 is pretty much the same size as a D3, minus a few thousand dollars and a few features.


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_....For some reason though, I have it drilled into my mind that if someone buys a D700, they are going to get equally nice lenses to go with it._

 

Budget, man--that's probably why. I want the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 to go with my 24-70mm f/2.8, but I don't have the other two yet, because, well, we're talking a king's ransom, man.

 Until Iron_Dreamer picked up his D700, it might be said I had a nicer camera and lens combination than he did (between 24-70mm anyway), yet he consistently produced better photos than I ever have. He now has what most would call a far nicer tool with the D700 than he had before, and, from what I've seen from him, I'm sure he'll exploit the body and lenses he has to make it a very worthwhile pickup.

 I've got improvements to make to my camera setup, too--unfortunately, all of the improvements I need to make are to what's behind the viewfinder, whereas Iron_Dreamer seems to have that part pretty well covered.

 Peter, I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with this new stuff, man.


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_iron dreamer and jude, is there a reason why you didn't get the D3 instead? it seems like the D700 and MB-D10 is pretty much the same size as a D3, minus a few thousand dollars and a few features._

 

Because the D3 doesn't have a sensor-shaker thingamabob? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Or was it that "few thousand dollars" bit?

 (Of course, I'd love to have a D3, man.)

 Read my last post (which I was probably posting as you posted yours), and that should answer the question.

 (I have a D300, by the way.)


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_iron dreamer and jude, is there a reason why you didn't get the D3 instead? it seems like the D700 and MB-D10 is pretty much the same size as a D3, minus a few thousand dollars and a few features._

 

Well, the extra price just wasn't in the cards for me at this point, and realistically, the benefits of the D3 wouldn't have made much a difference to me. The only one I'd really want is the 100% viewfinder.

 Plus the D700/MB-D10 has the flexibility of being two parts, so I can have a smaller or larger setup, depending on where I'm going. I don't know that I'd want a fixed pro-size body as my only DSLR.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Peter, I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with this new stuff, man._

 

Just more of the same, hopefully better, though. I already know that this camera is a boon to handheld and windy macro shooting, the high ISO and FPS let me get shots I'd never get with the D200.

 Want to feel worse about your photographic skills? Just cruise the photo fora at Fred Miranda. That always sets me back a level or two. No matter how skilled you might be, there is always someone more clever.

 So I just have fun with it. I get as much enjoyment out of just being out shooting the pictures, as I do viewing/editing them. I think it is the application of creative energy that does it for me. And to think, most of my life, I had thought myself to be a completely non-creative person


----------



## mightyacorn

Iron Dreamer, don't worry about people questioning your lens choice, we're just jealous.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mightyacorn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Iron Dreamer, don't worry about people questioning your lens choice, we're just jealous._

 

Speak for yourself, my D50 is the cat's meow!
 ^_^


----------



## OverlordXenu

I would rather have a nicer lens for a FF. At the very least, constant-aperture.


----------



## l1f35ux

Hi guys, I'm pretty new for DSLRs, and I'm thinking if getting a d90 in next month. I noticed that it has been a while since the d90 first came out, so my question is that should I get d90 next month, or wait for the new model. However, many of you guys would say that camera is a piece of technology, and the next model will come out anyway. So what I'm trying to say here is that I am not in a rush to get d90. Sorry if my English is confusing.


----------



## OverlordXenu

D40.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_D40._

 

Not necessarily; I think your post could use some further explanation... 

 @l1f35ux: I seriously wouldn't worry about a new model Nikon replacing the D90. The faster you purchase a camera, the faster you can start taking pictures and improving your composition skills. Regardless, you don't need the latest technology or the fanciest lens to capture great images.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, the extra price just wasn't in the cards for me at this point, and realistically, the benefits of the D3 wouldn't have made much a difference to me. The only one I'd really want is the 100% viewfinder.

 Plus the D700/MB-D10 has the flexibility of being two parts, so I can have a smaller or larger setup, depending on where I'm going. I don't know that I'd want a fixed pro-size body as my only DSLR.



 Just more of the same, hopefully better, though. I already know that this camera is a boon to handheld and windy macro shooting, the high ISO and FPS let me get shots I'd never get with the D200.

 Want to feel worse about your photographic skills? Just cruise the photo fora at Fred Miranda. That always sets me back a level or two. No matter how skilled you might be, there is always someone more clever.

 So I just have fun with it. I get as much enjoyment out of just being out shooting the pictures, as I do viewing/editing them. I think it is the application of creative energy that does it for me. And to think, most of my life, I had thought myself to be a completely non-creative person 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Grats on the new body! I'm jealous 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Have you noticed any falloff towards the edges with the full frame?

 I forget where, but I was reading someone's page that said full size sensors have a problem related to the angle the light hits the sensor. Basically, the film chemicals are right at the surface of the "sensor", but with a digital sensor, the actual sites where the photons are collected are at the bottom of tiny little buckets. Due to the sharp angle the light hits the sensor, the buckets at the edges of the sensor will not collect as much light as those in the center of the sensor. They had me convinced until I saw your shot with the D700. I had been planning to upgrade to a full size sensor at some point, but that article made me consider sticking to the DX sensor. Have you noticed any fallout?

 Even if you have noticed the falloff towards the edges, I'm jealous 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I've started to adjust to the focal lengths of my DSLR vs those of my old 35mm film camera, but it's kinda weird, the old length seem "normal" to me. These new focal length seem convoluted 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *l1f35ux* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi guys, I'm pretty new for DSLRs, and I'm thinking if getting a d90 in next month. I noticed that it has been a while since the d90 first came out, so my question is that should I get d90 next month, or wait for the new model. However, many of you guys would say that camera is a piece of technology, and the next model will come out anyway. So what I'm trying to say here is that I am not in a rush to get d90. Sorry if my English is confusing._

 

Get the D90 if you think it is what you "need:. I bought my D80 about 2 months before the D90 was released. I might have been able to save a little $$ after the D90 was released, but I wouldn't have bought a D90 at the time. For a little while I regretted buying when I did, but it didn't last long. I'm completely happy with my purchase. Especially if you're new to DSLRs, you will learn soooo much with your first body, that it really won't matter.

 It gets said often, but it could be said more and still be true...
 The photographer matters more then the gear.


----------



## l1f35ux

Thanks for the advices guys. I really appreciate it


----------



## vagarach

I think when you focus too much on researching DSLRs, you start looking at them like any other consumer electronic device. Suddenly you start thinking "oh, that has a brighter viewfinder, and oh! this one is lighter, and it does HD! VIDEO!" and wonder if spending an extra $500 is worth it for x more features.

 Regardless of the trick program modes and other such magic, these cameras still just take pictures, and the F mount will be around for quite a while longer 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would rather have a nicer lens for a FF. At the very least, constant-aperture._

 

Sure, I'd love to have the 14-24/24-70/70-200 setup. Along with plenty of other stuff....you wanna help 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you noticed any falloff towards the edges with the full frame?_

 

Not any more than I expected. I think using FX lenses on DX bodies have spoiled people a bit as it regards falloff/vignetting. But as my DX lenses go, they all have some noticeable falloff wide-open on the D200, as is true for FX lenses on the D700. And of course wides are worse than telephotos. But when using f/8-f/11 on DX, and f/11-f/16 on FX, as I do for a lot of photos, falloff just doesn't come into play much.

 I don't find it to be an enormous issue. Falloff is more noticeable on my Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 at 24mm f/2.8, but for the size of the lens, I can live with it. At smaller apertures, and longer focal lengths, it's a non-issue.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *l1f35ux* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi guys, I'm pretty new for DSLRs, and I'm thinking if getting a d90 in next month. I noticed that it has been a while since the d90 first came out, so my question is that should I get d90 next month, or wait for the new model. However, many of you guys would say that camera is a piece of technology, and the next model will come out anyway. So what I'm trying to say here is that I am not in a rush to get d90. Sorry if my English is confusing._

 

Color me skeptical that the next DX camera will be THAT much better than the D90. Canon has already shown the IQ issues of cramming 15mp into a DX body with the 50D. Maybe Nikon can pull it off, but who knows.

 The D5000/D90/D300 all look to have very similar IQ, so it comes down mostly to features/size. The D5000 is at a very nice price/performance point, if you don't mind losing AF on non-motor-driven lenses.

 The D40 is also a great camera, if you can live with its' limitations (mostly AF related). It has the best IQ of all the Nikon 6MP cams, and is very small/portable, and goes for some crazy prices lightly used these days.


----------



## OverlordXenu

If you're just starting with photography, it is asinine to get something amazing. I think you should learn with something like the D40 first, until you can actually appreciate and use the extra capabilities of something like the D90.


----------



## wanderman

I would never suggest a d40/d60 because of the annoying cost and limitations associated with lenses. Get a d80/xti/xsi. 

 @irondreamer get a 50 1.8 or 1.4 cheap fast glass.


----------



## Sherwood

I started on a D40 and loved it. There's something to be said about an autofocus body, but between the 18-55, the 55-200, and the 35 f/1.8 there are plenty of excellent, affordable VR lenses that make the d40 plenty worthwhile. Non-VR lenses continue to become obsolete, looking at Nikon's product line, so buying a camera just to accomodate their increasing obsolescence seems like a bad value to me. That's just me, though, saying you can take some really great pictures with the d40, and really hone your skills. In 4 years both bodies will be worthless.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you're just starting with photography, it is asinine to get something amazing. I think you should learn with something like the D40 first, until you can actually appreciate and use the extra capabilities of something like the D90._

 

From a technical perspective, the capabilities of both models are roughly equal. The only area in which the D90 really succeeds the D40 is in auto-focus, as the D90 offers both an in-built focus motor and a rather complex AF system to back it up. 

 Considering that the higher level Nikon has an LCD of unbelievable quality, improved high-ISO performance, and the ability to use cheaper, decades old AF lenses that rival the performance of AF-S ones today, I'd hardly consider the D90 an "asinine" purchase.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you're just starting with photography, it is asinine to get something amazing. I think you should learn with something like the D40 first, until you can actually appreciate and use the extra capabilities of something like the D90._

 

Oh, how wrong you are.

 You need to reword that statement to say that it was asinine for you to get something amazing.

 Other people are more than capable of handling a D90 as their first DSLR. Myself included.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *l1f35ux* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi guys, I'm pretty new for DSLRs, and I'm thinking if getting a d90 in next month. I noticed that it has been a while since the d90 first came out, so my question is that should I get d90 next month, or wait for the new model. However, many of you guys would say that camera is a piece of technology, and the next model will come out anyway. So what I'm trying to say here is that I am not in a rush to get d90. Sorry if my English is confusing._

 

The D90 is the cat's ass as far as cameras go. Who cares what comes out later.
 Get it, love it, and enjoy the pictures you take. Plus, think of how much extra fun you'll have with that nice D90 compared to waiting for it's successor to come out some day. After all, that's why you're thinking of getting a DSLR, right? To enjoy photography.


----------



## Sherwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D90 is the cat's ass as far as cameras go._

 

That sounds simply awful


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sherwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That sounds simply awful_

 

LOL. I've never heard that expression myself.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_@irondreamer get a 50 1.8 or 1.4 cheap fast glass._

 

Yeah, that is definitely my next stop. Just out shooting the other day, I realized what convenient focal ranges the 17-35 and 70-300 cover on FX. A 50mm would bridge the gap perfectly. I'll probably go for the 50 1.8 as the value and size is undeniable. The Sigma 50 1.4 has a ton of sex appeal, but is a bit huge. I think I'd only pursue it if I find myself using the 50 1.8 a ton and really enjoying it.


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, the extra price just wasn't in the cards for me at this point, and realistically, the benefits of the D3 wouldn't have made much a difference to me. The only one I'd really want is the 100% viewfinder.

 Plus the D700/MB-D10 has the flexibility of being two parts, so I can have a smaller or larger setup, depending on where I'm going. I don't know that I'd want a fixed pro-size body as my only DSLR.



 Just more of the same, hopefully better, though. I already know that this camera is a boon to handheld and windy macro shooting, the high ISO and FPS let me get shots I'd never get with the D200.

 Want to feel worse about your photographic skills? Just cruise the photo fora at Fred Miranda. That always sets me back a level or two. No matter how skilled you might be, there is always someone more clever.

 So I just have fun with it. I get as much enjoyment out of just being out shooting the pictures, as I do viewing/editing them. I think it is the application of creative energy that does it for me. And to think, most of my life, I had thought myself to be a completely non-creative person 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

i figured that price was the main reason why you and jude didn't get the D3. i would do the same thing also. your comments about the mb-d10 are interesting however. i've never tried the mb-d10 on my D300 so i'll have to consider it. it would certainly be more convenient to have the extra battery life and buttons on the side for when i take vertical shots.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Yeah, for me it is a combination of the shutter button, and the improved handling. I have big hands, so my pinky tends to spill off the bottom of a non-gripped camera, whereas with the grip, I get, well, a better grip! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The MB-D10 is much nicer than the MB-D200, as being made of magnesium rather than plastic makes it feel much higher quality. Also the screw mechanism for attaching it does not protrude as far out into the front grip area, making it more ergonomic to hold in the vertical position.


----------



## dj_mocok

So Irondreamer, how is that D700 going so far? Bad news for me, looks like I might have to cancel the plan to get D700 straight away now because for some brain-snap stupid reason I went to play blackjack last week and lost a lot. So have to build up my saving again. That means I'll probably just get a camera sometime next year. Maybe the D700s or D800 or whatever it is if there's any at all. 
 I hope Photokina brings something good next year. (I personally think for lower end market they have enough cameras already - D60, D5000, D90 and whatnot).

 I am very confident that the successor of D300 will be out next year, but I hope they introduce some mid-range full frame as well.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So Irondreamer, how is that D700 going so far? Bad news for me, looks like I might have to cancel the plan to get D700 straight away now because for some brain-snap stupid reason I went to play blackjack last week and lost a lot. So have to build up my saving again. That means I'll probably just get a camera sometime next year. Maybe the D700s or D800 or whatever it is if there's any at all. 
 I hope Photokina brings something good next year. (I personally think for lower end market they have enough cameras already - D60, D5000, D90 and whatnot).

 I am very confident that the successor of D300 will be out next year, but I hope they introduce some mid-range full frame as well._

 

Well perhaps if your blackjack skills (or luck) has been better, you'd have a D700/24-70 on the way now, eh? Better luck next time, if you don't avoid it altogether 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I am extremely happy with this camera. There really isn't much more I could ask for at this point. Things like even higher DR, non-degraded ISO100 or 50, a 100% viewfinder, or an automated photographer ego-stroking system would be absolute luxuries.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well perhaps if your blackjack skills (or luck) has been better, you'd have a D700/24-70 on the way now, eh? Better luck next time, if you don't avoid it altogether 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I am extremely happy with this camera. There really isn't much more I could ask for at this point. Things like even higher DR, non-degraded ISO100 or 50, a 100% viewfinder, or an automated photographer ego-stroking system would be absolute luxuries. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Nah, I've sworn off gambling altogether after the stupid incident. It sort of traumatised me with the badluck that happened to me during those 3 days gambling.

 On the bright side, at least now I don't have this stupid activity that keeps bringing down my savings balance since I'm not touching it anymore.

 Yeah D700 is a great camera. You know deep down inside that any better camera from this point is really just for the sake of having better one, because this camera is seriously fine. The only 2 things that I want to see improve is the viewfinder like D3 and maybe video to have fun shooting at wide open aperture.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Video?


----------



## lan

Wow that sucks about the gambling loss.

 A better viewfinder is in bigger cameras. I don't really care for 35mm ones. Only medium format ones tickle my fancy. 

 As for video, Nikon should have a working AF in the video to make it more useful.


----------



## dj_mocok

Yeah, shouldn't have gone there. But it's been happening quite too often (funnily enough I've never won big, only lost big), so I've made up my mind that was the last time I've ever put my money in gambling.

 Back to the topic, yeah, AF with video is great. Does Canon have this? I'm not quite sure. But I guess if you are using ultra wide angle, focusing isn't really that critical.


----------



## OverlordXenu

If you need AF with video, get a camcorder...


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Back to the topic, yeah, AF with video is great. Does Canon have this? I'm not quite sure. But I guess if you are using ultra wide angle, focusing isn't really that critical._

 

Canon doesn't have useable AF like a camcorder does (continuous) but I do use the initial AF lock. That works with my style of shooting videos anyhow.


----------



## Old Pa

In the backyard this morning:






 Nikon D300, Tamron 200-500mm f5-6.3 @ 500mm, PhotoShop CS3


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In the backyard this morning:


 Nikon D300, Tamron 200-500mm f5-6.3 @ 500mm, PhotoShop CS3_

 

Way over exposed.
 Cool subject none the less though.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Way over exposed._

 

What is your determinator of "way over exposed"?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

The areas in direct sunlight are partially blown out, a lot more detail would be visible if the shot was exposed less, or if the highlights could be recovered, and the dynamic range redistributed in a RAW editor.

 It is important to that shot, since the subject is in the sunlight, yet the leaves ended up with the most dynamic range, making the eagle look a bit washed out (lacking contrast).

 Here is what a couple minutes in CS4 did for it. With a RAW file, you probably could have recovered detail in the areas clipped to white in the JPEG:


----------



## dj_mocok

No camera will meter that properly because the difference between the direct sunlight to the eagle compared to the dark unlit area is too much.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No camera will meter that properly because the difference between the direct sunlight to the eagle compared to the dark unlit area is too much._

 


 Your joking, right?


 My D50 does.................
 It's called spot metering, used with AE-L.


----------



## dj_mocok

Obviously you don't know what you're talking about. Spot metering only meters like what it says - the spot (and around it) area, it won't perfectly meter both extremes. There is a reason why wedding photographer loves Fuji S5. No cameras will perfectly meter BOTH dark and bright sides, you need to expose twice for that. If your D50 can do that, all pros will be carrying D50 not S5. Heck even S5 can't do that - they rely on the high detail of DR to recover the highlight.


----------



## OverlordXenu

...My 10 year old camera does averaging with spot metering. Point, hit a button, repeat...


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Obviously you don't know what you're talking about._

 

I'll assume if you said that in person, it would not have been meant to be mean, though that's how it reads....

 I didn't know that's what you were trying to get across in your last post.
 It's true, you must work with what you have. If your camera can not capture the whole scene within it's dynamic range, then you have to choose. What I was commenting on is that for the bird picture, if I had taken it, I would have made sure the bird was properly exposed, even if that means the leaves and trees are under exposed. The bird is the main subject, so it gets priority.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What I was commenting on is that for the bird picture, if I had taken it, I would have made sure the bird was properly exposed, even if that means the leaves and trees are under exposed. The bird is the main subject, so it gets priority._

 

Agreed completely!


----------



## dj_mocok

i think there has been miscommunication here. my original intention was to let Oldpa know that he should take it easy because no camera will meter and perfectly expose the whole extremes in his image anyway.
 back to the topic, yeah, i hate you Irondreamer. you and your d700.


----------



## bigshot

Ooo! I am happy tonight! The mailman brought me a refurb Canon SD880is today. That gives me a great camera in every camp: pocket- Canon SD880, DSLR- Nikon D200, SLR- Nikon F3, Medium Format- Mamiya RB67. I'm set now.


----------



## dj_mocok

You forgot Polaroid. Although it's sort of extinct now.
 By the way my dream target is by next year is I want to have in my hands a 1.2 lens and a very high ISO performing new DLSR, and have fun shooting in the dark.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i think there has been miscommunication here. my original intention was to let Oldpa know that he should take it easy because no camera will meter and perfectly expose the whole extremes in his image anyway._

 

Thank you and thanks to Iron Dreamer for his rational and positive attempt at solution. My objection was just to the tactlessly insulting negativism of Tower7's initial comment and note he never saw fit to answer my question to him; consider the source.

 As things would have it, the answer is far simpler. I had adjusted the D300's exposure control to overexpose by a full stop for a fill-flash situation that I was working on the day before and forgot to return the setting. Problem solved. And, other than Tower7, I have been receiving nothing but compliments on the image.

 Tower7, you want to know how to avoid these situations? Try asking helpful questions instead of making insulting comments. It's a start.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_back to the topic, yeah, i hate you Irondreamer. you and your d700. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Well...I hate you...you and your...great hair? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ooo! I am happy tonight! The mailman brought me a refurb Canon SD880is today. That gives me a great camera in every camp: pocket- Canon SD880, DSLR- Nikon D200, SLR- Nikon F3, Medium Format- Mamiya RB67. I'm set now._

 

Nice deal! But what about an 8x10? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'd definitely like to try MF someday.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Towert7, you want to know how to avoid these situations? Try asking helpful questions instead of making insulting comments. It's a start. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

He has an issue with being overly abrasive. I've just taken to ignoring it. Have you ever seen a picture of him? He's just a big softie at heart!


----------



## Sherwood

Doesn't he somewhat resemble the younger brother on "Pete & Pete"? That's what he looks like in my head, at least.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sherwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Doesn't he somewhat resemble the younger brother on "Pete & Pete"? That's what he looks like in my head, at least._

 

Ok, I need to see a picture of that!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tower7, you want to know how to avoid these situations? Try asking helpful questions instead of making insulting comments. It's a start. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I treat others like I like being treated, which is being offered the blatant truth. 
 I know some people don't appreciate this, and would rather I beat around the bush. If that's the case, I'm sorry. After all, I only offer my comments to try and help, never to put someone down.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you ever seen a picture of him? He's just a big softie at heart! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

This is sooo true!


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I treat others like I like being treated, which is being offered the blatant truth. 
 I know some people don't appreciate this, and would rather I beat around the bush. If that's the case, I'm sorry. After all, I only offer my comments to try and help, never to put someone down._

 

Having never before been accused of "beating around the bush", I was somewhat taken aback by this suggestion (when I mentioned it to SWMBO, she spit up). Perhaps after the singular failure of your attempts to identify and represent the "blatant truth", is it now time to consider a different strategy? As for your closing comment: 

*ROTFLMAO!!*


----------



## skyline889

.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Old Pa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As for your closing comment: 

*ROTFLMAO!!*



_

 

Suite yourself, but I promise you it's the truth.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Suite yourself, but I promise you it's the truth._

 

If there is such a hard disconnect between the way you see yourself and the multiply corroborated view of others who know you, shouldn't you back up and give objective reconsideration?


----------



## Sherwood

I'd rather he didn't. Clearly, you were very offended Old Pa, but this is the internet. You posted a photo, and he commented. I'd love it if we could keep this thread civil.


----------



## Old Pa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sherwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'd love it if we could keep this thread civil._

 

Are you saying I haven't been civil?


----------



## Sherwood

No, you have been perfectly civil, but I see this turning ugly. I suppose the Nikon thread is a far cry from the nonsense over in the Head-F1 thread, though. Carry on, gentlemen. Forget I was here.


----------



## dj_mocok

Okay. I think this thread has gone a bit off track. Can we back to bashing people with better cameras than mine? Yeah that includes you too Sherwood.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

This one's for you, mocok! Bash away, hope you like barrel distortion!


----------



## dj_mocok

That's a smart combo there. I probably get one of those used 35-70mm as well when I buy my FF DSLR. But the thing is used price for that here in Australia is ridiculously high.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's a smart combo there. I probably get one of those used 35-70mm as well when I buy my FF DSLR. But the thing is used price for that here in Australia is ridiculously high._

 

I can vouch for the 35-70mm F/2.8 being a nice little lens though.

 Pretty much the image quality of a prime, except over a range of focal lengths.


----------



## dj_mocok

Yeah but the thing is it's so popular around eBay it's hard to grab one with bargain price. 
 But I think my next lens will be a prime MF.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay. I think this thread has gone a bit off track. Can we back to bashing people with better cameras than mine? Yeah that includes you too Sherwood._

 

Does it have to be a Nikon? LOL

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah but the thing is it's so popular around eBay it's hard to grab one with bargain price. 
 But I think my next lens will be a prime MF._

 

Yeah they are getting popular now. I use the 35-70 3.5 macro manual focus for video purposes. It's a lens with no distortion. Amazing.


----------



## dj_mocok

Yeah video with a nice set of lens is great!


----------



## dj_mocok

Who here thinks that D4 might be released in 2010?
 If you follow the timeline between D2 and D3, in theory we should have D4 introduced in 2010.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I'm thinking late 2010, early 2011. The D3x isn't that old, yet. I wonder what they might improve this time? Obvsiously CAM3500 and the D3 sensor were revolutionary, and are still kings of the market in their respective areas of performance. Nikon would have to go pretty deep to come up with something equally impressive next time 'round.


----------



## dj_mocok

I can't quite remember this, but does D700 have a DX mode ? Like the one in D3, which you can opt for DX mode and it will take a 5MP picture or something?


----------



## lan

Yep it does have a DX mode. That would unfortunate if one couldn't afford FX lenses though. It's a way to save space but I preferred Canon's sRAW.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

It does have DX mode, but it doesn't increase the frame rate, and you can always just crop an FX picture later. So unless you are desperate to save space, or don't want to PP, I don't see a whole lot of point to it.


----------



## dj_mocok

The reason why Im asking is because I am quite sure by the time I purchase an FX format, I will still hesitate to part with my DX lenses. So I wonder if the DX can still deliver great results if we switch the FX to DX mode. Or maybe it's better just to crop instead of switching to DX mode?

 But regardless I most probably keep my current camera anyway, so worst case scenario is I still use my DX lenses with my DX camera.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

When you mount a DX lens, the camera automatically shifts to DX mode, and shows the crop with a box in the viewfinder. You can still see the areas outside the DX crop box. At least with the two DX lenses I tried (Tamron 17-50, and Sigma 50-150) you could see significant vignetting in the outer areas of the viewfinder, regardless of zoom setting. Of course, you can still get some nice 6MP pictures, with the same crazy ISO and DR.


----------



## dj_mocok

If you have the time, could you take some pictures taken with your D700 and Tamron 17-50mm please? Or even better, if you could host the original unaltered file somewhere.
 I am curious how 'bad' this combo is because I most probably keep my Tamron 17-50mm (but the one I really don't want to let go is the Tokina 11-16mm).

 So basically after the camera switches to DX mode automatically and shows the darkened area, when you take the picture, does it only take the bright area minus the darkened ones, or the whole images and the edges are dark like what you see in the viewfinder?


----------



## h.rav

I strongly suggest to get a "proper" lens to go along with D700, you can get FX lens when you have saved enough or look for used ones. Tokina 11-16mm was my most fav lens when I migrated to FX.

 The D700 does not darken the FX area like the D3/D3X. It only shows where the DX area is by showing lines. It only takes the DX area (unless you choose not to automatically switch to DX when a DX lens is attached on the camera).


----------



## dj_mocok

I am looking forward to using my Ais lenses with a full frame - I think those lenses are proper enough. I know it's a funny reason, but I get more joy from using MF lenses and one of the main reasons why I want to move to FX is the large OVF. (and also my 85mm will become a proper 85mm again, haha...)

 They say that the 200mm f/4 is Ai(s) is a great lens to be used with FX DSLR. I am also looking forward to use that one with FX.
 Actually my plan is, if budget permits (that means I don't repeat my stupid mistake of back to Blackjack which I've completely sworn off, haha..), I will get an FX camera and a 50mm 1.2 Ais. I am so looking forward to have that combo and see how dark that combo can handle, haha...

 I bet you that even if with the 6MP DX mode, it will still produce great prints. Anyone actually tried printing out pictures taken from the reduced DX mode?

 ps. thread needs picture.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I bet you that even if with the 6MP DX mode, it will still produce great prints. Anyone actually tried printing out pictures taken from the reduced DX mode?
_

 

My D50 is a 6mp camera. You can definitely print 10x15's, and they look fantastic. Definitely headroom to go larger. 20x30 might be as big as I would comfortably go.


----------



## dj_mocok

I never need to print more than 10x12. So if image size is the only drawback from the DX mode of FX DSLR, I think I can live with it.


----------



## lan

I don't like using optical viewfinders on DSLRs. I rather use medium format.

 6MP is fine enough for most smaller and medium sized prints.


----------



## bigshot

I've gotten great 10x12 prints out of 3mp. The optics and sensor are more important than the number of megapixels.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you have the time, could you take some pictures taken with your D700 and Tamron 17-50mm please? Or even better, if you could host the original unaltered file somewhere.
 I am curious how 'bad' this combo is because I most probably keep my Tamron 17-50mm (but the one I really don't want to let go is the Tokina 11-16mm).

 So basically after the camera switches to DX mode automatically and shows the darkened area, when you take the picture, does it only take the bright area minus the darkened ones, or the whole images and the edges are dark like what you see in the viewfinder?_

 

I hadn't actually taken any shots with that lens on the 700, but fortunately for you, I also haven't sold it yet. I went and snapped a couple of examples. They are shot at 17mm where the FX vignetting is strongest. Vignetting in FX mode decreases as you zoom towards 50mm. The DX is a SOOC JPEG. The FX was downsized, just to show the vignetting.

DX mode

 FX mode

 What I notice is that you still get good IQ almost all the way out to the edge of the image circle (at least at f/11 as I shot this), so it would almost be better to use FX mode and crop to your liking, assuming you don't need the 50% file size reduction in-camera.

 The automatic DX mode switching is controlled in the menu, so it can be turned off or on. If off, you choose whether you want FX or DX, regardless of the lens used. You can also assign the DOF-preview or FUNC buttons to change from FX to DX mode, or vice versa, in a single button-press.

 The view in the viewfinder is the same in either mode, except that in DX mode, a box shows the area being cropped.


----------



## dj_mocok

The link for the DX one stopped halfway, but I could see approximately how much crop there is. Many thanks for the effort.
 Yeah from what I see, I think we are fine either way. DX mode isn't that bad too and with FX after cropping, you are still left with plenty of the portion of the image. 
 Of course using DX lenses only sort of defeats the purpose of having an FX, but I think at least now I can still keep my DX lenses in case I need it sometime.


----------



## bigshot

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people lusting after FX are using excuses to justify wanting it, not showing real need. Can you really say that you're hitting diffraction, ISO, isolation, or viewfinder brightness limits with DX? Right, most of you can't. Most of you would be better served by the D300's cover-the-frame AF, frankly. DX has advantages, too--cost being a huge one--so don't overlook them. --Thom Hogan July 13, 2009


----------



## dj_mocok

The link for the DX one stopped halfway, but I could see approximately how much crop there is. Many thanks for the effort.
 Yeah from what I see, I think we are fine either way. DX mode isn't that bad too and with FX after cropping, you are still left with plenty of the portion of the image. 
 Of course using DX lenses only sort of defeats the purpose of having an FX, but I think at least now I can still keep my DX lenses in case I need it sometime.


----------



## dj_mocok

Sooo
 Finally Nikon confirmed these releases:
 - 18-200mm VRII
 - 70-200mm VRII
 - D3000 body
 - D300s body

 None of them interests me unfortunately...

 Don't quite need long zoom although I am pretty sure there will be tons of people go mad over the new 70-200mm 2.8
 Good thing for you guys is cheaper used 'old' 70-200mm.

 I want 18-70mm f/4 constant...


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sooo
 Finally Nikon confirmed these releases:
 - 18-200mm VRII
 - 70-200mm VRII
 - D3000 body
 - D300s body

 None of them interests me unfortunately...

 Don't quite need long zoom although I am pretty sure there will be tons of people go mad over the new 70-200mm 2.8
 Good thing for you guys is cheaper used 'old' 70-200mm.

 I want 18-70mm f/4 constant..._

 

The new lenses should be definite improvements for those who use them. The 18-200 sorely needed a zoom lock (this is a first for Nikon, I think). Everything else looks the same, save the change of one element from standard to ED. Whether or not that would make a big difference, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 The 70-200vr looks like a bigger change. The lens is a bit shorter, but the optical format has changed a bit, with more ED glass. Hopefully this should address the FX corner issue. I was surprised to see that the old lens was only VRI, so I guess VRII should be an upgrade as well. I'd definitely pick one up if I was shooting weddings or other indoor events for pay.

 D3000...snooze. D60 in a newer body. Hopefully the last rehash of the 10MP CCD. It did put 11-point AF in an entry-level body for the first time though.

 D300S...a few good improvements, but nothing revolutionary, as indicated by the name. Guess it'll help the folks looking to buy a used D300.


----------



## lan

MTF of new 70-200 VR shows better corners indeed. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Weight has gone up to where it should be like the 80-200 AF-S. Thing is that's heavy for most people.

 I doubt I'd upgrade. I rather save for 200 2.0.


----------



## Sherwood

I was somewhat hoping Nikon would come up with something more elegant than a "zoom lock" for what is likely their best-selling $500+ lens.

 Of course, I've no idea what that would be, but Nikon has done well by not asking me my vision so far.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I want 18-70mm f/4 constant..._

 

On crop cam?

 I love my 24-105 f4 IS on Canon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It is a useful range indeed!


----------



## M0T0XGUY

One cool aspect of the D300S is that it offers AF operation in movie mode; at least according to the Nikon USA site. Not that I'm really interested in videography, but that's a first for DSLR cameras, no?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One cool aspect of the D300S is that it offers AF operation in movie mode; at least according to the Nikon USA site. Not that I'm really interested in videography, but that's a first for DSLR cameras, no?_

 

We'll have to see how it works in practice though. Panasonic GH1 is only sort of good one so far.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On crop cam?

 I love my 24-105 f4 IS on Canon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It is a useful range indeed!_

 

On full frame. Yes I am being difficult. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But I think f/4 is probably the slowest I would ideally go for a lens. 
 Looks like this HD movie thing is going to be a universal feature from DSLR from now onwards.


----------



## spookygonk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looks like this HD movie thing is going to be a universal feature from DSLR from now onwards._

 

Well you don't _have_ to use it, you know.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On full frame. Yes I am being difficult. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But I think f/4 is probably the slowest I would ideally go for a lens. 
 Looks like this HD movie thing is going to be a universal feature from DSLR from now onwards._

 

18-70 in full frame eh? Did anybody even make a variable aperture version of such a range?

 f4 lens should be fine outside. A nice portable lens.

 Movie mode was inevitable once live view and faster processor came into being.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_18-70 in full frame eh? Did anybody even make a variable aperture version of such a range?

 f4 lens should be fine outside. A nice portable lens.

 Movie mode was inevitable once live view and faster processor came into being._

 

I'm not sure if they actually have FF 18mm zoom, but I'm sure would like to have one. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *spookygonk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well you don't have to use it, you know. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

What are you talking about? I am looking forward to using HD movie with my lenses, or else I'd buy the D700 already. It would be fun to take HD movie with good quality glasses.


----------



## Audio-Omega

Is there a good Nikon compact camera for under $500 ?


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_18-70 in full frame eh? Did anybody even make a variable aperture version of such a range?
*
 f4 lens should be fine outside. A nice portable lens.*

 Movie mode was inevitable once live view and faster processor came into being._

 

The thing is, F4 throughout the range is really not that much faster than a F3.5-4.5 variable. In fact, it hardly makes a difference with the newer generation of cameras having pretty darn clean, noise-free outputs. Bump the ISO a little and bob's your uncle. What F4 means to me is more than just a marginally larger aperture, but higher build quality, basic weather sealing (moisture/dust), better IQ wide open, but not quite as expensive as the F2.8 'pros'.

 I've sold everything I have (well I didn't have much to begin with 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) with a view to rebuild. Currently have a D300, an SB800 and a 50mm f/1.4D. I'm going on a trip to Italy (Rome, Venice, Florence, Naples, Pompeii) but can't quite decide what lenses to buy/borrow. Any ideas? I'm not sure what I'll be shooting but architecture (interior/exterior) and landscapes come to mind. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Audio-Omega* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is there a good Nikon compact camera for under $500 ?_

 

I can't really help you out here, but whenever I think compact camera, I think Canon G10.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Next thing that comes to mind is the Panasonic LX3 (or its Leica cousin). They're both compact, have pretty decent IQ as far as compact cameras go, can save as RAW, and can be fitted with a plethora of accessories (flashguns, lens adapters for filters/hoods, etc). I haven't really been paying attention to new releases, so my suggestions may be dated!


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The thing is, F4 throughout the range is really not that much faster than a F3.5-4.5 variable. In fact, it hardly makes a difference with the newer generation of cameras having pretty darn clean, noise-free outputs._

 

Oops. Forgot there was an old 18-70 kit already (but for DX). Are there any other lenses f3.5-f4.5? 

 True as an ambient light user but when using flash, I prefer constant aperture.


----------



## milkpowder

Can't think of anything in particular. What about the dated 18-35 which the 18-70 replaced? Both DX lenses though.

 Well I cheated and had a look at the Nikon Digital Archives and there are two FX 3.5-4.5s:

Nikon | Digital Archives on Camera Products | AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF (3.8x)

Nikon | Digital Archives on Camera Products | AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-50mm f/3.3-4.5D (2.1x)

 And a third!
Nikon | Digital Archives on Camera Products | AF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED (3.5x)


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can't think of anything in particular. What about the dated 18-35 which the 18-70 replaced? Both DX lenses though.

 Well I cheated and had a look at the Nikon Digital Archives and there are two FX 3.5-4.5s:

Nikon | Digital Archives on Camera Products | AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF (3.8x)

Nikon | Digital Archives on Camera Products | AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-50mm f/3.3-4.5D (2.1x)

 And a third!
Nikon | Digital Archives on Camera Products | AF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED (3.5x)_

 

Don't forget about the better, current 24-85 f/2.8-4.


----------



## milkpowder

Ah yes. It would probably be more popular if not for competition from 3rd party brands.


----------



## dj_mocok

doublepost


----------



## dj_mocok

There is the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8, which I am sure is good. 
 It's the DX equivalent of the 17-50mm. 
 By the way I just came back this evening and I had my S5 with 200mm f/4. Couldn't shoot anything since it's wayyy too long for me to handheld at night time, haha....
 All I could do is some bokeh shot, which is very good by the way.

 But I also had my LX3 with me, and that one I could get some quite nice shots. Actually I always get nice shots using LX3. Great camera to have with you all the time. I always wonder why Nikon can't make a decent P&S when they can come up with such nice DSLRs.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm going on a trip to Italy (Rome, Venice, Florence, Naples, Pompeii) but can't quite decide what lenses to buy/borrow. Any ideas? I'm not sure what I'll be shooting but architecture (interior/exterior) and landscapes come to mind. _

 

The Nikon 17-35mm comes highly recommended for architecture and landscapes from what I read.
 If I had money to spare, I'd pick one up.


----------



## lan

There must be a reason why nobody makes a 18-70 full frame. It's probably hard to design.


----------



## Steggy

So...I was looking for a DSLR that shot HD video since seeing the stock footage on sites was ridiculous. I would like an AIO rather than having to buy a dslr + an hd camcorder. However it saddens me that the dslr's don't have AF when in video mode :/. Do you guys think it would be worth it to buy the nikon d5000 at this juncture? or wait to see what cameras come behind the new D300 with AF and mic inputs? Those 2 features are a dream come true to me, however it would be phenomenal to have those 2 features while being ~1k, not 2k.


----------



## lan

Do you really need AF? AF is somewhat overrated in the sense that you can do a lot well without it already. You need good techniques and lenses.

 When I say technique you should know your DOF, hyperfocal distance, etc. DOF of DSLR is low and if you're doing a group shot, you're better off with enough DOF. A good tripod and head is needed if you want to pan. If you're hand holding I'm not a fan of Nikon's lens selection because there are less options with stabilization.


 Canon has 24-105 f4 IS, 17-55 2.8 IS, 70-200 f4 IS, 300 f4 IS.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Any of you guys performed Ai conversion on a non-Ai lens?

 I just picked up a few for chicken scratch on craigslist, and would like to see how they do on the D700, especially the 135/2.8.


----------



## dj_mocok

Coincidentally I just stumbled on this guy who does conversion on eBay yesterday. Not sure how good he is, but worth asking maybe.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Hmm..well the results look good enough.

 I was thinking more along the lines of DIY. The instructions I've seen look simple, but it also seems like something that would be very easy to screw up. So I was looking for any possible personal experiences with the process.


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Any of you guys performed Ai conversion on a non-Ai lens?

 I just picked up a few for chicken scratch on craigslist, and would like to see how they do on the D700, especially the 135/2.8._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Coincidentally I just stumbled on this guy who does conversion on eBay yesterday. Not sure how good he is, but worth asking maybe._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm..well the results look good enough.

 I was thinking more along the lines of DIY. The instructions I've seen look simple, but it also seems like something that would be very easy to screw up. So I was looking for any possible personal experiences with the process._

 

Peter ...

 I have an old 135 2.8 that had been AI converted by microbee (the guy dj_mocok found), and it works just great on the D700. Also have an old 55 1.2 that has been AI'd and that is a lot of fun.

 Hats off to you if you want to try yourself (do you have steady hands, good Dremel technique, and nerves of steel? Of course you do.) Could be a fun project with not much to lose if the lens was cheap to start with.

 You may have already found this, but here is a set of sketches that may be helpful.

 Couple of quick snaps from the AI'd 135 2.8 and D700 ...


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Whew, those are some sweet looking shots, Gene! I am lacking any kind of fast tele at the moment, which is where my interest in this lens comes in. Even though the one I have looks a bit more like an old coffee can with glass in it, I see no reason it couldn't still perform.


----------



## agile_one

Well, Peter, my 135 2.8 dates from 1973 or 4 according to the serial no, and sure won't win any beauty contests. Like all those old Nikkors, though, it is built to last, and produces great results in patient hands.

 Here it is ...


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Let's play "whose lens is uglier?", starring the Nikkor-Q 135mm f/2.8!


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

BTW Gene, you have a Panny G1 now? How's that doin' for ya?


----------



## dj_mocok

Man I love to see people using those classic manual lenses on modern DSLR bodies. They just don't make lenses like those anymore. 
 This was my lens combo last weekend, didn't shoot much with it that day, though.













 It's S5 + 200mm f/4 Ai; my partner calls it "Pinocchio" because the lens is so long in a weird way (especially when the barrel is fully extended and the built-in hood is used).

 Shooting with Ai/Ais lenses is an experience I tell you. (that's why I wanna get an FX to make it even more fun)

 [size=xx-small]*although ironically these shots weren't done with an MF or a Nikon camera...[/size]


----------



## agile_one

Peter ... your 135 Q is even older than mine. At least mine has multicoating (Q-C, the first to have it). I think you may have a winner. Ugly is only on the outside, however, as I'll wager you will make some beautiful images with it if you do get it converted.

 Yes, I'm having a go with a Lumix G1. So far it is the perfect Goldilocks (not too small, not too big, but just right) camera, with impressive results for it's size. Considered the Oly E-P1, but too much $$$ and no vf killed that for me. I love the fact that I can use lens adapters with the G1 for my Nikon F and Oly OM lenses that I own. Very cool, and works great. Got a good deal on the G1 at P.O.T.N. so that swayed me to give it a go. I think it's a keeper.

 dj ... nice rig there - the Fuji and that awesome 200. Yes, AI glass on a D700 can be dreamy.


----------



## dj_mocok

Thanks. How many Ai (or older lenses) have you got by the way? 
 If you know how to conver to Ai properly, used market for pre-Ai lenses can be a great resource to snap a bargain.


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ ... How many Ai (or older lenses) have you got by the way? ..._

 

atm, I have 3 - 135 2.8 and 55 1.2 that were both pre AI and got converted, and a Lester A. Dine 105 2.5 macro (same as Vivitar and Kiron, I'm told) that is spectacular. The Dine Macro lenses were marketed to dentists and medical offices for close up work.

 Yup, scouring the net, shops, and garage sales for pre-AI glass can be fun and very worthwhile when one finds a gem.


----------



## ka-boom

Heh, I bought one of those Nikon 135mm f2.8 Q lenses for $27 on ebay when I had my D40. I loved the built in lens hood!

 I got my CyberSyncs today, can't wait to get out of work and try them out.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agile_one* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Couple of quick snaps from the AI'd 135 2.8 and D700 ..._

 

Those are some pretty sweet images!

 How do you get the focus spot on?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agile_one* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Like all those old Nikkors, though, it is built to last, and produces great results in patient hands._

 

Indeed. They don't make things like they used to. My 300 has the smoothest focus ring. Love it.

 Built in hoods are cool.


----------



## dj_mocok

Talking about built-in metal lens hood, last weekend when I was out using the 200mm f/4 Ai, I gave it to my partner so that she could take some pictures, she was trying to focus by turning around the built-in lens hood. lol 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Maybe I shouldn't have told her so early and see what she would say after trying to focus but nothing happened.

 By the way I just pulled the trigger on 50mm 1.2, although for this I have to sell my 50mm 1.4 Ai soon (feel guilty if I have too many 50mm lenses).
 But I won't be able to use it until maybe 2 weeks time though because I will be away from home. Will post pictures of it once I've got my hands on it.


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Those are some pretty sweet images!_

 

Thanks, lan.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How do you get the focus spot on?_

 

Do the best I can by eye, and when time permits, use the green light focus confirm in the vf for confirmation.

 Since those were taken, I've installed a Canon Ec-B focusing screen from focusingscreen.com into the D700. That makes mf easier with it's split screen aid.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Indeed. They don't make things like they used to. My 300 has the smoothest focus ring. Love it.

 Built in hoods are cool. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yup, those old lenses were a model of precision mechanics, and the built in hoods mean one less doodad to keep up with, lose, or step on.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agile_one* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Since those were taken, I've installed a Canon Ec-B focusing screen from focusingscreen.com into the D700. That makes mf easier with it's split screen aid._

 

I've always wanted to get one of those. I haven't had the opportunity to yet.


----------



## dj_mocok

Just wondering, is the focusing screen by any chance makes affecting the convenience of using the other focus points? eg. the far right side of focus points?

 I really want to get focusing screen if it means much easier manual focusing for me, but the thing is I don't focus in the centre quite often.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Talking about built-in metal lens hood, last weekend when I was out using the 200mm f/4 Ai, I gave it to my partner so that she could take some pictures, she was trying to focus by turning around the built-in lens hood. lol 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

ROTFL


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just wondering, is the focusing screen by any chance makes affecting the convenience of using the other focus points? eg. the far right side of focus points?

 I really want to get focusing screen if it means much easier manual focusing for me, but the thing is I don't focus in the centre quite often._

 

I find the matte surface of the D700's stock focusing screen, combined with the more helpful focus indicator, makes manual focus a lot easier and more precise than it ever was on the D200 (god help the D70 in that regard).


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ROTFL




 I find the matte surface of the D700's stock focusing screen, combined with the more helpful focus indicator, makes manual focus a lot easier and more precise than it ever was on the D200 (god help the D70 in that regard)._

 

The problem is that the focusing screens of most DSLRs can only show the full depth of field of lenses around f/2.8 and slower. With lenses like the 50mm f/1.2, this limitation can cause focusing issues, as subjects may appear sharp in the viewfinder but slightly or completely out of focus in the final image. That's why precision focusing screens are recommended for fast and ultra fast lenses in general.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The problem is that the focusing screens of most DSLRs can only show the full depth of field of lenses around f/2.8 and slower. With lenses like the 50mm f/1.2, this limitation can cause focusing issues, as subjects may appear sharp in the viewfinder but slightly or completely out of focus in the final image. That's why precision focusing screens are recommended for fast and ultra fast lenses in general._

 

Oh sure, I'm not saying the D700 couldn't benefit from such an item, just that it is better suited to MF out of the box than the other Nikon DSLR's I've used.


----------



## Towert7

Holy Cow. I just took a trip down to the local bestbuy, where they had some entry level DSLR's.

 For haha's, I looked at the sony A300. What a POS that thing was! I thought the viewfinder on the D50, D40, D60 was small, but the A300 showed me just how wrong I was. Wow! How could anyone rate that as a good camera when you can't even see the picture you're about to take....

 Then I took a look at some of the Nikons.
 It was so sad to see that all of the budget ones do not come with the top LCD, forcing the back LCD to display all the information. What an awful idea! It wastes so much more battery life. Also, some of them did not have a face sensor, so when I put my eye to the eyepiece, I had this horrible glare from the LCD screen bouncing off my face and going into the viewfinder. I don't know about you, but I think nikon botched up big time with that. Those cameras (D40, D60, D3000) don't seem like a tool for even the amateur photographer, which is strange...... because that's the whole point of buying a DSLR in the first place. 

 Sometimes I wonder if these 'budget' DSLR's are a joke. The difference between a budget DSLR a few years ago, and a budget one now is striking! I am shocked. Sorry for the little rant guys, but you don't know how sad this made me feel.

 I was impressed by the build quality of the new nikon vr 18-55mm. It seems it's built out of that magnesium alloy material like the 18-200mm, which is nicer than the cheaper plastic feel of the older 18-55's.


----------



## skyline889

I too have noticed this, I really can't understand the constant recommendations of cameras like the D40/D60. I've had a D50 in one form or another (Sold one only to buy another one a few months later) for a few years now and I wouldn't trade it in for anything short of a D300/700. It would still be my top recommendation for a beginner DSLR or even a well rehearsed amateur who doesn't need the extra features of a camera like the D200/300. For the price these things go for now, they're an absolute steal.


----------



## milkpowder

They're not that horrible to be honest. I definitely wouldn't mind a D40/60 but for a similar amount money, the 1000D is a better camera. I would say the top LCD isn't absolutely essential, but it is very very useful. The on-screen "info" display is a joke and I don't think I've ever used mine. The button layout of Nikon DSLRs is such that making adjustments looking through the viewfinder is very easy.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Holy Cow. I just took a trip down to the local bestbuy, where they had some entry level DSLR's.

 For haha's, I looked at the sony A300. What a POS that thing was! I thought the viewfinder on the D50, D40, D60 was small, but the A300 showed me just how wrong I was. Wow! How could anyone rate that as a good camera when you can't even see the picture you're about to take....

 Then I took a look at some of the Nikons.
 It was so sad to see that all of the budget ones do not come with the top LCD, forcing the back LCD to display all the information. What an awful idea! It wastes so much more battery life. Also, some of them did not have a face sensor, so when I put my eye to the eyepiece, I had this horrible glare from the LCD screen bouncing off my face and going into the viewfinder. I don't know about you, but I think nikon botched up big time with that. Those cameras (D40, D60, D3000) don't seem like a tool for even the amateur photographer, which is strange...... because that's the whole point of buying a DSLR in the first place. 

 Sometimes I wonder if these 'budget' DSLR's are a joke. The difference between a budget DSLR a few years ago, and a budget one now is striking! I am shocked. Sorry for the little rant guys, but you don't know how sad this made me feel.

 I was impressed by the build quality of the new nikon vr 18-55mm. It seems it's built out of that magnesium alloy material like the 18-200mm, which is nicer than the cheaper plastic feel of the older 18-55's._

 

I played with a D5000 today and was surprisingly impressed. The viewfinder size was comparable to my D200, and the build quality seemed beyond adequate. Top mounted LCDs are nice, but with the minimal button layout of the lower end Nikons these LCDs are kind of overkill - you need to dive into the menu to change things like WB anyway. 

 I agree about the 18-55mm VR's build quality - it felt sturdy, and the zoom ring rotated more smoothly than that of my 12-24mm. I considered buying one on the spot as I don't own a midrange zoom...


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ you need to dive into the menu to change things like WB anyway. _

 

Yes, I guess this is what I was trying to get at as well.
 My D50 has all sorts of button combinations for changing almost every setting (only one main function I need to enter the menu for (metering)). WB is something I can adjust with a flick of the dial. Going from sunny wb to shady wb takes about 0.5 seconds. seamless. Setting a custom white balance takes about 4 seconds, no menus needed.

 Which brings me to the point I was trying to make. For me, the purpose of a DSLR, even a budget DSLR, is to have all these nice features at the tip of my fingers. It's supposed to make taking pictures quicker and easier. The very LAST thing I want to do is dig through menus. If I didn't mind menu's, I would buy a nice canon P&S and have fantastic image quality. The biggest thing my DSLR affords me (aside from exotic lenses) is the increased speed of use.

 I know if I were to enter the market again, I wouldn't want anything short of a D90. All the rests just come off as lacking too much. Then again, my D50 cost as much as a D90 when it was new......... so I guess that's just the price point of where the serious DSLR's start.

 The build quality on all of the Nikon DSLR's impress me. None of them feel cheap, whereas some of the canon's did to me.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The button layout of Nikon DSLRs is such that making adjustments looking through the viewfinder is very easy._

 

One of my biggest reasons for buying the nikon instead of the canon!


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One of my biggest reasons for buying the nikon instead of the canon!_

 

Absolutely, back when I knew next to nothing about camera gear, it was the ergonomics that made me pick Nikon (and disregard Canon, before I had even picked up a Nikon).


----------



## Towert7

So, I just picked up a Nikon TC-200 teleconverter off e-bay for 50$ in wonderful condition. 

 Only non G lens I had on hand was my parent's 50mm F/1.8, so I gave it a shot.

 This was shot at 800iso, with the lens set to F/2.8. So, I assume this would equate to a 100mm at F/5.6? Everything in focus is sharp as a tack I think, so I am very happy. (another plus for having DX cropping!)




Full Size

 I'm really looking forward to try it out on my micro 60mm! I'm also a little curious to see how it works on my old 80-200mm F/4.5 and 85mm F/1.8.

 50$........... how can you beat it!


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Yeah, looks like the ISO noise is the limiting factor to resolution in that shot. Of course the 50 /1.8 is so darn sharp anyway, it's not too surprising it could tolerate a 2x TC. How close in size are the two? The idea of putting a TC on a 50 1.8 is sounding kinda amusing from a size point of view.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, looks like the ISO noise is the limiting factor to resolution in that shot. Of course the 50 /1.8 is so darn sharp anyway, it's not too surprising it could tolerate a 2x TC. How close in size are the two? The idea of putting a TC on a 50 1.8 is sounding kinda amusing from a size point of view. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It is. The noise becomes a problem for me at 800 iso and above. I have my camera set to have no noise reduction for increased sharpness. 


 The TC-200 and 50mm F/1.8 are almost identical in size.
 ^_^


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The TC-200 and 50mm F/1.8 are almost identical in size.
 ^_^_

 

LOL, figured as much!


----------



## milkpowder

2x TC never produce extremely good results, but the picture you posted is plenty sharp enough. To combat the noise issue, I wonder if you've tried shooting in RAW (as high bit-depth as possible), underexposing by half a stop or a full stop, and then bringing up the exposure in post processing. I know this is a bit of a cheat, but maybe you can avoid some of the chroma noise. Anyhow, it isn't that visible when downsampled.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_





 2x TC never produce extremely good results, but the picture you posted is plenty sharp enough. To combat the noise issue, I wonder if you've tried shooting in RAW (as high bit-depth as possible), underexposing by half a stop or a full stop, and then bringing up the exposure in post processing. I know this is a bit of a cheat, but maybe you can avoid some of the chroma noise. Anyhow, it isn't that visible when downsampled._

 

I actually don't use raw because my photoshop doesn't support it... sadly.
 It's ok. I would prefer it to have less noise, but it's not the end of the world for me. Like you said, I just have to use it downsampled.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_





 2x TC never produce extremely good results, but the picture you posted is plenty sharp enough. To combat the noise issue, I wonder if you've tried shooting in RAW (as high bit-depth as possible), underexposing by half a stop or a full stop, and then bringing up the exposure in post processing. I know this is a bit of a cheat, but maybe you can avoid some of the chroma noise. Anyhow, it isn't that visible when downsampled._

 

Doesn't "pulling" an exposure bring out noise?


----------



## milkpowder

I've done it before and chroma noise seems to be well controlled. It's only in the shadows where the noise will be most visible, but it works well with the midtones. Shooting at a lower ISO means an inherently lower amount of noise to begin with, greater detail and also greater dynamic range. I'll occasionally do so to avoid ISO3200 on my camera by shooting ISO2500/2000. It's amazing what you can pull out of 14-bit NEFs. Give it a try and see what you think!


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Well the last time I checked, a D50 doesn't have 14-bit NEF's. Though I do see your point, the potential of those files has saved me from needing some bracketed and merged shots.


----------



## dj_mocok

Im back from the trip and fortunately when I came home the lens that I ordered already arrived safely at home. 
 Will post pictures of it and maybe some sample pictures too.


----------



## dj_mocok

Love the new lens.
 Now I officially have too many 50mms
 I promised my partner that I would sell my 1.4 once I have a 1.2, but it's very hard for me to do so because then the middle one will disappear.

 But the 1.2 is surprisingly very sharp and very contrasty at 1.2, even straight from my camera which is set to lowest in sharpening. Not sure why people say this lens is soft wide open. Can't wait to have this on full frame.

 It is bulkier than 1.4 but I like it. The focusing ring is super smooth.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Cool. The general opinion does seem to be that the 1.2 ain't that sharp at 1.2, but I've always wondered if that wasn't more due to user error with a very thin DOF than anything related to the lens.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Seems like the recent trend is to purchase 50mm lenses. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	









 I haven't really shot anything with it, but so far early impressions are positive. AF is _fast_ (what are others whining about?) and accuracy superb. I also love that the lens keeps its length constant regardless of the focus setting. I'll post more pictures as I take them.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cool. The general opinion does seem to be that the 1.2 ain't that sharp at 1.2, but I've always wondered if that wasn't more due to user error with a very thin DOF than anything related to the lens._

 

I think it's the combination of user error, the lack of understanding that at 1.2 there is really very little area in focus, and being picky about the sharpness across all edges. Apart from that, the focused area is really good enough as long as you don't misfocus or shake too much.

 But of course the sharpness of the lens at 1.2 is not like a lens that has been opened up to f/5.6, but then again I guess the main reason people purchase this lens is so that they can shoot at 1.2, so extreme sharpness is not the priority here.
 I think I probably use this lens at f/1.2 95% of the time.


----------



## wanderman

I need a new 50.


----------



## bigshot

Would you please try shooting at 1.2 in daylight? I'd be interested to see what you come up with. When I did that with my old 1.2, the contrast would flatten out really bad.


----------



## dj_mocok

Will do. Tomorrow is weekend I will bring my S5 attached with 1.2 only and post some pictures when I come back.

 As far as I know indoor wise, the contrast is just fine, I'll see how it handles bright sunlight tomorrow.

 By the way, was your 1.2 the 55mm version one, or the 50mm version one?
 I might be wrong, but maybe with the newer gen 50mm 1.2, they use better coating to increase contrast in bright condition?


----------



## lan

I'm kind of happy with my 50 1.8


----------



## bigshot

It was the older one.


----------



## dj_mocok

Okay, did some quick shots yesterday when it was sunny outside. The shots are all Jpg and handheld, and my camera's sharpening etc is at lowest, so please bear in mind that there are a lot of variables here. But overall, I think I am still very happy with the lens' capabilities.

 The first shot below is the comparison of the shot made wide open and at f/5.6, you can see that there is a significant improvement over sharpness and contrast, but since I was handholding it and shooting infinity, so there is a margin of error here. 

 The small picture on the left hand side is 100% crop of the original. The half-naked, middle aged man in black sunglasses and a chubby lady look clearer in the f/5.6 of course.

 If you see from the wide open shot, you can sort of figure out why some people say that this lens has this 'dreamy effect' when wide open, it is less contrast and it gives smooth transition between focused and unfocused area (not shown in the picture). I understand why people love this lens for portrait works, it gives you this 'hazy' effect but still maintaining sharp focused area. 

 For budget conscious shooter you can just get a 50mm f/1.8 lens and apply a thin layer of vaseline around the lens and you can achieve this effect too.






 The next 2 pictures below were also shot wide open, but this time the light was not as harsh as first one and it's not in infinity for landscape, so it's more in line of what people use this camera realistically. As you can see there is plenty of contrast even wide open and sharpness is pretty good too (remember my camera's sharpness is at lowest and these are jpgs)






 But as in fast lenses, colour fringing wide open is something you can't really avoid. It still has some fringing, noticeable when you view the image at 100%, but I think it performs better than my 85mm 1.4 wide open (I might be wrong though).






 But I think this lens is more designed for indoor or in places with less lighting, because they really shine in those situations. For shooting landscapes during daylight I think Nikon 17-35mm 2.8 is a much better lens for it. 
 Heck, you can even use the kit lens stopped down for that purpose but this lens is not for landscapes.
 But for people, indoor, evening shots, etc.. it's hard to beat this lens. I think it will do great for flower pictures too due to the shallow DOF and smooth transition.

 From the samples below you can see that it offers plenty of sharpness and contrast even wide open.











 Bokeh wise, It is considerably better compared to other Nikon 50mms of course. But it's not as good as 85mm 1.4 in rendering round point of lights.






 Overall the lens delivers what I expect from it, but with the price around 1.5 times of the price of newest Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS, you really need to want the characteristics of the lens in order to justify one. With 50mm 1.4 AFS you get AFS and newest Nikon lens.
 With this, you'll get excellent build quality, very buttery manual focusing, and better bokeh. So you really need to love working with manual focus lens and plan to shoot it mainly around f/1.2 to f/2.8 to justify this one over the newest Nikon.

 Next week if I have the time maybe I'll try to do some night shots.


----------



## milkpowder

Thanks for the shots! Very nice. Most people won't be able to justify needing the f/1.2 and the f/1.4G will be the better solution, but the f/1.2 clearer has its strengths.


----------



## dj_mocok

Yeah, actually if you think about it rationally it is kinda hard to justify, but I guess if I didn't get it, I know that I would always think about owning it. 
 Since I also love doing manual focusing I thought what the heck, just go for it. Even though in the process I have to sacrifice selling my 50mm f/1.4 Ais which I love very much (promised my partner that I would sell it if I got the 1.2).

 But I will keep my 50mm 1.8 Ais though, because it still look so new and still with the box and everything, plus you won't get that much selling 1.8 anyway, might as well keep it.


----------



## Towert7

The TC-200 is quite cool. I hooked it up to my micro 60mm and was surprised that it effectively doubled my magnification.




 This image above was with just the micro 60mm, focused as close as I could, so 1:1 magnification.




 This image above is with the micro 60mm and TC-200, focused as close as I could. I assume it's roughly 1:0.5.

 Very cool!
 I'm still waiting to see someone take a macro telephoto lens, use extension tubes, a teleconverter, and just to top it off, add a closeup lens on the end. Picture quality might not be that great, but I bet you could get some FANTASTIC results!!!

 By the way, don't compare image quality among the two above pictures. I shot both hand held in dim light.


----------



## Towert7

Here I used the TC-200 with my very old Nikon 80-200 F/4.5n.





 Using this lens, I noticed there was a slight to modest blurring of the image depending on what I was taking a picture of. This was shot at 200mm, so with a 2x teleconverter, and a 1.5x crop sensor, that's giving me an effective focal length of about 600mm. Not too shabby for a 70$ lens and a 50$ teleconverter. I noticed that wide open the results were more blurry than if I stopped down to F/8 (becoming F/16). That picture was taken hand held, and manual focus, so some softness is due to me of course.


 I was able to get some cool closeup pictures of a great blue heron in the campus pond.







 Again, hand held and manual focus at 200mm F/8.

 Fun stuff!


----------



## dj_mocok

Who here owns a Noct?


----------



## dj_mocok

SONY just announced a new full frame A850 with US$2,000 RRP. Yes, that's RRP, so it can actually go cheaper than that in real life.
 I am actually very glad they did this. You can tell that they are aggressively trying to squeeeze in between Canon and Nikon. You can tell because usually products associated with SONY are higher priced than competition but not so with their DSLRs.

 With pricing like that for a full frame (and US$800 RRP for their 28-75mm f/2.8), I am quite sure this will shake things up a bit in DSLR market.

 Canon and Nikon would have to offer much more to the table now. Good news for all DSLR users regardless of brands I guess. (bad news for Canon and Nikon)

 If Sony can regularly release high quality glasses with attractive pricing, I think Nikon and Canon will sh|t their pants. And this is coming from a Nikon guy.

 So thank you SONY, and Nikon, now gimme my D800 or D700s.

 Too bad Panasonic doesn't have the knowledge (or maybe they don't want to invest that much) to compete with the big boys in DSLR world or else it would be very interesting. And Leica is living in their own world... 

 Additional info: And this is the review for the Sony.


----------



## lan

Competition is always good.

 As long as Canon and Nikon make better lenses, they can charge for them. Nikon's 24-70 2.8 is the best. This new Sony lens won't focus as well and image quality is to be seen.

 A850 should make a nice studio cam. I'd prefer to use D700 as it's more versatile if I only had one cam.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Canon and Nikon would have to offer much more to the table now._

 

Not so. I prefer a camera that has been made with the photographer in mind. The Sony cameras do not have this air about them which the Nikon and Canon's do. Too often I have read things about the sony's that makes me think "who could have designed it that way.......". I think to myself, if only they had had more photographers working on their team instead of software/electrical engineers....

 I'll leave sony to making their low priced stuff, and when I want a serious camera Nikon and Canon are what I look to.



 I guess, if you can think in terms of cars, it's the classic example of the Honda NSX. Who cares if the car performs just as good as the ferrari, it's missing the little things that make the ferrari a ferrari.


----------



## dj_mocok

We'll just wait to wait and see the image samples taken with that new Sony and the 28-75mm lens.
 By the way, I took lots of nice pictures just now with the 50mm I just got.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not so. I prefer a camera that has been made with the photographer in mind. The Sony cameras do not have this air about them which the Nikon and Canon's do. Too often I have read things about the sony's that makes me think "who could have designed it that way.......". I think to myself, if only they had had more photographers working on their team instead of software/electrical engineers...._

 

Funny that you should mention this. That's how I generally feel about Canon. The old Minolta cameras were great. When Sony bought them out, they weren't too far off. Oddly it's my Nikon where I have to read the manual and others not really. Regardless, I can shoot with anything. I don't care about things like ergonomics or menus or buttons.


----------



## dj_mocok

Regardless of camera brand I am pretty sure with any brands even though you find it difficult in terms of menu/user interface/etc, after a month or two you will know it like the back of your hand.

 I am more interested in the system as a whole.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not so. I prefer a camera that has been made with the photographer in mind. The Sony cameras do not have this air about them which the Nikon and Canon's do. Too often I have read things about the sony's that makes me think "who could have designed it that way.......". I think to myself, if only they had had more photographers working on their team instead of software/electrical engineers....

 I'll leave sony to making their low priced stuff, and when I want a serious camera Nikon and Canon are what I look to.



 I guess, if you can think in terms of cars, it's the classic example of the Honda NSX. Who cares if the car performs just as good as the ferrari, it's missing the little things that make the ferrari a ferrari._

 

What things, besides video capture and live-view, are Sony's new full-frame A850 missing? Sure, the company's lens selection isn't as robust as Canon's or Nikon's, but otherwise the A850 seems just as capable a camera as anything sold today by the major brands.


----------



## Towert7

I have no clue.

 What I'm trying to get at is that, it might not even be missing features, it's just they might not have been as well thought out as you get with nikon and canon.
 I get the impression that the sony's are not designed with the photographer in mind as well as the nikon or canon's. My hunch is I'm not the only one who thinks this way (whether wrong or right).


----------



## OverlordXenu

Does it have weather seals? What is it made of?

 And lenses are much more important than cameras. Which do you spend more on and keep longer?


----------



## bigshot

Here is an intesting toy!

 Vivtar 7mm f/3.5 Series 1 Manual Focus Fisheye Lens for Nikon (it's actually a rebranded Samyang 8mm)

Samyang 8 mm f/3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fish-eye review - Introduction - Lenstip.com


----------



## dj_mocok

That thing is interesting but fish eye is one lens that I can't justify the price because of the nicheness it offers.
 I think this company also has 85mm 1.4 right?


----------



## dj_mocok

double post


----------



## bigshot

It's only $350 brand new with a warranty. That's pretty doggone cheap for that much glass. They say it focuses extremely close. That would make for some amazing bug pictures!


----------



## dj_mocok

I don't have $350 bucks to spare at the moment. I guess any cent that I spend for something is the less cent that makes me further away from getting a FF DSLR.


 By the way this is my camera.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have no clue.

 What I'm trying to get at is that, it might not even be missing features, it's just they might not have been as well thought out as you get with nikon and canon.
 I get the impression that the sony's are not designed with the photographer in mind as well as the nikon or canon's. My hunch is I'm not the only one who thinks this way (whether wrong or right)._

 

Cameras are cameras. They're not that complicated. They bought Konica/Minolta stuff so had time to study that as well as their own P&S line.

 I don't believe in such a thing as designed with photographer in mind now. Because I could say no 2nd dial on cheaper cameras like D40/60 is a shame and hardly anything has an ISO knob


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cameras are cameras. They're not that complicated. They bought Konica/Minolta stuff so had time to study that as well as their own P&S line._

 

I think Camera's are phenomenally complicated little things. Took 100 years just to get us to this point.

 I sure know I couldn't whip up a DSLR in my spare time.


----------



## dj_mocok

All cameras are designed with [size=medium]$$$ [/size]in mind. That's more appropriate.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think Camera's are phenomenally complicated little things. Took 100 years just to get us to this point.

 I sure know I couldn't whip up a DSLR in my spare time._

 

Sony has the resources to make a camera. Obviously the lone person doesn't. I don't see why the Sony camera could be any less photo centric. A camera has basic functions which are the same throughout all brands and models. That won't change even in 1000 years.

 You could say that automation is an advancement of technology in that 100 years but that is not for all photographers. Do you use auto flash, auto metering, auto white balance, etc.?


----------



## Towert7

I guess then I am just stuck in my ways of thinking.
 If all cameras were identical, I would opt for the Nikon / Canon over all others. They have stood the test of time as a company and are still around. I wouldn't be surprised if one day sony decided to call it quites with their DSLR's.
 This thought gives me a little extra comfort at night.


----------



## dj_mocok

Sony is a huge company, if they want they can take on Nikon. I think they understand that they are still trying to get in the DSLR step by step because it takes a lot of investment and time to release a collection of lenses like Nikon has.

 Actually they were doing very well on their prosumer grade before like the DSC F828 if any of you remember. That was one formidable camera.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sony is a huge company, if they want they can take on Nikon. I think they understand that they are still trying to get in the DSLR step by step because it takes a lot of investment and time to release a collection of lenses like Nikon has._

 

Yeah it takes a while to make lenses. But realize that Canon and Nikon has only a few new lenses. Many are 10+ years old. Sony users can still use all those Minolta lenses.

 Realistically, you only need a few bread and butter lenses. The kit lenses, cheaper variable zooms, portrait, as well as pro 24-70 and 70-200 are there. Only prob is what? In super telephoto range? So one could still do most of their work on the sony system.

 I don't particularly care if Nikon or Canon or who's going to be there or not. I just use whatever I like.


----------



## dj_mocok

Speaking of Canon there is an internet leak floating around about the new Canon 7D. Not sure if it's fake one or not, but looks pretty legit to me.
 Good, more decent non-Nikon cameras out please, so Nikon execs won't sit tight on their bums and the pressure will be on them to come out with something even better.


----------



## dj_mocok

Just had a look at the hands-on preview of 7D from dpreview. D@mn, that Canon looks like it's designed to be a D300 killer. I bet you Nikon Nikon execs must be flippin right now. Or maybe not - who knows they might have even more interesting one up their sleeves.
 But looks like they still can't beat Nikon's 51-point focusing. Their new macro lens looks interesting too.

 If mid-level cameras can already be as good as these, it's scary to think of what 1DMkIV or D4 are capable of. 
 This is good times for photography.

 You guys better start eating those ramen noodles.


----------



## lan

I think it matches the D300 and the D300s has another card slot which is important to some pros. I think Canon is a bit late in the game in that midrange market. But knowing the fine details on the cameras, I still prefer to use Nikon in that segment.


----------



## lan

On another note, who's going to get the new Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC?

 Finally a 3rd party lens with image stabilization in normal focal range. Price is pretty high though. The non VC version of this is one of the best 3rd party lenses I've ever used.


----------



## ka-boom

I have the non-VC version and am consistently impressed by it's sharpness. Not the fastest focusing lens in the world, but the IQ is just fantastic for a 3rd party lens. 

 I think the VC version fills a niche for people who really think they "need" VR/VC/OS but who want the flexibility of a fast aperture. Kudos to Tamron for coming up with something innovative. If they would just come out with a 50-150 f2.8 VC I would be stoked!


----------



## blackwave

This is the first time I've browsed this thread and WOW.. I feel like I'm in the stoneage after reading the posts.

 I have three cameras.. one made in 1982, one made in 1969, and one made in 1939. I use three basic functions on all of them.. focus, aperture, shutter speed. They make me happy 

 I also shoot all b&w, develop at home, print in a wet darkroom. I'm like the vinyl junkie of photography.


----------



## Steggy

Do you guys think the d5000 is a worthy purchase? one of the reasons i wanted a dslr like the d5000 was for the hd video aspect, but lack of AF or external mic input is what deters me. I've seen like, the gh-1 having great af for video, and the new d300 has AF for video and an external mic, but these are both way out of my price range, and the video hasn't even been perfected yet. do you guys think they will be able to hammer out the kinks with the video feature and have a <1000 option with these features? or should i just learn to manually focus like a mofo and go with the d5000. i mean, i'd probably be taking more pictures than videos anyways.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *blackwave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is the first time I've browsed this thread and WOW.. I feel like I'm in the stoneage after reading the posts.

 I have three cameras.. one made in 1982, one made in 1969, and one made in 1939. I use three basic functions on all of them.. focus, aperture, shutter speed. They make me happy 

 I also shoot all b&w, develop at home, print in a wet darkroom. I'm like the vinyl junkie of photography. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

If the results are good, that's all that matters. ^_^


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ka-boom* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have the non-VC version and am consistently impressed by it's sharpness. Not the fastest focusing lens in the world, but the IQ is just fantastic for a 3rd party lens. 

 I think the VC version fills a niche for people who really think they "need" VR/VC/OS but who want the flexibility of a fast aperture. Kudos to Tamron for coming up with something innovative. If they would just come out with a 50-150 f2.8 VC I would be stoked!_

 

i'm quite interested in seeing a review of the VC version. i have a copy of the non-vc and non-motorized version that was made in japan and was one of my favorite lenses. on the D300 it was sharp, well balanced and obtained focus quickly. at least much faster than on my old D50. hopefully this new version will be just as good as i wouldn't mind having VC and a motor since i'm using a D40 nowadays.


----------



## dj_mocok

I have the 17-50mm older non-motor version too, but I have no wish to upgrade to new one at all. The picture quality is that good.
 I wonder why Tamron is so obsessed with changing their 17-50mm all the time.

 They should just make that VR into their 28-75mm full frame or something.


----------



## ka-boom

The elusive Tokina 11-16 is *FINALLY* back in stock at B&H.

 Just placed my order.


----------



## JaZZ

Don't forget the new Sigma 3.5/10-20. I have mine since a month now and am very happy with the image quality. It's at least on par with my former Tokina 12-24, and the additional 2.5 mm in the wide-angle range really pay off. Moreover it's also quite usable wide open, just at 10 mm the corners are a little soft then.

 BTW, I'm also interested in the new Tamron 17-50 VC. Fast aperture plus VR is the best of both worlds, provided that the optical quality stays the same. 
.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ka-boom* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The elusive Tokina 11-16 is *FINALLY* back in stock at B&H.

 Just placed my order. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	











_

 

It's a good move. Excellent lens. Been using it for awhile now.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Don't forget the new Sigma 3.5/10-20. I have mine since a month now and am very happy with the image quality. It's at least on par with my former Tokina 12-24, and the additional 2.5 mm in the wide-angle range really pay off. Moreover it's also quite usable wide open, just at 10 mm the corners are a little soft then.

 BTW, I'm also interested in the new Tamron 17-50 VC. Fast aperture plus VR is the best of both worlds, provided that the optical quality stays the same. 
._

 

I was hoping to get the new Tammy to replace my slightly lacklustre 16-85VR. It's not that sharp wide open and the focus searches in low light.

 I'm glad you've given the new Sigma 10-20 a thumbs up. It is exactly what I was looking for and maybe I'll be able pick one up when I'm in Asia. The UK price is outrageous.


----------



## JaZZ

Shots with Nikon D300 and *Sigma 3.5/10-20*





 ISO 640, 1/15 s, f/3.5, 10 mm





 ISO 200, 1/50 s, f/6.3, 10 mm





 ISO 200, 1/50 s, f/8, 10 mm

 Of course the small formats make it not really useful for judging image quality, after all it's better than nothing.
.


----------



## Steggy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you guys think the d5000 is a worthy purchase? one of the reasons i wanted a dslr like the d5000 was for the hd video aspect, but lack of AF or external mic input is what deters me. I've seen like, the gh-1 having great af for video, and the new d300 has AF for video and an external mic, but these are both way out of my price range, and the video hasn't even been perfected yet. do you guys think they will be able to hammer out the kinks with the video feature and have a <1000 option with these features? or should i just learn to manually focus like a mofo and go with the d5000. i mean, i'd probably be taking more pictures than videos anyways._

 

anyone?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_anyone?_

 

At this point, video on DSLRs isn't a replacement for a dedicated camcorder. I wouldn't spend a lot of money on a DSLR if your main consideration is video. Better to get a less expensive DSLR or point and shoot and spend the money you save on a good camcorder. I have a Canon HV30 and a pocket Flip Mino and I am very happy with both of them.


----------



## Steggy

Well, with that in mind, do you think the D5000 would be worth the price jump from like, a d40? I would be able to get a d40 for 400 dollars and a d5000 for 640 dollars, both with the stock lens. I was also looking at the canon t1i since i could get that for...680 i believe. reviews from like, engadget peg the canon as being better, but i'm told the nikons have faster autofocus...what would you guys think the better choice would be for someone getting into DSLR's for the first time?


----------



## DeusEx

Denon D5000....Nikon D5000...coincidence?


----------



## mightyacorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_... reviews from like, engadget peg the canon as being better..._

 

No offense, but if you are going to read reviews on cameras, you would be better off reading from a site like Digital Camera Reviews. Here are reviews of two of the cameras you mentioned: Canon T1i and Nikon D5000.

 The next thing you should do is go to a store that has both of these cameras and try them for yourself.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, with that in mind, do you think the D5000 would be worth the price jump from like, a d40? I would be able to get a d40 for 400 dollars and a d5000 for 640 dollars, both with the stock lens. I was also looking at the canon t1i since i could get that for...680 i believe. reviews from like, engadget peg the canon as being better, but i'm told the nikons have faster autofocus...what would you guys think the better choice would be for someone getting into DSLR's for the first time?_

 

I can't think of any normal DSLR today that will take anything less than a wonderful picture. With that said, go try them out at a store and see how they feel, how they function, which one is easier to work with, etc etc.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mightyacorn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No offense, but if you are going to read reviews on cameras, you would be better off reading from a site like Digital Camera Reviews. Here are reviews of two of the cameras you mentioned: Canon T1i and Nikon D5000.

 The next thing you should do is go to a store that has both of these cameras and try them for yourself._

 

Yup. See which one handles better. The image quality will be pretty similar to be honest. I personally find the Canon controls not as natural and take a bit of getting used to. Nikons just seem to have a more straightforward approach but I'm sure I could use a Canon just as well with a bit more time. I guess it's just two different approaches to achieve a common goal.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, with that in mind, do you think the D5000 would be worth the price jump from like, a d40? I would be able to get a d40 for 400 dollars and a d5000 for 640 dollars, both with the stock lens. I was also looking at the canon t1i since i could get that for...680 i believe. reviews from like, engadget peg the canon as being better, but i'm told the nikons have faster autofocus...what would you guys think the better choice would be for someone getting into DSLR's for the first time?_

 

What sort of lenses are you planning to have with your Nikon/Canon?
 If you are just after basic ones, you might want to look at  Panasonic's new micro 4/3 GF1 too. It can record HD movie and it looks neat. Worth considering as a substitute if you are in the market for a small DSLR with HD movie ability. 
 If I am not wrong, this new Panasonic GF1 can auto focus during a movie recording mode too. That would be one seriously neat feature, especially if you use a decent lens to go with it.
 Speaking of which, at the same time Panasonic also announced the 20mm f/1.7 and 45mm f/2.8 macro. I can do A LOT of things with just those 2 lenses.

 The thing is the camera is quite a bit more than D40 or D5000.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shots with Nikon D300 and *Sigma 3.5/10-20*

 Of course the small formats make it not really useful for judging image quality, after all it's better than nothing.
._

 

What's your opinion of the lens thus far (differences vs. the 4-5.6 version, if possible)? User reports on the new version are sparse thus far.


----------



## aj-kun

yeh i scored this on ebay 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








 can't wait for it to arrive...my first slr


----------



## dj_mocok

What are you going to attach at the front?


----------



## aj-kun

trying to win a 50mm f1.8 nikkor lens. few more days to go =D
 (it's a start)


----------



## dj_mocok

50mm 1.8 Ai or Ais are abundant everywhere, I think it's reasonably easy to win one.
 If you can still find one in very good condition, by all means get it even if it's a bit more than street price (10 or 20 bucks won't make a difference in a long run).


----------



## dj_mocok

Hey, by the way, do you guys think in this year 2009, it's a little too late to write a review for a 50mm 1.2 Ais? (which is what, a 28 years old lens?)

 But I think it would be interesting... what do you think?


----------



## lan

It's never to late to write a review.


----------



## jc9394

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey, by the way, do you guys think in this year 2009, it's a little too late to write a review for a 50mm 1.2 Ais? (which is what, a 28 years old lens?)

 But I think it would be interesting... what do you think?_

 

Never late to write a review. In fact, this lens makes me to keep my F3HP. I use it a lot with my D200 too.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What's your opinion of the lens thus far (differences vs. the 4-5.6 version, if possible)? User reports on the new version are sparse thus far._

 

I don't have experience with the Sigma 4-5.6/10-20, but maybe you're familiar with the Tokina 12-24? This was my previous lens. Without direct comparison I would say both are equal in terms of resolution and sharpness, the Tokina having the edge at 12 mm/4.0 compared to the Sigma at 3.5/10 mm when it comes to corner sharpness (actually a bit unfair). Stopped down to 5.6 or better 8.0, the Sigma is sharp also in the corners and very sharp in the rest of the image. From 12 mm upwards the Sigma is at least as sharp as the Tokina and certainly sharper at the upmost end (again a bit unfair, as it's 20 against 24 mm). I don't notice any weak zone in terms of focal lenght.

 You can imagine that 10 mm is the length I use most by far, and I'm very satisfied with the image quality here. I'm also surprised about the high number of sharp images (>85%), although I usually operate with small margins, such as 1/15 s at 10 mm (without tripod), in the interest of maximum depth of field and to avoid high ISO. 

 I've seen examples of quite heavy CAs from this lens, but I don't notice anything of them with my D300, which corrects them automatically (in JPEG mode). Its ability to mute lens flares is remarkable, especially compared to the Tokina. Distortion is inobtrusive with all focal lengths. 

 From what I gather from other owners who know the older 10-20, it has higher contrast than the latter (I don't notice any difference here compared to the Tokina, which was very good in this respect). 

 One downside I've noticed from the reports so far is that the number of de-centered samples seems quite high, about 40 or 50%, so not all owners are happy with this lens. Mine is in perfect shape, though, very sharp and without the least de-centering, as test images of a rough wall prove.

 In short: totally satisfied. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (The only thing I'm missing is VR.)
.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey, by the way, do you guys think in this year 2009, it's a little too late to write a review for a 50mm 1.2 Ais? (which is what, a 28 years old lens?)

 But I think it would be interesting... what do you think?_

 

Yes, it's still nice to see reviews of older lenses, especially if they can be compared to newer lenses.

 Secretly, I get a warm feeling when an older lens performs as well as the current generation.


----------



## aj-kun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Secretly, I get a warm feeling when an older lens performs as well as the current generation._

 

and then you jizzed in your pants...
 =D


----------



## dj_mocok

Well then let's see if I can make one in a week or two's time if I am not lazy.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In short: totally satisfied. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (The only thing I'm missing is VR.)
._

 

LOL, I think VR on an ultrawide is called "tripod" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Glad you're digging the lens. I went from the older 10-20 on DX to the 12-24 on FX. And she's wiiiiiiiide!:


----------



## dj_mocok

Is that the actual D700 image ratio? I didn't know it's more squarish.


----------



## OverlordXenu

3:2 is full-frame.


----------



## dj_mocok

I might be wrong but that pic doesn't look like a 3:2 to me


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Naw, it was cropped a little, and it's still silly wide. Here's an uncropped one at 12mm for ya!


----------



## dj_mocok

Looks like distortion is much more apparent on FX camera. I wonder if the 14-24mm Nikon is much better distortion wise (when used with an FF cam)


----------



## vagarach

Yeah that's what I was reading on Ken Rockwell's site, you have to accept more distortion in the corners on FX.


----------



## bigshot

It looks like that little t-shirt man has been invaded by a pack of lummoxes. I doubt if he has their size.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looks like distortion is much more apparent on FX camera. I wonder if the 14-24mm Nikon is much better distortion wise (when used with an FF cam)_

 

Worse, actually (though a lot better in vignetting). The 12-24 Sigma is well known for having the lowest distortion of UWA zooms. Check out slrgear.com, they have reviews of both lenses on FF.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It looks like that little t-shirt man has been invaded by a pack of lummoxes. I doubt if he has their size._

 

Haha, yeah, it is kinda funny in that regard. Though not all of the size discrepancy is perspective distortion, he wasn't exactly the biggest dude around to begin with


----------



## M0T0XGUY

I just got back a couple of Velvia 100 rolls from NCPS, and they turned out quite well. The scans are brilliantly dynamic and the raw slides even more so. Here are some examples: 





















 I used a Nikon FM and either a 35mm or 85mm lens for these shots.


----------



## Teraflame

Hi guys, I recently got a Fuji S5. Is it better to shoot in 6MP or 12? 

 And what programs should I use to edit/workflow tips?


----------



## bloodydoorknob

Hello nikon-fiers, I finally got a d90 after my d300 died from a severe drop ... I can finally get back to taking pictures 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm also selling an excellent F100 in the F/S forums if any of you are interested.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

That must have been one heck of a drop to kill a D300. I don't want to imagine what became of the lens


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Teraflame* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi guys, I recently got a Fuji S5. Is it better to shoot in 6MP or 12? 

 And what programs should I use to edit/workflow tips?_

 

Congratulations, it won't disappoint you unless you shoot burst.
 I would go for 12MP if I were you. But I can't remember the reason why.

 For workflow, not sure because I don't batch edit my pictures.


----------



## grego9198

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Teraflame* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi guys, I recently got a Fuji S5. Is it better to shoot in 6MP or 12? 

 And what programs should I use to edit/workflow tips?_

 

Very nice, I've been shooting with mine for a little over a year now. Excellent out of camera JPGs. 

 From what I understand, if you shoot JPEG then 12MP is the way to go, "the 12mp image is slightly better at rendering detail than you'd expect from taking a 6mp image and using traditional interpolation routines." (-http://bythom.com/s5review.htm)

 I shoot RAW just in case I need to perform some WB/exposure tweaks, I use Aperture and edit in CS3. I used to use Adobe Camera Raw which I think allowed a bit more range in terms of exposure. If you set DR at 400% the RAW files are around 20-30MB, so make sure you have some storage space


----------



## Edwood

I must confess the latest HD footage from prepro Canon 7D has me contemplating defecting.

 But then I remember how much I dislike the ergonomics of Canon DSLR's, and the fact that I rarely carry any DSLR everywhere I go. Likely my future digicam funds will go towards a Panasonic GF1 since I'll most likely carry it everywhere I go. The best camera in the world is useless if you don't have it with you.


----------



## lan

You mean like this video? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



Perya (Town Fair) - a Canon 7D Short on Vimeo

 Oddly I was thinking GF1 lately also. I would totally appreciate using the video.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You mean like this video? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


Perya (Town Fair) - a Canon 7D Short on Vimeo

 Oddly I was thinking GF1 lately also. I would totally appreciate using the video._

 

Heheh, yeah, that would be the one. Also, there is a Vimeo vid at a trade show someone shooting 6400 ISO, and it's very smooth for such a high ISO. Low light capabilities is where the 7D absolutely kills with it's video capabilities.

 Sadly, the GF1 borrows more from the G1 than the GH1. Mono built in mic sucks, and no mic input limits to simple Youtube HD vids. 

 Oh, well. There's only so much you can squeeze into such a small camera with a DSLR sensor. I'm glad I didn't early adopt the E-P1. 

 If I was already invested in Canon lens system rather than Nikon, I'd be all over the 7D and just find a way to carry it around all the time anyways.

 -Ed


----------



## GTL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The best camera in the world is useless if you don't have it with you._

 

How about the LEICA M9? Its small.


----------



## dj_mocok

Meh. I can do that kind of video with D700x/s. (when they decide to come out, haha)

 By the way, the 7D still can't AF when in movie mode right? Because I notice that the video consists of numerous small clips as if it can only shoot at fixed focus only.
 I think if the next Nikon still cant AF, MF probably is handier for movie mode.


----------



## lan

I only manual focus for recording movies anyway. Wouldn't have it any other way. It makes you pay attention more. Clips should be small anyhow for interest purposes.

 I don't think DSLRs are meant to AF with movies all the time. The lenses are noisy, massive, and it would take too much power.

 Unfortunately Nikon doesn't have many good IS lenses. It's necessary when shooting handheld video.


----------



## john_jcb

Well now that I have been playing with my Panasonic DMC-FX35 for many months I am thinking of getting a DSLR. I have narrowed my choices to the new D3000 the D5000 or the D90. Not sure I need video capability. What am I really loosing by going with the D3000. Flash Sync speed seems like one thing, again not too sure how important that is to me but my F4 was 1/250. What do you guys think?


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *john_jcb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well now that I have been playing with my Panasonic DMC-FX35 for many months I am thinking of getting a DSLR. I have narrowed my choices to the new D3000 the D5000 or the D90. Not sure I need video capability. What am I really loosing by going with the D3000. Flash Sync speed seems like one thing, again not too sure how important that is to me but my F4 was 1/250. What do you guys think?_

 

I probably wouldn't buy the D3000 if I were you. The D40 is basically comparable in every aspect except price, flash sync speed, and number of focusing points; the D40 having the advantage in two out of those three. With the money you save you can invest in a better lens, which is far more important to image quality than the camera body you attach it to...


----------



## wanderman

how often do you guys shoot with strobes for flash sync to matter?

 You should get a d40 + 35mm 1.8 and you will be golden. Small kit, fast glass, and super portable.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_how often do you guys shoot with strobes for flash sync to matter?_

 

Every time I'm outside shooting models. But it's near irrelevant since all modern DSLRs are the same in that regard.


----------



## dj_mocok

If you are used to F4 film, I suggest getting at least D300 because the feel is closer to older DSLR compared to those of D40s or the likes.


----------



## Towert7

it's one year later, and cameras still don't have a 'passion' setting on them.
 I'm disappointed. 

 Live view, video mode, d-lighting.............. where's my passion setting???


----------



## Braver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You should get a d40 + 35mm 1.8 and you will be golden. Small kit, fast glass, and super portable._

 

I do this. It totally kills. To me, this is the passion setting 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 : central focus point, aperture priority around f2.5, let the camera do the rest of the thinking, and I come home with brilliant shots of the party/vacation/younameit.
 [size=xx-small]with film though, you need no stinking settings [/size]

 Perhaps the M9 triggers Nikon and Canon to pay more attention to serious cameras that do not need to be able to do everything but are actually fun to shoot. I tried the D90 and found it dreadful... and I'm a recently graduated ICT pro, I should 'get' this stuff but instead I dread the idea of having to get that monster to behave as I want it to.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it's one year later, and cameras still don't have a 'passion' setting on them.
 I'm disappointed. 

 Live view, video mode, d-lighting.............. where's my passion setting???



_

 

Earth is my passion setting:






]


----------



## dj_mocok

Quick snaps around the kitchen today: (I used "Kitchen" setting on my cam)


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Quick snaps around the kitchen today: (I used "Kitchen" setting on my cam)









_

 

love the bokeh in these pictures. is that the 50mm f/1.2?


----------



## rhythmdevils

when's the D700x coming out? Anyone else think it's going to slaughter the 5D?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_love the bokeh in these pictures. is that the 50mm f/1.2?_

 

Clearly a matter of taste since I dislike this bokeh.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Clearly a matter of taste since I dislike this bokeh._

 

is it the bokeh that you dislike, or is it the grain that seems to be showing up more in the bokeh?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_when's the D700x coming out? Anyone else think it's going to slaughter the 5D? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Most likely, since the D700 is superior already in most respects, save pixel count and video (am I missing anything?)

 As far as when we might have it, your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_love the bokeh in these pictures. is that the 50mm f/1.2?_

 

Yes. Speaking of which, I haven't really gotten around the time to do the review. Been playing Demon's Soul on my PS3. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The grain is actually from my camera's ISO1250, nothing to do with the bokeh at all.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Most likely, since the D700 is superior already in most respects, save pixel count and video (am I missing anything?)

 As far as when we might have it, your guess is as good as mine._

 

yeah, I just got a 5D for a video project, which if you can get around the shorcomings of the auto level audio controls, the audio/video sync problems, and the very manual controls, it is really gorgeous. 

 But for photography, I'd take my D3 over the 5D any day. And since the D700 has most of those strenghts (save for 100% viewfinder and dual card slots) I'd say the same for the D700. I'm just not that impressed by Canon's tone and color in comparison. Not to mention high ISO. 

 I'm going to do some image tests at some point, and I'll post them here when I do! I did a ghetto iso6400 test and the D3 smoked the 5D, but it wasn't controlled enough...


----------



## dj_mocok

You remind me of the only thing that makes me hesitate to switch camera. I really love Fuji colour and the only reason I might not get a new camera is because I worry that I might not like the colour of a new camera as much as I like the colour from S5.

 When I switched from D80 to my Fuji, I thought the Fuji was faulty (the difference is that much). But after tweaking the setting, now I can't leave without the colour characteristics anymore.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Clearly a matter of taste since I dislike this bokeh._

 

Care to elaborate a little more?


----------



## dj_mocok

If I had to guess, I'd say Ian didn't like the little donut rings around the point of lights.
 I think that's the only weakness of 50mm 1.2 (which is shared with all 50mms anyway, but not sure about Noct). 
 It can be pretty bad under certain condition.
 However it can do pretty okay point of lights too, depending on the shooting condition and what I like is sometimes it produces cat's eye bokeh.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You remind me of the only thing that makes me hesitate to switch camera. I really love Fuji colour and the only reason I might not get a new camera is because I worry that I might not like the colour of a new camera as much as I like the colour from S5.

 When I switched from D80 to my Fuji, I thought the Fuji was faulty (the difference is that much). But after tweaking the setting, now I can't leave without the colour characteristics anymore._

 

I don't blame you. Coming from film, I was really tempted to get a Fuji digital camera. Seems like with 40+ years experience making film, they've got a bit more going for them. I'd love to see Fuji written on the front of my camera


----------



## dj_mocok

Well if you really want to have a Fuji, I think this is the last chance since I don't think they'll be making anymore DSLR.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_is it the bokeh that you dislike, or is it the grain that seems to be showing up more in the bokeh?_

 

The bokeh is not smooth enough and has too strong of donut rings for my tastes.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But for photography, I'd take my D3 over the 5D any day. And since the D700 has most of those strenghts (save for 100% viewfinder and dual card slots) I'd say the same for the D700. I'm just not that impressed by Canon's tone and color in comparison. Not to mention high ISO. 

 I'm going to do some image tests at some point, and I'll post them here when I do! I did a ghetto iso6400 test and the D3 smoked the 5D, but it wasn't controlled enough..._

 

Once again a matter of taste for me. I got rid of my D700 for a 5D II and didn't look back. I would have D3 as my only camera but I rather have more cameras. D3 is better noise wise than D3x also no? I don't mind noise. I prefer more detail though. Even with noise reduction which I find necessary any for things like 6400, any 20+ MP camera has a lot of detail. For my processing, Nikon colors are off by default but I know how to adjust them and if you know how, it's nearly irrelevent. I still believe Nikon is a better auto camera and that includes getting the color/tone/contrast good out the gate. I have to massage my Canon files more.

 6400 isn't native stop for 5D II. Try 5000 and it's multiples. Other stuff in between have much more noise.


----------



## ka-boom

I took (temporary) ownership yesterday of the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR I rented for a week from lensrentals.com -- wow! What a monster this thing is! It's HUGE compared to the lenses I regularly use.


----------



## dj_mocok

But where are them pictures?


----------



## ka-boom

Of it, or with it? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I have another wedding this coming weekend I rented it for, we'll see.


----------



## lan

Primes certainly are smaller as are the DX lenses. This Nikon 70-200 is one of the smallest/lightest though and I find it's a pleasure to use.


----------



## fureshi

it's a great idea to rent the lens and get some experience with it instead of plunking down the large sum that Nikon wants. the 70-300vr already looks ridiculous on my wife's D40 so i can only imagine that the 70-200vr would engulf that little camera.


----------



## cfdrumr

just saw this thread. I have a Nikon D300 and Nikon EL-2

 My lenses:
 f2.8 20-35
 DX 18-70
 1.8 50mm
 AF 1.8 50mm


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cfdrumr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_just saw this thread. I have a Nikon D300 and Nikon EL-2

 My lenses:
 f2.8 20-35
 DX 18-70
 1.8 50mm
 AF 1.8 50mm_

 

Welcome to the club!


----------



## Towert7

You know, I'm always amazed at just how much detail you can get out of a 6MP camera, such as my D50.





Full Size.
 I can't get over the detail in the shirt.

 I could get a 44x66in print out of this, while still looking decent at ~4ft away, and most certainly a 33x50in print! It would look beautiful at 22x33in!


 So, what is the purpose of 15.1MP, or worse yet, 18MP with a crop sensor?
 If my 6MP camera can make beautiful prints at 22x33in...................

 Personally? I think camera companies are wasting their time pushing in more pixels. It's useless (often a negative) until you up the sensor size (which would need more pixels to maintain the same fill factor). 

 The camera companies must know the general public falls for the 'more MP is better' argument. Sad, but true.

 I maintain that anything over 8MP with a crop sensor is pretty much useless. At that point your limiting factor is the lens and sensor size.


 If anything, I think this is a testament to just how nice the 4 year old 6MP nikon's were.


----------



## lan

I have seen huge prints from those 6MP cameras in photoplus expo and it's always about knowing what you are doing. I agree the lens makes quite a difference. My 4MP camera makes some amazing images which would size up well.

 The Beyer sensor doesn't sample color ideally so I like the cameras with higher megapixels. To me your image is a little blurry unfortunately. Her skin looks a bit too mushy. I guess I've gotten used to more megapixels. :/


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The Beyer sensor doesn't sample color ideally so I like the cameras with higher megapixels. To me your image is a little blurry unfortunately. Her skin looks a bit too mushy. I guess I've gotten used to more megapixels. :/_

 

I'll agree with the color problem, which crops its head up at some of the most random times (and when it's least wanted).

 So what setup are you using for portraits?


----------



## dj_mocok

If Carl Zeiss 100mm f/2 was a grand, I'd probably sell my macro and buy it. At this moment the price is too high for me to consider it (with a bit more I can think of a few more really really nice lens).

 But I've seen samples from Zeiss 100mm with D3/D700, that thing is amazing.


----------



## h.rav

^ It's one lens that I would never sell 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 The bokeh, color rendition, everything is beautiful.
 If you want to read Zeiss glasses review, I recommend reading reviews from this guy : diglloyd.com blog: September 2009


----------



## dj_mocok

Godd@mn you guys! 
 I wasn't really thinking about this lens until Ian's post somehow reminded me again of how much I love the look of the lens! 
 Darn this thread makes me feel like an alcoholic reading the "Talk About Alcohol" Thread.

 And H.Rav you are also not helping either! Argh!
 By the way, is your Zeiss the 100mm f/2 makro planar? If that's the one I guess you should at least post some pictures taken with that lens so that all of us poor non-Zeiss owners can drool a bit and dream maybe one day we could own that fine lens.

 But I guess I need to own a Zeiss at some stage of my life.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I'm going to be getting either the 50mm or 35mm Zeiss ZF mount for my D3 in the near future...can't decide which though.


----------



## rhythmdevils

also thinking of picking up this lens

KEH Camera: Nikon Auto Focus - Zoom Lenses - 80-200 F2.8 D MACRO ED (77) WITH HOOD, CAPS, 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS ZOOM TELEPHOTO LENS

 any thoughts? Seems like a pretty good deal


----------



## lan

Towert7, my main camera is the Canon 5D II. For portraits, I'll use any # of lenses. I prefer more telephoto so anything 70mm or over really.

 The Zeiss seems amazing. I really do like my 105 d/2 DC though. It is my sharpest lens at closer distances. I can't imagine the Zeiss being even more so.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_also thinking of picking up this lens

KEH Camera: Nikon Auto Focus - Zoom Lenses - 80-200 F2.8 D MACRO ED (77) WITH HOOD, CAPS, 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS ZOOM TELEPHOTO LENS

 any thoughts? Seems like a pretty good deal_

 

Don't, especially at that price. Get the two-ring version - on a lens like that, you're going to eventually want a tripod mount somewhere, and you just can't get them for the push/pull version. 

 You can see some very tempting deals on the one-ring version around $400-500 from time to time; while those are tempting and arguably a good deal I still wouldn't go for them in favor of getting the two-ring, but at $700 it's a no-brainer - not a good deal.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Towert7, my main camera is the Canon 5D II. For portraits, I'll use any # of lenses. I prefer more telephoto so anything 70mm or over really.
_

 

I had a hunch it would be a full frame camera. Yes, in that case you will get better detail, through and through. 

 I'd say it's more to do with the larger sensor size than anything though. As the sensor size gets bigger, so too will the ability to resolve detail.

 Hope you are enjoying your 5D. Wish I had one!!!


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Don't, especially at that price. Get the two-ring version - on a lens like that, you're going to eventually want a tripod mount somewhere, and you just can't get them for the push/pull version. 

 You can see some very tempting deals on the one-ring version around $400-500 from time to time; while those are tempting and arguably a good deal I still wouldn't go for them in favor of getting the two-ring, but at $700 it's a no-brainer - not a good deal._

 

I don't think I'll be doing much tripod use with it. It's more for weddings, and events. So I am more worried about AF speed and sharpness then anything else. Is the one I linked to super slow af? I can't seem to find many comparisons between them...


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I had a hunch it would be a full frame camera. Yes, in that case you will get better detail, through and through. 

 I'd say it's more to do with the larger sensor size than anything though. As the sensor size gets bigger, so too will the ability to resolve detail._

 

Well the 5D has weak antialiasing filter so details were more prevalent. The 5D II has more megapixels. The D700 wasn't much difference than D300 for me so I got rid of it. Yes at higher ISOs it was better since it got less mushier maintaining more detail but at base ISO hardly worth the $ to me. D3x would be super also from what I've seen but the price is something else. I rather use medium format.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_D3x would be super also from what I've seen but the price is something else. I rather use medium format._

 

There are times that I've thought of selling off all my gear to get a digital back mamiya. Then I remember that even if I did, I couldn't afford one. ~_~
 Deep down though, I want a MF camera for landscapes.
 I'm a sharpness (detail) freak.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I'd be interested in saving up for a medium format camera, but the technology is still changing too fast for a purchase that huge


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'd be interested in saving up for a medium format camera, but the technology is still changing too fast for a purchase that huge_

 

I don't think the medium format cameras have much that need improving in terms of image quality............


----------



## dj_mocok

Do you think D700x is really coming?

 I was visiting one of our local online camera shop, and they confidently listed this:







 Also I looked at the other shop, it has D700's price slashed:






 Coming out soon? I would love to have a budget D3x.


----------



## rhythmdevils

yyeeeeeahhhhhhhhhh! It's coming! I don't think it's coming that soon though. Even if Nikon announced it tomorrow, I don't think it would be on shelves for at least a couple months

 But they have to release something to compete with the 5D. My predictions:

 2500-3000 dollars (can't be too much more than 5D)
 same sensor as D3x
 HD video in 24,30,60 fps
 mic line input or ability to turn off auto levels
 hopefully some more juicy video features


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are times that I've thought of selling off all my gear to get a digital back mamiya. Then I remember that even if I did, I couldn't afford one. ~_~
 Deep down though, I want a MF camera for landscapes.
 I'm a sharpness (detail) freak._

 

They had a clearance at B&H but I passed on that. For landscape, film is still an option.

 I think a D700x should be around 3 to 4K. It must be more than D700. IMO if you can get a D700x or 5DII, there's no need for an entry level medium format unless you are into only low ISO shooting with heavy post processing.


----------



## rhythmdevils

has anyone read this crazy post?

Uncle Bob Leaks Top Secret Info On The Nikon D700X ~ Art of the Image

 I can't quite see nasa teaming up with nikon to make a camera for spaceships, but who knows i guess


----------



## dj_mocok

Sounds more like a hoax to me, not a very good one too. At least some of the other hoax got some photoshopped pictures with it. 

 But I wonder if D700x will be more expensive than a D3 (or very close to D3). It would make the decision very hard.


----------



## rhythmdevils

^ yeah. kind of funny though.

 from Nikon's point of view, the D700x either has to be much better than the 5D, or the same price. Then maybe they lower the cost of the D700, though I don't think it will be redundant- the D700 will still be better for low light, with faster fps. It would be an epic fail for Nikon to release a similar, but more expensive camera to the 5D, months after canon. This is their chance to finally trounce canon by releasing a camera that is clearly better, at the same price, or at least close. 

 Just my thoughts anyways.


----------



## dj_mocok

Or I think they might not even release any update for D700 at all and just release a new camera instead (not an s or x update). 
 I just hope the next PMA will bring something interesting


----------



## Teraflame

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think I'll be doing much tripod use with it. It's more for weddings, and events. So I am more worried about AF speed and sharpness then anything else. Is the one I linked to super slow af? I can't seem to find many comparisons between them..._

 

Can someone elaborate on this please? I'm also thinking about getting one of these.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Teraflame* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can someone elaborate on this please? I'm also thinking about getting one of these._

 

I wound up bidding for the 80-200 version that has seperate focus and zoom, and has the attached tripod mount. It isn't that much more on ebay and it is supposed to focus faster. I got completely jacked on ebay by people bidding up the price, and then retracting bids, and I'm paying more than I wanted to. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 Or I think they might not even release any update for D700 at all and just release a new camera instead (not an s or x update).
 I just hope the next PMA will bring something interesting 
 

but the x has never meant "update" it just means a different version. The D3X is not an updated D3, it is a D3 for a different purpose, for studio or landscape instead of sports or photojournalism. ie sharpness over speed and sensitivity. At least that's my understanding


----------



## dj_mocok

What I meant was a completely different animal altogether, like Canon's 7D. But I don't think Nikon will be doing that because they have things going on with their lineup already.
 (unless the decide to try micro 4/3 which I think is highly unlikely)


----------



## dj_mocok

Dang this chicken was fast!


----------



## dissembled

If the D700x has a vari-angle LCD screen, it's mine. Most (non-5D) photos I took in my life didn't involve me sticking my eyes into the viewfinder piece. Believe it or not, I find that restrictive as that limits perspectives. I'm just not used to it. 

 I also do street photography and an angular LCD screen is just sick to have for candid captures. All of you may disagree with me, but vari-angle LCD screens are pretty damn useful. More perspectives, more candid captures. I dream of the day of a low noise, fast AFing DSLR that has this feature.

 The Olympus E3 was an option but the noise levels really drove me away.


----------



## dj_mocok

I think it does have its use at certain times. But I don't think this will be introduced in higher end DLSRs. Well but I guess it can be handy when you are desperate in terms of shooting angle, and it won't hurt to have this feature.


----------



## bigshot

that's not a chicken, that's a roadrunner!


----------



## dj_mocok

No, I am pretty sure it's a chicken. 

 This is a Roadrunner:






 I also have another shot of the chicken. She was fast. I was actually taking pictures of ladybugs on the grass and she came circling near me a few times because she was also hunting ladybugs to eat. 
 At one stage she was very close to me and came back to me again when I moved spot, I think she tought I knew the location of the ladybugs that's why she followed me. 

 I guess she was right, I was sort of leading her to the ladybugs because I was taking pictures of ladybugs. 

 Another shot of the chicken:


----------



## DeusEx

Looking for a DSLR for mainly to shoot reviews and occasional nature shots. Any good choices at the 1K range? Lense?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DeusEx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looking for a DSLR for mainly to shoot reviews and occasional nature shots. Any good choices at the 1K range? Lense?_

 

D90 + lenses.... if you like nikon.

 For reviews, you'll want a pretty good lens with nice sharpness, as well as a good lighting setup. The lighting setup is probably the most important consideration.

 Nature shots..... what do you mean? Landscapes? Closeup macros? Flower / bird telephoto shots?


----------



## DeusEx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_D90 + lenses.... if you like nikon.

 For reviews, you'll want a pretty good lens with nice sharpness, as well as a good lighting setup. The lighting setup is probably the most important consideration.

 Nature shots..... what do you mean? Landscapes? Closeup macros? Flower / bird telephoto shots?_

 

So the D90's good for under 1K? I haven't been involved with much DSLRs.. 
 Nature shots, like landscapes as well as closeup macros. Also of everyday things, to post up on a blog.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DeusEx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So the D90's good for under 1K? I haven't been involved with much DSLRs.. 
 Nature shots, like landscapes as well as closeup macros. Also of everyday things, to post up on a blog._

 

You'll either need lots of little dedicated lenses, or a do-everything lens.
 Nikkor 18-200 would give you decent wide angle, as well as ok telephoto for closeup things like flowers.

 D90 is currently selling for about 815$, and the 18-200VR is about 750$.
 Just a suggestion.

 If you feel other lenses would be more appropriate (and perhaps cheaper), you should go with them.

 If I had to have one lens, it would either be the 18-200 for a multi use lens, or the pro nikon midrange zoom, such as the 24-70mm. I have the 35-70mm, and love it to death.


----------



## h.rav

For a DX lens and for starter, I'd just settle with the 18-55 VR/no VR.
 If I can only have one lens, it would be the 18-200 VR, but for starter, I wouldn't pick it, it may potentially make you lazy to compose angles, distance... just imho...


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *h.rav* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wouldn't pick it, it may potentially make you lazy to compose angles, distance... just imho..._

 

I have heard this argument time and again, and it holds no place with me.
 You are the photographer, and YOU are either lazy or not. The equipment does not cause you to be lazy. A good photographer will be a good photographer, no matter what equipment they use.
 Same thing applies to the digital vs film argument. Complete RUBBISH!@


----------



## h.rav

Well, that's not really an argument to your post. 
 It's my personal experience 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I could post arguments to your posts but I won't go that far, I have had enough reading of useful & useless arguments @ dpr. (no offense ;p)

 Now, I mainly use Zeiss prime lenses w/ D700. IMO, a prime glass forces me to be as creative as possible. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 For everyday uses, I use AF-S 24-70, 17-35, 70-200.
 I may purchase a D5000 for the small form and video, it's a fun little cam.


----------



## lan

For just reviews and web stuff? I wouldn't even bother with a DSLR.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For just reviews and web stuff? I wouldn't even bother with a DSLR._

 

I would. ^_^
 DSLR's are so much more fun!


----------



## lan

Yes DSLRs are fun but when you blogging, sometimes it's like work haha. Most of my time is spent editing and doing conceptual work rather than actually shooting.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *h.rav* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, that's not really an argument to your post. 
 It's my personal experience 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I could post arguments to your posts but I won't go that far, I have had enough reading of useful & useless arguments @ dpr. (no offense ;p)

 Now, I mainly use Zeiss prime lenses w/ D700. IMO, a prime glass forces me to be as creative as possible. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 For everyday uses, I use AF-S 24-70, 17-35, 70-200.
 I may purchase a D5000 for the small form and video, it's a fun little cam. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Can you stop mentioning the word "Zeiss" please? I am trying to forget that evil name so that I can have some money in my bank account. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 PS: I am still waiting for the pictures.


----------



## h.rav

^ Lol...

 What pics?

 These?


----------



## bigshot

Limitations don't make one creative. Thinking does.

 For under $1000, the best choice would be a D40 with the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses. You should be able to do that for under $700. Add a 35mm f1.8 to that for $200 and you have just about everything you need... maybe more than you need.

 The other alternative, which you should seriously consider, is a really good point and shoot. They are more easily pocketable and can give great image quality in good light. Take a look at the Canon S90 for $450 or the SD980 for a little over $300. If you aren't looking to buy a bunch of lenses and you don't plan to shoot in dark situations, a point and shoot is the way to go.


----------



## dj_mocok

I curse you and your Zeiss h.rav


----------



## john_jcb

Well after 39 years of shotting film on a myriad of SLR cameras I have made the move to digital. I started out with a small Lumix and was pleased with the results. A week ago I ordered a D90 and after charging the battery I had time last night to take a couple of shots outside before the darkness and rain descended. I think there is going to be a learning curve to learn to use this new camera. On my F4 my fingers knew where to go and what to do. Here are a couple of my first attempts.











 Hopefully it will stop raining and we will be able to get out this weekend.


----------



## dj_mocok

Did you keep your old lenses by any chance?


----------



## john_jcb

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Did you keep your old lenses by any chance?_

 

I did keep them. One of the reasons I chose the D90 was compatibility with my lenses. Looks like a new flash is required though.


----------



## dj_mocok

Yeah, not sure why it doesn't really work with older one (I don't really use or know much about flash system). 
 How do you like the movie mode?


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *john_jcb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I did keep them. One of the reasons I chose the D90 was compatibility with my lenses. Looks like a new flash is required though._

 

True, although like other lower-priced Nikon DSLRs the D90 won't meter with old manual-focus lenses. It does, however, have an autofocus motor built into the body, allowing you to use an AF Nikon-mount lens with functioning AF and metering (although you would lose the 3D functions of the camera's Color Matrix metering if that AF lens isn't a D or G lens).

 And I partially agree that a new flash is required. Specifically, you need one of Nikon's SB-### (note that the model number has three digits) units in order to use the camera's iTTL flash metering capability (if you want something more powerful than the D90's built-in flash). Of those units only the current SB-600 and the recently-discontinued SB-800 are fully compatible with both older film and newer digital Nikon SLRs since they offer both iTTL and the older TTL and D-TTL (the latter used only by the D1 series and the D100) modes. (The SB-600 has no non-TTL auto mode; thus, manual operation is required if that particular flash is used on a Nikon without TTL flash capability.) The SB-800's replacement, the SB-900, no longer has TTL/D-TTL mode compatibility, and thus will only give you non-TTL auto or manual flash modes when used with a film SLR other than the F6 while the SB-400 lacks an on-board manual mode completely making it compatible only with the newer iTTL Nikons. Conversely, the older Nikon flash units are only compatible with the newer digital Nikons in manual and/or non-TTL auto modes (this time, due to those units' lack of an iTTL mode--they may have a TTL mode, but that mode was designed for older cameras).


----------



## john_jcb

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, not sure why it doesn't really work with older one (I don't really use or know much about flash system). 
 How do you like the movie mode?_

 

Looks like my trusty SB-24 flash is retiring. Guess I will get the SB-600 soon. I want to get a good feel for using it in natural light first and use the on board flash if needed for a little fill.

 Have not tried th movie mode but from what I read it has some limitations.

 Oh I almost forgot. I was out yesterday and stopped by a small Wolf camera near my house. I asked if they had the Nikon AF 35 mm f1.8 lens. The manager said they had just got one in and it was $209. So I also have the new lens to try out.


----------



## dj_mocok

I've never tried the new 35mm 1.8 in person, but looking from the samples people post, it looks like a very capable lens and yet still very affordable. 

 Might be the new 50mm 1.8 for DX.


----------



## DeusEx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You'll either need lots of little dedicated lenses, or a do-everything lens.
 Nikkor 18-200 would give you decent wide angle, as well as ok telephoto for closeup things like flowers.

 D90 is currently selling for about 815$, and the 18-200VR is about 750$.
 Just a suggestion.

 If you feel other lenses would be more appropriate (and perhaps cheaper), you should go with them.

 If I had to have one lens, it would either be the 18-200 for a multi use lens, or the pro nikon midrange zoom, such as the 24-70mm. I have the 35-70mm, and love it to death._

 


 Does Canon have any similar offerings compared to the D90? 

 BTW, do you go to mit?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DeusEx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does Canon have any similar offerings compared to the D90? 

 BTW, do you go to mit?_

 

I'm sure they do, but I'm not familiar with the canon lineup so I'm not the person to ask.

 Nope, no MIT for me. I hate big cities with a passion.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DeusEx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does Canon have any similar offerings compared to the D90? 

 BTW, do you go to mit?_

 

I don't think there is a direct Canon equivalent of D90. 
 eg. I think D90 is better than Canon 500D, but Canon 50D is better than Nikon's D90, and I think Nikon D300 is better than 50D, and I think 5DMkII is better than D300, but then I think Nikon's D700 is better than 5dMkII, etc...

 But if I were to go Canon within the budget of Nikon D90, I'd pay a couple hundreds more and get a Canon 50D. With 85mm f/1.2 L too of course.


----------



## lan

Generally I agree. For me I'd put a 40D same as D90.

 D60, 500D, 40D/D90, 50D, D300(s)/7D

 My personal choices are Rebel 450D aka XSi or a D300. I dislike all Canon offering above rebel and below 7D. LOL.


----------



## dj_mocok

I remember a few years back when I wished I could own a 20D. To think that now 50D or even used 40D is selling dirt cheap, if you are not attached to Nikon lens, you should at least try and see how they feel like on your hands.

 Is the viewfinder in 50D bigger than D90?


----------



## rhythmdevils

Do you guys use lens hoods? I always have, but shot without one last weekend, and it was kind of nice. My 24-70 is really intense with the lens hood, and it was just one less thing to worry about. I happened to wind up shooting into teh sun a lot though, so it was a bad day to leave it behind. But I wonder if the hood really makes a difference. Seems like they wouldn't include them if they didn't. Any thoughts?


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *h.rav* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^ Lol...

 What pics?

 These? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 [pics]_

 

oh man! I so badly want one of those zeiss primes. Do you find yourself able to manually focus alright? I'm trying to decide between the 50mm 1.4 and macro F2. Don't really need any faster than F2 essp. when it's manual focus, and zeiss told me that the macro is sharper from 5.6-2. Though it's almost twice as expensive...


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you guys use lens hoods? I always have, but shot without one last weekend, and it was kind of nice. My 24-70 is really intense with the lens hood, and it was just one less thing to worry about. I happened to wind up shooting into teh sun a lot though, so it was a bad day to leave it behind. But I wonder if the hood really makes a difference. Seems like they wouldn't include them if they didn't. Any thoughts?_

 

Lens coating on modern lenses has really progressed so unless you're shooting in direct sunlight, flare isn't as big of a problem as it used to be. My 30 year old Cimko on the other hand...I'm forced to use my hand as a hood at the slightest hint of sunlight.


----------



## fureshi

it's not just for flare either. my understanding is that you'll see a decrease in contrast due to stray light hitting the front element.


----------



## dj_mocok

Ladies and gents, meet Nikon D3s.

 Well, D3s is a bit too big and pricey for me. I just hope that this release indicated that D700(x,s,h) is around the corner...

 But speaking of D3s, with still "low" megapixel, this camera will be king of high ISO.


----------



## rhythmdevils

12800 ISO standard! Yikes! And expandable up to 102,000. Wow. Unstoppable


----------



## the chemist

Another reason to use the lens hood is to prevent damage to the glass when you inevitably drop your lens,camera or both. The D700s should be out this fall if nikon follows its usual trends.


----------



## jc9394

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *the chemist* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D700s should be out this fall if nikon follows its usual trends._

 

That is what I'm hold out upgrade to D700.


----------



## the chemist

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jc9394* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is what I'm hold out upgrade to D700._

 

I've been through many bodies both canon and nikon pro bodies included and the d700 has been my favorite.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I'm not sure Nikon will make a smaller version of the D3s, I still think they'll make a smaller D3x, (D700x) to compete against the 5D.


----------



## ParadigmPenguin

Just bought a Nikon F100, my first nikon. Incredible camera. I had earlier purchased an Canon Rebel XSi, I now regret that. I'd like to sell it and buy a Nikon DSLR. Very impressed with Nikon's customer support, ergonomics and build quality.


----------



## dj_mocok

I would love to shoot with F100 but unfortunately the price of F100 is still a bit expensive. And it's hard to get film nowadays.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would love to shoot with F100 but unfortunately the price of F100 is still a bit expensive. And it's hard to get film nowadays._

 

Not really, but it is expensive to process and scan.


----------



## ParadigmPenguin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not really, but it is expensive to process and scan._

 

It's relative, of course. For what you're getting however, I do think that the F100 is an incredible bargain, sans aforementioned film development.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you guys use lens hoods? I always have, but shot without one last weekend, and it was kind of nice. My 24-70 is really intense with the lens hood, and it was just one less thing to worry about. I happened to wind up shooting into teh sun a lot though, so it was a bad day to leave it behind. But I wonder if the hood really makes a difference. Seems like they wouldn't include them if they didn't. Any thoughts?_

 

I never, ever use lens hoods. And I have them. I doubt that they have any real effect, and to me they make already cumbersome kit (SLRs and their massive lenses) even more conspicuous.

 If the sun is really harsh and direct or anything, I'll just use my hand to block it.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I always use a lens hood. I've yet to have one inconvenience me to the point where I felt it necessary to disabuse myself of it.


----------



## jc9394

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I always use a lens hood. I've yet to have one inconvenience me to the point where I felt it necessary to disabuse myself of it._

 

X2, lens hood will also help out a little if you drop the lens.


----------



## Towert7

If I'm outside on a sunny day, and if possible, I attach the lens hood. I hate having to hold the camera with one hand while blocking out the sun with the other hand.


----------



## bigshot

I don't hang my camera around my neck. I keep it in a side bag so it is inconspicuous. I skip the hood and use a HMC filter and lens cap instead.


----------



## dj_mocok

H.rav:

 If you are free, would you mind posting some point of lights bokeh of your Zeiss 100 please? I wanna see how it renders things wide open. 
 Aussie dollar is recently strong, I think this is the perfect time to purchase one if I want to. But I still have slight hesitation mainly because I already have 90mm Tamron (excellent bokeh by the way), and 85mm Nikon. That, and convincing your other half is the hardest part.


----------



## rhythmdevils

just buy it you know it's going to be amazing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I'd like to see pics too though.


----------



## dj_mocok

I have to somewhat convince my partner though. 
 Also say if she approved it, I would need to sell my Tamron 90mm which I really really don't want to do because this lens is amazingly nice - can't fault this lens at all. 
 If I were to get it though, I just hope that this Zeiss is worth all the sacrifice I'd make.


----------



## h.rav

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_H.rav:

 If you are free, would you mind posting some point of lights bokeh of your Zeiss 100 please? I wanna see how it renders things wide open. 
 Aussie dollar is recently strong, I think this is the perfect time to purchase one if I want to. But I still have slight hesitation mainly because I already have 90mm Tamron (excellent bokeh by the way), and 85mm Nikon. That, and convincing your other half is the hardest part._

 

Sure, I'll post a few pics tomorrow.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have to somewhat convince my partner though. 
 Also say if she approved it, I would need to sell my Tamron 90mm which I really really don't want to do because this lens is amazingly nice - can't fault this lens at all. 
 If I were to get it though, I just hope that this Zeiss is worth all the sacrifice I'd make._

 

Lol...

 The Tamron 90mm is a very nice lens. The only cons that I don't like is the built quality.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *h.rav* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The only cons that I don't like is the built quality._

 

and the fact that it doesn't say "zeiss" on the front


----------



## h.rav

I don't care about brand names


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *h.rav* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sure, I'll post a few pics tomorrow.



 Lol...

 The Tamron 90mm is a very nice lens. The only cons that I don't like is the built quality._

 

I can tell you are obviously spoiled by the build quality of your Zeiss. After using that for awhile I don't think you will find lenses even those in the range of Nikon pro lenses will be that solid anymore.
 Regular Joes will usually think the build quality of that Tamron 90mm is actually pretty good unlike some of the cheaper version of Tamron/Sigma/Nikon zoom kits.
 Actually I also think the build quality of the 90mm is quite decent, and better than 17-50mm version. 

 What other lenses do you use by the way?

 I'm gonna get 100mm Zeiss, but really with that kind of money I can probably source at least a used Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 that is still in immaculate condition.
 The thing is although that Nikon 24-70mm is very convenient and offers very good image quality, I think it won't be as good as the Zeiss 100mm, don't you think?

 I know it's not a fair comparison because one is a zoom lens (although top of the range) and the other one is dedicated macro prime, but I always put image quality on the top of the list and I am not very fussy with focal length and can work with what I have.
 Plus from what I see, the Zeiss colour rendering is nicer than Nikon's.

 I've read a lot of information and arguments about this Zeiss 100mm. I've never come across one single person who is unhappy with this lens. But it also creates a bit of controversy because some people say that the superiority this Zeiss has is just the imagination of the owners and they reckon it's not that much different compared to Nikon's ones (placebo effect?).
 But then again, I also see this difference, and I am not an owner. I don't know what is, but pictures just look nicer with the Zeiss. Colour is nice, contrast is nice. Not that non-Zeiss lenses can't have good colour and contrast, but the pictures taken properly with Zeiss has this special feel to it. 

 I really wish that this lens won't disappoint me considering I am still getting it although I already have 85mm and 90mm range.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *h.rav* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't care about brand names 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

yeah I don't either really. But I have a lot of good memories shooting with zeiss and Hasselblad, and I just love the idea of feeling like I'm merging my Nikon with that old camera in some way. Silly I know. But some of my favorite images were taken with that zeiss (not because of the zeiss though 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) and shooting with a digital camera just doesn't feel the same, as good a camera as the D3 is. 

 I'm curious if I would enjoy shooting with the manual focus/aperature. I like the precision of auto focus, but it's almost too easy. Like automatic clutch. You like the m focus h. rav?


----------



## dj_mocok

Some Canon users even bought the Nikon mount Zeiss 100mm f/2 and use it with their Canon bodies via adapters. That must say something about the quality of the lens eh?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Well, I can think of at least one thing the Nikon 24-70 offers that the Zeiss 100 doesn't (aside from zoom).....field curvature!


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I can think of at least one thing the Nikon 24-70 offers that the Zeiss 100 doesn't (aside from zoom).....field curvature! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

What about auto focus?


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What about auto focus?_

 

None of the current Zeiss lenses in Nikon F mount have autofocus. In fact, the Zeiss lenses also lack CPU contacts on the lens. Therefore, the Zeiss lenses will behave in the same way as any non-CPU lens: Manual focus only, aperture must be physically selected on the lens's aperture ring, no automatic aperture control, and (on any Nikon DSLR below a D200) no metering or over/underexposure indication.

 If on the other hand a Nikon-to-Canon adapter is used for mounting a Nikon-mount lens on a Canon body, the metering will be of the stop-down (as opposed to full-aperture) reading type. As such, only A (Av) or M modes are usable, and expect a darkened viewfinder at most shooting apertures.


----------



## dj_mocok

I want field curvature. That sounds like an impressive feature.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I want field curvature. That sounds like an impressive feature._

 

LOL Think of the marketing possibilities!


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Eagle_Driver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_None of the current Zeiss lenses in Nikon F mount have autofocus. In fact, the Zeiss lenses also lack CPU contacts on the lens. Therefore, the Zeiss lenses will behave in the same way as any non-CPU lens: Manual focus only, aperture must be physically selected on the lens's aperture ring, no automatic aperture control, and (on any Nikon DSLR below a D200) no metering or over/underexposure indication.

 If on the other hand a Nikon-to-Canon adapter is used for mounting a Nikon-mount lens on a Canon body, the metering will be of the stop-down (as opposed to full-aperture) reading type. As such, only A (Av) or M modes are usable, and expect a darkened viewfinder at most shooting apertures._

 

I thought it would meter, but only in one of the modes- the eye whatever its called- not spot, and not 3D matrix


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LOL Think of the marketing possibilities! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Now, with 15% more field curvature for more creative images!


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I thought it would meter, but only in one of the modes- the eye whatever its called- not spot, and not 3D matrix_

 

Actually, the D200 or higher will meter with non-CPU lenses, in either center-weighted or spot metering modes. And Color Matrix (but not 3D Color Matrix) metering (which is the same Matrix mode that's normally used with pre-D and pre-G AF lenses) can be enabled with non-CPU lenses on those bodies by manually programming the focal length and aperture information for a given non-CPU lens into the camera's computer. Each of those cameras can hold up to 9 different custom "non-CPU lens" focal length programs. And of course, only the A or M exposure modes are available since the aperture must be selected on the lens itself and cannot be set on the body like you would with a CPU-equipped lens.

 The D100 and the D90 and below (including the D5000 and D3000, which are basically extensions of the D40/D60 series) will not meter at all with a non-CPU lens.

 Thus, with your particular camera (a D3), the first paragraph applies. With such a non-CPU lens mounted, you can use either center-weighted or spot metering out of the box (default is center-weighted). And, it will take a little bit of work (chiefly manual data entry) in order to enable Color Matrix metering with a non-CPU lens.


----------



## dj_mocok

H.rav any plan on getting Kinoptik lenses?


----------



## dissembled

Just received my first Nikon: the D5000 and I'm blown away. Articulating LCD screen allows for waist level, candid photographs. Live view is a freakin Godsend since the camera allows you to zoom into the scene, resulting in accurate focus. I also love that you can choose the auto focus point during live view, just like with my Canon point and shoot.

 The lens I bought is the Nikkor 35/1.8 AFS. Bokeh it renders is pretty nice and it focuses relatively fast and accurately.

 I love the camera so much that I think I prefer it over the 5D I owned.


----------



## Braver

hurrah for small nikons with the 35 afs


----------



## dj_mocok

I don't own one, but looking at the sample pictures, 35mm 1.8 AFS looks like a lens that performs better than the asking price. I think if you put a metal body and better quality AFS mechanism in there while maintaining the same optical quality, I think people will still buy it and won't complain that it's overpriced. It also looks like one fun lens to use. 

 By they way, I received this: "_Left FedEx origin facility_" Woohoo! 
 I hope you don't screw me up, Fedex, hehe..


----------



## h.rav

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can tell you are obviously spoiled by the build quality of your Zeiss. After using that for awhile I don't think you will find lenses even those in the range of Nikon pro lenses will be that solid anymore.
 ........
 What other lenses do you use by the way?_

 

Nikkor pro lenses aren't bad in any way, they aren't made for manual focus. The Zeiss' are specifically made for manual focus, that's why you get super smooth feeling of the focusing helicoid when you are focusing the lens.

 I mostly use 17-35 f/2.8, 200 f/2, Zeiss 35 f/2 Voigtlander 58 f/1.4, Zeiss 100 f/2, Voigtlander 125 f/2.5. I also have a 24-70 f/2.8 for everyday use and 70-200 VR, I've been thinking on selling the 70-200 VR as it is the last lens I would pick when I'm about to travel.

  Quote:


 ........
 The thing is although that Nikon 24-70mm is very convenient and offers very good image quality, I think it won't be as good as the Zeiss 100mm, don't you think?

 ....... 
 

Yes, but I don't think it's fair to compare primes to zooms.
 Sony has Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8, from all pics that I have seen taken with that lens, the Nikkor has much smoother bokeh and just as sharp.

  Quote:


 I've read a lot of information and arguments about this Zeiss 100mm. I've never come across one single person who is unhappy with this lens. But it also creates a bit of controversy because some people say that the superiority this Zeiss has is just the imagination of the owners and they reckon it's not that much different compared to Nikon's ones (placebo effect?). 
 

The person might actually get a bad lens or the lens is simply not his preference or there is actually a better lens out there. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 There are a few people over at NikonCafe that received bad copies of the Zeiss 100, most of them seem to have soft corners, so be sure to test your lens to a flat subject like a brick wall when you receive it, Zeiss 100 f/2 is supposed to be very very sharp from center to all 4 corners wide open.

  Quote:


 I really wish that this lens won't disappoint me considering I am still getting it although I already have 85mm and 90mm range. 
 

If you buy it from B&H, they have a good return policy, just return it if you don't like it or if it does not meet your expectations. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Btw, here are the pics, I couldn't find a decent light object, have been very busy as well, so I took pics of my amp and DAC. Sorry for the late. I still have a few more pics.

 http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2660/4056139805_32c075daf1.jpg[IMG]
 [img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2567/4056136257_e29fd6f484.jpg


----------



## h.rav

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yeah I don't either really. But I have a lot of good memories shooting with zeiss and Hasselblad, and I just love the idea of feeling like I'm merging my Nikon with that old camera in some way. Silly I know. But some of my favorite images were taken with that zeiss (not because of the zeiss though 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) and shooting with a digital camera just doesn't feel the same, as good a camera as the D3 is. 

 I'm curious if I would enjoy shooting with the manual focus/aperature. I like the precision of auto focus, but it's almost too easy. Like automatic clutch. You like the m focus h. rav?_

 

I love manual focus lenses. I was spoiled with the focusing speed of a pro lens, but when I tried a decent manual focus lens, I fell in love. I began collecting and using manual focus lenses extensively right after that. There is this exciting feeling about using manual focus lenses 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I would never get rid of my MF lenses. Superb glasses last forever.


----------



## Towert7

Anyone have the nikkor 20mm F/2.8?
 The images I've seen from it are very nice.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *h.rav* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I love manual focus lenses. I was spoiled with the focusing speed of a pro lens, but when I tried a decent manual focus lens, I fell in love. I began collecting and using manual focus lenses extensively right after that. There is this exciting feeling about using manual focus lenses 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I would never get rid of my MF lenses. Superb glasses last forever. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I'm actually the other way round - my first venture into DSLR world was with my brother's D200 + 50mm 1.4 Ais lens. I loved it so much, tried AF lenses, although it's VERY handy, but deep down I still love taking pictures with old MF lenses. Hence the reason why most of my lenses are prime MF lenses.

 I took this with a manual lens today: (awesome game by the way)


----------



## the chemist

If you want to venture back into MF lenses I would recommend picking up a cheap stellar lens like the 105 2.5 AI-D. This lens is fantastic from corner to corner even at 2.5(~$100). If you find MF to your liking you can then move to zeiss if you fancy. Personally i find MF impractical unless you are in a need for tilt/shift lenses. It is simply ALOT easier to go AF and I couldn't imagine using an MF lens at a payed gig under most circumstances.


----------



## dj_mocok

I got my MF lenses pretty much covered I think.
 105mm f/2.5 is very sought after nowadays it's hard to get it for a hundred bucks. Here on eBay they usually sell around 200 bucks.


----------



## john_jcb

Deftly slipping the topic away from lenses a minute. When using the AF feature do you select your focus point or let the auto setting handle it? I have had a few shots where it wanted to select the wrong point. Perhaps I should practice selecting for myself.

 Also what do you all think about the D lighting. I am going to try some shots today as it is finally sunny out and see if I like the difference it makes. 

 The new D90 is fun but there is a lot of learning. In a way I miss using my old manual Minolta. But I do think there are more keeper pictures now. 

 Returning to lenses; here is one I took with the Nikon 35mm f1.8


----------



## dj_mocok

I don't know about other people but I always use manual focus point so I know for sure which one the camera will focus (hopefully, lol). 
 Not really a fan of letting camera predict what I want to focus - it can be a hit and miss quite often in my case.


----------



## Towert7

Well, it seems no one has the nikon 20mm F/2.8.
 Hm...


----------



## ka-boom

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't own one, but looking at the sample pictures, 35mm 1.8 AFS looks like a lens that performs better than the asking price._

 

Give it a try some time, man. As much as you like those 50's - you might really enjoy the 35mm focal length. I am really happy with this lens so far, yes I own it. Focuses just as fast as my 50 f1.8 D, no quicker _or_ slower on my D300. But for a lousy $200, its a deal.

 My lenses now are:

 Tamron 17-50 f2.8
 35 f1.8 AF-S
 50 f1.8 D
 85 f1.8 D


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *john_jcb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Deftly slipping the topic away from lenses a minute. When using the AF feature do you select your focus point or let the auto setting handle it? I have had a few shots where it wanted to select the wrong point. Perhaps I should practice selecting for myself._

 


 Nice shot! Personally I use manually selected single focus point with my D80 and always leave it on the center since its the only cross type sensor. In conjunction with the AF-ON button (programmed AE-L/AF-L button in the D80's case) and AF-C mode it's easy to focus on whatever I want, recompose if necessary, then shoot. 

 To set the AE-L/AF-L to function as an AF-ON button it must be set in the custom settings menu, once this is done the camera will only engage auto-focus when you press the AE-L/AF-L button instead of a half press of the shutter. After some practice this makes it much easier to recompose shots without the camera trying to auto focus on something else.. and generally it just gives the photographer more control over AF than using the shutter button IMHO. I use AF-C mode because otherwise the shutter will not trigger after recomposing if it thinks the area underneath the selected sensor is out of focus. The higher end cameras (D200+) have an option for Shutter Priority and a dedicated AF-ON button so you can always take a shot in any focus mode.

 Though, using a single sensor point is probably not as effective if you are shooting wildlife or other moving targets.


----------



## blackbird

Hey, do you people recommend me buy a used D40 from KEH or B&H? B&H is slightly cheaper, but I don't know how their quality is. Both would cost about $380 for the whole outfit. As for the lenses, I would like to get a 35mm(which, plus 1.5 fov magnification) 1.8 lens, but I don't know if I should get one with a AF motor, or just a regular manual one. If I just get a regular manual one, how much would that cost?


----------



## Eagle_Driver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *blackbird* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey, do you people recommend me buy a used D40 from KEH or B&H? B&H is slightly cheaper, but I don't know how their quality is. Both would cost about $380 for the whole outfit. As for the lenses, I would like to get a 35mm(which, plus 1.5 fov magnification) 1.8 lens, but I don't know if I should get one with a AF motor, or just a regular manual one. If I just get a regular manual one, how much would that cost?_

 

Be advised that the only Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens ever made is the current AF-S DX model. There had been earlier 35mm f/2.0 Nikon lenses without a built-in AF motor, including the still-in-catalog AF 35mm f/2.0D lens, which will autofocus on higher-end Nikons but must be focused manually on the D40/D60/D#000 (4-digit) series DSLRs. The non-CPU manual 35mm f/2.0 lenses were discontinued a few years ago, and Nikon DSLRs up to the D100 (including the D3000 and D5000) will not meter at all with such a non-CPU lens mounted (only the D1, D2, D3, D200, D300 and D700 series DSLRs will meter with a non-CPU lens--and all of those except the D1 series allow Color Matrix metering if the focal length and maximum aperture information is entered manually into the cameras' internal memory; the D1 series cameras allow only center-weighted or spot metering with a non-CPU lens).

 By the way, the AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D lens actually costs more money than the AF-S Nikkor DX 35mm f/1.8G lens. This is because despite its simpler optical design (a traditional retrofocus design (length of lens changes with focus) with 6 elements in 5 groups for the AF 35mm f/2.0D versus a rear-focusing design with 8 elements in 6 groups for the AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G), the older AF Nikkor f/2.0D lens was designed to cover the full 35mm film frame or FX sensor while the AF-S f/1.8G DX lens needed only to cover the smaller DX sensor.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ka-boom* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Give it a try some time, man. As much as you like those 50's - you might really enjoy the 35mm focal length. I am really happy with this lens so far, yes I own it. Focuses just as fast as my 50 f1.8 D, no quicker or slower on my D300. But for a lousy $200, its a deal.

 My lenses now are:

 Tamron 17-50 f2.8
 35 f1.8 AF-S
 50 f1.8 D
 85 f1.8 D_

 

I might, but I can't possibly get one more lens now without selling my other ones. My breadbox that I use to keep my lenses is already full. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (and I already have 1 attached to my camera, not in the breadbox)
 But looks like this 35mm 1.8 is slowly creeping up to 50mm 1.8's popularity as the must have value prime from Nikon.

 Another two shots from yesterday afternoon - as always I was too lazy to bring tripod that's why the shots are not as sharp as they could be. But it was pretty crap day for shooting - didn't come home with that many good shots. 
















 By the way I hope I can cough up a new lens review by next week. Won't be so much controlled test because I am too lazy for that but just a quick write up with some pics.


----------



## ka-boom

Here are a couple from the first weekend I got the 35mm f1.8.





 ISO 1400





 ISO 1000





 ISO 640





 ISO 200


----------



## M0T0XGUY

^ What kind of processing do you do?


----------



## ka-boom

Not much of any, really. Add +5 vibrance and +5 contrast to each, if that? I may have bumped the exposure up by a 1/3 stop, but I'd have to go back and check. I'm not big in heavily processed shots.

 The last one is terrible white balance, I freely admit that. It was a yellowish, hazy, overcast, rainy morning as you can see in the sky.


----------



## xkRoWx

Just got my D300, now looking for a flash. Which of the three should I buy? 600? 800? 900?


----------



## ka-boom

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xkRoWx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just got my D300, now looking for a flash. Which of the three should I buy? 600? 800? 900?_

 

Depends on what you want to do, ultimately. Will it ONLY be used ON the camera? Off camera? Used to trigger other flashes as a commander, etc? You need to be more specific. The SB800 has been discontinued, keep in mind.


----------



## guiltyspark343

I want the nikon f6 so much but do not have 1k to shell out. I know it is a film camera I like film more than digital.


----------



## dj_mocok

1K for F6 is a bargain. Where can you get it for 1K?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, it seems no one has the nikon 20mm F/2.8.
 Hm..._

 

Can't help ya there. I've seen quite a bit good dish about the 24mm on FX, but not much on the 20 or 28.

 I did recently pick up a Sigma 15mm Fisheye for a song on craigslist. It is a much smaller lens than I had envisioned, and a ton of fun to shoot. I am enjoying it more than I ever though I would. And it has nice bokeh to boot!


----------



## JeJeP

Being a film junkie, I recently acquired a mint Nikon F801s, and I love it so far.


----------



## dj_mocok

I still wanna know where to get an F6 for a grand.


----------



## the chemist

Some lens review sites if you are still looking at the 20mm 2.8. I prefer thom hogan reviews over bjorns
NÆRFOTO Bjørn Rørslett
Thom Hogan's Nikon Field Guide and Nikon Flash Guide

 I would also like to know where you found the F6 for 1k. I see them at adorama used for ~1.4k. Regards


----------



## the chemist

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xkRoWx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just got my D300, now looking for a flash. Which of the three should I buy? 600? 800? 900?_

 

I would get the 800 or the 900. Please use these off-camera and at the minimum trigger with your pop up flash
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. You can also purchase an IR blocker(or tape some old film to it ) for the pop up flash that will prevent any minor trace of on camera flash when triggering. My only reason for not choosing the sb-600 is that there is no SU mode. The 800 is great and I would only spring for the 900 if you want the 200mm zoom feature and full swiveling head, both of which are GREAT features.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *the chemist* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some lens review sites if you are still looking at the 20mm 2.8. I prefer thom hogan reviews over bjorns
NÆRFOTO Bjørn Rørslett
Thom Hogan's Nikon Field Guide and Nikon Flash Guide_

 

Thanks!


----------



## lan

Has anybody ever tried or heard about the new Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC? Just wondering if it's quality is same or better than the old one.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I suspect it would be. Or to put it another way, I'd be surprised if the performance decreased. I think the Achilles' heel of that lens, like most recent Tamrons, will be the focus motor (slow, noisy, and inaccurate). Unless of course they have decided to make a change in that area.


----------



## lan

I don't find the motor slow or noisy or inaccurate but then again I'm using the screwdriver version and I'm not in a condition to even notice those. Of course quantity is always relative.

 They didn't have any demo at B&H.


----------



## dj_mocok

I think what IronDreamer meant was the newer Tamron with motor inside the lens one. Mine is also the older non motor version one. But I guess if your camera doesn't have motor, it's better than not being able to use the lens. But if I were to choose I'd have old one too. Additional motor = 1 more thing that might fail (esp. considering the price is still pretty much same so I guess they won't be putting 1st class motor in there)


----------



## rhythmdevils

anyone getting the D3s? I'd love to see comparison shots vs the D3 at 6400.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I was wondering if anyone could offer some advise about whether to get the Zeiss 50mm Macro F2 or the 50mm F1.4. This is what Zeiss said about the differences when I asked them:

  Quote:


 Thanks for your request and your interest in our products.
 The complexity in optics and mechanics of the Makro-Planar T* 2/50 is higher than with the Planar T* 1,4/50. So the Makro-Planar 2/50 offers better performance at f/2 than the Planar, and better overall performance at closer distances. Stopped down to f/5.6, both lenses are equal in their image quality at medium and longer distances.
 So if you can accept the bigger volume, higher weight and price as well as one f-stop less, the Makro-Planar T* 2/50 is the better allround lens compared to the Planar T* 1,4/50. 
 

What do y'all think? I wonder how big the differences really are, considering the F2 is twice the cost.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was wondering if anyone could offer some advise about whether to get the Zeiss 50mm Macro F2 or the 50mm F1.4. This is what Zeiss said about the differences when I asked them:



 What do y'all think? I wonder how big the differences really are, considering the F2 is twice the cost._

 

Sounds like you just have to ask yourself if you need close up focusing.......


----------



## rhythmdevils

well he said it was better past 5.6 and at closer distances. I assumed he meant more than just being able to focus closer. But I'm leaning toward just getting the 1,4 and see how it goes first. I was looking at some comparison images to the Nikon 1,2 and the difference wasn't that noticeable. But then again, it seems laughable to make comparisons on a monitor, with tiny compressed images. like comparing the R10 and HD800 with an ipod as source/amp


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But I'm leaning toward just getting the 1,4 and see how it goes first. I was looking at some comparison images to the Nikon 1,2 and the difference wasn't that noticeable. But then again, it seems laughable to make comparisons on a monitor, with tiny compressed images. like comparing the R10 and HD800 with an ipod as source/amp 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Just get both and return the one you don't like as much.

 Nothing wrong with looking at small jpegs or using ipod as source/amp. It will show OTHER things than resolution.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was wondering if anyone could offer some advise about whether to get the Zeiss 50mm Macro F2 or the 50mm F1.4. This is what Zeiss said about the differences when I asked them:



 What do y'all think? I wonder how big the differences really are, considering the F2 is twice the cost._

 

That's a pretty honest assessment, especially considering the natural biases of a Zeiss rep. Personally, I've seen the 50 f/1.4 in action and its not very exciting at all. Loads of coma / spherical aberrations at f/1.4, gradually decreasing till about f/4; where it's performance is indeed excellent. If you wanted / needed an f/1.4 lens and were set on manual-focus I'd instead look at Nikon's own AI-S offerings, which offer similar performance to the Zeiss with arguably better build quality.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's a pretty honest assessment, especially considering the natural biases of a Zeiss rep. Personally, I've seen the 50 f/1.4 in action and its not very exciting at all. Loads of coma / spherical aberrations at f/1.4, gradually decreasing till about f/4; where it's performance is indeed excellent. If you wanted / needed an f/1.4 lens and were set on manual-focus I'd instead look at Nikon's own AI-S offerings, which offer similar performance to the Zeiss with arguably better build quality._

 

hmmm that sure does contrast sharply with everything else I've read about them.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Do you all clean your sensors yourselves? I'm going to have to do my first sensor clean on my D3...not looking forward to it!


----------



## rhythmdevils

Wow, I just hit it with the air rocket, holding the camera with the lens mount down, hoping the dust would fall out, and it did, not a single speck left. That was easier than I thought it would be! Should have done that sooner


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I will be doing my first wet clean on the D700 this weekend. It is to the point where the self-cleaning and rocket blower just ain't cutting it anymore. But considering that I change lenses frequently, often outdoors, it was really just a matter of time before it got to this point. Not that I'm complaining, it definitely resists getting dusty more effectively than the D200 did.


----------



## skyline889

Luckily, I've only ever had to do one wet clean. I bought a used D50 off eBay as a back-up and the sensor was filthy. Rocket Blower took some of it off but I had to use Eclipse to get the rest off. Pretty stressful initially but worked like a charm.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I'm surprised all of the dust came off my sensor, seeing as though i've never cleaned it in any way over the last year of use. I am pretty careful when I change lenses, always face the camera down and move quick. Maybe it made a difference.


----------



## dj_mocok

Up until now I never had to clean my DSLR sensor. Maybe I'm careful or I might be just lucky.


----------



## rhythmdevils

That's surprising. All my dslrs have wound up with some, and I imagine you change lenses a lot.


----------



## dj_mocok

I don't change lenses all that often when I am outside. Usually I go out with one lens only, leaving all the other lenses feeling grumpy and jealous...


----------



## lan

(Sort of) new ZEISS lenses are coming. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Zeiss launches ZF.2 lenses with CPUs for Nikon: Digital Photography Review


----------



## dj_mocok

Yeah, good news for D90 or D40 owners out there. But I guess most people who got the ZF are using D300 or D700? I might be wrong though. But it can expand the potential customers, why not? 

 Zeiss lens is kind of addictive. But unfortunately I can't quite afford to have several of these lenses....


----------



## lan

or a D3. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I know a guy who only uses ZEISS primes on his. I personally can't stand manually focusing sometimes.

 What is so addictive about theses lenses?


----------



## dj_mocok

Man... D3 and a Zeiss lens... how can you not "stand" that combo? That's like a lot of photo enthusiasts' dream to be able to shoot with a D3 and a Zeiss attached to it.
 I know it is not practical but you get a totally different feeling when using a solid MF. I just wish that my camera's viewfinder is as large as D3's. It will be even more fun for me to use MF.

 Speaking of Zeiss and manual focus, have you read the review I just made a few days ago by any chance? It's not really an objective review, and there's a lot of personal feeling involved, but maybe you can see why I like the lens and manual focusing.

 Clickly link below:
Zeiss Review


----------



## lan

Well I don't like any 35mm viewfinder except the A900. D3 to me is more of a fast camera.

 If I go "slow" I would rather prefer ZEISS on Rollei or Hasselblad.

 I tried the 85 1.4 vs. Nikon 85 1.4. I ended up keeping my 105 f2 DC. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 That is easily one of my best lenses.

 I will checkout your review now. BTW you should change the page's title. It still says Tokina 11-16 review.


----------



## lan

You did a nice review from your heart. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That's cool that you like ZEISS and FUJI. They are indeed unique products with unique results. When shooting JPEG, it is quite important to get things right out of camera. I use photoshop a lot to modify things like color and contrast so for me differences between lenses and bodies isn't that big of a deal.


----------



## dj_mocok

I know, title problem... When I started the blog I shortsightedly titled my blog as Tokina review instead of just Lens review or something. Now every other thing I write will have that stupid title.

 With S5 combination and it's JPG output, I seriously don't need to post process that much because the result straight from camera looks very pleasant already. Some of the shots I posted on the review were unprocessed, but they still look good. 

 I am 90% sure will get whatever the successor of D700 because I want an FX camera. But I am not planning to sell the S5 at all, unless the new camera can match the S5's jpg output straight from camera. Not talking about resolution though, but the colour tone of S5 is just so different and looks more intimate, that's why I like it.


----------



## vagarach

So dj_mocok, I noticed that a lot of the sample pictures in your review are very 'pretty'. Colours pop, the contrast makes the subject pop, everything is so _nice_, so smooth. Suddenly I want to buy a lens that costs twice as much as my D50 kit did back in 2006. 

 Is this the lens or the just the nature of the Fuji's in-camera processing, the resizing to web size, etc?


----------



## dj_mocok

Well, a bit of both really.
 With Zeiss (or with other modern nice lenses) you will get better colour and contrast even wide open. I personally believe that Zeiss has more pleasant colour tone and the colours look richer compared to my other Nikon lenses. 
 But S5 also known to deliver excellent jpg straight from the camera. 
 But basically what you mentioned about contrast, colours pop, and smooth are the reason why I got the lens. And the build quality of the lens.

 Zeiss is re-releasing some of the lines with CPU contacts, so that will work with your D50.


----------



## dj_mocok

I might also write a quick one about the Nikon 35mm f/2. This lens is surprisingly very good!


----------



## l1f35ux

can you guys recommend me the website or forum where I can get my hands on a used 70-200vr?


----------



## fureshi

recently i've seen quite a few pop up on craigslist


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *l1f35ux* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_can you guys recommend me the website or forum where I can get my hands on a used 70-200vr?_

 

forum: fredmiranda.com: Specialized in Canon - Nikon SLR Cameras, Forum, Photoshop Plugins, Actions, Reviews, Hosting and Digital Darkroom

 website: http://www.KEH.com


----------



## l1f35ux

Thanks guys, i really appreciate


----------



## dj_mocok

I am not sure about the used market trend in US, but if it's the same as here in Australia, popular lenses from Nikon are usually sold at very close price as the new ones. 
 Eg. if new one costs $2000, you'll probably see a great condition used one will sell around $1700-$1800. 

 Now for something as expensive as 70-200mm VR, I personally would rather pay $200-$300 extra and get my self a brand new one with warranty than trying to save $300 but then I have to think about the risk that it might crap on me halfway or maybe there's something wrong with the lens, etc etc...

 There are lots of moving parts in 70-200mm too, if it was mechanical Ais lenses I'll probably won't be that concerned. But this is my opinion of course.


----------



## lan

I'm packing for a trip and it WAS hard choosing what cameras to bring until I looked at the size and weight of everything. Now that I must downsize, I think I'm bringing my Nikon because the overall setup is smaller and lighter.

 Imagine this, the Canon 85 1.2 weighs as much as the Nikon 35/2, 50/1.8, 55-200VR, AND Tamron 17-50 2.8 combined! I want to be light and mobile though.


----------



## dj_mocok

On my last trip I only brought my Panasonic LX3. It was fun, I can concentrate on food, the city life, and everything else instead of worrying about what lens I need to use for what picture, what's the angle, etc etc...

 But it all depends on where you're going too of course. If it's only casual city I probably won't bother so much about equipments... Unless I'm going to a trip to Amazon or something.


----------



## lan

I just got a cheap LX3 for this trip also. I can use pocketwizard on the hot shoe so I can still use my lights. It also has electronic shutter so I can darken the sky easily so I don't have to use big powered lights. It uses a CCD which gives no rolling shutter effect on the video. I also love the fact it can shoot RAW. I wish it could shoot RAW + JPEG (in the high dynamic mode). I will use a slave flash with it for everyday stuff.

 I'm going to Europe so it will be scenic but I primarily only shoot models now lol so I'm not too particular about taking photos of other things.


----------



## dj_mocok

Don't think LX3 is good for shooting models... (unless you want even more skinny effect)
 But it's great for scenic.


----------



## lan

Nah I think it's fine for full half and full body shots which is like "60mm". I prefer using more telephoto like 300mm for headshots.


----------



## dj_mocok

This thread is not that active recently... Maybe we need more cactus pictures...


----------



## Stereo_Sanchez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevesurf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is it for the 85 f/1.4? If so, the effect will be far less, than say on the 35 I am getting. You may as well keep it until you can find a better on on ebay; it may actually improve the pleasing softness of the portraiture! You really do not need Nikon filters except for the wider angle lenses, where Nikon is able to list the recommended narrow ring style for elimination of vignetting.

 Yep, this is good to have a Nikon thread here; sometimes Nikonians is just too active and people just seem to want the highlights. A few random things:

 ***
 I've been reducing the load I carry around, and I came across Power Cords, AC Power Cords, Extension Cords, and Plug Adapters - Signal and Power Delivery Systems who carry a useful right angle plug adapter so you can leave the extension cord at home and plug the Nikon battery charger directly into the wall:









 ***
 I got a SB-400 as a really nice Christmas gift from my brother-in-law. Now, I'm using it all the time and plan on getting a SC-29 which will still allow my SB-800's AF assist to work off camera

 SB-400





 SC-29






 ***
 With the re-introduction of Fuji Velvia 50, I am planning on dusting off the F3 and doing both film and digital when I take my long trip to NZ in June. I've kept only one DX lens, the 10.5 mm and am pretty much done with the lens purchases, except for maybe another copy of the 35 f/1.4 if the one coming is not good, and except for maybe one of the older 55 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkors if I can find an affordable one in like new condition.

 ***
 I really like the Kirk right angle bracket for the D200, that I got from Nikonians awhile back, it really helps with the product photography, since I am using a carbon fiber tripod and this seems to get off-balance easily.

 ***
 I now pretty much use the 10.5DX for all of the trade show photography work; I find it amazing that the other photographers there have not caught onto this. It makes for great shots, especially when there are a great deal of people in the booth and it is just so compact.

 ***
 After trying Capture NX, I am taking it off my PC; it is sooooo much slower that Photoshop CS and really takes so much getting used to. I'll just stick to the RAW plug-in.

 ***
 Is film dead? Nope! I am thinking that processing locations will reduce their costs to keep it still fairly attractive for those with legacy cameras. So keep that brick of Velvia in the fridge and don't sell the F3. If you don't have one of these "flagship" Nikons, I recommend scooping one of the mint ones available on ebay:
here
 and
here

 ***
 Nowing that they have approached the limit of affordable lens/DX Imager capabililty, the new "pro" standard will most likely be the D3. I feel really bad for all the D2x and D2xs users that shelled out $4K plus; I hope they got their use out of it. I can't even bring myself to sell the D2h; the loss (price drop) was just incredible. The D3 will essentially relieve the user from having to have such an exacting, tiny, dense DX imager that could be quite susceptible to motion, lens issues, etc. I have found the D200 to be more forgiving in that way, but then again, I was fortunate to get a couple of really great lenses._

 

GREAT to see a fellow photographer keeping the faith on film. I LOVE the Velvia, although I miss Kodachrome every now and then.


----------



## dj_mocok

H.Rav -Do you have Zeiss 21mm f/2.8?


----------



## Towert7

I recently went on a trip to Mexico, and simply brought my little D50, all purpose 18-200, and polarizer. Won't be world class photos (sadly), but it gave me the freedom to take a variety of nice pictures without being too heavy.

 Funny thing was, while I was taking a picture of a wedding, a fellow photographer buff started talking with me and showing me his film leica. It was a very cool looking little thing. I am always amazed at the small size of the lenses on the leica's.......... they are TINY! I also loved the little finger focuser.


----------



## Redcarmoose

I just picked up a Sigma (maybe 1994) 18mm prime 35mm camera SLR lens and want to modify it to fit my Nikon F2. What parts do I need? Photos to follow.THX for the help.


----------



## dj_mocok

That looks like an interesting lens but I am not sure if it's worth all the hassle to modify it though...


----------



## Braver

I guess if it was cheap, and fills FX, it might very well be worth it. I wouldn't mind one 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you know what kind of mount it is you could probably get an adapter on ebay. A quick look around google says m42 but I'm not sure.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Braver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I guess if it was cheap, and fills FX, it might very well be worth it. I wouldn't mind one 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you know what kind of mount it is you could probably get an adapter on ebay. A quick look around google says m42 but I'm not sure._

 

You say fills DX, so you want one if it fills frame on say like a D40 -D80? And no dark edges? I will try it with an adaptor on the F2 then D40. THX I will let you know. I found it in a thrift store like new for $26.00 usd. So if it does not work, to Ebay it goes. I will take a $ 9.00 usd adaptor risk.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Redcarmoose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You say fills DX, so you want one if it fills frame on say like a D40 -D80? And no dark edges? I will try it with an adaptor on the F2 then D40. THX I will let you know. I found it in a thrift store like new for $26.00 usd. So if it does not work, to Ebay it goes. I will take a $ 9.00 usd adaptor risk._

 

I find it funny that you asked how to use it with a nikon when you knew it takes a 9$ adapter to mount it on a nikon.......... 
 ^_~

 Should be interesting to see what results you get from it. If I had it, I would be curious myself.


----------



## Redcarmoose

To tell you the truth I have a degree in photography. I worked as a profesional photographer. I have been away from it at this level for 19 years. I think an adaptor would work from E-Bay. No, I am not asking a question I have the answer to. I will post the results. I never have used an adaptor and only used original manufacturer equipment.


----------



## Braver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Redcarmoose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You say fills DX, so you want one if it fills frame on say like a D40 -D80? And no dark edges? I will try it with an adaptor on the F2 then D40. THX I will let you know. I found it in a thrift store like new for $26.00 usd. So if it does not work, to Ebay it goes. I will take a $ 9.00 usd adaptor risk._

 

No, I said FX and meant FX. My kitlens goes to 18mm at f3.5, on DX that's nothing special. It's FX where 18mm gets interesting and if it works it might be cool to pick one up for my FE.
 I'm looking forward to see some shots with it!


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I recently went on a trip to Mexico, and simply brought my little D50, all purpose 18-200, and polarizer. Won't be world class photos (sadly), but it gave me the freedom to take a variety of nice pictures without being too heavy.

 Funny thing was, while I was taking a picture of a wedding, a fellow photographer buff started talking with me and showing me his film leica. It was a very cool looking little thing. I am always amazed at the small size of the lenses on the leica's.......... they are TINY! I also loved the little finger focuser._

 

Leicas really are something. I'm currently in the market for an M7 and 35mm lens, though I may very well need to sell my D200 to raise enough cash before I take the plunge.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Braver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, I said FX and meant FX. My kitlens goes to 18mm at f3.5, on DX that's nothing special. It's FX where 18mm gets interesting and if it works it might be cool to pick one up for my FE.
 I'm looking forward to see some shots with it!_

 

There's a Zeiss 18mm that works with FX if you want to.. but of course you can't pick that up for US$ 26....


----------



## Braver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's a Zeiss 18mm that works with FX if you want to.. but of course you can't pick that up for US$ 26...._

 

It's not quite the same pricerange 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 At that point I'd rather get a Voigtlander 21 or 15 for my Leica M6. For fooling around though, nothing beats $26 lenses!


----------



## dj_mocok

Actually Russian lenses are fun for fooling around, and they give excellent picture quality. 
 With adapter with optic, you can also get it focus to infinity, but my adapter is without optic one, so I can only focus for short distance.
 But anyway, if you wanna use it for macro, it's great.


----------



## triode12

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Redcarmoose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just picked up a Sigma (maybe 1994) 18mm prime 35mm camera SLR lens and want to modify it to fit my Nikon F2. What parts do I need? Photos to follow.THX for the help.













_

 

Looks like the Canon FD breech lock bayonet. Not worth the hassle converting it - it's a crappy Sigma.


----------



## skyline889

I was saving for a 2.8 normal zoom but this popped up for a steal of a price. Certainly nicer to use than my dinosaur Cimko. No more manual metering and having to estimate exposure times.


----------



## dj_mocok

What is the price?


----------



## h.rav

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_H.Rav -Do you have Zeiss 21mm f/2.8?_

 

No, I bet it would be a PITA to focus 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 The widest Zeiss that I own is the superb 35 f/2. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Btw, I read your review about the Zeiss 100 f/2. Nice review and pics!


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What is the price?_

 

Got it for $105 shipped minus $10 Bing Cashback and $4 in eBay Bucks, so net cost to me was only $91.


----------



## dj_mocok

Good price. I tried the lens before, for stopping down a bit, it definitely is a good performer.

 By the way, H.rav, I don't think the 21mm is a pain to focus. Don't think any Zeiss MF is a pain to focus though - they are optimised for this kind of job. 
 I might get that one or the 18mm but at this stage leaning more towards 21mm. I know the 35mm and 28mm are also great lenses, but I just got a Nikon 35mm f/2 AFD, very good lens, but I don't want to have two identical lenses.


----------



## vagarach

The new kit lens really is something, soft touch plastics, smoother manual focus/zoom and VR! Almost makes me _glad_ my old style 18-55 died 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *triode12* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looks like the Canon FD breech lock bayonet. Not worth the hassle converting it - it's a crappy Sigma._

 

Thank-you, I will look for a Canon adaptor. I have read that they are bad and they are really good so I just have to try it.


----------



## dj_mocok

This Nikon 14mm f/2.8 from eBay is sold for US$750. It's a great price. I wanted to post here to let you guys know when I saw it, but from my previous hints here, no one really bought it so I didn't post it. I must say that person just got himself a bargain.

 I was going to buy it, but if I did I know I would be buying it because it's cheap not because I really like it. I don't think the lens is gonna be better than MF wide that I want, and the so-called lens cap is super annoying, so I didn't buy it.


----------



## bigshot

The 18-55 VR is as good when it comes to image quality as pro lenses. The only difference is speed. (And weight!)


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 18-55 VR is as good when it comes to image quality as pro lenses. The only difference is speed. (And weight!)_

 

The image quality isn't as nice as pro lenses.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The image quality isn't as nice as pro lenses._

 

Quantify "isn't as nice."

 The "Pro" step-up of the 18-55mm VR DX is the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX. The 18-55mm VR is just as sharp, if not sharper, and has less distortion than the "Pro" 17-55mm. Flare performance is on par, CA is almost non-existent, and light falloff is near as makes no difference, the same. The 17-55mm is a stop faster, has faster AF, and better build quality over the 18-55mm VR. There's little to no difference in terms of _image_ quality. When compared to a pro-sumer lens like the Tamron, I'll take the 18-55mm VR any day as well. The Tamron has appalling build quality, several QC issues, much worse CA, and isn't as sharp.

 I know you have the 17-35mm and will probably want to compare the two, but the 17-35mm is a different beast and is not the pro step-up from the 18-55mm DX. The 17-35mm is the pro version of the old FX 18-35mm.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I know you have the 17-35mm_

 

I actually don't have that lens, sadly.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Quantify "isn't as nice."_

 

Let 18-55mm VR = 1.
 Other lenses > 1.

 There, quantified.





 ^_^, I'm just playing with you.


----------



## dj_mocok

Well for the price it's selling for, the 18-5mm is actually a guide good bargain. It can take pictures, stopped down it's sharp, it can AF, it also has some sort of VR, comes with a box and a paper, what else do you want? Heck, most of my lenses don't even have AF....


----------



## Redcarmoose

2X


----------



## Redcarmoose

Just got back from my research on the 18mm. Yes, a difficult thing to do a fit on a Nikon. They are telling me the M42 adapter only works on Pentax. One other idea would be to find a damaged Nikon/Sigma 18mm and remove adapter. Cool to learn it is a lot more easy to put Nikon lens on Cannon. It does not work other way around. Just purchased a Nikon 24mm 2.8 which I was trying out tonight in the dark pushing 400 ASA black and white film to 800 ASA. Just shooting store windows and such. Found a cool film scanner. Here is the link.


http://taishimizu.com/92/Plustek-Opt...t-1--Negatives 

 Just found a minty 300 mm Nikkor*ED 1.45 tele. So now I am set for the Nature Photography I am planning to do. I was lucky as I was ready to buy the older 300mm but found the Internal focusing model. Sharp as a tack. May be a little extreme when mounted to the D40 but we will see. Soon as I get some B/W negatives scanned I will post some stuff.














 This is known as the Poor mans Telephoto! The Nikkor ED 300mm IF. It will focus at 8ft, where the older ones it was 11ft.




 Next attempt on film will be Fuji Reala 100.


----------



## dj_mocok

Can't go wrong with ED Nikon. Carrying it is different story though...


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can't go wrong with ED Nikon. Carrying it is different story though..._

 


 It was the smallest and lightest 300mm made in Nikkor history. You are right though, a lug.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The image quality isn't as nice as pro lenses._

 

It is at f/8.


----------



## skyline889

It's a little hard to compare because of the variable aperture on the cheapo 18-55mm but even when it's not stopped down, the 18-55mm fairs well against the "pro" 17-55mm according to Photozone testing. Not that this is an accomplishment, I'm not a fan of the bulky and overpriced 17-55mm to begin with, but it is the "pro" version of the 18-55mm so the image quality _should_ be nicer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 @ Redcarmoose-That thing looks massive! Is that the one with the glassless back?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is at f/8._

 

It's not.


----------



## Towert7

@Red: Ha, the tripod mount looks heavier than most of my lenses. Boy I wish I owned that lens!
 What price did you pay for it?


----------



## taishimizu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_@ Redcarmoose-That thing looks massive! Is that the one with the glassless back?_

 

Like a lot of old Nikon tele's the last piece of glass is pretty deep in the lens. It's really not so big, there's a picture of it mounted on a D200 on my review for those interested. 

 It's a great lens, smallest and lightest of the 300mm, only real drawback is some CA and that it's a stop slower than some of its siblings.

 @towert7 - it usually goes for about $300–400USD

 @Redcarmoose - It may look a bit funny, but it'll work great on the D40. A number of the pics in my review were on a D60 (the rest from D200 or film). Unfortunately I don't have any samples from my D700 yet.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_@Red: Ha, the tripod mount looks heavier than most of my lenses. Boy I wish I owned that lens!
 What price did you pay for it?_

 



 It weighs 35 oz (990g), has seven elements in six groups, is 3.1" (80mm) around by 7.9" (200mm) long. Not really that big.

 I walked into a used camera store and the guy who sold all this stuff just walked back from his car asking for a receipt for selling all his stuff to the store. 


 First off I am poor, if I had the right money we all know of the fast big Nikkor tele lens $1400-$5000. Maybe someday I will have enough money for the exotic fast ( Nikon 300mm f/2.8 ED-IF) nikkor tele lens. They say they are out there for $400.00 usd, I do not see them. So to me this is just a make do. I payed full price but only because it was mint.$400.00 usd. It will somehow have to work. The poorboy of telephotos.

 Ya, there is no glass in the back. Rumor has it those aperture blades can get pretty grungy, the other risk is if worn by photojournalists the lens cap stays off thus getting a bad front lens. This one was a nine point nine, that is why I took the plunge.


 I have a Biomedicalphotography degree and in school I did not use the extenders for closeup work. In school I would use my Teachers 55mm Mico Nikkor Close focus lens. The Micro Nikkors have flat field correction more so than standard lens. I did use a Micro Nikkor 200mm IF in the operating room while in my employment as a hospital photographer. The 200mm would let us take shots of the surgery going on without getting in the doctors way. That is the greatest telephoto lens I have ever used. It was even expensive in the mid 1980s. The use of extenders is complex stuff. I will look into what our new member taishimizu is achieving though. If the proof is in the photography he is there! Heck, who needs Micro Nikkors with the results he is getting. 








 200 mm Micro Nikkor F4



 The Internal Focusing 200mm Micro Nikkor is my dream lens. At the price they are at I will probably never own one. The use of these extenders looks cool though. http://taishimizu.com/134/Nikon-300m...-IF-AIS-Review 
 Extenders look like the way to go!































 For people who want to spend this is most likely the lens. http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Nikkor-300...item4cec244e9a









http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...kkor/index.htm




 The statement from this web site is pertinent too.



 PERSONAL: Currently, I am using an AF-D Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4.0 ED IF lens for my personal photography. Prior to this, I did owned a Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4.0 IF also a top rated lens and it is very versatile macro lens but I have given it away to a friend after I acquired my current favorite. Reason being the older version would need a Nikon TC-300 or TC-301 teleconverter in order to reach life size reproduction (Previously, I was using the PN-11 with my earlier MF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 to be able to achieve 1:1). Huh ? Yes. I did owned a 105 version and in fact, I have been using a Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4.0 prior to the f/2.8 lens. Well, that is not all as previously, I was a firm user of the 55mm Micro-Nikkor lens. So, after all the years of soul searching, can I tell you the essence of all I have been through all these years in a single line ? Buy the longest focal length that you can afford ! .


----------



## Braver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's not.



_

 

There are as many people saying it is as there are saying it isn't neither bring enough evidence or arguments to the table to proof there point. Only logically deducible conclusion therefore is that for all intents and purposes, in most situations, they're equal. Apparently there are enough cases for and against to prevent any kind of majority opinion or consensus.


----------



## Towert7

Thanks for the information *redcarmoose*.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Braver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are as many people saying it is as there are saying it isn't neither bring enough evidence or arguments to the table to proof there point. Only logically deducible conclusion therefore is that for all intents and purposes, in most situations, they're equal. Apparently there are enough cases for and against to prevent any kind of majority opinion or consensus. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I think it comes down to the expectations of the person. For some, the dx lenses will meet their expectations (some love them), for others they are just seen as toys.

 I've never had a DX lens that I was very happy with. They all seem to have their quirks for me.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think it comes down to the expectations of the person. For some, the dx lenses will meet their expectations (some love them), for others they are just seen as toys.

 I've never had a DX lens that I was very happy with. They all seem to have their quirks for me._

 

You're dodging the question. Compare apples to apples, not apples to bananas. You said _image quality_ wasn't as good as "pro" lenses, not that image quality wasn't as good as FX pro lenses; the 17-55mm DX is the only "pro" equivalent of the consumer 18-55mm DX. Take a look at the comprehensive testing done over at Photozone of the _older_ 18-55mm II vs the 17-55mm (Welcome to Photozone!), the numbers are comparable and your blanket statement is fallible.

 You say the 18-55mm is lacking, even when stopped down, the numbers and my experience with both says otherwise. I've given you proof of my point, lets see proof of yours. It's easy to make blanket statements without giving anything to back them up.


----------



## vajrasattva

i'm a nikon fan despite using a fujifilm body 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 been meddling with nikon lenses for a long time.. 

 nikon kit lenses for DX bodies have surprisingly good resolution, the only reason why i would pay more for a 17-55 etc, is just for the aperture


----------



## skyline889

@ Towert

 For the toy analogy, you yourself said we are talking image quality here, not build quality. I'm well aware of the fact that the 18-55mm feels like a toy compared to the 17-55mm. I'm aware that AF speed isn't as fast, that it's a full stop slower than the 17-55mm, and that manual focusing with the dinky, twist front barrel is ridiculous, but none of that has anything to do with the image quality of the lens. Anyone who spends this little money on a lens expects these trade-offs. 

 The only thing the 18-55mm VR has going against itself in terms of image quality is poorer quality control compared to the "pro" 17-55mm. Volume is higher and QC isn't as stringent with their consumer products so you're more likely to get a bad copy. But even if you do, who cares? Just exchange it for a new one. Hell, you could throw it in the trash and buy several new ones and still come out ahead of the guy who bought the "pro" 17-55mm. If you get a good copy, the _image quality_ is just as good if not better than the "pro" 17-55mm.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_@ Towert
 Volume is higher and QC isn't as stringent with their consumer products so you're more likely to get a bad copy._

 

Nikkors have quite good quality control, especially on their lenses built like tanks. 
 This is my main reason for continuing to buy nikkors again and again.


----------



## h.rav

^ I encountered at least 2-3 bad copies for one lens, especially the 24-70 f/2.8.
 I want my lenses to be as close to perfect copies as possible. I usually ended up swapping them two to three times to get the 'perfect' copy. Most of them usually have focusing issues. I still consider Nikon QC to be quite good. My experiences with Canon glasses were much worse - I no longer use any Canons.


----------



## dj_mocok

Two or three copies before you received your good copy seems rather odd, especially when we're talking about pro grade lenses. Are you sure it's not just in your mind?


----------



## h.rav

^ No, I actually tested them side by side. When I visited B&H in NYC, I tested multiple lenses to get the copy that I wanted. That's why I suggested you to test the Zeiss 100 on a flat brick wall, because I found one that has two soft corners. Like my audio gears, if it can't be measured then it's not there.


----------



## dj_mocok

Nah my Zeiss is perfectly fine, I looked at full size of some of my pictures taken at infinity, they all looked sharp everywhere. Not that my S5 can resolve the lens' maximum clarity anyway....
 I've never found any problem with my lenses so far. 
 To make a really accurate test is actually not as simple as taking a brickwall picture, that's why I can't be bothered. If my pictures look fine, then it's fine for me. Plus if there's something wrong with the picture, I'm pretty sure I'll notice it soon anyway.


----------



## dj_mocok

Now Redcarmoose, show us some samples taken with that long 300mm f/4.5, so far we've only seen pictures of lens itself. Or are you using it to club baby seals instead of taking pictures with it?

 By the way I also saw a 300mm ED f/4 AFS (grey colour version) selling for US$1350. Too bad I don't need long tele, or else I'd probably buy it.


----------



## dj_mocok

Hey you guys might wanna read this:

 "My lens is soft and backfocuses"


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now Redcarmoose, show us some samples taken with that long 300mm f/4.5, so far we've only seen pictures of lens itself. Or are you using it to club baby seals instead of taking pictures with it?

 By the way I also saw a 300mm ED f/4 AFS (grey colour version) selling for US$1350. Too bad I don't need long tele, or else I'd probably buy it._

 

So I'm driving around at night and I got an urge to try my new lens. I am having Kodak's B/W pushed from 400asa to 800asa. It is the stuff you develop in C-41 not TriX like I am used to. This C-41 development stuff was all I could find near!

 Anyways I'm having it put on disk and may post results if not too dismal. Ha Ha. Soon I'll have some digital with the D-40 that I can post too. This lens is strange as it has a focus setting past infinity. Super cool small depth of field that lets you showcase elements in the composition.


----------



## taishimizu

@redcarmoose - for some lenses, temperature change can shift the point at which focus at infinity is reached which is why the lens can focus past infinity. It allows you to get to infinity at any temperature. It makes focusing more annoying though.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *taishimizu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_@redcarmoose - for some lenses, temperature change can shift the point at which focus at infinity is reached which is why the lens can focus past infinity. It allows you to get to infinity at any temperature. It makes focusing more annoying though._

 

Wow, THX. So ED glass also does not need adjusting for infrared it looks like. So no marks. Not that I'm going to shoot infrared film or have the D40 kit converted over with the main film plane sensor. I'm from another age of photography where we really loved to focus manually. Maybe asa is not used any more. Haha. What we went from American Standards Association to International Standards Organization?


----------



## bigshot

Stopped down, most modern lenses have excellent image quality. The primary reasons to go with pro lenses are speed, special coatings to reduce flare, build quality, focusing speed, bokeh characteristics and features.

 "Pro" lenses do not make "pro" photographers. A truly professional photographer can get excellent images with just about any properly functioning camera. Professionalism is about making informed choices, not how much they paid for their rig.

 DJ M is correct. If you find that a lot of lenses you buy don't focus properly, it's likely that your camera is out of alignment and the lenses are perfectly fine.


----------



## dj_mocok

That's also one of the reasons why I prefer manual focus too. With manual focus I can just look at the viewfinder and judge by myself when to stop focusing to nail the perfect focus. Of course it's much more doable with FF cams but it is still doable with mine.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Stopped down, most modern lenses have excellent image quality. The primary reasons to go with pro lenses are speed, special coatings to reduce flare, build quality, focusing speed, bokeh characteristics and features._

 

I can think of other, more important, reasons to pick professional lenses instead of the budget lenses then the ones listed. This helps confirm in my eye that I am critical of the lens and how it captures the picture.


----------



## bigshot

I'm afraid I can't make much sense out of your scrambled syntax there.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm afraid I can't make much sense out of your scrambled syntax there._

 

It's probably for the best anyways.


----------



## Redcarmoose

f5.6 at 1/500 second Kodak 400 iso c41 with Nikkor 300mm ED f4 Telephoto






 This I call Closing Time ...........................Nikkor 24mm wide open Kodak c-41 pushed to 800 asa


----------



## skyline889

.


----------



## bigshot

It can all be explained by a simple case of solipsism.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Towert7 why don't you just divulge your secret, insider information and validate why you're right and everyone else is wrong?_

 

"There are two rules for success... 1) Never tell everything you know." -Roger H. Lincoln


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Redcarmoose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_





 f5.6 at 1/500 second Kodak 400 iso c41 with Nikkor 300mm ED f4 Telephoto_

 

No clue why, but this photo looks unlifelike to me. If I had to guess, I would say it was a picture of a tiny toy model set. But it's not?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Seriously, someone needs to read a little Strunk and White._

 

Hey, don't make fun of other peoples misfortunes.

  Quote:


 Towert7, there are so many logical fallacies with your argument thus far; why don't you just divulge your secret, insider information and validate why you're right and everyone else is wrong? 
 

Skyline, don't worry what I think. You already know all that there is regarding lenses, so there is nothing else that I could add.




 Some would call me an illiterate goofball, but that just makes me laugh.
 ^_^

 Bottom line, don't worry. You're not missing anything.


----------



## taishimizu

@Towert7 - It's the depth of field. There's something about seeing whole/large objects represented in focus, but with a small depth of field that makes them look tiny. Similar to when people use tilt/swing to make a scene look tiny. I would guess it's because humans are used to only seeing a small depth of field when looking at something really close, so when you get it with something big and far away it looks tiny and close.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *taishimizu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_@Towert7 - It's the depth of field. There's something about seeing whole/large objects represented in focus, but with a small depth of field that makes them look tiny. Similar to when people use tilt/swing to make a scene look tiny. I would guess it's because humans are used to only seeing a small depth of field when looking at something really close, so when you get it with something big and far away it looks tiny and close._

 

Thanks for the info taishimizu. That is indeed what is tricking my mind.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No clue why, but this photo looks unlifelike to me. If I had to guess, I would say it was a picture of a tiny toy model set. But it's not?_

 

Funny, what you call lifeless, the first thing that came to my mind when I looked at his picture was wow, that place looked like a nice place to go and shoot stuff. Look at the background of hill area, there should be a lot of things to shoot around there. 

 By the way, I have a package currently in transit in Honolulu coming from New Jersey. Hopefully it will arrive tomorrow afternoon here in Sydney. Very excited!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By the way, I have a package currently in transit in Honolulu coming from New Jersey. Hopefully it will arrive tomorrow afternoon here in Sydney. Very excited!_

 

Dom Dom dom!
 Does it begin with a z, and end in a eiss?


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No clue why, but this photo looks unlifelike to me. If I had to guess, I would say it was a picture of a tiny toy model set. But it's not?_

 


 I have only taken one shot with the 300mm lens and this is it. No bracketing, nothing. Yes, the depth of field and telephoto compression make it look like a model rail road. I do not know what to say till I take more shots?

 Another reason could be the lighting. The sun was vignetting around a cloud moments as a took the picture. It gave it that model rail road incandescent light look. Like the spotlight of a reading lamp was shinning down.

 The clouds look like a drawing of the clouds because they are so perfect and have the same tone in each cloud.


 Another reason it does not look real is it is a new construction site where they just put down fake looking grass seed. The ground looks like that sprayed ground you see in architectural models. HAHA


 Photography is the ultimate illusion!


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dom Dom dom!
 Does it begin with a z, and end in a eiss?_

 

Well I hope so.


----------



## Arainach

Well I picked up a heck of a deal today - a near-mint 80-200 AF-D (the most recent version, 2-ring with tripod mount) for $500. I've been eyeing a decent pro tele for a while, and I couldn't pass up this deal. Hopefully once the weather improves a bit I'll be able to go out and make some use of it.

 Thankfully, that's the last lens I've really been craving. After this, I just wouldn't mind picking up a 77mm CPL, a Flash (SB-400 is probably sufficient), and maybe upgrade to a D90 body (it's been two generations, and the D90 looks like a great combo of features and price - I particularly like the high ISO performance over my D50)


----------



## dj_mocok

You should wait until the successor of D700 comes out, then you might be able to score good deals on used D700.


----------



## Arainach

Eh, a "Good Deal" would probably be no cheaper than 1600-1800, which is more than I'd ever want to spend on a camera. I also have no real need to go Full Frame - I'm quite happy with the extra reach DX gives me on the Telephoto end, I shoot a lot of ultra-wide, and the 14-24 f/2.8 while wonderful is absurdly expensive and doesn't work with polarizers.

 A good deal on a used D300 I could see if its replacement comes out (the high ISO performance of the D90/D300 is why I'd get a D90 over a D200 any day), but I doubt I'll be using a full frame body at any time within the next decade.


----------



## dj_mocok

14-124mm is too heavy for me personally. Not to mention it attracts attention. 
 If you don't do high ISO, D2x is a great value for money too.


----------



## Asr

I have a software-related question: which would be better for handling Nikon RAW files, Capture NX2 or Photoshop CS4? I'm currently using Photoshop Elements 2.0 which suits my current needs just fine (as my current camera is the D80 and I don't use RAW right now) but eventually I'll be moving to RAW (once I upgrade the camera body of course) and I'd like to use the software that's going to help more in the creative process from RAW to final JPEG. CS4 looks like the more complete package since it has all the image editor features but its price seems too high and if I could help it I'd rather not buy an Adobe app. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Is there another equally solid image-editor that competes with CS4?


----------



## Braver

For RAW files definately Nikon software, either the free ViewNX or CaptureNX. For color they're the same, but for b&w conversion CaptureNX has more options and gives better results. 

 I have not been able to recreate the proper colors in other software, like Lightroom. If you're using your own curves, you can probably work with other software, but Nikon's own conversion gives a much better starting point.

 CaptureNX is not that stable though. It's easy to use but not very reliable. So you could use ViewNX to make white-balance and exposure adjustments and convert the RAW files to JPG or TIFF. You can do that right now with the D80, all DSLRs can shoot RAW.


----------



## Braver

--


----------



## rhythmdevils

I would consider just getting Lightroom instead of either one. If you're just making simple exposure adjustments, which seems to be the case, then it will work great with the RAW files, and you get an incredible image organization and workflow software as well. If you are currently using file structures to organize your images, lightroom will change your life. seriously.


----------



## bigshot

I use Aperture and like that a lot, but it isn't a replacement for Photoshop.


----------



## dj_mocok

Hey someone wrote a review for Carl Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. 
 Here is the link: The Missing Link


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey someone wrote a review for Carl Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. 
 Here is the link: The Missing Link_

 

Thx that 21mm is a dream lens


----------



## john_jcb

I have a question about the Nikon NEF file. I have found that there is a jpeg image file embedded in the NEF file. I also found a little program for extracting it. My question is the jpeg made with the same settings as the raw file or is it the same as you would get if you shot NEF+jpeg? Also is it Large Fine or something else. I cannot find any details on this.


----------



## Redcarmoose

What do people think of the Arsat 20mm? Any good? Anyone own one?


----------



## Asr

My new D300s camera body arrived the other day. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 (click for larger)

 I also want to get a new lens to go with the D300s and am split between the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and Nikon 16-85 f/3.5-5.6. Anyone have any advice to offer or should I just buy both?

 Thx for the answers about my software question btw, will look into either Capture NX2 or Lightroom...


----------



## xkRoWx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Asr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I also want to get a new lens to go with the D300s and am split between the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and Nikon 16-85 f/3.5-5.6. Anyone have any advice to offer or should I just buy both?_

 

I've heard good things about the 17-55/2.8. I think you'd want to have the constant f/2.8 as it offers much more versatility than the extra 30mm zoom.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Asr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My new D300s camera body arrived the other day. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








 (click for larger)

 I also want to get a new lens to go with the D300s and am split between the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and Nikon 16-85 f/3.5-5.6. Anyone have any advice to offer or should I just buy both?

 Thx for the answers about my software question btw, will look into either Capture NX2 or Lightroom..._

 

No point buying both, too close to each other. Just get whichever you think suits you.


----------



## fureshi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would consider just getting Lightroom instead of either one. If you're just making simple exposure adjustments, which seems to be the case, then it will work great with the RAW files, and you get an incredible image organization and workflow software as well. If you are currently using file structures to organize your images, lightroom will change your life. seriously._

 

Lightroom 3 Beta is currently available now for download. It wouldn't hurt to give it a try before you pull the trigger. Considering that the Beta is free, you won't lose anything. I currently use Lightroom since I mostly make simple adjustments (cropping, straightening, color correction) but its main draw for me has been the organization.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Asr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I also want to get a new lens to go with the D300s and am split between the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and Nikon 16-85 f/3.5-5.6. Anyone have any advice to offer or should I just buy both?_

 

Get the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Optically, it is just as good as the Nikon. The new one has a focus motor and image stabilization. That should leave you enough money to get the Nikon 35mm 1.8 prime or Sigma 30 1.4.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Asr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I also want to get a new lens to go with the D300s and am split between the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and Nikon 16-85 f/3.5-5.6. Anyone have any advice to offer or should I just buy both?_

 

A D300s, wow. That's a nice camera. If you want good image quality, consider the non DX lenses also.


----------



## SiBurning

Think I need a new camera. Maybe not. Could use advice.

 I'm using a D40 to take pictures through a microscope. The viewfinder is way too small to focus or judge the lighting. As you can imagine, lighting can take a very long time to get right, so it's a real pain to only judge after taking a picture and transferring it to a computer. I need something that can be previewed on a computer or a large LCD screen. A minor issue is the mirror movement shakes the camera. Ideally, it would also do video. As I understand it, having video with a picture grab feature would automatically solve the shaking.

 Since this is for a microscope, I think lenses are irrelevant--or perhaps I need a camera without lenses. I have an adapter with focus and a 0.7X lens, which I guess is meant to focus the image onto a sensor with a crop factor around 1.4. Close enough for the DX line. I can get threads for a coolpix or most other cameras cheap, but the body of the attachment is $400, so I'd like to stick with that part. The coolpix seems to be the camera most recommended for microscopes, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to work along with the adapter.

 Last I checked, the D90 was the cheapest option in the DX line with these features: computer preview and separate mirror movement. Not that I want to spend $900 on this.

 I'm thinking a camera is too expensive an option for this use. All that's really needed is the sensor and good software for the computer. I want to get at least as good quality pictures as with the D40. Because of these two problems I often just use a cheap usb video camera and capture images from that, but it's really pretty awful. I need something better. Maybe that's a camera, or maybe a specialized usb camera with decent software. Or is there another option?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SiBurning* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Think I need a new camera. Maybe not. Could use advice.

 I'm using a D40 to take pictures through a microscope. The viewfinder is way too small to focus or judge the lighting. As you can imagine, lighting can take a very long time to get right, so it's a real pain to only judge after taking a picture and transferring it to a computer. I need something that can be previewed on a computer or a large LCD screen. A minor issue is the mirror movement shakes the camera. Ideally, it would also do video. As I understand it, having video with a picture grab feature would automatically solve the shaking.

 Since this is for a microscope, I think lenses are irrelevant--or perhaps I need a camera without lenses. I have an adapter with focus and a 0.7X lens, which I guess is meant to focus the image onto a sensor with a crop factor around 1.4. Close enough for the DX line. I can get threads for a coolpix or most other cameras cheap, but the body of the attachment is $400, so I'd like to stick with that part. The coolpix seems to be the camera most recommended for microscopes, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to work along with the adapter.

 Last I checked, the D90 was the cheapest option in the DX line with these features: computer preview and separate mirror movement. Not that I want to spend $900 on this.

 I'm thinking a camera is too expensive an option for this use. All that's really needed is the sensor and good software for the computer. I want to get at least as good quality pictures as with the D40. Because of these two problems I often just use a cheap usb video camera and capture images from that, but it's really pretty awful. I need something better. Maybe that's a camera, or maybe a specialized usb camera with decent software. Or is there another option?_

 

They make special camera kits designed specifically to take photos through microscopes. It sounds like adapting a DSLR for a microscope is less than ideal.

 If it were me, I would check with the microscope maker for any camera kits they sell, or see if there are any 3'rd party camera kits designed for that microscope.


----------



## Arainach

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A D300s, wow. That's a nice camera. If you want good image quality, consider the non DX lenses also._

 

Being DX or Full Frame has nothing to do with image quality. The 17-55 f/2.8 DX will kick the crap out of the 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 any day. A well-designed lens will work well, a poorly-designed lens won't.


----------



## SiBurning

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They make special camera kits designed specifically to take photos through microscopes. It sounds like adapting a DSLR for a microscope is less than ideal.

 If it were me, I would check with the microscope maker for any camera kits they sell, or see if there are any 3'rd party camera kits designed for that microscope._

 

I already have the kit. It's basically a tube with a focusing lens and a c-mount fitting plus a fitting to convert c-mount to nikon. I also have a usb camera meant for microscopes, but it's not very good. It produces lousy pictures.

 The pictures from the D40 are quite good, which is why I think it better to stick with a real camera maker. Think of it this way: a microscope is just a lens and a stage with some specialized lighting. I already have the lenses and lighting but still need a good camera to actually take the picture. Just getting a better specialized microscope camera is kind of like buying a crappy off brand camera just to stick a nikon lens on it. Only in this case, the lens is the microscope.


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SiBurning* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Think I need a new camera. Maybe not. Could use advice. <snip> ..._

 

Steve ... would tethered shooting help you? I am no expert - just know that it is possible to "tether" the camera to the computer via usb while shooting. Camera preview is via computer, and shots are immediately saved to computer rather than camera. If this solution will work for you, it just means some software and twiddling to get it going.

 Here are some links to get you started ...

Free Tethered Shooting Script for Nikon — DiyPhotoBits.com — A few bits and pieces about photography

Choosing Tethered Shooting Software for Nikon DSLR Cameras | The Photo Geek

Using your Nikon D200 tethered to your computer explained here...


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Arainach* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Being DX or Full Frame has nothing to do with image quality. The 17-55 f/2.8 DX will kick the crap out of the 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 any day. A well-designed lens will work well, a poorly-designed lens won't._

 

What you say is true, and yet I Find the best lenses to be ones that are not DX (in terms of image quality).


----------



## SiBurning

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agile_one* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Steve ... would tethered shooting help you? I am no expert - just know that it is possible to "tether" the camera to the computer via usb while shooting. Camera preview is via computer, and shots are immediately saved to computer rather than camera. If this solution will work for you, it just means some software and twiddling to get it going.

 Here are some links to get you started ...

Free Tethered Shooting Script for Nikon — DiyPhotoBits.com — A few bits and pieces about photography

Choosing Tethered Shooting Software for Nikon DSLR Cameras | The Photo Geek

Using your Nikon D200 tethered to your computer explained here..._

 

That works, and on my vista laptop. It certainly makes things easier, and is great value for the money. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I've only tested it here on my tabletop aiming around the room, but I can see some benefits immediately. It'll still be slow, but perfectly workable.

 Still need to take a shot and wait a few seconds for the image to appear on the computer in order to focus. At least I don't have to remove the card or play around with turning usb mode on and off or touch the camera at all. Only need to turn the little dial on the adapter to focus the image onto the sensor. Once that's done, I can lock it in place and it'll stay (I hope) until... well, I'll see where that leads. Theoretically, it should be good forever. Then again, theoretically, all amplifiers should sound the same.

 I'm sure I'll be looking for a better solution, but this looks to be a very nice workaround that should buy me a lot of time. Can't wait to put it to use.

 Thanks.


----------



## Lumient

Anyone tried DXO Optics Pro -software with Nikon RAW-files? 

 The optics corrections modules interest quite a bit. And there seems to be 30 percent discount if bought today. Tempting...


----------



## Braver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *john_jcb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a question about the Nikon NEF file. I have found that there is a jpeg image file embedded in the NEF file. I also found a little program for extracting it. My question is the jpeg made with the same settings as the raw file or is it the same as you would get if you shot NEF+jpeg? Also is it Large Fine or something else. I cannot find any details on this._

 

I believe that JPG is only used for reviewing the image on the camera, and to provide thumbnails on your computer. From my experience with a D40, you will already see the limitations in resolution when viewing the shot on camera: at maximum zoom you'll clearly see lots of compression artifact that you don't see when you would've shot JPG/large-fine. In color rendition it would be like shooting NEF+JPG, so you could use it as a reference if you chose to do the raw-conversion in other software for some reason.


----------



## Lumient

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lumient* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone tried DXO Optics Pro -software with Nikon RAW-files? 

 The optics corrections modules interest quite a bit. And there seems to be 30 percent discount if bought today. Tempting..._

 

Tested the trial version a bit. Ok:ish, but wasn't wowed.

 Nice pricing they have (for software download and activation code -version):

 USA 109 USD = 75 euros
 UK 69 £ = 76 euros
 Euro-countries = 99 euros

 Perhaps I should look for my "London address" from web to get it cheaper


----------



## Kon-Masti

I'm looking for a new lens for my D40 having broken the kit 18-55mm that came with it. Nikon quoted me £100 to repair it but this seems really excessive. I could just buy the same lens again but I was wondering if any of you had any other suggestions. The 18-55 lens was acceptable for most of what I needed it for but I'm thinking it's an ideal situation to try something new maybe. What are the best lenses which will autofocus on the D40? Preferably under $200ish. Does such a lens exist or should I just pay to get my lens repaired?


----------



## Lumient

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kon-Masti* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm looking for a new lens for my D40 having broken the kit 18-55mm that came with it. Nikon quoted me £100 to repair it but this seems really excessive. I could just buy the same lens again but I was wondering if any of you had any other suggestions. The 18-55 lens was acceptable for most of what I needed it for but I'm thinking it's an ideal situation to try something new maybe. What are the best lenses which will autofocus on the D40? Preferably under $200ish. Does such a lens exist or should I just pay to get my lens repaired?_

 

I would look for second hand Nikkor AF-S 18-105mm or 16-85mm with VR. 35 mm AF-S f1.8 is very nice if you can live with prime. If I recall right, Mifuds (UK dealer) had second hand 18-105mm.

 Or perhaps Sigmas with HSM. Some can be found here:
Used Nikon SLR camera lenses

 BTW: I wouldn't pay that much for the repair. I suppose you can get the same lens unused/mint cheaper than that.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kon-Masti* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm looking for a new lens for my D40 having broken the kit 18-55mm that came with it. Nikon quoted me £100 to repair it but this seems really excessive. I could just buy the same lens again but I was wondering if any of you had any other suggestions. The 18-55 lens was acceptable for most of what I needed it for but I'm thinking it's an ideal situation to try something new maybe. What are the best lenses which will autofocus on the D40? Preferably under $200ish. Does such a lens exist or should I just pay to get my lens repaired?_

 

It *is* an ideal situation to try something new, but for Under 200$ you won't get much at all.
 If you were happy with the 18-55, just get it again.

 Before I read the budget, I would have suggested trying out the nikon 18-200mm VR, but that will run you close to 400-500£.


----------



## Kon-Masti

Thanks *Lumient* and *Towert7*, I'm feeling slightly adventurous so I'm going to look into the 35mm. It should give me an opportunity to experience a new aspect of photography.


----------



## Lumient

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kon-Masti* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks *Lumient* and *Towert7*, I'm feeling slightly adventurous so I'm going to look into the 35mm. It should give me an opportunity to experience a new aspect of photography._

 

I've had the 35mm for a while and it's the lens that I use the most. With 50mm I always wanted a lens that would be a little wider. The 35mm is light and inexpensive enough not to worry too much taking everywhere. And the photos taken wide open look very good, very useful when using inside without flash. 

 It doesn't have lightning-fast auto-focus, but speedy enough for 99,5% of the time. It's pretty silent too, no whining noise. The only thing I hate is the lens hood, too small and comes on and off too easily.

 It focuses closer than 30mm f1.4 Sigma I had before. Preferred the bokeh on that one, but otherwise the Nikkor is better option. Much sharper overall, focuses more accurately and smaller filter size.


----------



## zombi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What you say is true, and yet I Find the best lenses to be ones that are not DX (in terms of image quality)._

 

Absolutely. While there are many awesome DX lenses their full frame counterparts tend to be nicer. Optically (though this totally depends on what your standard is) and in build quality. If youre looking at the 20s-80s range lens and have the cash go with the 24-70. Couple the great image quality and handling with the 1.5 crop ad-on and you have a perfect portrait lens as well.

 I still think most consumers just entering the dslr world should drop their kit lens and pick up a 50 1.8 and assess their needs from there. 

 Almost forgot, when stopped down youd be hard pressed to find a horrible lens out there at this point. Its all about what you need and consider your standard.


----------



## shigzeo

I can vouch for the 1.8, but it has a range of flare issues which get me to sell it. I have the 1,4 now and am completely happy. My 18-55 will be sold later and I am going to throw the house at the 24-70G which I tried recently. It is amazing.


----------



## zombi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *shigzeo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can vouch for the 1.8, but it has a range of flare issues which get me to sell it. I have the 1,4 now and am completely happy. My 18-55 will be sold later and I am going to throw the house at the 24-70G which I tried recently. It is amazing._

 

the 24-70 is a grea lens, on my camera 80% of the time. Reliable and super sharp and handles light perfectly in the studio.


----------



## shigzeo

Yes, I only tried it for a few minutes and was amazed at its fast focus (which would be great for bicycle photography) and does a decent 1:35 or so magnification. For all intensive purposes, I may be able to drop my 105 2,8 Micro.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Braver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I believe that JPG is only used for reviewing the image on the camera, and to provide thumbnails on your computer. From my experience with a D40, you will already see the limitations in resolution when viewing the shot on camera: at maximum zoom you'll clearly see lots of compression artifact that you don't see when you would've shot JPG/large-fine. In color rendition it would be like shooting NEF+JPG, so you could use it as a reference if you chose to do the raw-conversion in other software for some reason._

 

was about to post the same thing. I don't think the jpeg file would be usable for anything other than maybe a new avatar


----------



## dj_mocok

Hey I shoot jpg.


----------



## shigzeo

JPEG come out very nicely in fact. If you are into shooting action, RAW is simply impossible even with the D3 - there isn't enough speed. That and unless you really are snobnoxious about it, JPEG works much better than any compressed audio does in the real world.


----------



## xkRoWx

JPEGs are great for snapshots. But if you want to post-process the pictures you'd want to shoot in RAW. It provides much more flexibility dealing with shadows and highlights.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xkRoWx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But if you want to post-process the pictures you'd want to shoot in RAW._

 

If you're good in photoshop there is no need to shoot in raw.


----------



## xkRoWx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you're good in photoshop there is no need to shoot in raw._

 

Not entirely true. RAW provides much more flexibility. I forgot what the exact number was, I think RAW in 14bit have like 10x or more tonal contrast. It was something like 1280 vs 12580.

 You can't shoot JPEGs in 14bit from what I remember, plus setting White Balance in post-processing is much more accurate than preset camera settings.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xkRoWx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not entirely true. RAW provides much more flexibility._

 

Hm, I'm not sure about the tonal contrast thing either.

 I have never needed the extra flexibility thankfully. I'm ok with photoshop, and have never been at a point where I couldn't edit the photo to where I wanted it. I should also say that I setup the camera to get the image pretty close before any edits, so I wouldn't really need extra flexibility beyond what PS can do.

 Ok, so I'll change what I said. For me, I don't need to shoot in raw since my pictures come out halfway decent from the camera, and I am able to do the rest in photoshop.

 Perhaps if your photos are shot 5 stops under or over exposed, or if they were shot in a totally wrong white balance raw would come in useful. But I thought with digital cameras (since you can just check the image right then and there), that would never be an issue...


----------



## xkRoWx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hm, I'm not sure about the tonal contrast thing either.

 I have never needed the extra flexibility thankfully. I'm ok with photoshop, and have never been at a point where I couldn't edit the photo to where I wanted it. I should also say that I setup the camera to get the image pretty close before any edits, so I wouldn't really need extra flexibility beyond what PS can do.

 Ok, so I'll change what I said. For me, I don't need to shoot in raw since my pictures come out halfway decent from the camera, and I am able to do the rest in photoshop.

 Perhaps if your photos are shot 5 stops under or over exposed, or if they were shot in a totally wrong white balance raw would come in useful. But I thought with digital cameras (since you can just check the image right then and there), that would never be an issue..._

 

Its not so much about not getting it right the first time, but its a lot eaiser and much more convenient to shoot in RAW so you don't have to readjust WB everytime you enter a different lighting condition. I almost never shoot in Aperture or Shutter priority, everything's shot in Manual mode and its one less configuration for me to worry about.

 Sometimes its better to overexpose in dark settings so you can preserve the details in shadows when you post-process.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xkRoWx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_JPEGs are great for snapshots. But if you want to post-process the pictures you'd want to shoot in RAW. It provides much more flexibility dealing with shadows and highlights._

 

I find it depends a lot on the camera in question. I NEEDED to use raw with the D200 nearly all of the time, due to the lack of dynamic range, and mediocre (IMO) JPEG engine. The D700 is better in both regards, and with the right settings in-camera, I am often very satisfied with its' JPEG output. Lately, I have been limiting my use of RAW to times when lighting is very tricky.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you're good in photoshop there is no need to shoot in raw._

 

If you expose properly in camera, there's no need for either.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you expose properly in camera, there's no need for either._

 

I kind of disagree. There are some times when I am, for what ever reason, forced into less than ideal photo'ing conditions.

 I was photographing some kids opening presents on christmas, and at first it was fine. The room was lit by natural window lighting, so my colors were spot on. Then someone thought it would be a good idea to put on an awful florescent light, which gave everything in the room a slight red tint (the window lighting was still the dominant light source).

 You know how fast kids unwrap presents! I had no time to alter any WB settings, so a fair amount of pictures came out with a slight reddish tint.

 Either miss the shots fiddiling with WB, live with the red'ish tint, or edit their colors somehow. I edited the colors so they were much more natural.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xkRoWx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_JPEGs are great for snapshots. But if you want to post-process the pictures you'd want to shoot in RAW. It provides much more flexibility dealing with shadows and highlights._

 

Yes I am sure I can get better pictures if I post process with photoshop using RAW instead of JPG. But by how much better? And not all my shots are THAT good to worth the extra difference (if you can see it at all) and extra hassle.


----------



## xkRoWx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes I am sure I can get better sound quality if I listen to lossless instead of lossy files. But by how much better? And not all my songs are THAT good to worth the extra difference (if you can hear it at all) and extra hassle/space._

 

Fixed it for you, Head-fi style.

 Just sayin'...


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes I am sure I can get better pictures if I post process with photoshop using RAW instead of JPG. But by how much better? And not all my shots are THAT good to worth the extra difference (if you can see it at all) and extra hassle._

 

A hot pink boarder will look at least 10x better if you start with raw instead of jpg.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xkRoWx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Fixed it for you, Head-fi style.

 Just sayin'... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That's exactly why I don't have a super high end audio system. What I find it ironic is (I am not saying everyone), some of them who swear by RAW don't even have a perfectly calibrated monitor or have high quality monitors that are capable of showing those extra colour gamuts.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Just been working on some major camera equipment buys.
 24mm 2.8 Nikkor ai
 18mm-55mm Dx Vr Nikkor 
 200mm IF Micro Nikkor ai 
 18mm 3.5 Nikkor ais 
 20mm f2.8 Nikkor ais
 35mm f2.0 Nikkor ais
 200mm Q4.0 Nikkor 
 d3000
 d40
 FE2 
 50mm 1.4 Nikkor ais

 And last but not least found the hardware to make the Sigma fit Nikon. I will photograph the reto-fit which I am doing myself. Who knows the quality of the newer Sigma 18mm F3.2s but I will never know till I try it.


----------



## Redcarmoose

2x


----------



## Braver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's exactly why I don't have a super high end audio system. What I find it ironic is (I am not saying everyone), some of them who swear by RAW don't even have a perfectly calibrated monitor or have high quality monitors that are capable of showing those extra colour gamuts._

 

Or that and they shoot a D40 that overexposes a lot and they need every bit of latitude they can get to rescue shots 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I love the camera, but I 'need' RAW so I can snapshoot with it. 

 Redcarmoose, that's some cool odfashioned glass! If I didn't switch to Leica recently, chances are I would own a similar list by now. Well, perhaps the 50/1.2, that thing is totally fascinating. Thing is, for rangefinders, the money for such a list would buy 1 lens, and a cheap old one at that


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Braver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Or that and they shoot a D40 that overexposes a lot and they need every bit of latitude they can get to rescue shots_

 

AE: -0.5, -1, -1.5, -2.0EV
 Take your pick.

 There really isn't any reason to have the main subject over or under exposed by any more than 1/2EV when using a digital camera, since you can always preview the pictures right then and there.

 If you're not familiar with how to manually set AE, read your D40 instruction manual on how to set it. It'll fix your overexposure issue.


----------



## dj_mocok

Actually I don't shoot RAW because I can't afford RAW.


----------



## xkRoWx

According to Ken, the D40 should be be compensated with -0.7EV so it won't overexpose like the D80.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I was talking about the tiny jpeg that's attached to a raw file when I made the avatar comment. But I do like shooting RAW. It's nice to be able to pull detail out of clouds, or shooting weddings or events to cover for mistakes due to hurrying to catch the moment. Also, coming from medium and large format film, I just want everything I can get because digital camera images are frustrating to me compared to a big well exposed negative. But I know guys who are better with photoshop than i am who can make amazing prints with cheap digital cameras.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Why is my SB900 smoking when it fires at full power? I keep noticing a little whisp of smoke. I can't imagine that's normal. Anyone else notice that? I guess I should just call the 24/7 nikon support line


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Braver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Or that and they shoot a D40 that overexposes a lot and they need every bit of latitude they can get to rescue shots 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I love the camera, but I 'need' RAW so I can snapshoot with it. 

 Redcarmoose, that's some cool odfashioned glass! If I didn't switch to Leica recently, chances are I would own a similar list by now. Well, perhaps the 50/1.2, that thing is totally fascinating. Thing is, for rangefinders, the money for such a list would buy 1 lens, and a cheap old one at that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 



 I have been with digital SLRs for 30 days and I think I'm all done. Film has so much contrast. Here some shots I shot today to try out the 20mm with a Nikon Fe and print film.
 They did not even care about the 50/1.4 and just almost gave it to me at the camera store. I started to mess with it and fell in love also.


----------



## Redcarmoose

50mm f1.4


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Redcarmoose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have been with digital SLRs for 30 days and I think I'm all done. Film has so much contrast. Here some shots I shot today to try out the 20mm with a Nikon Fe and print film.
 They did not even care about the 50/1.2 and just almost gave it to me at the camera store. I started to mess with it and fell in love also._

 

If you want something nice out of camera, shoot with S5 jpg. The colour and contrast are there alright. Have you read my reviews of some of my lenses? (it's on my sig)
 You can see a few samples of unprocessed jpg straight from camera. The colours are very nice.


----------



## Braver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_AE: -0.5, -1, -1.5, -2.0EV_

 

I know, thats easy to set, but it'll not overexpose all the time and underexposure is as bad as overexposure. LCD is no use if the moment is passed. Getting it right in camera is no fun, taking pictures is fun. Give me black and white film over digital any day: as long as you're in the ballpark your exposure will be fine.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Braver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Give me black and white film over digital any day: as long as you're in the ballpark your exposure will be fine._

 

Well that's the issue right there, you're using digital and now B&W. ^_^
 j/k, of course. I'm sure you enjoy digital as well.


----------



## shigzeo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why is my SB900 smoking when it fires at full power? I keep noticing a little whisp of smoke. I can't imagine that's normal. Anyone else notice that? I guess I should just call the 24/7 nikon support line 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

usually happens after sexy time. that speedlight must really enjoy its job.


----------



## a.dickens

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why is my SB900 smoking when it fires at full power? I keep noticing a little whisp of smoke. I can't imagine that's normal. Anyone else notice that? I guess I should just call the 24/7 nikon support line 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The 900 is notorious for overheating. The heat that is produced by the flash has to go somewhere and in your case it's smoking. It doesn't sound good. I've never seen one smoke being fired into the open. I've seen some smoke after a friend fired his into a sheet of paper. I would have Nikon take a look at that.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

I've been a Nikon fan for about 2 years now, but I badly need to work on my photog skills 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 currently:
 d90
 Tokina 11-16
 Nikkor 35mm 1.8
 sb600

 I find it hardest to shoot in "apartment" settings in other words, poor yellowish lighting. Was trying to shoot the GF's dog and none came out right 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Wasn't using flash though as I didn't want to startle the dog.


----------



## dj_mocok

Don't be lazy to manual white balance it. If you manual white balance, everything should be alright. Or if you have photoshop, WB can also easily adjusted. 
 You have two nice lenses there. Should get 85mm f/1.8 to take portraits of your girlfriend and her dog.


----------



## bigshot

I am guest blogging at Boing Boing this week, and I just put up a post about cameras. Check it out...

It's Not The Photographer, It's The Camera


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mr.Sneis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've been a Nikon fan for about 2 years now, but I badly need to work on my photog skills 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 currently:
 d90
 Tokina 11-16
 Nikkor 35mm 1.8
 sb600

 I find it hardest to shoot in "apartment" settings in other words, poor yellowish lighting. Was trying to shoot the GF's dog and none came out right 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Wasn't using flash though as I didn't want to startle the dog._

 

I'm not sure if you leave your camera in Auto WB (white balance) mode or not, but your D90 has a few very nice preset WB settings. I would try them and see if any of them help.

 If you still get a yellow'ish tint to the photos, you can do a manual WB off a white object. How that works is: you put a pure white thing in the room so that it's lit by the light in the room. You put your camera in manual white balance, take a photo of the white thing, and from then on all of your photos should be pretty much bang on (assuming it was a pure white paper). Read the D90 manual for the specifics.
 Trust me, manual WB'ing off a white thing is a blessing!

 I've even WB'ed off a girl's white shirt, and it worked perfectly.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure if you leave your camera in Auto WB (white balance) mode or not, but your D90 has a few very nice preset WB settings. I would try them and see if any of them help.

 If you still get a yellow'ish tint to the photos, you can do a manual WB off a white object. How that works is: you put a pure white thing in the room so that it's lit by the light in the room. You put your camera in manual white balance, take a photo of the white thing, and from then on all of your photos should be pretty much bang on (assuming it was a pure white paper). Read the D90 manual for the specifics.
 Trust me, manual WB'ing off a white thing is a blessing!

 I've even WB'ed off a girl's white shirt, and it worked perfectly._

 

Will give this a try! Took a whole lot of shots today but didn't end up with too many good ones IMO.


----------



## shigzeo

How do you blog at boingboing? My favourite SF author, Cory Doctorow is always up there. I envy you!


----------



## croakz

I love my Tokina 11-16mm, but I miss the range of my buddy's Sigma 10-20mm (long term borrow). Anyone use the Nikon 10-24mm?


----------



## dj_mocok

No, but I use 11-16mm. And I never missed 24mm. Well part of it because I also have another wide angle lens.


----------



## DeusEx

Is it a sensible time to get a D90 currently? When is the new Nikon gear coming out?


----------



## dj_mocok

If your budget is strictly limited to D90's prices, you can just get it now. My guess is they will have something like D300/D700 equivalent coming out sometime this year.


----------



## xkRoWx

If you're not looking into buying non-AFS lenses then the D5000 works just as nicely. Apparently the D5000 uses an improved D90/D300 sensor and can do higher ISO better.


----------



## DeusEx

I'd like to stay around a grand or so.

When will the Nikon D90 be refreshed? - Digital Living - CNET Asia
New Nikon Digital Cameras In 2010 | HULIQ

 Just wondering since there's been some talk online.


----------



## bigshot

Did a headshot shoot for an actor friend of mine...







 D200 / Sigma 50mm 1.4 a f/3.2 40th ISO 500


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Gotta keep this thead on page 1, guys! 

 Here's a fun little shot from tonight, 1/30 f/2.8@ ISO 10000, 32mm:


----------



## xkRoWx

Woah, 5 digit ISO.. D3?


----------



## dj_mocok

Looks like you killed those steaks


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xkRoWx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Woah, 5 digit ISO.. D3?_

 

Close. D700. It was damn dark out there. Just a 40w florescent about 20ft away. And the burning Strickland Propane, of course 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looks like you killed those steaks_

 

Nope, just flame-kissed 'em to a perfect medium rare!


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

BTW what are everyone's thoughts on the new Nikkors?


----------



## h.rav

^ the 16-35 f/4 looks like a good replacement for my old 17-35 f/2.8. It has VR too, I don't mind with the smaller aperture as I would only use the lens for shooting landscapes.

 The 24 f/1.4 is more expensive than I expected, is there any sample pics taken with the new 24mm?

 Edit : oops, I should have checked Nikon's website, there are sample pics taken with both lenses.


----------



## dj_mocok

That 16-35mm will be a very popular lens. The 24mm is also interesting, but no thanks, I think I'm happy with what I got at the moment....


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_BTW what are everyone's thoughts on the new Nikkors?
_

 

Thank god they are not DX lenses. 
 At least 1 person from Nikon has not lost their head (possibly even 2 people).


----------



## bigshot

Not much point to a 24mm lens for DX. Neither fish nor fowl.


----------



## fureshi

The 16-35mm still seems somewhat expensive for a f/4, which is supposed to be a budget lens. Yes it has VR but at $1260 it's still a bit pricey.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Even on DX the focal length is useful, but it'd be a real waste of $2200 to buy the lens without a full-frame camera (film or otherwise).


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fureshi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 16-35mm still seems somewhat expensive for a f/4, which is supposed to be a budget lens. Yes it has VR but at $1260 it's still a bit pricey._

 

I'd actually argue that the 16-35mm is priced relatively fairly - at least in comparison to Nikon's other products. Consider that, when new, the 12-24 f/4 _DX_ sold for nearly $900 and covered neither a full frame sensor nor the focal length range of this new lens. I find the $300 premium, taken in the context of Nikon's current product line, therefore not completely unreasonable. 

 Still, it's important to remember that Canon's 16-35 _f/2.8_ sells for $1500 and offers a stop extra over Nikon's new offering. At the end of the day, I'd always rather have a larger aperture than VR, especially in a wide-angle lens where VR is of questionable necessity and value.


----------



## dj_mocok

I also think that the 16-35mm f/4 VR is fairly priced, especially considering that you can get it a bit less than the actual RRP. I am not sure what it's made of. But as long as the barrel is not plastic, I think the price is okay.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

The 16-35's MSRP is certainly more than I'd want to pay. I'd just save up a bit more and get the world-beater 14-24. But if street price ends up sub-$1k, it would be more reasonable.

 When the 16-35 was rumored, I was hoping it would be a bit smaller than it turned out to be. It would still make for a nice combo with the 70-300vr for tripodless hiking shots.

 I don't know that I'd want to give up both my (wider, lighter) Sigma 12-24 and (faster, lighter) Tokina 20-35 f/2.8 for it though. Maybe, if the 16-35 performs like the 14-24 does.

 The 24 1.4 is certainly a showpiece. Nothing I see myself owning any time remotely soon. I wonder how sharp the corners will be at say f/2-2.8, enough to put it significantly ahead of the 14-24 or 24-70? Or is this lens all about the bokeh?


----------



## xkRoWx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_At the end of the day, I'd always rather have a larger aperture than VR, especially in a wide-angle lens where VR is of questionable necessity and value._

 

At first I didn't quite understand why Nikon would stick VR into such a wide lens. I, too would like to see f/2.8 instead of f/4 with VR.

 Thom Hogan explained the "1/focal length exposure rule" and I understood why Nikon stuck a VR in the lens. Shooting at 1/16 or 1/30 at handheld will almost always result in a blurry image, even with f/1.8. Nikon even promised up to four stops faster with their VR2 technology, theoretically speaking the 16-35/4VR should be faster (and maybe just as sharp) than its f/2.8 counterpart.

 The 16-35/4VR *presumed* to have similar optical quality of the 14-24/2.8. For MRSP of $1250, it's not so bad.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xkRoWx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_At first I didn't quite understand why Nikon would stick VR into such a wide lens. I, too would like to see f/2.8 instead of f/4 with VR.

 Thom Hogan explained the "1/focal length exposure rule" and I understood why Nikon stuck a VR in the lens. Shooting at 1/16 or 1/30 at handheld will almost always result in a blurry image, even with f/1.8. Nikon even promised up to four stops faster with their VR2 technology, theoretically speaking the 16-35/4VR should be faster (and maybe just as sharp) than its f/2.8 counterpart.

 The 16-35/4VR *presumed* to have similar optical quality of the 14-24/2.8. For MRSP of $1250, it's not so bad._

 

To be honest though, I've found the 1/focal length "rule" more of a suggestion than an absolute. I can handhold my 12-24mm on the wider end at 1/2 to even a full second, and I've shot 200mm at 1/60-1/30. The issue with VR is subject motion - something that a larger aperture can often help remedy. But, yes, for static scenes, image stabilization will no doubt be useful, so long as it allows for consistently long shutter speeds to be used.


----------



## xkRoWx

f/4 is only one full stop slower than f/2.8, with the recent introduction of high ISO capability cameras (like the FX D700 or D3), a bump in ISO won't even hurt the image quality.


----------



## goffer

My 85mm f1.4 AIS just arrived a few days ago


----------



## dj_mocok

Congrats! That's one of my very favourite lenses!
 Make sure you post some canned baked beans pictures with it!


----------



## goffer

I'm really digging it so far... it's a beast of a lens, though it feels nice on the d700 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Now I can finally let my CV SLII 58mm 1.4 rest... being that it used to be my longest lens.


----------



## Deep Funk

Some day I'll enjoy my F90X or F100 again. There's something magical about film.


----------



## Joshatdot

W00T YES!!

*I finally got me a DSLR*..cheep to! Brand new, on Clearance for %30 off lowest price of $479.97 USD, for a final *Clearance price of $335.98 USD*.

 TBH I think the sales girl did the math wrong on her calc, because 30% off $479.97 should be $369.20. Her percent off is something like 42.9%, which comes to $335.88.

 With 8.2% tax it came to $363.53 USD

















 I present you with my Nikon D40:


----------



## Zodduska

Awesome deal Joshatdot, congrats!


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Cool, enjoy the D40! It seems to be debated quite often whether it or the D50 is the preferred option of Nikon's 6MP cameras.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cool, enjoy the D40! It seems to be debated quite often whether it or the D50 is the preferred option of Nikon's 6MP cameras._

 

They are both different enough, and both have their +'s and -'s.


----------



## Towert7

That's an great price for a new DSLR and kit lens!
 Hope it brings you a lot of enjoyment.


----------



## Joshatdot

I just wish I can remember all the stuff I've read on taking pics to really start taking good pics!

 My Canon A720 IS (which this D40 will replace), is a great inexpensive P&S camera, but performed sub par in low light situations. I'll be reading a lot over at kenrockwells site, and my manual on getting the most out of my new D40.


----------



## wanderman

If I don't jump back on the full frame train again, I will dump all my canon kit and get a d90 w/ 35 1.8. The nikon crops are soo good.


----------



## Lex2

The 6MP D40 will give you nice, clean, and huge pixels (meaning better SNR). Its pixel density is on par with the full frame D700. You can't go wrong with it!


----------



## rhythmdevils

I just discovered that Nikon's top of the line 35mm FX prime is only F2 wide open. What is that? Weak sauce. Almost makes me want to switch to Canon- they make a gorge 35mm prime 1.4. F2 is kind of useless cause it's only 1 stop brighter than my 24-70 and not really worth it to be stuck at one focal length. I mean I prefer to shoot with a prime, but weddings happen so fast...

 So what's up with that? I mean a 1.8 prime would be a bit sad, but 2?


----------



## bigshot

35mm is a focal length that is more useful on DX. On FX, the new 24mm 1.4 is the wide angle prime for FX.


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just discovered that Nikon's top of the line 35mm FX prime is only F2 wide open. What is that? Weak sauce. Almost makes me want to switch to Canon- they make a gorge 35mm prime 1.4. F2 is kind of useless cause it's only 1 stop brighter than my 24-70 and not really worth it to be stuck at one focal length. I mean I prefer to shoot with a prime, but weddings happen so fast...

 So what's up with that? I mean a 1.8 prime would be a bit sad, but 2? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Nikon 35mm f/2 in the right hand is one of the most versatile lenses you can have as a photographer.

 I took this with the 'weak sauce' lens. 





 Also this:






 This too:






 I think the culprit of this one is also the weak sauce:






 Hey, another one!






 Found one more:






 Whops, one more:








 I also do a lot of low light indoor with this too. f/2 is plenty for low light especially if it's a wide. And if you have something like D700, it shouldn't be an excuse. 
 I have lots of indoor portraits with this but I can't post them here because it's personal ones. But a lot of wedding photographers use f/2.8 zoom, I can't see a reason why you can't work with an f/2 prime.

 PS - What Bigshot said was right. use the new wide angle prime if you want low light. 35mm f/2 is designed as an affordable general purpose lens, it's never meant to be a top of the line.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just discovered that Nikon's top of the line 35mm FX prime is only F2 wide open. What is that? Weak sauce. Almost makes me want to switch to Canon- they make a gorge 35mm prime 1.4. F2 is kind of useless cause it's only 1 stop brighter than my 24-70 and not really worth it to be stuck at one focal length. I mean I prefer to shoot with a prime, but weddings happen so fast...

 So what's up with that? I mean a 1.8 prime would be a bit sad, but 2? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Stick with the 24-70mm for weddings.

 That being said, I love my little 35mm F/2.0 to death.


----------



## Graphicism

I've been saving up for a while for some edition 8s but the HD video recording from some of these DSLRs has really grabbed my attention.

 I'm looking at the Nikon D90 Body + Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens for a general shoot-anything walkabout; do you guys know if this focal length works well on the D90 or should I be considering another lens, perhaps zoom? The price for this setup with a 16GB SD card is under $1,000, if I can do better within this budget please let me know!

 Share your Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX pics/videos too if you have them.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_35mm is a focal length that is more useful on DX. On FX, the new 24mm 1.4 is the wide angle prime for FX._

 

both the 24 and 28 1.4 are too wide for portraits IMO


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nikon 35mm f/2 in the right hand is one of the most versatile lenses you can have as a photographer.

 I also do a lot of low light indoor with this too. f/2 is plenty for low light especially if it's a wide. And if you have something like D700, it shouldn't be an excuse. 
 I have lots of indoor portraits with this but I can't post them here because it's personal ones. But a lot of wedding photographers use f/2.8 zoom, I can't see a reason why you can't work with an f/2 prime.

 PS - What Bigshot said was right. use the new wide angle prime if you want low light. 35mm f/2 is designed as an affordable general purpose lens, it's never meant to be a top of the line._

 

easy there big fella. You just posted a whole bunch of images that weren't taken in low light, or wide open. I'm not talking about sharpness or anything. And like I said, I don't want to go wider than 35 for an all purpose prime when it's being used for portraits. I've been photographing for 11 years, and use a D3. Not sure if that means I have "the right hands" or not. Fact is, I could use the extra stop if it means dropping the ISO down to something more usable, and I don't see why Nikon hasn't made a state of the art 35mm prime yet.

 edit: I guess it'll save me about a grand though, so that's nice


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_easy there big fella. You just posted a whole bunch of images that weren't taken in low light, or wide open. I'm not talking about sharpness or anything. And like I said, I don't want to go wider than 35 for an all purpose prime when it's being used for portraits. I've been photographing for 11 years, and use a D3. Not sure if that means I have "the right hands" or not. Fact is, I could use the extra stop if it means dropping the ISO down to something more usable, and I don't see why Nikon hasn't made a state of the art 35mm prime yet.

 edit: I guess it'll save me about a grand though, so that's nice 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I know they're not lowlight, as I said, my low lights are private pictures, so I can't post it there. But then again, if I knew I'd be going to very dark places, I always use my f/1.2 not the 35mm f/2.

 How dark exactly are the churches that you've been attending? 
 Other option is to master the flash so that the pictures don't look like they are taken with flash at all (this is something I honestly not very good at and can't be bothered to learn because I don't make a living out of photography). 
 Or when flash is prohibited (meaning church), that means you can always just use 50mm f/1.4, no? 
 But I am really curious, what sort of places that even a D3 and f/2 is not even enough to take the pictures properly and how often do you use this place? 

 I know it was probably just a tongue-in-cheek when you're saying you almost switch brand because of that. I guess it just irks me when people say "This brand suckz balls - I want to switch to brand X or brand Y because it doesn't have this lens". I mean, why on earth you chose that system to begin with if you think the other brand has more suitable lenses for you? 

 I don't mean you though, but if you go to places like dpreview, it's just amazing the amount of gear cry babies there. And don't get me started with those idiots who use flash lights to shine through their lens elements...


----------



## rhythmdevils

Yeah I have spent most of my time with photography with 1 lens, because I'm not really as into the gear as much as the process. But weddings are different. There's so much going on, and so little time, I really will take any advantage I can get. I do use flash, and it's nice if it's done right. But it's also great not to have to use flash, or not have to use as much of it, and the super shallow depth of field look is really in right now, I've actually had brides ask for it. I'm not really into the idea of creating it with photoshop. 

 But here's a scenario, a wedding I recently shot. It was lit almost exclusively with candles, the ceremony and reception were both after dark, and the ceilings were 40 feet tall and painted brown. That's too much even for f1.4, I just had to blast a couple flashes all over the place. 

 But low light is romantic, so wedding receptions are often pretty dark. I don't really like going past ISO 4000 or so cause it doesn't look so hot even with the D3. 

 I'll be fine of course, and get the 35mm f2 or just use my zoom. I'm just surprised because Nikon's pro customer base are people who shoot fast, low light situations like photo-journalists, sports photographers, and wedding photographers. Canon I feel has positioned themselves for the studio and landscape, architecture, etc photographers. A really fast 35mm prime is the staple of photo-journalists and wedding photographers, and for Nikon to be behind canon there is a pretty bad business move. I mean with 1.4 canon makes up for the extra stop or so nikon has with ISO performance. I also have been a little annoyed with them for being behind with video, because I had to get a 5dmkii for video, and then I have to get twice as many lenses. I think Nikon should have released a D700x with 1080p before last christmas. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But yeah, I was joking about switching to canon for photography. the D3 is the first digital camera i've fallen in love with


----------



## dj_mocok

Too bad you can't use the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. 
 I have a feeling that Tokina might come up with something more interesting in FF-compatible lens. 
 I know they recently announced the 16-28mm f/2.8 for FF cameras. 16mm isn't exactly your portrait lens, but I bet you can make some interesting pictures indoor with that lens.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm just surprised because Nikon's pro customer base are people who shoot fast, low light situations like photo-journalists, sports photographers, and wedding photographers. Canon I feel has positioned themselves for the studio and landscape, architecture, etc photographers. A really fast 35mm prime is the staple of photo-journalists and wedding photographers, and for Nikon to be behind canon there is a pretty bad business move._

 

I agree.
 Sadly, there are a few canon lenses that have no equivalent in the nikon range.
 A fast 35mm is one such thing.

 I wonder if nikon is in the middle of making new wide angle primes, or not.


----------



## Graphicism

Has anyone tried the *Sigma Normal 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM* ~ supposed to be the best 50mm lens with better bokeh than the 85mm f/1.4. Considering it as a walk about with either a D90 or D5000.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wonder if nikon is in the middle of making new wide angle primes, or not._

 

Nikon rumors is abound with talk about it, but it seems like a lot of the people who said a new 35mm prime was coming, also said there would be a D700x out in the fall of 2009


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And like I said, I don't want to go wider than 35 for an all purpose prime when it's being used for portraits._

 

Use the 50 1.4 for FF. That's your lens for informal portraits. 35 is going to give you big beaks on FF. For head and shoulders, you want the 85 1.4.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Graphicism* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Has anyone tried the *Sigma Normal 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM* ~ supposed to be the best 50mm lens with better bokeh than the 85mm f/1.4._

 

I have both the Sigma 30 and 50. They are both beautiful portrait lenses. They are the DX equivalent of the 50 and 85 I mentioned in the post above this. Nikon's 35 1.8 and 50 1.4 are very good too. The difference isn't all that great, but the Sigmas do have the edge in wide open shooting and bokeh. The 50 is a little long for walkaround use however. For that, I love the Sigma 30. I use the 30 much more than the 50 for street shooting.




 Sigma 30




 Sigma 50


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Use the 50 1.4 for FF. That's your lens for informal portraits. 35 is going to give you big beaks on FF. For head and shoulders, you want the 85 1.4._

 

I agree for the most part, the 50 is a great portrait lens, and a great all around lens, I like it a lot also for certain landscape shots. But I'm thinking more about environmental portraits, where the 50 is just too tight to get everything in, and you don't want to stand way back cause you want to feel immersed in it.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I just bought the 35mm f2 and I have no idea how I'm going to pay for it! yeah! I don't really need it either I just want to feel the glory


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just bought the 35mm f2 and I have no idea how I'm going to pay for it! yeah! I don't really need it either I just want to feel the glory_

 

It's such a great lens! Among my favorites.
















 The DOF on it is pretty nice when you get very close.


----------



## screwdriver

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Graphicism* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Has anyone tried the *Sigma Normal 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM* ~ supposed to be the best 50mm lens with better bokeh than the 85mm f/1.4. Considering it as a walk about with either a D90 or D5000._

 

the sigma 50mm 1.4 lens is excellent , the only thing is you might need to be prepared to send it in for calibration for focus problems - i have one and i had to send it in - to NY service center as it front focuses on my d300 and d70 . it came back spot on with its focus .
 if you lke the 50mm focal lenght on dx - then its a great lens .
 i find the 50mm on DX a bit too long .

 also i doubt it has better bokeh than the nikon 85mm 1.4 . bokeh wise i think the 85mm 1.4 takes it 

 i use the sigma 30mm 1.4 as a walk around for dx.


 BTW i will have a sigma 24mm 1.8 on monday - will be used with my D700 - 
 ill post sample images to see if the lens is good or a dud .
 it has minimum focusing distance of 7 inches - its also knda macro lens .


----------



## bigshot

I shot some formal studio portraits for an actor friend using the Sigma 50 the other day...





More shots here.

 .


----------



## Graphicism

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have both the Sigma 30 and 50. They are both beautiful portrait lenses. They are the DX equivalent of the 50 and 85 I mentioned in the post above this. Nikon's 35 1.8 and 50 1.4 are very good too. The difference isn't all that great, but the Sigmas do have the edge in wide open shooting and bokeh. The 50 is a little long for walkaround use however. For that, I love the Sigma 30. I use the 30 much more than the 50 for street shooting._

 

I've used the nifty 50 with a Canon 10D before and found it suited me quite while, perhaps the 30mm would do even better. Nikons 35mm 1.8 is $200 so I'll likely get that and the 50mm Sigma; I also need a good lens for product photography.

 Nice shots, the bokeh really makes or breaks an image... was the sigma 50mm background posed or was that couple really making a fortunate candid?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *screwdriver* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the sigma 50mm 1.4 lens is excellent , the only thing is you might need to be prepared to send it in for calibration for focus problems - i have one and i had to send it in - to NY service center as it front focuses on my d300 and d70 . it came back spot on with its focus .
 if you lke the 50mm focal lenght on dx - then its a great lens .
 i find the 50mm on DX a bit too long ._

 

Ah really, front focus? That is a bit of a pain but if it results in a very sharp lens I suppose it's worth it. I'm not dead set on a D90 but I likely will go for a DX simply because a full frame is too expensive for the amount I'll use it. I'm also planning to use a DSLR for it's video capabilities, the D5000 seems pretty cool with the twist out screen and from what I can tell uses the same sensor.


----------



## Zodduska

I'm thinking of getting a new camera as I'm getting tired of dealing with the marred AF filter on my D80. Also the other day I was taking a few shots in candlelight with a shutter release cable wrapped around my ballhead and tried to switch to portrait mode without being able to see what was happening to the cable, needless to say it tried to rip itself out of the socket from below which destroyed the cable and possibly damaged the socket too. 

 Anyway I feel like I've outgrown the D80 somewhat too. I would like a dedicated AF-ON button, minimal long exposure amp glow, built-in sensor cleaning, magnesium body, interval shooting, mirror lock up and DX format.

 So I'm looking at either a new D300s or a used ebay D300.. I would maybe consider a used D90 but its lacking some features I'd like.

 What do you guys think?


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Depending on the extent of your investment in Nikon glass, I'd consider picking up a Canon 5D for around $1000 used. Much better image quality than just about any camera Nikon makes today, and it has the full-frame advantage for depth of field and viewfinder size. I know that, were it not for my fairly large collection of Nikon glass, I would jump ship for Canon's awesome, fast, prime lenses and comparatively low prices.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Depending on the extent of your investment in Nikon glass, I'd consider picking up a Canon 5D for around $1000 used. Much better image quality than just about any camera Nikon makes today, and it has the full-frame advantage for depth of field and viewfinder size. I know that, were it not for my fairly large collection of Nikon glass, I would jump ship for Canon's awesome, fast, prime lenses and comparatively low prices._

 

Do you mean Canon 5D mk2? Because although the first 5D took great pictures, the camera body had a few critical flaws.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Graphicism* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_was the sigma 50mm background posed or was that couple really making a fortunate candid?_

 

It was one of those... "Quick! Strike a pose. Don't ask questions" shots


----------



## Zodduska

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Depending on the extent of your investment in Nikon glass, I'd consider picking up a Canon 5D for around $1000 used. Much better image quality than just about any camera Nikon makes today, and it has the full-frame advantage for depth of field and viewfinder size. I know that, were it not for my fairly large collection of Nikon glass, I would jump ship for Canon's awesome, fast, prime lenses and comparatively low prices._

 

Blasphemer! j/k.

 Thanks for the advice but I have several lenses that I like and don't want to have to deal with selling them off to change systems, plus I'm a Nikon fan. I don't really want full frame either because I like crop factor and don't mind taking advantage of lens sales from people upgrading to FF.

 I guess the question is really: Used D300 or New D300s?

 I don't really care about video but I like the dual card slots.


----------



## bigshot

The difference in price wouldn't be enough for me to give up the Nikon warranty. I'd go new.

 If I was going to buy used, I'd get a D200. They are a total bargain right now.


----------



## alan_g

this is what i bought


----------



## Icenine2

Where can I find just the D40 body. I'm going on Ken Rockwell's suggestion here unless someone has a better one. I'm primarily shooting the kids and use the AF-S Nikkor 18-200. I've also shot w/a D40 and its focus is big time better than the D50. I've had the D50 for 3 years now after I sold the F100 (a great camera).

 K


----------



## bigshot

The D40 has been replaced by the D3000. You can get it (D40) with the kit lens cheaper than the body alone used to sell for, so just get it with the kit lens.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Depending on the extent of your investment in Nikon glass, I'd consider picking up a Canon 5D for around $1000 used. Much better image quality than just about any camera Nikon makes today, and it has the full-frame advantage for depth of field and viewfinder size. I know that, were it not for my fairly large collection of Nikon glass, I would jump ship for Canon's awesome, fast, prime lenses and comparatively low prices._

 

It looks like you're talking about the old 5D because you can't get a mkII for 1000. But I have a 5D mkII, and I prefer my Nikon D3 in just about all areas except for resolution. But you can't go wrong with either brand these days :cheers:


----------



## Joshatdot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Icenine2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Where can I find just the D40 body. I'm going on Ken Rockwell's suggestion here unless someone has a better one. I'm primarily shooting the kids and use the AF-S Nikkor 18-200. I've also shot w/a D40 and its focus is big time better than the D50. I've had the D50 for 3 years now after I sold the F100 (a great camera).

 K_

 

Before I got my D40 kit at Fred Meyers on clearance 3 weeks ago, I was checking Craigslist for D40s, and there were plenty of them.


----------



## rhythmdevils

any of you notice that the histogram on your camera doesn't match the image or histogram as it is in photoshop? I'm careful to keep the exposure high enough that I've got a smooth histogram down into the shaddows, not blocking up, but when I look at the same image in photoshop the darks are all blocked up. I called Nikon about it and they blamed photoshop 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. I'm going to do some testing with my canon to see if it's the same


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_any of you notice that the histogram on your camera doesn't match the image or histogram as it is in photoshop? I'm careful to keep the exposure high enough that I've got a smooth histogram down into the shaddows, not blocking up, but when I look at the same image in photoshop the darks are all blocked up. I called Nikon about it and they blamed photoshop 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. I'm going to do some testing with my canon to see if it's the same_

 


 I totally forget which camera you have, but some of the older Nikon DSLR's histrogram ONLY did the green channel. I know my D50 suffers from this.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_any of you notice that the histogram on your camera doesn't match the image or histogram as it is in photoshop? I'm careful to keep the exposure high enough that I've got a smooth histogram down into the shaddows, not blocking up, but when I look at the same image in photoshop the darks are all blocked up. I called Nikon about it and they blamed photoshop 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. I'm going to do some testing with my canon to see if it's the same_

 

Another possibility is this:
 I shoot NEF and when I import my files into LR3beta the ACR automatically applies +5 darks without asking first. It seems to be the default import setting. That might explain why the darks are "all blocked up".


----------



## rhythmdevils

I have a D3, should be spot on! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They recommended using Nikon's software but I know photoshop isn't the problem


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Another possibility is this:
 I shoot NEF and when I import my files into LR3beta the ACR automatically applies +5 darks without asking first. It seems to be the default import setting. That might explain why the darks are "all blocked up"._

 

is that not the preferred nomenclature? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm using Lightroom for importing, and I'm not aware of anything like that. hmmm. I'll have to take some pictures so you can see the crime in action.


----------



## milkpowder

hehe 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Do get back to me on that. I've noticed that on all the NEFs I've imported from LR2 to LR3beta. It seems like the ACR likes to add blacks to my photos. Before PP I usually take them back down to 0 and use the tone curve instead. IIRC it doesn't happen with JPEGs.


----------



## rhythmdevils

you're right, it does apply +5 black. I assumed that was the neutral value, that 5 was as shot, and 0 would be lighter in the shaddows. Why would Lightroom automatically make adjustments without regard to the image? As if adding 5 black would be a good thing for every picture. I also see that the tone curve is set to "medium contrast". Is this then adding contrast as well? That would explain why my pictures look so much better on the LCD in the camera. I thought it was just because they are so small

 There must be a way to turn that off? Or just create a new preset I guess.


----------



## milkpowder

Hmm I have no clue. I use a preset anyway to apply D2XMode1 calibration so it would be simple to include the black correction. It _is_ rather odd, isn't it.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I'm almost positive the clipping I was seeing in the shadows was caused by this "blacks" adjustment that starts at 5. At first I was horrified that lightroom would be so idiotic, but after digging deeper I see that really I need to create a custom camera calibration for my NEF files. That's going to be fun 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 But for now, I'm just copy/pasting 0 blacks onto every image, and presto, my histogram is beautiful. 

 While we're talking about lightroom, one thing I'm still not happy with in LR2 is the burning/dodging tool. In theory it's great, but the results aren't so nice in my experience. It seems to just add a transparent layer of black/white pixels, which just makes the area look gray. I get much better results by doing curves layers in photoshop to select areas, but that doesn't take advantage of all that RAW has to offer.


----------



## skyline889

Rockwell just posted a full review of the new Nikon 16-35mm VR posted a couple pages back: Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR


----------



## xkRoWx

Rockwell's usually full of crap.

 The review reeks of contradictions.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xkRoWx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Rockwell's usually full of crap.

 The review reeks of contradictions._

 

Yes, but he's one of the few with an in-depth review out currently. His reviews in general always need to be taken with two grains of salt but they give a general idea of the overall performance of the item in question.

 Here's a more factual review from Photozone on the 16-35: Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR (FX) - Review / Test Report


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, but he's one of the few with an in-depth review out currently._

 

In-depth? Yes he writes a lot of words but 99% of those are BS! He is a blogger, he needs to create controversy to drive traffic, that I understand. However, he is now giving poison information, e.g., he is still recommending D40 in 2010!? You know how many newbies will be misguided by reading his site?


----------



## skyline889

The D40 and D50 may be old but that doesn't stop them from being capable bodies. Half the so called "newbies" would be limited more so by their capabilities than by either body, and the other half would be better off investing in higher quality glass than an expensive body like a D90/D300. As far as the D3000/D5000 go, the D40/D50 offer 90-95% of the same performance for a fraction of the cost (If you go used).

 I've voiced my opinions of Rockwell's highly opinionated commentary in the past here but I disagree that everything he says is crap. You have to sift through the BS in any review, just look at Stereophile and 6moons. Anyways, if someone is ignorant enough to base their entire knowledge base on one person, I'm sorry to say that they deserve what they get. Newbie or not, unless you're twelve, you should know better.


----------



## bigshot

You have to be pretty dense to not be able to separate entertainment value from the meat in Ken Rockwell's reviews. I actually get a lot more out of his site than many photo review sites. At least Rockwell offers a personal context. A lot of other sites just offer numbers with no context.

 In case you haven't been paying attention, there have been some pretty darn good blowout prices on D40 kits in recent times. They're about gone now, but it's like that brief window where the D200 was selling for dirt cheap at Best Buy... latest is not always greatest.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Rockwell just posted a full review of the new Nikon 16-35mm VR posted a couple pages back: Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR_

 

Oh no, you said the KR word! Now 2 pages of useless dribble is sure to follow (my post included).


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_... if someone is ignorant enough to base their entire knowledge base on one person, I'm sorry to say that they deserve what they get. Newbie or not, unless you're twelve, you should know better._

 

In real life I am a decent photographer and people ask me stuff. I've seen many, way too many newbies coming to me saying they worship ken rockwell and his site is their bible, and they believe everything because the info there are written in a very personal way (unlike cold, hard, real, scientific facts like on photozone.de). To a newbie, they will believe anything he says.

 Unbelievable. If someone shows you the facts in a chart, in unarguable numbers, VS someone telling you emotionally the "fact", you'll believe the latter because it comes from a person.

 Once some dude was asking me stuff and then says he'll buy a film camera and never shoot digital. I asked him why. He says Rockwell says film has better color and resolution.... I went on that site and read that. He is comparing digital sensor to a medium sized film that is, what, at least 10 times bigger than the digital sensor? And then he claims that THAT film has higher resolution. In later articles he'll start to claim ALL film has higher resolution. I shoot digital and film. I know the truth. I am pissed by this info, and the fact that there are so many innocent people out there who believes him completely just because he has a web site with a lot of words, and goes on to waste their money in all the wrong places.

 Sorry for the rant. I think that's enough said. No more KR talk for me.


----------



## bigshot

The relative sizes of the film and digital sensors is irrelevant because they are two totally different things. The truth is, 35mm film *is* better than digital in many ways. It's just not as convenient to not have the immediate feedback of viewing your shots as you take them. For most people, the convenience outweighs the advantages.

 I've been shooting pictures in 35mm, medium format and digital for the past 35 years, and I would rather get advice from someone who bases their reviews on actually using a lens, rather than from someone who only shoots test charts to measure things without any attempt to define what difference it makes in practice.

 Ken Rockwell obviously has a great deal of practical experience and knows better than the people he calls "measurebators" what makes a lens useful. I've found that the "newbies" are generally the ones that think they know everything. They're usually the ones arguing straw men theories against KR in internet forums.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The relative sizes of the film and digital sensors is irrelevant because they are two totally different things. The truth is, 35mm film *is* better than digital in many ways._

 

Size is relevant... but let's not argue on that. What am I doing talking about photography on a headphone forum anyway?

 I shoot quite a bit of film, but I don't think film is better, that is not the word. It is DIFFERENT. I shoot fuji 160C. They just discontinued that. Sigh. Kodak gave me some samples of VC160 and some other assorted film saying I can replace the fujis with those but I haven't tried them out yet. Sooner or later there will be no film for me anymore.


----------



## rhythmdevils

one thought about digital vs film is that if the resolution is the same (whatever that means 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), film will look better (resolution wise) because grain just looks better than pixels, as the image starts to break up, its not as big a deal with film as it is with digital. 

 I think KR has some good points and it's nice how he goes for practicality, against certain tech-freak things that I agree don't matter. But he also seems to enjoy being this way for publicity sake. Like saying that he shoots all his landscapes with a canon s90 point and shoot when he's got big guns lying around. nonsense!


----------



## rhythmdevils

any of you see the little bit in dpreview about future nikon DSLR's? 

Nikon will provide 'better balance' of ISO and resolution: Digital Photography Review

 I'm not sure about the "better balance" bit, as that's the whole selling point for everyone who has switched from canon to nikon since the D3. Or for me at least. 12 mp is enough for most things. But the DSLR "good news" is exciting. D700x? D700s?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Like saying that he shoots all his landscapes with a canon s90 point and shoot when he's got big guns lying around. nonsense!_

 

I use my Canon SD880 for most vacation pictures. I get great images with my P&S- I'm definitely not sacrificing image quality as long as the light is good. When I'm traveling, I'm there to experience the place and the people, not drag around big bags of equipment and only see the sights through a viewfinder. I totally understand why Ken Rockwell prefers a P&S when he is on road trips. I shoot seriously when I have the time and inclination to plan my schedule and activities around photography.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I get great images with my P&S- I'm definitely not sacrificing image quality as long as the light is good._

 

I agree with everything about convenience, and enjoying the experience and not just photographing. I went to India for 8 months and didn't even bring a camera. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But no matter how good the light is, the file from a point and shoot won't look as good as the file from say a D700 or 5Dmkii. Unless it's just for web I guess, or you're making small prints. Or maybe you're a photoshop masta ?


----------



## bigshot

I have a D200 and an SD880. The resolution on the two is identical, so they print out as big as I want regardless of which one I use. The Canon has beautiful color- actually better right out of the camera than the D200. The optics of the Canon are great too. The main reason to use the D200 over the Canon is for low light (better high ISO, better flash), action (better focus tracking, better speed), more flexibility (opportunity to use lenses for specific purposes) and to a lesser degree, the advantage of shooting RAW for flexibility in post processing (wider dynamic range).

 But I could shoot an image of a few people standing on the street in daylight with both cameras at a midrange focal length and stopped down to f/8 and you would be hard pressed to see any difference at all in image quality.

 The only image quality advantage a D700 would give over these two cameras in practical application would be better low light performance.

 The major difference between digital cameras in my experience is speed and flexibility- not the ability to print large. I did a portrait shoot years ago on a 3 mp Olympus P&S that ended up being printed on 18x24 posters. It looked totally sharp. The trick was that the Olympus had really good optics. The lens is what makes the difference, not the camera.

 Here are a couple of examples of the SD880 operating at the absolute outer edge of its ability. These are super high ISO, extremely low light, high contrast images in a very non standard white balance setting. These were handheld at more than one second (braced against the wall) but the IS worked pretty well anyway.

http://latenightcoffeeshops.blogspot...o-skyline.html


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The lens is what makes the difference, not the camera._

 

Up to a point, of course.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But I could shoot an image of a few people standing on the street in daylight with both cameras at a midrange focal length and stopped down to f/8 and you would be hard pressed to see any difference at all in image quality._

 

I have yet to seen any point-n-shoot camera giving me sharper images than a DSLR with a prime lens...

 mid range focal length? 50mm primes are the sharpest lens available.


----------



## bigshot

I think too much emphasis is placed on differences between lenses that don't even account to a gnat hair's difference. A ten megapixel image blown up to 100% on a computer screen would be more than three feet across. Blow it down to a size that relates more to normal scale for prints and there's no difference whatsoever.

 Under ideal lighting, it's possible to get a tack sharp image from a P&S, a DX camera, or a FF camera. The differences between them are all about how they deal with less than ideal or downright lousy lighting conditions, not sharpness.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think too much emphasis is placed on differences between lenses that don't even account to a gnat hair's difference. A ten megapixel image blown up to 100% on a computer screen would be more than three feet across. Blow it down to a size that relates more to normal scale for prints and there's no difference whatsoever.

 Under ideal lighting, it's possible to get a tack sharp image from a P&S, a DX camera, or a FF camera. The differences between them are all about how they deal with less than ideal or downright lousy lighting conditions, not sharpness._

 

But you see, there are people out there *obsessed *with sharpness. They don't care if you can't tell a difference at 8x10, or 10x15, they want the sharpest picture possible, no compromise. I see nothing wrong with that.

 If people are talking about finding the best lens for sharpness, they have gone beyond the point of just being content with 8x10's. They want the sharpest image possible, bar nothing.

 I have sympathy for these people, because I myself am one too. ^_^


----------



## choka

What is wrong with wanting the best picture quality I can afford? What is wrong being a sharpness freak?

 Choosing a p&s over a dslr just because it "does not make a difference" on a computer screens is almost like you are saying you prefer skull candies to hd800/t1/d7000/[insert_your_favorite_highend_can_here] even when you can afford it, because you don't need the quality.

 It is not just sharpness. How about dynamic range? Noise in the shadow areas? Depth of field?

 I often print my pictures large. 10mp is just enough to print 16x20 without seeing jpg artifacts. I know because I used to shoot with a d70s which is 6mp only and the 16x20s are full of jpg crap. I always shoot RAW. Sometimes I have to crop my photos. Sometimes I wish I have more pixels so I can crop more and still maintain a good print quality. I almost only use prime lenses (exception: tokina 11-16mm and nikon 70-300vr) because I always want as much usable pictures as possible. I use primes because they are sharp. I use primes because have large apertures giving me much more creative freedom when I need that. I use the sharpest lenses that I can afford to buy because I don't have to blame my equipment when I don't get the shot I want. It will be my problem, my lack of skills, my fxxx up, my own stupid fault. Not because I bought a compromise that rockwell claimed is more practical but not actually. Not because I carried a p&s with me. Not because I shot a jpg with a cloudy white balance when it is midday making the whole picture YELLOW. I've only shot for a bit more than 3 years, not 10, 20, 30 years like some of you guys can claim. I know I DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING, AND NEVER WILL, but I shoot as much as I can. I read about it as much as I can. I talk to as much photogs as I can and I show them my stuff to see what more I can do.

 Wherever I go, I carry a luggage case with me, full of lenses. 11-16 (gonna sell this soon), 20/1.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/1.2, 90/2.8, 105/2.8. When I actually leave the hotel or car, I pick at least 3 of those that I know I will use with me. That's how I travel. I don't need your sympathy. I love what I am doing. I love photography.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Choosing a p&s over a dslr just because it "does not make a difference" on a computer screens is almost like you are saying you prefer skull candies to hd800/t1/d7000/[insert_your_favorite_highend_can_here] even when you can afford it, because you don't need the quality._

 

No, saying...

 It doesn't really matter if you can only see a difference between two cameras by blowing the image up on a monitor to the equivalent of 3 by 4 feet.

 is the same as saying...

 It really doesn't matter if the only way to tell the difference between two sets of headphones is to turn the volume up to ear shattering volumes.

 Scale matters. It's perfectly fine to want to have equipment capable of resolving beyond your ability to perceive it. But once you reach that level of image quality, there are much more important things to worry about. That's when your attention should shift from your equipment's specs to your own technique and creative strategies. In good lighting situations, a nice 10 MP P&S can shoot images that look as good as any DSLR. It's under adverse conditions that the DSLR outperforms the P&S. But even then, the results you achieve depend on your ability to use your equipment to utilize its strengths and minimize its weaknesses. That's the same with a prime lens as it is a superzoom.

 By the way, if you can see jpeg artifacts on 16x20 prints from RAW files from your DSLR, something is wrong in your workflow. There should be no jpeg artifacts in RAW files at any size. Something is compressing your images somewhere along the line. However, if you really need to print over three feet across, you should be using a medium format film camera anyway. The difference between 10 MP and 12 MP is pretty much imperceptible. You need at least double or triple that to get any practical increase in resolution.

 Dynamic Range: Not an issue in well balanced lighting situations
 Noise in the shadow areas: Not an issue because in good light you can shoot at low ISOs
 Depth of field: A P&S can actually give you wider range of depth of field sharpness than a DSLR.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By the way, if you can see jpeg artifacts on 16x20 prints from a 10MP DSLR, something is wrong in your settings._

 

I said I can see artifacts in 6mp, not 10mp. I am a computer science graduate. I did grad school specializing in computer graphics. I work on CG research now. I am saying I know a tiny little bit about image settings.


----------



## bigshot

The amount of artifacting is dependent on the degree of compression not the resolution of the sensor. It's best to set the compression so it artifacts at a level below the resolution of the camera. Your blowups should have been fuzzy from lack of resolution before they were spoiled by artifacts. Since the problem was jpeg artifacts, you probably had the compression turned up too high, or your camera wasn't doing a good job of compressing the images. The quality of compression is actually more important than the amount of megapixels.

 I've blown up 3MP jpegs from the Olympus 3030 to that size with no problems. Admittedly, that was a pretty remarkable camera with an f/2.8 lens that was optically as good as any lens I've ever used. Several pro photographers used the c3030 back in its day. As I said, with good light, the sharpness usually isn't the problem in digital cameras. The problem is usually the way the exposure and white balance is set in auto modes, or as it was in your case, the compression. If you shoot manual and/or RAW, that doesn't make as much difference.

 My point was this though... The main determining factor to image quality when shooting under good lighting situations is the lens, and there are a lot of P&S cameras with fantastic lenses. It's a lot harder to make a good FF lens than a point and shoot lens with the same optical quality. Canon, Lumix, etc all make excellent P&S cameras that are capable of taking spectacular pictures in the right conditions and in the right hands. DSLR's only have the edge when the lighting is poor, or when you need specialized lenses like ultrawides or super long telephotos, or fast apertures and fast recycle times for shooting sports or super wide apertures for creating narrow slivers of focus. These situations probably account for a small fraction of what the average photographer shoots.

 Advanced amateurs rarely need anything more than what a really good P&S or bridge camera can give them. They usually end up buying much more camera than they need. I discovered that I did this myself when I bought my Canon SD880 and found that it was capable of doing at least 80% of what I was doing with my D200- and doing it just as well. Now, I use the D200 for the things only it can do (low light night street shooting and portraits) and I use the Canon P&S for general walkaround shots. I'm sacrificing nothing in image quality. I could carry around a D3 with a 50mm 1.4 prime and for all intents and purposes get the exact same shots. So why haul around suitcases full of expensive equipment?


----------



## choka

To each their own.

 I never get the same shots with a p&s. I will not compromise.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To each their own.

 I never get the same shots with a p&s. I will not compromise._

 

Here Here!
 We strive for the best!


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here Here!
 We strive for the best!



_

 






 Cheers


----------



## jpelg

The most interesting photograph's I've seen had little to do with whether they were tack-sharp or not.


----------



## bigshot

That's very true. On internet forums you see people arguing about the minute differences in test charts that make absolutely no difference in practice, yet there is little discussion of the things that really matter, like composition, lighting, color harmony, etc. Cameras just capture images, photographers make them.

 Great photographers have used very humble cameras to take iconic photographs. Every camera has the potential. It just takes a photographer who knows how to use his tool to its strengths. A P&S might not be as versatile of a tool as a DSLR, but that doesn't mean that it's incapable of taking great shots if it is used for what it is good for. If someone says that they aren't capable of getting great shots using a P&S, that says more about them as a photographer than it does the capabilities of the camera itself.

 There are times when a high degree of sharpness is called for, like in Ansel Adams' landscapes. But a DSLR wouldn't really be able to do that any better than a P&S would. For that, you need a large format camera and film. It's actually not really expensive to go that route if that is your particular interest. I've gotten super sharp images with my medium format Mamiya RB67, and they sell for about the price of a good P&S on ebay.

 I've been shooting for around 35 years now, and I've tried everything but view cameras. I've found that P&S cameras are best for informal street shooting, DSLRs are best for shooting portraits and fast action, 35mm is best for general nature and B&W, and medium format is best for big landscapes and studio work. One type of camera can't be expected to serve in all types of situations.

 Lately, my interests have been in shooting street and people. That means a good P&S and a not too intimidating DSLR. I'm getting good results with my SD880 and D200.


----------



## rhythmdevils

yeah I agree that there are plenty of iconic images in which sharpness doesn't matter. There are limitless ways to use photography. Some images are about the moment, the angle, the perspective, the way things line up in the frame, the history. For those images, sharpness, grain, etc doesn't matter much, and in fact, blur sometimes adds to the feeling of authenticity, and a point and shoot would be fine. Although I'd be curious to know how many of these kinds of images could actually be taken with point and shoots. I think that working with them is a pain in the ***** and holds me back. If it's about the moment, you don't have time to program exposure in the menus to get a usable image 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But it's clearly possible.

 But there are also images that are about beauty. And if that's the case, then I don't agree that today's point and shoots come close to a D3. Or a D3x for that matter. And I think I could tell the difference even on a monitor, at 600px wide, 72dpi. 

 I'm not saying that you can't take awesome pictures with any camera, you can, you could make a cell phone image beautiful if you were creative about it somehow. but we seem to be talking about beautiful prints/images in the traditional sense.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've gotten super sharp images with my medium format Mamiya RB67, and they sell for about the price of a good P&S on ebay._

 

This has been a serious consideration for me for a long time, but the cost to develop the large film is not cheap.
 For someone who really prefers digital vs film, this isn't really an option. The digital MF's are very pricey!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jpelg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The most interesting photograph's I've seen had little to do with whether they were tack-sharp or not._

 

I'll agree with this, and yet I still strive for sharp images. It's just what makes me happy.


----------



## chews89

Hi Nikon-users,

 I recently won an auction on ebay for my first every DSLR, a D200! Now I'm starting to look at lenses. Can anyone suggest some cheap decent lenses to start off with? I've been looking at lenses like the Nikkor 50mm f1.8, Nikkor 18-55mm, and even then 18-200mm although that will probably cost quite a bit.

 Cheers


----------



## choka

The 50/1.8 is a no-brainer. It is the sharpest lens in nikon lineup although its bokeh can be bad sometimes, depending on the situation. If you don't like it you can sell it without much loss. Personally I am a prime lens user so I'd rather not comment on the zooms or super zooms you are mentioning.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chews89* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi Nikon-users,

 I recently won an auction on ebay for my first every DSLR, a D200! Now I'm starting to look at lenses. Can anyone suggest some cheap decent lenses to start off with? I've been looking at lenses like the Nikkor 50mm f1.8, Nikkor 18-55mm, and even then 18-200mm although that will probably cost quite a bit.

 Cheers_

 

If you're looking for dirt cheap versatility there are three lenses you should be looking at:

 Nikon 18-55mm or 18-55mm VR
 Nikon 50mm f/1.8
 Nikon 55-200mm VR

 You can get all three for around $350-400 total (used) and for that price, you can't beat the performance. Step up to the 35mm f/1.8 or the 70-300mm VR if you have a bigger budget and you'll be set for a while. If you mostly shoot wide, instead pick up a Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and the 50mm and you'll be good to go for less than $450.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chews89* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi Nikon-users,

 I recently won an auction on ebay for my first every DSLR, a D200! Now I'm starting to look at lenses. Can anyone suggest some cheap decent lenses to start off with? I've been looking at lenses like the Nikkor 50mm f1.8, Nikkor 18-55mm, and even then 18-200mm although that will probably cost quite a bit.

 Cheers_

 

Similar to what skyline889 said:

 You can pick up a nice 50mm F/1.8 (125$). Great Value!
 For a zoom, you can pick up something like a used 18-55mm for less than 100$ and something like the most basic 70-300mm for less than 150$.

 That'll give you amazing flexibility to start learning with, and the 50mm will give you a taste of what some of nikon's best lenses are like.

 Hope this helps.

 PS: since you have a D200, don't be afraid to check out ebay for some old lenses since your camera will still meter with them.
 You can get some real gems for under 60$, such as the 80-200 F4.5n AIk, 70-210mm, 75-150mm E, etc.


----------



## chews89

Thanks for the help guys.

 Yeah it seems the 50mm f1.8 is an incredibly popular lens, and so affordable too! I'll definitely have to get myself one of them.

 To be honest I'm still having difficulty with understanding focal lengths and such. For example what will be the difference between a 55-200mm and 18-200mm? I guess I have to do more reading but if someone could give me a simple answer, that would be awesome.

 Also, I've just realised VR lenses are a lot more expensive than non-VR lenses. Does VR make a huge difference? Is it still Ok to go with the non-VRs?

 Ohyeah I have a feeling I'll mainly be shooting portraits and some scenery.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chews89* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To be honest I'm still having difficulty with understanding focal lengths and such. For example what will be the difference between a 55-200mm and 18-200mm? I guess I have to do more reading but if someone could give me a simple answer, that would be awesome._

 

The smaller the number, the wider it goes, the bigger the closer. Do you have a point and shoot camera? You can probabaly get an idea by zooming on that.

 18-200 is considered to be a lens that can almost sit on your camera forever because it covers most of the zoom range you will ever need.

 VR does make a difference. I have 70-300 VR and honestly, I do not think I can take useful pictures with that if there is no VR, unless I take along a tripod with me everytime I use that lens. (read: you don't need VR if you have tripod)

 The longer the focal length, the more you want to have VR.

 A rule of thumb is, your slowest shutter speed would be 1/focal length. When you are at 18mm you can be as slow as something like 1/15s which is doable for a lot of situations; but when you are at 300mm you have to shoot at 1/300s or faster, you needs lots of light and that does not happen all the time. With VR I can get to 1/60s or sometimes even less and I still get a sharp picture.

 happy shooting


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chews89* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I recently won an auction on ebay for my first every DSLR, a D200! Now I'm starting to look at lenses. Can anyone suggest some cheap decent lenses to start off with? I've been looking at lenses like the Nikkor 50mm f1.8, Nikkor 18-55mm, and even then 18-200mm although that will probably cost quite a bit._

 

All of those are great lenses... However the 50mm has a much narrower use. On the D200, it's a short telephoto suited for portrait work. Not much use for general low light use. I'd recommend the 18-200 VR and the 35 1.8. That is a two lens kit that has a great deal of versatility.


----------



## choka

having a prime lens helps in your photography skills in general. You are limited in focal length, makes you think about the composition, color, etc. The large aperture also gives you a lot more creative freedom.

 before i bought my 35/2, i use my 50/1.8 a lot.

 but, after i bought my 50/1.2, i haven't been using my 35/2. Sharpest 50mm when stopped down to f/1.4 and a silky smooth bokeh? I'm sold, even when it is MF only.

 It is true that 35mm is probably a more useful focal length than 50mm on DX format, however, it ultimately depends on what you shoot. If you shoot a lot of portraits, 50mm is gonna be more useful to you than 35mm. Moreover 50mm is very affordable. You can take great pictures with it. I sometimes go out with just a 50mm lens when I feel lazy and I can shoot a lot of good stuff. On the other hand, I sometimes go out with just a 90mm...

 The 35/1.8 is a DX lens, so if you plan on eventually upgrading to FX, you might want to think about whether you want to build a DX lens collection or not. I shoot DX in digital and I actually like the 1.5x crop factor. I am sticking to FX lenses only because I also shoot film.


----------



## bigshot

Having fewer options doesn't make you more creative. It just gives you a more narrow range of options to focus on. A setup with all manual and a prime lens is great for a beginning photographer, because it keeps them focused on all the steps it takes to visualize and capture a picture. I shot with an F2 and a 55mm 2.8 lens for years back when I was learning. It was great training. As I've progressed all those decisions have become second nature, and a more versatile and flexible setup is better for me, because I can get where I want to be quicker. Now I want a a kit that's like a Swiss Army Knife so I can deal with any situation I come across, and not have the equipment dictating the kind of shots I'm taking.

 My recommendation is to always buy the equipment that works for you today. Don't make any compromises to make them work with any theoretical camera you might own in the future. The best bargain is the lens you get the most use out of, not the one that works better in some theoretical future.

 Very few people actually need FX cameras... wedding photographers, photojournalists, sports photographers... that's about it. FX cameras are not sharper and they don't produce more colorful images. The image quality is pretty much identical to DX. The advantages of FX cameras are that they have larger and brighter viewfinders and they can shoot at higher shutter speeds in low light. For most photographers, it is more advantageous to have a DX camera with a faster lens than to have an FX camera with a 2.8 pro zoom.

 I have three primes, a Sigma 30 1.4, a Sigma 50 1.4 and a Tokina 100mm 2.8 macro. I use the 30 quite a bit. I use the 50 just for portraits. I haven't really had a use for the 100 yet. The lenses in my bag that I use the most are the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Nikon 18-200 VR. Those cover 80% of what I need to shoot. Most people probably wouldn't need both of those. Either one of those and a 35 1.8 would probably cover it for most folks.


----------



## choka

well, someone here doesn't like Primes. Are you a Decepticon? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i love them. i haven't picked up the 18-70 kit lens since i got the 50mm, and i never looked back.


----------



## trevorlane

anybody in this thread know when the 24 1.4 is finally getting released? nikon seems to be taking their sweet time with the release and i really wanna get it on the D3


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *trevorlane* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_anybody in this thread know when the 24 1.4 is finally getting released? nikon seems to be taking their sweet time with the release and i really wanna get it on the D3_

 

I have no idea, but I tried that earlier this month at the Nikon booth at WPPI. Since then I've been lusting over it.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Having fewer options doesn't make you more creative. It just gives you a more narrow range of options to focus on._

 

Too true. I would never choose a 50mm for my sole lens. It's just too limiting, especially on a crop body. People always just say, "well, step back" if you want more in the shot. 99% of the time stepping back isn't enough for me and to that point, there's usually a limited amount of room to "step back." Take an auto show for example, you step back just one foot and you now have 100 people blocking the subject, it just doesn't work.

 I, too, started shooting only with primes (a 50mm f/1.4 and a 135mm f/2.8) and a full manual F2. Heck, since I got rid of the D200 combo, I was manually metering and focusing a 30 year old N-AI converted 28mm on my D50 until I got my new 18-55mm VR. Yes, it made me focus more on composition but once you have the basics down, it just becomes a hassle and a limitation. Missing shots is not creativity.


----------



## trevorlane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have no idea, but I tried that earlier this month at the Nikon booth at WPPI. Since then I've been lusting over it._

 

i almost jumped on a 28 1.4 a few months back, but decided against it and went with the PS-1. now i'm doubly glad i went that route. i was also tired of using 14-24 (im just not a fan of zooms at all)


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Too true. I would never choose a 50mm for my sole lens. It's just too limiting, especially on a crop body. People always just say, "well, step back" if you want more in the shot. 99% of the time stepping back isn't enough for me and to that point, there's usually a limited amount of room to "step back." Take an auto show for example, you step back just one foot and you now have 100 people blocking the subject, it just doesn't work._

 

Orz

 why would you take a 50mm only to a car show... using primes doesn't mean you have to be stupid. you need at least 20mm wide on DX for a car show.

 carry one prime only when you know exactly what you are shooting... nowadays i often carry a 20, a 35 and a 90 when I don't know what I am shooting at all. they are lighter than a 24-70/2.8 combined.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *trevorlane* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i almost jumped on a 28 1.4 a few months back, but decided against it and went with the PS-1. now i'm doubly glad i went that route. i was also tired of using 14-24 (im just not a fan of zooms at all)_

 

what's wrong with 14-24? i am thinking of selling my tokina 11-16 and get the 14-24. there is no sharper wide angle lens than the 14-24, not even a prime can rival that.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Orz

 why would you take a 50mm only to a car show... using primes doesn't mean you have to be stupid. you need at least 20mm wide on DX for a car show.

 carry one prime only when you know exactly what you are shooting... nowadays i often carry a 20, a 35 and a 90 when I don't know what I am shooting at all. they are lighter than a 24-70/2.8 combined._

 

Stating the obvious. I was addressing your post, not the issue of selecting primes in general. I recommended the 50mm f/1.8 as a supplementary lens, your argument seemed to pushing it as a primary lens, that was what I was disputing. The 50mm just doesn't make sense to me as a primary, walk around lens. For everyday shooting, I prefer either a 28mm or a 35mm, for portraits, an 85mm. YMMV.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chews89* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the help guys.

 Yeah it seems the 50mm f1.8 is an incredibly popular lens, and so affordable too! I'll definitely have to get myself one of them.

 To be honest I'm still having difficulty with understanding focal lengths and such. For example what will be the difference between a 55-200mm and 18-200mm? I guess I have to do more reading but if someone could give me a simple answer, that would be awesome.

 Also, I've just realised VR lenses are a lot more expensive than non-VR lenses. Does VR make a huge difference? Is it still Ok to go with the non-VRs?

 Ohyeah I have a feeling I'll mainly be shooting portraits and some scenery._

 

Focal length is a funny thing, but basically the number translates into the field of view you get.

 A wide angle lens, with a small focal length (~20mm, 94º), will have a wide field of view, let you get many things in the shot.
 Ex:






 A telephoto lens, with a large focal length (~200mm, 12º), will have a very small field of view and let you 'zoom in' on the subject.
 Ex:





 And of course, things in between are in between these extremes.

 Basically, think of it in terms of field of view. Doing a google search or video search for camera focal length should give you a better idea.

 So, a 18-200mm covers a range from wide angle to telephoto. The 55-200mm covers less of a range, say... normal to telephoto. 

 VR can help. You'll need to decide if you want it. Read up on what it does and when it helps.

 Portrait and scenery are tough to say. Take portraits for example. Some people would use a wide angle lens, while others would want a telephoto lens. It's up to personal preference. For portraits you usually want a sharp lens that has good bokeh control.

 For scenery shots, if you are talking landscape stuff, you're looking at wide angle lenses mainly. If you are talking closeups of flowers, you will want a lens that can zoom in and give you a good magnification.


----------



## trevorlane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what's wrong with 14-24? i am thinking of selling my tokina 11-16 and get the 14-24. there is no sharper wide angle lens than the 14-24, not even a prime can rival that._

 

That's pretty much it, the Nikon 14 prime doesn't compare to the 14-24, however it really is a beast to carry around. When I use it, it's locked at 14. Now with the 24, while others might not find it to be a usable focal length, I believe it very much is with the max. aperture at 1.4. Also I'll finally be able to use my 77 filters again.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Stating the obvious. I was addressing your post, not the issue of selecting primes in general. I recommended the 50mm f/1.8 as a supplementary lens, your argument seemed to pushing it as a primary lens, that was what I was disputing. The 50mm just doesn't make sense to me as a primary, walk around lens. For everyday shooting, I prefer either a 28mm or a 35mm, for portraits, an 85mm. YMMV._

 

Sorry if what I said seemed that way. I did said I sometimes take only the 50mm out, and sometimes only the 90mm, but on those days I know exactly what I am going to shoot.

 If I want to push someone onto believing there's a primary lens on DX, it will be 35mm. (which is the equivalent of 50mm on FX)


----------



## choka

I am in no way pushing 50/1.8 as a primary lens for everyone. I am saying it is a no-brainer because it is so sharp and so cheap as well. It CAN be a primary lens only if you are shooting portraits. I am more of a landscape guy. The 50/1.8 is not my primary lens.

 I also mentioned that the 50/1.8 has some flaws of its own. When wide open, the bokeh can be disgusting on some backgrounds. That prompted me to get a 50/1.2 as a result.


----------



## bigshot

The primary reason to use a prime instead of a zoom is speed. Primes are usually a stop or more faster than zooms. This can make a big difference in dark situations. The other time when a prime is called for is for formal portraits on a tripod. You set up your lights and camera and shoot from a fixed point, so there is no need for a zoom.

 I always try not to change lenses in the field. It's a pain in the rear to stop and rummage through a bag and balance two lenses as I transfer the caps. Also, in Southern California, there's always stuff blowing around in the air. I'd be cleaning my sensor all the time.

 I usually just carry two lenses... the one I think will cover everything I need, and a different lens for a backup. For instance, if I am shooting general walkaround stuff in full daylight, I'd bring a midrange zoom plus an ultrawide in case I want to do landscape. For people, I'd take a midrange zoom and a fast 50 prime in case I want narrow depth of field. For travel, the 18-200 VR do-it-all lens plus the 30 1.4 in case I run into low light inside a museum.

 Two lenses are plenty to cover the range of options if you know how you shoot. I would much rather be focused on my subjects than constantly having to think about what lens I need.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would much rather be focused on my subjects than constantly having to think about what lens I need._

 

IMO, the ability to use different lenses and choosing what to use in what situation is one of the MAJOR FUN FACTOR in using a SLR. If I am unwilling to change my lenses, I don't think I'd continue to want a SLR.

 Whenever someone tells me they want to buy a DSLR with a 18-200 so they don't have to change their lens at all, I just tell them what they need is actually a P&S superzoom.

 There is actually not much to argue here. We are just different people with different preferences. Like, I drive a stick shift. I enjoy it that way. Shifting is FUN to me. Many of you guys will say I am totally stupid. That's fine. I know what I want and what I am doing.

 I am in Socal too. Not much problem with sensor dust. I change my lenses A LOT. You need to point your camera body downwards when the lens is off the body.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am more of a landscape guy. The 50/1.8 is not my primary lens._

 

I'll also agree that it's perhaps not the most practical lens, but I've had a fair amount of success with the 50mm F/1.8 with landscape/architecture:
















 etc etc.

 Bokeh does leave a little to be desired at times, sadly. 
 Either way, great lens, and a steal at the new price!


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'll also agree that it's perhaps not the most practical lens, but I've had a fair amount of success with the 50mm F/1.8 with landscape/architecture:

 Bokeh does leave a little to be desired at times, sadly. 
 Either way, great lens, and a steal at the new price!_

 

great shots.

 and, again, at that price, no reason not to buy that lens.


 Sadly, there is not a single perfect 50mm on the market. 50/1.8 has bad bokeh wide open. 50/1.4 is not as sharp. 50/1.2 is manual focus. Zeiss 50/1.4 has worst bokeh. The 58mm from Cosina also has less than desirable bokeh. The new 50/1.4 G lens is better, but without aperture ring, can't use on my FM2.

 Even if you look at Canon, their 50mm offerings leaves a lot to be desired. Their 50/1.8 is fragile like a toy. 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 also has problems (which my Canon friends are ranting to me at times, but I don't remember them because I don't shoot Canon).

 Why is such a simple lens so hard to make?


----------



## dj_mocok

I like the Noctilux. I think it is the perfect lens for me. I know it's not perfect, but damn! Pictures are awesome taken from that lens (as long as you know how to use it)


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The primary reason to use a prime instead of a zoom is speed._

 

AND shallow depth of field. It helps define the subject of interest.

 Do not read it as me advocating shooting everything wide open for shallow depth of field. I did not say that.

 Search for Audrey Woulard. I went to her talk with a few fellow wedding photographers at wppi. I was disturbed when she told us to shoot every single picture wide open. Shoot JPG. Blow out the background, she doesn't care. We were shaking our heads all the way... The world is not fair, some people can shoot stunning pictures even when they did everything technically wrong. Those are artists.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dj_mocok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I like the Noctilux. I think it is the perfect lens for me. I know it's not perfect, but damn! Pictures are awesome taken from that lens (as long as you know how to use it)_

 

But that's a Leica lens... Can't connect it to nikon body without using an adapter with an extra glass element. Voigtlander also has a 50/1.1 that is stunning, but, again, for Leicas. I've thought about switching to Leica but I can't justify the price. Moreover, I can't go shoot a wedding with a Leica.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_great shots._

 

Danke


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But that's a Leica lens... Can't connect it to nikon body without using an adapter with an extra glass element. Voigtlander also has a 50/1.1 that is stunning, but, again, for Leicas. I've thought about switching to Leica but I can't justify the price. Moreover, I can't go shoot a wedding with a Leica._

 

It would help if Leica didn't make the digital body as expensive as a sports car.


----------



## bigshot

If I really need more than one lens on a shoot, I'd rather have it on a second body than have to change lenses. I once got gorf on my sensor changing the lens in the car. It's a real problem for me, especially when the Santa Anas are kicking in.

 It's not that I'm opposed to changing lenses... I just don't want to have to do it while I'm shooting. I have better things to focus my attention on in that situation than equipment.


----------



## jpelg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Whenever someone tells me they want to buy a DSLR with a 18-200 so they don't have to change their lens at all, I just tell them what they need is actually a P&S superzoom._

 

Why go to the size & cost of a superzoom P&S without the benefit of a larger sensor? For around the same cost, you'd be better off recommending an inexpensive APS-C or 4/3's sensor DSLR with kit lens for all the technical advantages, plus the potential for upgrading if the photography bugs grabs them. Superzooms don't present any advantage any more.


----------



## trevorlane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'll also agree that it's perhaps not the most practical lens, but I've had a fair amount of success with the 50mm F/1.8 with landscape/architecture:

















 etc etc.

 Bokeh does leave a little to be desired at times, sadly. 
 Either way, great lens, and a steal at the new price!_

 

Nice, love the campus pix! Man I miss being around there, especially the LC


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *trevorlane* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice, love the campus pix! Man I miss being around there, especially the LC_

 

Thanks!
 LC?


----------



## trevorlane

Yeah, learning commons in the library basement


----------



## rhythmdevils

The carl zeiss 50 1.4 has bad bokeh? what is the world coming to. I'm going back to my hasselblad. 

 I think it's worthy to mention that shooting with primes is a better practice as a photographer, because you choose the focal length you want to use, then you move to find the right angle. Composing with a zoom leads to laziness and messy focal lengths with the wrong images. Like distorting faces when you don't want to, or telephoto landscapes when you don't really intend to. If you're forced to move, it gets you more mobile, and you're more likely to find a better angle, instead of just standing there, and zooming in with the subject centered or something. Zooms are also more expensive for any given image quality, and heavier, etc. 

 But for weddings, etc, zooms are pretty fantastic

 edit: this is just my experience


----------



## bigshot

I'm just as aware of focal length and framing on a zoom as I am with a prime. It's just a matter of being accustomed to your tools. The image quality of modern zooms is just as good in practice as primes. Some zooms even outresolve primes and have better distortion patterns. It all depends on the particular lens design. The only generalization I've found that holds true is that the main advantage of primes over zooms is usually speed. And the main advantage of zooms over primes is always flexibility. At f/8 just about every modern lens is sharp, regardless of whether they are a prime or a zoom.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The carl zeiss 50 1.4 has bad bokeh? what is the world coming to. I'm going back to my hasselblad._

 

Just a simple search on flickr reveals images like these:

on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
autumn light on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 They look bad. They are not smooth at all. Serious outlining issues, no smooth transitions. That is not bokeh I can expect from a Zeiss lens. When I was researching what 50mm to buy I couldn't believe what I saw...

 Their 85/1.4 is awesome though.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But for weddings, etc, zooms are pretty fantastic_

 

Ya I shot wedding with primes only. Big headache. It is necessary for a few shots to blur out all the background crap, but it is crazy to shoot the whole thing without zoom. I have to buy 24-70/2.8 for that when I have the money.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ The image quality of modern zooms is just as good in practice as primes._

 

[size=xx-large]LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/size]


----------



## chews89

Wow I had no idea that there's so much activity in this thread 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Thanks for the advice and information guys, really helped me a lot, I understand focal length now. And Towert7, those are some wonderful looking photos! I hope I'll be able to shoot photos as nice as that someday.

 The D200 seller said that he posted my camera today so I should be receiving it tomorrow! I'm really excited. I'll probably be spending the entire long weekend shooting. 

 Btw, do you guys have any general tips/advice/words of wisdom on shooting for me? Anything that could help would be awesome. Actually I was just wondering, what time of day do you guys find the best time to shoot?


----------



## screenpotato

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just a simple search on flickr reveals images like these:

on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
autumn light on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 They look bad. They are not smooth at all. Serious outlining issues, no smooth transitions. That is not bokeh I can expect from a Zeiss lens. When I was researching what 50mm to buy I couldn't believe what I saw...

 Their 85/1.4 is awesome though.



 Ya I shot wedding with primes only. Big headache. It is necessary for a few shots to blur out all the background crap, but it is crazy to shoot the whole thing without zoom. I have to buy 24-70/2.8 for that when I have the money._

 

Maybe you need to do more then a quick search...

 I can't speak for the other images but mine was taken out of context. If I was shooting with my Hassy I would have had that effect too--jammed up against the subject of multiple jagged lines layered with ice bouncing light everywhere. 

 How about you take a more in depth search and look at some of the beautiful Bokeh this lens can produce when not being messed with. 

 That image is right beside 2 others with buttery smooth bokeh if memory serves.

 ...but don't take my word for it, check out the group for this lens series:

Flickr: ZEISS ZA, ZM, ZK, ZS, ZE and ZF Lenses - Official Tag Required

 Great job finding images to suit your argument, I hope you aren't in journalism. 

 IMO this is a great lens with beautiful bokeh--but as with any lens this sharp be careful of where the light is bouncing from.


----------



## dj_mocok

I think good bokeh or bad bokeh really depends more on what and how you're shooting than the lens itself.
 Sure some lens has awesome smooth bokeh, some has quite harsh, donut-type bokeh, but depending how you work it in your image, even the supposedly bad ones can look nice. 

 I actually don't mind the bokeh on the 1st picture (the one with the leaf) even with the donut ring and all.


----------



## xkRoWx

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't bokeh improve as the background gets further away from the subject?


----------



## choka

Bokeh depends on the lens. Those same scene, if you shoot with a nikon 50/1.4 or 50/1.2, you won't see those ugly harsh outlines on the circles. There will be a smoother transition.

 I don't have a Zeiss 50, but if I am shooting those and want to reduce the harshness, I probably need to stop down. I would guess stopping down to f/2.8, although would give me a clearer background, the harshness would not be as much. This is purely a GUESS based on how I use my nikon 50/1.8 though, because that lens gives me similar junk on those kinds of scene and stopping down helps a lot.

 On the other hand, on that scene, with a nikon 50/1.2, I will still have silky smooth bokeh.

 Some people buy mirror lenses just to have donut bokeh. Nothing wrong with that. But for me, paying the big bucks, I'd rather have a lens that gives me smooth bokeh most of the time wide open.

 And no I am not in journalism. I do CG research. I am the kind of guy who believes there is a lot of science in photography.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_[size=xx-large]LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/size]_

 

Agree... with one exception. Nikon 14-24/2.8. There is no lens on earth that is better than this one, yet. Not even close. The new 24/1.4 probably tops it, but it is no 14mm.

 For other zooms, especially those super zooms? You really think they are even close to primes? I suggest an eye exam.

 (those top-of-the-line zooms have very good quality. e.g., the nikon 24-70/2.8. You're talking about $1.8k here. Sharp as a prime, but they don't open up to f1.4, so it still can't replace primes when you need shallow depth of field)


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chews89* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the advice and information guys, really helped me a lot, I understand focal length now. And Towert7, those are some wonderful looking photos! I hope I'll be able to shoot photos as nice as that someday._

 

Ah, thanks!
 As long as you have the desire to keep learning and improving, you'll be able to take pictures like that for sure! May take a few years...... it took me a few years..... but it'll happen.

 I'm not sure if your camera will come with a photo guide, but if it doesn't the first thing I would start learning about is something called 'aperture' and how it effects the photo.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Agree... with one exception. Nikon 14-24/2.8._

 

Yup, it's true. Nikon makes some phenomenal pro zoom lenses that are sharp as a tack (my old 35-70mm F/2.8 for example) and just as good as their prime equivalents at the same F numbers. 


 But to think a modern 18-55mm at 35mm and F/3.5 is going to be as good as a 35mm prime at F/3.5 is just crazy talk.


----------



## jc9394

I think the 24-70 2.8 is sharper than my old 35-70 2.8. But I still like my 50 1.2 better...


----------



## bigshot

There are plenty of zooms that outresolve the sensor when they are stopped down a bit. Even the $120 18-55 is as sharp as a prime at 35mm and stopped down to f/8. (If you don't believe me, go to DPReview and enter those settings and watch the charts flatline right on Nyquist.) The 18-200 has a problem around 135mm wide open, but if you know that, you just stop down in that range to f/16. At 35mm f/8 the 18-200 is functionally as sharp as any lens.

 Honestly, sharpness is totally overrated. Contrast, distortion patterns, speed, chromatic aberration, bokeh, tendency to flare, size and weight, build quality, and to a lesser degree color rendition all matter much more in modern lenses than sharpness. Put your camera on sticks and shoot in the middle at f/8 and you won't be able to tell most lenses apart when it comes to sharpness.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Even the $120 18-55 is as sharp as a prime at 35mm and stopped down to f/8._

 

Yes, but not at F/3.5.






  Quote:


 Honestly, sharpness is totally overrated. 
 

Hey now, my preference is for a sharp photos (all else being equal).


----------



## rhythmdevils

my sensor prefers primes, when I don't give it what it wants it gets angry and hides details.

 I've never really thought about bokeh before, but I agree the bokeh in those pictures is pretty bad, the image just becomes about the look of the bokeh, and nothing else. But I did find a lot of other images with nice bokeh. 

 What about the zeiss 35 f2? That's probably the one I get when I can afford it whenever that is...


----------



## choka

LOL

 I can't imagine anyone shooting every single picture at f/8. That is not practical. I am mainly a landscape shooter. Even I don't do that. Carry a stick? Do that when you are going to the park with your family. Before you take every photo, oh, hold on, you need to put it on a stick and stop down to f/8 and... hey, where are the kids now?

 People pay big bucks for the expensive zooms and primes because they can shoot at f/2.8 and still expect reasonably sharp images. Stop down a bit to 3.5 and they should expect the focus to be tack sharp. Those consumer zoom lenses? Oh I forgot, they start at f/4.5.

 And why do you need large aperture? It is NOT entirely for low light situation! It is for the shallow depth of field so that (1) you establish very clearly your subject, and (2) throw clutter in the background out of the picture, e.g., you are shooting your kid and there is another kid in the background you don't want to see. If you are at f/8, that kid would totally be in focus. At f/2, that kid is blurred out. Later in your life, when you look at your pictures again, you don't have to ask yourself, which one is my kid again? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 When you compose a photo you should think very clearly where you want the viewer to look at, ONE WAY to establish that is by depth of field. (let me make it clear here, there are other ways)


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_my sensor prefers primes, when I don't give it what it wants it gets angry and hides details._

 

Same here. But again, it is really a personal preference. Nothing wrong with wanting to use zoom lenses.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What about the zeiss 35 f2? That's probably the one I get when I can afford it whenever that is..._

 

Seems to me, except the 50/1.4, most other zeiss have pretty good bokeh (but please don't take my word for it. do your own research).

 It is increasingly harder to manual focus on these modern day digital bodies as the lens gets wider though. I can MF very easily on my 90 and 105, but on my 50 it gets significantly harder (still doable). I can't imagine what I will feel on a 35.

 On my F5 they are all easy. I love the split focusing screen.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I don't know if I can handle looking at lots of pictures examining bokeh 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And I can't afford it yet. 

 But why would MF be harder on wider angle lenses? Because everything looks farther away? And why doesn't katzeye make a split focussing screen for the D3. argghhh


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Same here. But again, it is really a personal preference. Nothing wrong with wanting to use zoom lenses._

 

I don't really care that much about that last little bit of sharpness unless I'm shooting landscapes. I think in situations where I'm at f2, it is dark, and I'm often shooting moving subjects, and getting good focus is a much bigger problem then the sharpness of the lens. Even with a D3, focus in these situations is a nightmare. But, the nice primes do seem to autofocus much faster than the 24-70 f2.8 I have. 

 For me, shooting with primes is more about the practice as I said before.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chews89* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow I had no idea that there's so much activity in this thread 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yep. I have no idea why am I talking about taking photos on a headphone forum.

 Oh, because my boss reads the photo forums so I can't post there at work. LOL.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chews89* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Btw, do you guys have any general tips/advice/words of wisdom on shooting for me? Anything that could help would be awesome. Actually I was just wondering, what time of day do you guys find the best time to shoot?_

 

Instead of here, may be you should check out photo.net, dpreview and fred miranda. Excellent people over there.

 Also, may be go to a library and get a book to read about aperture and shutter speed. After that, read a book on composition. It is always great to go shoot with someone who has experience and see what they are shooting. Follow their footsteps for a while and then begin asking yourself, are those the best angles to shoot that thing? Can you improve the composition? Different people will tell you different things. Take everything with a huge grain of salt, and then draw your own conclusions.


----------



## bigshot

The trick is to know how your lenses behave at different settings and under different conditions. Then you can choose the one that works the best with the fewest compromises. The Nikon 50 1.2 is a fine lens. But shoot wide open with it in a bright, contrasty situation is going to give you MUCH worse results than any setting on the 18-55 VR. Wide open with bright highlights with the f/1.2 prime will give you foggy contrast, softness all over and tons of chromatic aberration.

 A prime does not always mean better image quality than a zoom. It's a different tool with different abilities. You should use the best tool for the job, not just use what you might (incorrectly) believe automatically has the best image quality. Once you know the peculiarities of the lenses in your bag, you can get great images out of any lens.

 No one stops down all the time, and no one shoots wide open all the time. You do what works for the shot. For most general daylight shots, there is absolutely no advantage to shooting with a prime over a kit zoom- but you'll sacrifice a great deal of versatility in focal length. The time to use a prime is in low light or for portraits with narrow slivers of focus. That's where they perform better than zooms.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But why would MF be harder on wider angle lenses? Because everything looks farther away? And why doesn't katzeye make a split focussing screen for the D3. argghhh_

 

I don't know. I guess my eyes are bad? I think it is because everything are so much smaller when it is a wide angle lens, making it harder to determine if things are sharp or not.

 The bigger question is, why doesn't Nikon make split focusing screens anymore.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't really care that much about that last little bit of sharpness unless I'm shooting landscapes._

 

When you are shooting daylight landscapes, odds are you are stopped down to get a wide range of focus. In that case, there's absolutely no difference between a halfway decent zoom and a prime because they both will be outresolving the sensor. The Nyquist curve is a hard and fast limitation on the sharpness. Stop down a bit and you hit the line. Above that, nothing matters any more.

 For landscapes, if that fine a degree of sharpness matters to you, you should be shooting 35mm film or better yet medium format. That will make a difference you can actually see.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The bigger question is, why doesn't Nikon make split focusing screens anymore._

 

yes. Split focusing screen, 50mm 1.1, and a 35mm 1.2

 I'll be begging for mercy though when they do make those lenses and I have to sell my kidneys


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But why would MF be harder on wider angle lenses?_

 

It isn't. It's easier. A wide angle lens has more depth of field, making it much more forgiving of misfocusing. My fisheye is MF, but I don't even have to touch the focus unless I'm right on top of something. Even wide open, the depth of field extends from a yard to infinity. The hardest lenses to focus manually are super fast short teles wide open. With the 85 1.4 wide open in a portrait situation, your depth of field might be measured in centimeters.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It isn't. It's easier. A wide angle lens has more depth of field, making it much more forgiving of misfocusing. My fisheye is MF, but I don't even have to touch the focus unless I'm right on top of something. Even wide open, the depth of field extends from a yard to infinity. The hardest lenses to focus manually are super fast short teles wide open. With the 85 1.4 wide open in a portrait situation, your depth of field might be measured in centimeters._

 

In practice, it is easy for me to focus with a 85/1.4. Yes, the DOF is centimeters, but I can very accurately tell from the viewfinder WHAT IS in focus. I can't do that on a wide angle. Like I said, I have bad eyes. Of course I can cheat and say always stop down to f/8 and everything is in focus like you do (then of course, you need to allow me to stop down the 85 to f8 as well and placing my subject a mile away). Try opening up to f1.4 on your wide angle and see what happens... oh sorry, your wide angle doesn't open that wide.


 On the myth of more DOF on wide angles, your fisheye does not have DOF from a yard to infinity wide open. Well, may be you think you do, cause that lens doesn't have enough resolution for you to tell if it is actually in focus.

 Here's some science for you. Cold, hard, FACTS.
Depth of field


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On the myth of more DOF on wide angles, your fisheye does not have DOF from a yard to infinity wide open. Well, may be you think you do, cause that lens doesn't have enough resolution for you to tell if it is actually in focus._

 

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?_

 

I guess nothing would make a difference to anyone because they always view the pictures zoomed out to fit a tiny 10 inch computer screen on a netbook.


----------



## bigshot

What difference does it make if you have to zoom in further than the resolution of the sensor that is capturing the image will allow? Sharpness always stops at Nyquist, no matter how sophisticated the optics are.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yup, it's true. Nikon makes some phenomenal pro zoom lenses that are sharp as a tack (my old 35-70mm F/2.8 for example) and just as good as their prime equivalents at the same F numbers. 


 But to think a modern 18-55mm at 35mm and F/3.5 is going to be as good as a 35mm prime at F/3.5 is just crazy talk._

 

The 18-55mm doesn't open up to f/3.5 at 35mm. Compare the 18-55mm to the 35mm f/1.8, both at 35mm, both at the first comparable aperture of f/5.6 and the only area the 35mm beats out the 18-55mm is in terms of vignetting. Distortion is near as makes no difference, the same (I say near as makes no difference since they weren't shot at the same apertures), resolution is about the same, and CA resistance is the same or better. Compare apples to apples.


Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED DX II - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G - Review / Test Report - Analysis


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 18-55mm doesn't open up to f/3.5 at 35mm. Compare the 18-55mm to the 35mm f/1.8, both at 35mm, both at the first comparable aperture of f/5.6 and the only area the 35mm beats out the 18-55mm is in terms of vignetting. Distortion is near as makes no difference, the same (I say near as makes no difference since they weren't shot at the same apertures), resolution is about the same, and CA resistance is the same or better. Compare apples to apples.


Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED DX II - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G - Review / Test Report - Analysis_

 

Just out of my own curiosity, I'm going to try a comparison shot this weekend. I have both the kit 18-55 and a 35mm. I'll stop them both down to the first possible setting and see.
 I'm curious myself, since I've never done this.
 I'll laugh if there isn't much difference!


----------



## choka

Kudos for the findings. I haven't been reading reviews for these kit lenses for a long long time. Not disputing your findings, but I had a 18-70 kit lens, after I bought my 50/1.8 and shot some tests, I never looked back.

 More food for thought... Not as good reviews on the 18-55:
Nikon AF-S DX 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 G EDII
18-55mm AF-S DX Lens Review by Thom Hogan <- this is for the 1st iteration of the lens

 now look at this:
 18-55 Nikon Lens: Zooms - Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX Nikkor (Tested) - SLRgear.com!
 35/1.8 Nikon Lens: Primes - Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Nikkor (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

 The main thing to look at is, the 35 is sharp almost from wide open. The 18-55 wide open? not so much. Stopping down to 5.6 makes it tack sharp though. (more food for thought. how much cherry picking do you think there is for lens tests out there?)

 Now read the verdits for the 18-55 on photozone, I quote "The contrast level at large apertures (primarily wide-end) leaves something to be desired though." and "the build quality which is clearly sub-standard. This is probably a sufficient reason alone for some to think about the AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G DX or AF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G DX as alternative investments."


 Let's put it this way, most lenses doesn't make much difference once you stop down enough. I bet at f/11 most lenses give you similar result on sharpness alone. Distortion/CA/Color rendition, perhaps not so much. One more thing to be aware of is the fact that Nikon is now trailing in the megapixel race. I am perfectly fine with 10mp, but I would expect them to double the resolution pretty soon just because Canon has more pixels, may be even within this year. By then, the consumer zooms will lose the "advantage" of out resolving a "low resolution" sensor.

 And then, think about what apertures you usually shoot at. For landscapes, usually f/8 and up. You are fine with any lens. But for portraits? I don't remember the last time I stopped down to f/4.5. I am using apertures I cannot find on those consumer zoom lenses, and I am getting tack sharp images, with great bokeh, great color, little distortion. If you hand me a 18-55 and ask me to shoot portraits, I will be shooting it wide open to throw as much of the background out and I won't have good optical quality at all. When you buy that 35/1.8 (disclaimer: I don't own that one) you are paying for the large aperture.

 As I said before, take everything with a grain of salt.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Let's put it this way, most lenses doesn't make much difference once you stop down enough. I bet at f/11 most lenses give you similar result on sharpness alone. Distortion/CA/Color rendition, perhaps not so much. One more thing to be aware of is the fact that Nikon is now trailing in the megapixel race. I am perfectly fine with 10mp, but I would expect them to double the resolution pretty soon just because Canon has more pixels, may be even within this year. By then, the consumer zooms will lose the "advantage" of out resolving a "low resolution" sensor._

 

Other people here know more than I do, so correct me if I'm wrong guys, but I thought the theoretical limit for an APS-C sensor was something around 16mp, at which point anything more is useless (and possibly detrimental). At that point, you want to move to larger sensor sizes.

 Also, Nikon has made it a point not to get to heavily involved in the MP war with their pro cameras, and instead focuses on better noise performance. There are quite a few pros out there who prefer nikon's viewpoint vs. canon's. I don't want to see more MP for MP's sake, I'd much rather have been noise performance. This is why cameras like the D300, D3, etc were so highly acclaimed, they pushed the boundaries on what people thought could be achieved with high ISO noise performance. I remember the first day they announced the D300. The High ISO test photos left me speechless. 

 I so badly wish I had a D300!!!


----------



## choka

I found this. I don't have time to read this in detail yet. If you believe this, then you are right about the limit.

Do Sensors &ldquo;Outresolve&rdquo; Lenses?

 Personally, instead of more pixels, I hope for much more dynamic range instead. That way I don't need Cokin grad filters or the need to do HDR.


----------



## skyline889

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Kudos for the findings. I haven't been reading reviews for these kit lenses for a long long time. Not disputing your findings, but I had a 18-70 kit lens, after I bought my 50/1.8 and shot some tests, I never looked back.

 More food for thought... Not as good reviews on the 18-55:
Nikon AF-S DX 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 G EDII
18-55mm AF-S DX Lens Review by Thom Hogan <- this is for the 1st iteration of the lens

 now look at this:
 18-55 Nikon Lens: Zooms - Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX Nikkor (Tested) - SLRgear.com!
 35/1.8 Nikon Lens: Primes - Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Nikkor (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

 The main thing to look at is, the 35 is sharp almost from wide open. The 18-55 wide open? not so much. Stopping down to 5.6 makes it tack sharp though. (more food for thought. how much cherry picking do you think there is for lens tests out there?)

 Now read the verdits for the 18-55 on photozone, I quote "The contrast level at large apertures (primarily wide-end) leaves something to be desired though." and "the build quality which is clearly sub-standard. This is probably a sufficient reason alone for some to think about the AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G DX or AF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G DX as alternative investments."_

 

Vignetting and speed are almost always areas where the prime excels over the zoom, this is true. Contrast and color rendition are arguable, it varies from lens to lens. What I have been merely stating though is that, _in practice_, as Bigshot also stated, zooms have often caught up to the general performance of primes. Yes, we can stare at graphs and charts all day long and argue the validity of each's findings but the fact of the matter is that either produce stunning images when used properly. Gone are the atrocities like the 43-86mm that gave zooms a bad name (Yes, this one was that bad, I still own one). Today, for the bulk of what non-pro shooters do, there's just not as significant a performance gap between zooms and primes as purists argue, and comments like the Joe Wilson style, "LIES!!!" are rather unfounded. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Looking at the cutting edge zooms like the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm, zooms have actually begun to eclipse, not underwhelm, their prime counterparts. For absolutists or for very specific tasks like macros or portraits, yes primes will of course outperform zooms for the most part. However, will they do it in a significant enough manner to justify the price and flexibility trade-offs for the majority of casual shooters? I'd venture to say no. I picked up my 18-55mm VR for just $91 and it suits my personal needs better than the $600 20mm f/2.8 I was considering beforehand. I respect primes, I own a bunch actually (My all time favorite is still my 35mm f/1.4), but I also don't scoff at the performance and versatility that zooms have to offer.


----------



## bigshot

_Let's put it this way, most lenses doesn't make much difference once you stop down enough._

 Gosh, that sounds familiar. You might find that some of my earlier comments in this thread are more reasonable than you might have thought before.


----------



## bigshot

_Gone are the atrocities like the 43-86mm that gave zooms a bad name (Yes, this one was that bad, I still own one)._

 I own one too. I know exactly how zooms got a bad name- but it wasn't really sharpness as much as it was flat contrast and hideous distortion. When I went digital, my preconceptions got an arsekicking. In addition to learning that zooms could be great, I also learned that third party lenses were often as good or better for some purposes as Nikon branded lenses. That revelation saved me a bundle and got me to where I wanted to be with my kit faster than I would have otherwise.

 The nice thing about Ken Rockwell is that he doesn't buy into dogma or engage in theoretical analysis that doesn't apply to the real world. He takes the equipment out and uses it in practical applications, then he shows you the results. Knowing how he shoots and what he ends up with tells me MUCH more about whether a lens will suit my needs than some non-contextual chart or diagram. It doesn't matter if I shoot differently than him. I can figure out the "why" from his no nonsense approach and know if it applies to me.

 For instance, I won't be going back to film anytime soon, but I understand what he is talking about when he extolls the virtues of getting scans off his slides from the lab. That is a LOT more convenient than it used to be, and it's capable of a lot better image quality than they typical DSLR. For me, I value immediacy over image quality. I'm a street shooter, not a landscape guy. That doesn't apply to me the same way it does to him.


----------



## bigshot

Do Sensors &ldquo;Outresolve&rdquo; Lenses?

 There is a LOT of unnecessary obfuscation in that article.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Personally, instead of more pixels, I hope for much more dynamic range instead. That way I don't need Cokin grad filters or the need to do HDR._

 

The problem is, dealing with extreme dynamics doesn't mean more dynamic range, it means compressing the dynamic range into a narrower band. In extreme cases, that will result in a better image. But in most cases, it just flattens everything out. It's better to do what camera manufacturers have been doing- instead of increasing the dynamic range, they are extending normal dynamics into lower light situations by increasing sensitivity. Shooting into the headlights should still look like shooting into the headlights. It isn't good to flatten all that out. I'm not a big fan of most HDR because of that.


----------



## choka

Are you thinking about outputting jpg directly?

 When I say more dynamic range, I want more than 10 stops of info in the raw file, so I can play with the way I like it, not necessarily squeezing all the data into the visible range.

 IMO most people doing HDR are doing it wrong. I don't like what's happening out there. Blindly flattening the curve squeezing everything into one photo is not the right way to do it. The thing I hate especially is gradient reversals at edges. A good HDR should have detail but still look natural.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When I say more dynamic range, I want more than 10 stops of info in the raw file, so I can play with the way I like it, not necessarily squeezing all the data into the visible range._

 

If you have ten stops or more worth of dynamics in a single image between highlight and shadow detail, there is no way to display that on a computer screen or hard copy print without compressing the dynamics into a normal range or blowing out one end or the other. The only advantage of having RAW images with more than 10 stops of dynamic range would be if there was a normal range of dynamics but your exposure was just way off, or if you want to shoot wide open for a narrow depth of field and your shutter speed won't go high enough. (I don't think the latter could even be a problem with most DSLRs.) It seems to me, that the easy way to deal with that is to just set the exposure properly and let the extremes fall off normally.

 It's kind of like music that is recorded to take full advantage of redbook dynamics (90-110 dB). That is no way to listen to music. There's a comfortable range, and it's best to stay within the sweet spot rather than try to encompass all of the extended dynamics.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_and comments like the Joe Wilson style, "LIES!!!" are rather unfounded. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

^_^

 In all seriousness though, I seriously believe deep down that my primes are better than my kit lens.


----------



## choka

Read again. I said I want more than 10 stops in the RAW file because I want to post process the pics like I am using a grad filter, but without having to actually carry one.

 Are you now against the use of grad filters too? Are you saying Galen Rowell is not one of the best landscape photogs ever?


----------



## bigshot

Nothing against grad filters- I just wonder how useful that wide a dynamic range would actually be for the average photographer. It seems that the fundamental bases are already covered pretty well, and now we're worrying about ultrawide dynamics and super high ISO. These are features designed to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Rather than designing cameras to cope with terrible lighting conditions, perhaps we as photographers should be looking to create images using really well balanced lighting? Just a thought...

 If I had my druthers, the dream camera of the future would be smaller, lighter, less expensive, and less conspicuous, with a user interface that is simple and intuitive. The real problem I find with cameras are the menu screens nested within each other, with each and every feature given the same hierarchical importance in the laundry lists of options. I'd like to be able to set the general settings and then hide them. All I want to see when I'm shooting is what I need when I'm shooting.

 I also think it's time to rethink the form that cameras take. I have no objection to developing cameras that aren't based on the traditional film SLR model. It would be nice to have mirrorless designs that are able to smoothly incorporate video features. I think this is going to happen very soon.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In all seriousness though, I seriously believe deep down that my primes are better than my kit lens._

 

Pens aren't better than pencils and rakes aren't better than shovels. They just are better at different things. Your primes are better in low light situations and when a narrow depth of field is called for. Zooms are better for general shooting in good light. No matter what tool you use, you're playing to its strengths and making trade-offs with what it can't do as well. Every serious photographer should have a kit that incorporates the best of both worlds. Limiting yourself to just one type of tool is just hobbling yourself.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you have ten stops or more worth of dynamics in a single image between highlight and shadow detail, there is no way to display that on a computer screen or hard copy print without compressing the dynamics into a normal range or blowing out one end or the other._

 

I don't buy this at all. There are many a gorgeous print esp from the film days, in which there is a wide dynamic range all containing detail, and those prints are gorgeous. Hank Wessel almost always shoots in broad daylight, and develops his film to have have lower contrast (among other things) and his prints are velvety smooth and gorgeous, tone and detail from the darkest shadow to the brightest white.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Rockwell just posted ...[/url]_

 

I hope you're happy now.
 8 pages of useless dribble was sure to follow just by saying that poor guys name, and it did. 

 How long will it keep going though, because I'm bored.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't buy this at all. There are many a gorgeous print esp from the film days, in which there is a wide dynamic range all containing detail, and those prints are gorgeous._

 

I know that the way I used to print was to compress the dynamics by dodging and burning to bring up detail in the shadows and highlights. Perhaps it might help to have more dynamics in the RAW file to be able to do that more than current DSLRs, but ultimately, the image has to flatten out to the range of the medium it's being viewed on. I think projected slides probably have the most potential for wide dynamics.

 I just think about movies sometimes... those old film noir and epic movies from the thirties and forties had such beautifully balanced light. It would be great to focus on that sort of sophistication in still photography. Most of my own photography is spontaneous, but I dream of working out light and shadow using hot lights.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nothing against grad filters- I just wonder how useful that wide a dynamic range would actually be for the average photographer._

 

Back in late 70s early 80s, IBM was the biggest player in the computer market, before the proliferation of personal computers. By the end of the era, they are not any more. Why?

 IBM Management just wonder how useful that a personal computer would actually be for the average human being.

 They didn't care about this tiny market that is never going to make money, so they let Apple, Intel, Microsoft, etc to do whatever they want in that segment. Look at IBM now.

 Does the average photographer want 20 stops of dynamic range? I DON'T KNOW for sure! I know I want it so that I can rescue my shots even if I messed up with my metering. I know I want it so I don't have to worry about a totally blown out sky and dark ground anymore. I know I want it so I can rescue a tiny little bit of texture in the shadows so the picture is not as boring when I see fit.

 How are the average photographers going to use it? Do they need it? I bet it will be a useful feature. If they accidentally overexposed a shot, a camera can have this built-in function that detects the error and still present to the user a well-exposed picture, because that info is still captured, thanks to the super duper dynamic range. I'd say, USEFUL.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^_^

 In all seriousness though, I seriously believe deep down that my primes are better than my kit lens._

 

Hey there guys. I did indeed take a few test shots to compare the 18-55mm at 35mm F/4.8 to my 35mm prime at F/4.8. All camera settings were the same. All exposure times are the same between comparison photos. WB was preset to daylight, iso fixed at 200ISO, It was a very sunny day with no clouds in the sky, so light level was very constant. Not a single bit of post processing was done. Both lenses were clean as a whistle, front and back.

 Below are the comparison photos, 3 sets of 2.


*Test 3: Flare/ghost test*
 35mm:




 18-55mm:





*Conclusions:*
 It's instantly obvious that the 18-55mm makes a milky cast over the photo. The prime has significantly more contrast with no flare. Looks like the kit lens suffers from flare. Also, even though they were at the same F stop, it's striking just how different the DOF's are. The prime DOF is MUCH tighter. The kit lens looks like it was a few stops smaller.... even hough it wasn't!
 In this photo, I *MUCH* prefer the prime lens result. Don't forget, both lenses are clean as a whistle!


*Test 2: closeup bokeh test*
 35mm:




 18-55mm:





*Conclusion:*
 The 35mm appears to be letting in a little more light (about a half a stop more). The kit lens is a little darker. The prime is sharper by an easily noticeable difference. The bokeh on the prime is much smoother, by a HUGE amount. The kit lens have a very noticeable spherical bokeh (for better or for worse, you decide). Also, the prime again is giving a tighter DOF with a more blurred out background. Colors on the kit lens seem to be a little greener, while the prime is a cooler color (in real life the colors were closest to the prime).
 When viewing the image on the camera LCD it was clear that the prime was letting in more light. If I lowered the prime down by -1/2ev, they were very similar in terms of contrast, but the prime still gave different colors, sharper image, better bokeh, and tighter DOF with a creamier background.
 In this case I *MUCH* prefer the prime lens.

*Test 1: Random Photo*
 35mm:




 18-55mm:





*Conclusion:*
 Again, the kit lens is showing signs of flaring in the middle, even though the sun was behind me. I guess the light from the pool was causing the flaring. The colors are different just as in test #2, with the prime giving the most realistic results. There is more pileup in the shadows with the kit lens, whereas the prime's picture is more distributed throughout the dynamic range. I think I may have messed up the focusing a bit in this photo, but it doesn't look too noticeable thankfully. 
 I *MUCH* prefer the results from the prime lens in this test.



 So, my closing thoughts? I seriously believe deep down that my primes are better than my kit lens. The 35mm being a prime example. ^_^
*Bigshot*, I really believe my prime gives noticeably better photos than the zoom 18-55mm!
 My prime has a tighter DOF at the same F stop, Much better flare control, more accurate colors, sharper in-focus regions.............


 Slightly unrelated, but the Nikkor 35mm F/2.0 prime is a FANTASTIC lens!


----------



## bigshot

Are any of those 100%? That fogginess on the first shot is very unusual. Are the back optics clean? Did you use hoods? Something is wrong there. A lens with small optics like that shouldn't have that problem. Also, is that the VR version of the 18-55? Where is the sharpening artifacting coming from? Is that from resizing?


----------



## skyline889

There are a host of problems with these shots: tripod not used, AE used for one and manual for the other on subjects 2 &3, differing EVs for exposure compensation on subjects 2 & 3, etc. I assume this is the original 18-55 and not the newer 18-55mm II or the 18-55mm VR as well. Bottom line for me, the 35mm excels in DOF and bokeh, which is of course expected. Contrast and saturation problems I chalk partially up to the user because of different settings. Is there a difference? Yes. As significant as shown? Not imo. No one here denied that the prime is the better lens but imo, the prime doesn't offer a significant enough difference to negate the lost flexibility and added price when compared to a properly used zoom. The prime to me is a supplement not a primary lens. This is of course all subjective and YMMV.

 @Bigshot-I assume the milkiness is partly caused by veiled flaring which can of course could have been avoided by the OP if he so chose. Another difference seems to be that the 35mm in question seems to overexpose (Look at the highlights of the two) consistently relative to the 18-55mm, which of course affects the overall effect of brightness and contrast on the image.

 I also don't mean to be a wet blanket but frankly, while that first shot looks good, if that's exactly how it came off the camera, I'm stunned. It seems overcontrasted; shadow detail is completely gone. I like contrasty images but I like to be able to add it at my discretion, not be stuck with it. Idk, maybe it's just that one shot.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are any of those 100%? That fogginess on the first shot is very unusual. Are the back optics clean? Did you use hoods? Something is wrong there. A lens with small optics like that shouldn't have that problem. Also, is that the VR version of the 18-55? Where is the sharpening artifacting coming from? Is that from resizing?_

 

Original sizes are 3008x2000 (or flipped). The photos I posted are flickr resized to (1024 x 681) (or flipped). So about 34% of full size. If you are interested in the full size photos, I can post links to each.

 My 18-55mm is the non VR version, non II version. No hoods were used, just the lens itself (since neither the 18-55mm or 35mm came with a hood as standard, even though I have a hood for the 35mm). Yes, the back and front optics were clean as a whistle.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are a host of problems with these shots: tripod not used, AE used for one and manual for the other on subjects 2 &3, differing EVs for exposure compensation on subjects 2 & 3, etc. I assume this is the original 18-55 and not the newer 18-55mm II or the 18-55mm VR as well. Bottom line for me, the 35mm excels in DOF and bokeh, which is of course expected. Contrast and saturation problems I chalk partially up to the user because of different settings. Is there a difference? Yes. As significant as shown? Not imo. No one here denied that the prime is the better lens but imo, the prime doesn't offer a significant enough difference to negate the lost flexibility and added price when compared to a properly used zoom. The prime to me is a supplement not a primary lens. This is of course all subjective and YMMV.

 @Bigshot-I assume the milkiness is partly caused by veiled flaring which can of course could have been avoided by the OP if he so chose. Another difference seems to be that the 35mm in question seems to overexpose (Look at the highlights of the two) consistently relative to the 18-55mm, which of course affects the overall effect of brightness and contrast on the image.

 I also don't mean to be a wet blanket but frankly, while that first shot looks good, if that's exactly how it came off the camera, I'm stunned. It seems overcontrasted; shadow detail is completely gone. I like contrasty images but I like to be able to add it at my discretion, not be stuck with it. Idk, maybe it's just that one shot._

 

Hi Skyline. Thanks for the comments.
 I did indeed use a tripod! I'm guessing the slight shift in the photos made you think otherwise. It's a tricky business, because the 35mm is not as long as the 18-55mm, so that will shift the perspective a tiny bit. Also, I set the 18-55mm so that 35mm was selected, and that it displayed 35mm in my on camera display, but some shots were slightly different, such as 35.6mm.
 I tried my best.

 I see you also noticed that I used one mode for the 18-55mm (aperture priority), and another for the 35mm (manual). I did my first photo with the 18-55mm. I recorded the shutter speed, switched lenses, and then put my 35mm on. To make sure I reproduced the shutter speed, I set it to manual. This will have no difference. You have to remember, the only thing that will determine exposure is the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. ISO was fixed, aperture was fixed, and shutter speed was fixed between comparison photos. The differences we are seeing are from the lenses, not the different modes.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline* 
_the prime doesn't offer a significant enough difference to negate the lost flexibility and added price when compared to a properly used zoom._

 

Speak for yourself, but for me, the prime does indeed over a significant enough difference. ^_^
 Chalk that up to personal preference I guess.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline* 
_if that's exactly how it came off the camera, I'm stunned. It seems overcontrasted; shadow detail is completely gone. I like contrasty images but ..._

 

This is simply the contrast setting I had set in the camera. The big thing here is that this setting was the same for all 6 shots. Looking at the photo data, I had my camera set to 0 contrast (neutral). My camera goes from -2 (low contrast) to +2 (high contrast). I _usually_ shoot in neutral contrast, unless I need more detail in the extremes in which case I'll change it to -1 or -2.


 PS: Go easy on me. You are so quick to blame me (I'm really not a bad person). I kid you not, I simply took 3 test photos. One of a backyard, the other two which interested me personally. I did not spend my afternoon seeking out photos that would particularly make the 18-55mm look bad. I also tried my best to create similar shots between the two lenses.


----------



## Towert7

For the past few months I've been mostly photographing with wide angle lenses, doing landscape photography. 

 Yesterday I took photos of people, and for a few photos I switched over to the cheap nikkor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6G. What a fantastic portrait lens, and for 155$....!
 I kid you not, this lens has one of *THE BEST* bokehs of any lens I have used. Backgrounds are smooth as butter!

 I love this lens to death. I'll post up a few photos when I'm finished editing them.


----------



## jpelg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I see you also noticed that I used one mode for the 18-55mm (aperture priority), and another for the 35mm (manual). I did my first photo with the 18-55mm. I recorded the shutter speed, switched lenses, and then put my 35mm on. To make sure I reproduced the shutter speed, I set it to manual. This will have no difference. You have to remember, the only thing that will determine exposure is the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. ISO was fixed, aperture was fixed, and shutter speed was fixed between comparison photos. The differences we are seeing are from the lenses, not the different modes._

 

Is it possible that that the lenses are causing differences in exposure for some reason? 

 If you allowed your camera body to calculate the exposure automatically for both lenses (zoom set to same focal length as prime), does it arrive at the same values (SS, aperture, ISO) for both?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jpelg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is it possible that that the lenses are causing differences in exposure for some reason? 

 If you allowed your camera body to calculate the exposure automatically for both lenses (zoom set to same focal length as prime), does it arrive at the same values (SS, aperture, ISO) for both?_

 

It may be possible. At times it looks like the 35mm prime lets in about a 1/2 stop more light.
 I'll have to give that a try sometime. Just to be sure though, do you mean putting the camera on full auto so that it calculates all 3 at once?


----------



## choka

There is no point in testing it more. People will believe what they want to believe no matter what you do. See what happens after you did the test? YOU MUST HAVE DONE IT WRONG, they say. Oh well.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_See what happens after you did the test? YOU MUST HAVE DONE IT WRONG, they say. Oh well._

 

It's not a bad thing to be sceptical at times, especially when that person has no previous track record to go by. The only thing that makes me sad is when it seems like people try and put me down. These discussions so far have been pretty civil without many personal attacks, so I'm happy. ^_^


----------



## jpelg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_do you mean putting the camera on full auto so that it calculates all 3 at once?_

 

Pretty much. Alternatively, maybe choosing ISO, & SS, letting the camera compute aperture. Or do it in aperture-priority mode. This might reduce some variables. Although with digital shutters, I assume a DSLR display would show the closest standard shutter-speed, but still be "actually" different by fractions (but still enough to see close to a 1/2-stop difference in exposure).

 I guess the real question is, what aspect of a lens would cause an exposure difference - aperture mechanics?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jpelg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I guess the real question is, what aspect of a lens would cause an exposure difference - aperture mechanics?_

 

Some of the old lenses had very noticeable vignetting, letting less light in around the corners.
 But when this is not an issue (as it's not really in my case), my only guess is the lens coatings are at play here.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For the past few months I've been mostly photographing with wide angle lenses, doing landscape photography. 

 Yesterday I took photos of people, and for a few photos I switched over to the cheap nikkor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6G. What a fantastic portrait lens, and for 155$....!
 I kid you not, this lens has one of *THE BEST* bokehs of any lens I have used. Backgrounds are smooth as butter!

 I love this lens to death. I'll post up a few photos when I'm finished editing them._

 

Here are three nice bokeh photos that came from the 155$ Nikkor 70-300mm.
 Some say it's actually a sigma lens rebranded as a nikkor, but I have so much fun with this cheap thing on a crop sensor.

















 Can the 300mm F/4 be any better I wonder?


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jpelg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I guess the real question is, what aspect of a lens would cause an exposure difference - aperture mechanics?_

 

Tried pretty hard to look for answers on this but couldn't find any. It happens for quite a lot of lenses, more so for third parties. I read that the Tokina 11-16mm would have underexposure at 16mm but overexposure at 11mm. I have that lens but I have never noticed that, BUT I use M mode and adjusts my exposures by looking at the histogram every time, so it might be so for my lens as well. (some explanation is that metering is done only in the center. I don't buy it. That's not true when the metering is set to Matrix) (moreover it doesn't explain the difference among different lenses at the same focal length)

 Anyone found any technical explanation for this please share with us?


----------



## rhythmdevils

I don't know, but from looking at the first image, it looks like it was taken at a larger F-stop (smaller hole) because the background is quite a bit more in focus, not just a subtle difference in bokeh. 

 How old is the lens? Has it been serviced recently? Not that you'd think you would have to. But it seems to me that the blades aren't opening to the proper aperatures. Either it is suffering from mechanical problems, or maybe the lens just isn't made with enough precision, and isn't very accurate. It's a fairly cheap lens, right?


----------



## rhythmdevils

although, looking at the first image again, it doesn't really look like it's just a darker exposure, because the shaddows in the zoom image are actually a bit lighter than in the prime image. And this is confirmed by the histogram in photoshop. 

 As a whole though, the histogram for the prime looks more healthy to me, with tones spread out across the spectrum instead of piled towards the shaddows. 

 Strange. It looks as if it's a darker exposure with less contrast.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Strange. It looks as if it's a darker exposure with less contrast._

 

For that, my guess is in zoom lenses, there are more glass elements which potentially reduces contrast.

 Primes are more simple designs. As an engineering problem it is easier to do it right. Zooms are harder problems. Coming up with a design that maintains good contrast, sharpness, color, etc across the complete zoom range is no easy feat.


----------



## rhythmdevils

It would be interesting to compare that same 35 prime to my 24-70 2.8. Not sure when that would happen though


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As a whole though, the histogram for the prime looks more healthy to me, with tones spread out across the spectrum instead of piled towards the shaddows. 
_

 

Ah, so you noticed the same thing I did as well. That has me stumped as well.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It would be interesting to compare that same 35 prime to my 24-70 2.8. Not sure when that would happen though 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Hm, I totally forgot about my 35-70mm pro lens. 

 I've always said it's as sharp as my prime. I'll give it a try sometime.


----------



## bigshot

I'm not familiar with the 18-55 non vr. I have heard that there is some small optical difference between it and the vr version. The only way to judge sharpness is at 100%. otherwise, you're comparing resizing and sharpening artifacts. The same goes with comparing colors of differently exposed images. They need to be matched. I'm busy playing with my new iPad, but hen I get a chance, I'll shoot a quick test with my tamron and sigma 30 against the 18-55 vr.

 Long focal lengths make for nice bokeh. It's harder to pull off in shorter lenses with wider apertures.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The only way to judge sharpness is at 100%. otherwise, you're comparing resizing and sharpening artifacts. The same goes with comparing colors of differently exposed images. They need to be matched._

 

Not if they were taken with the same camera, and compressed with the same software in the same way as these seem to have been. It's not as if resizing and sharpening artifacts affect different lenses differently. I might believe that they might have different affects on images taken with different sensors/cameras/settings. 

 But that is not going to account for what's going on here. And the biggest difference I see isn't sharpness, it's just overall yukiness


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The only way to judge sharpness is at 100%. otherwise, you're comparing resizing and sharpening artifacts._

 

Yea. When I made my comments about sharpness, they came from me looking at the photos at 100%. Same for color.
 At 34%, I can't tell a difference in sharpness.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

So, have any of you guys been playing with the new Lightroom 3 beta?

 I can't believe how much more effective the noise reduction and sharpening algorithms are compared to their LR2/CS4 counterparts. They make ISO 12800 files out of my D700 more palatable than ever before, just leaving behind a nice, tight, fine monochrome grain, with an amazing amount of detail, compared to what the in-camera JPEG engine does, regardless of setting.

 Furthermore, these new algorithms have made virtually every RAW show in my catalog look better. From those blotchy ISO 3200 D200 files, to the noise-packed files from my old Fuji E900 point and shoot, color noise has been obliterated to levels previously unimagined by me. It's like getting a retroactive camera upgrade, to all the shots I've ever taken.

 If you can't tell, I'm pretty damn smitten with the improvements Adobe has made. Add in that the program takes much better advantage of a quad-core system than before, and I've really been sailing along with it for the last few days.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, have any of you guys been playing with the new Lightroom 3 beta?_

 

Nope, photoshop for me.
 Is there any reason to use lightroom if you already use photoshop?


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nope, photoshop for me.
 Is there any reason to use lightroom if you already use photoshop?_

 

One word: workflow.

 You can potentially process your images in semi-batch mode much much faster on LR than on PS.

 But I like PS more since I've been using that interface for... oh god, 15 years?...


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I had never used LR before, but reports about the image processing improvements prompted me to download the beta version. So far, so good. I'm not sure that I prefer it to my previous Bridge/Photoshop CS4 routine, but whatever. I'd assume that PS CS5 will have the same Camera Raw engine that we are demoing in LR3b2. If you want to preview that improvement in RAW processing, download the free beta. If not, wait for CS5 to be released in a few months.


----------



## Towert7

Wow, I totally missed the release of the Nikon 24mm F/1.4.
 I looked at Nikon's website today and saw it and was surprised. Then I read this thread and see there is talk about it all the way back on 2-9-2010.
 ~_~

 Looks like a real nice lens. Pitty it's a G lens, but that seems to be the way nikon is going these days.

 The 75 or so sample photos from it were interesting. The bokeh is quite nice, and it is a very sharp lens.

 The people asked for a fast wide prime lens, and nikon finally delivered. That's nice.
 It's commanding an ultra expensive price though..........


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, I totally missed the release of the Nikon 24mm F/1.4.
 I looked at Nikon's website today and saw it and was surprised. Then I read this thread and see there is talk about it all the way back on 2-9-2010.
 ~_~

 Looks like a real nice lens. Pitty it's a G lens, but that seems to be the way nikon is going these days.

 The 75 or so sample photos from it were interesting. The bokeh is quite nice, and it is a very sharp lens.

 The people asked for a fast wide prime lens, and nikon finally delivered. That's nice.
 It's commanding an ultra expensive price though.........._

 

I think I might just get the 24mm F/2.8 for 16% of the price of the F/1.4.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you can't tell, I'm pretty damn smitten with the improvements Adobe has made. Add in that the program takes much better advantage of a quad-core system than before, and I've really been sailing along with it for the last few days._

 

I'm very impressed too. Importing and generating 1:1 previews are both very fast now, and I love how it takes advantage of quad-core systems (though still not at 100% efficiency). Exporting and previewing changes takes no time. Its handling of noise has been given a complete face-lift and boy is it good at what it does. I hardly even have to touch the luminance noise slider anymore because the character of the noise is pretty pleasant. Love the new blending options for post-crop vignetting too, not to mention the extremely effective clone/touch-up tool. All in all a very solid product, and I don't even use its vast publishing capabilities.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think I might just get the 24mm F/2.8 for 16% of the price of the F/1.4._

 

I saw the f/1.4 in store yesterday and it's pretty huge, and the price tag is no less impressive. Isn't the 24mm f/2.8 a pretty "cheap" optical design with many flaws? I'm sure it takes pictures just fine, but still...


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Isn't the 24mm f/2.8 a pretty "cheap" optical design with many flaws? I'm sure it takes pictures just fine, but still..._

 

The 24mm is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses..............
 Perhaps it's the nikon 28mm you are thinking of? The 28mm is nothing special.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 24mm is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses..............
 Perhaps it's the nikon 28mm you are thinking of? The 28mm is nothing special._

 

Maybe I have. That's why I've the 28mm AI-S version instead, which uses an older but better optical formula. It's got CRC too.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I don't get what the point of a 1.4 24mm lens is. It's too wide for most all portrait situations, so it's not really that useful for most situations where you'd want a super fast lense, like events/weddings. Sports photographers surely don't want anything to do with a 24mm prime

 I can see landscape photographers liking a sharp 24mm prime, but they have no need for 1.4. 

 It would have made way more sense, IMO to make a 35mm 1.4, but I've said that before.


----------



## Hero Kid

Aww yes, Nikon. The iPod of the camera world. (;


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't get what the point of a 1.4 24mm lens is. It's too wide for most all portrait situations_

 

No man, it really depends on your shooting style. Last saturday I was shooting a concert for my friend and for some pics I was using Sigma 20/1.8 and Tokina 11-16 on D200. Yes I was very close to the musician but I nailed those shots. (I have permission to go on stage and do *WHATEVER* i want, including multiple off-camera flashes) I kinda wish i can go slightly wider and open wider as well so I can get most of the crap on stage blurred out, which the 24/1.4 will come into play on an FX body.

 I am just saying there is a use of this lens for some people, sometimes. I would love to have the lens.

 Check nikonrumor, they are claiming nikon will come up with 35/1.4, which is something i will buy FOR SURE.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Yeah I was exagerating of course it isn't useless, but it's a specialty lens, which is a weird thing to make when they don't have the bases covered. I'm with you, as soon as they come out with a 35 1.4 I'll sell a kidney


----------



## bigshot

The 24 1.4 would be very useful for shooting interiors of museums and other large buildings. I can also see it being good for certain types of product shots and landscapes with close in foreground framing.


----------



## jpelg

[size=xx-small]*Re: 24mm lens*[/size]

 Are you guys talking about this on a FF or a crop-sensor body? 
 This would effectively be a 36mm equivalent on a crop-sensor body - a pretty nice, slightly-wide, allrounder focal length, no?


----------



## trevorlane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jpelg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_[size=xx-small]*Re: 24mm lens*[/size]

 Are you guys talking about this on a FF or a crop-sensor body? 
 This would effectively be a 36mm equivalent on a crop-sensor body - a pretty nice, slightly-wide, allrounder focal length, no?_

 

I would buy it for FF, for a crop body I'd imagine it a waste for the value they probably marked up to get the edges of the lens as corrected as possible. I'd get the 35 1.8 at that rate.


----------



## jpelg

35mm gives, effectively, a normal (~50mm) perspective on the crop-sensor. Boring!

 How else to get a fast, moderate WA (~35mm effective) prime with a crop-sensor body?


----------



## Jeremy1234

Surprised to see a Nikon thread on this forum.

 Greeting from Singapore & just pick up this hobby again after a few months.

 Hope to see Nikon came out with a 24-105 F4 VR2 after the released of the 
 16-35 F4 VR2. I believed they are listening really to the feedback of the users.

 I am not a PRO but just a Hobbyist & would love to learn from all the expert here.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am just saying there is a use of this lens for some people, sometimes. I would love to have the lens.

 Check nikonrumor, they are claiming nikon will come up with 35/1.4, which is something i will buy FOR SURE._

 

I would love one too. Fast autofocus and huge apertures would be great for shooting fast moving things in dark places like... err... break dancing in a dimly lit club! Shallow DOF and wide angle of view would make for pretty stunning shots. Could be a great night-time walkaround lens on DX although a 35/1.4 would probably be a tad more useful for me personally.


----------



## trevorlane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jpelg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_35mm gives, effectively, a normal (~50mm) perspective on the crop-sensor. Boring!

 How else to get a fast, moderate WA (~35mm effective) prime with a crop-sensor body? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Closest without spending too much money would be the Sigma 30 1.4. I think Nikon pretty much released the 24 1.4 because of the outcry regarding the 28 1.4's markup. I'm hoping this lens rivals the 28 and maybe even the NOCT.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would love one too. Fast autofocus and huge apertures would be great for shooting fast moving things in dark places like... err... break dancing in a dimly lit club! Shallow DOF and wide angle of view would make for pretty stunning shots. Could be a great night-time walkaround lens on DX although a 35/1.4 would probably be a tad more useful for me personally._

 

Actually the 35/1.8 is almost there and very good IMO, quite sharp even wide open. Also the Bokeh is more than acceptable. Moreover it's quite affordable – unbeatable in terms of price/performance ratio in this class. (It looks and feels cheap, though.)
.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jpelg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How else to get a fast, moderate WA (~35mm effective) prime with a crop-sensor body? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I was talking about the concert I shot earlier. I will post this shot over at the post your photography thread as well. What I used was the sigma 20/1.8, which is around 30mm on DX. I know the review out there of this lens is not very good, which is a QC problem (I exchanged it twice to get this one that is sharp all around).

 Anyway here is the shot





 Here's the whole album
n e v o l u t i o n . o r g -- Gateway Performance Series

 There is one more concert for this series this year. If you are in LA, check it out.
Gateway Performance Series - 09/10 Season


----------



## rhythmdevils

But these are two things that can and normally are done on a tripod so a fast lens isn't important. For interiors you normally want everything in focus. I can see wanting extremely shallow DOF though for whatever reason. But how often and how often would 2.8 be good enough for the same effect?

 I'm talking about FF by the way I don't really know anything about DX but it seems this lens would be overkill 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 24 1.4 would be very useful for shooting interiors of museums and other large buildings. I can also see it being good for certain types of product shots and landscapes with close in foreground framing._


----------



## bigshot

For the average advanced amateur with a DX camera, it wouldn't make a difference. They would do better with a Sigma 30 1.4, or one of the other third party fast wides. The 24 1.4 is aimed at pros.


----------



## jpelg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *choka* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyway here is the shot
 <snip>
 Here's the whole album



_

 

Thanks for sharing! 

 I particularly like the low-angle wide shots - very dramatic with a sense of motion.


----------



## choka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jpelg* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for sharing! 

 I particularly like the low-angle wide shots - very dramatic with a sense of motion._

 

Thank you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I think it is most appropriate for head-fi because there is no music experience like going to a real concert.


----------



## rhythmdevils

go nikon


----------



## trevorlane

24 1.4 on its way today finally. I just wish I had my 77 filters with me instead of leaving them at home.


----------



## dj_mocok

Why do you need filters for? Never used them.


----------



## trevorlane

front element protection, effects, it would be like going around with my 300 without having the hood attached.


----------



## xkRoWx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *trevorlane* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_front element protection, effects, it would be like going around with my 300 without having the hood attached._

 

I never use a filter to protect my lens. In the case of dropping your gears on the floor (knock on wood), the thin piece of glass shatters too easily and the broken shards can scratch the front element pretty deeply since both the filter and front element have a similar hardness index.

 I trust my lens hoods more than the filters when it comes to protection.


----------



## bigshot

I use hoya clear hmc filters to protect against dirt and stray fingerprints. I'll put my camera in a side bag without a lens cap so I can quickly whip it out and grab a shot before the subject sees the camera and dons a "say cheese" expression. If it gets dirty I just wipe it with a shirtsleeve and move on. I hate to stop and clean equipment in the field. Filters have their place with street shooting.


----------



## rhythmdevils

yeah I like using filters just so i don't have to worry about mucking up the lens.  None of my lenses has ever had cleaning solution used on them, and most of them have never been touched by anything.  I know that's overkill, but it's peace of mind when owning thousands of dollars worth of glass


----------



## Towert7

I really love the vintage Nikkor 70-300G lens.
  At 300mm, even at F/5.6, it gives such a tight DOF
   
  An example:
  http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3345/4600997461_38e6a0ffbf_b.jpg
   
  I love this lens!


----------



## rhythmdevils

Anyone know any tricks for shooting into the sun?  I love the look esspecially with a fill flash it can be really nice, but it kills my eyes!  The other day I thought I would go blind because when I'm working, I get obsessed about getting the shot and I'm not very careful about my eyes.  but I got paranoid afterwards when I felt my eyes had been strained


----------



## bigshot

You just need to work fast. That's what lots of shooting does for you... you don't necessarily know more, you can just make decisions faster. Set your camera so you can quickly adjust the exposure plus and minus. Put it on a tripod so you have it ready to shoot. Tell your subject how you want them to pose before you put them in the shot. Then get in position and start shooting as fast as you can.
   
  That's acually how I shoot a lot of the time. I like to do all the fiddling and diddling before I start shooting, so when I have the camera up to my eye, all I need to do is create images. I may be an exception among photographers, but I hate the OCD detail part of shooting. Whatever I can hand off to automation, I do.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I'm not talking about shooting towards the sun, I'm talking about shooting into the sun, where the sun is actually in the picture.  A tripod would slow me down immensely.  It's not really a matter of speed, there were only split seconds when the sun broke through the couple and I took the picture but I had to look for a second.
   
  I would post pictures, but the new forum won't accept imageshack code


----------



## rhythmdevils




----------



## Teerawit

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> Anyone know any tricks for shooting into the sun?  I love the look esspecially with a fill flash it can be really nice, but it kills my eyes!  The other day I thought I would go blind because when I'm working, I get obsessed about getting the shot and I'm not very careful about my eyes.  but I got paranoid afterwards when I felt my eyes had been strained


 

 Use live view.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Brriliant! Why didn't I think of that. I've never used it on my camera but I believe it has it


----------



## Teerawit

Yeah, I would just be careful with it though...I wouldn't feel comfortable having my sensor exposed directly to the sun too often or for an extended period of time. Better the sensor than your retina, but still


----------



## rhythmdevils

could the sun really damage the sensor?  Never heard that before


----------



## encg

Manual focus on the 50mm f/1.8 with the older bodies is a double-edged sword.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> could the sun really damage the sensor?  Never heard that before


 

 It is well known that the sun, especially if magnified by a long lens, can leave burns on an SLR's mirror.  Given the sensitivity of IC's to heat, I wouldn't think that leaving a sensor exposed to the direct sun for long periods of time would be a good thing.


----------



## choka

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> could the sun really damage the sensor?  Never heard that before


 

 If you are really stupid and use a telephoto lens to direct a light beam from the sun onto the sensor for 10 minutes.
   
  For all practical reasons it is not something you should worry about. Light will deteriorate the sensor, eventually, but you probably would have wore out other parts of your camera way before that. Anyone who tells you not to shoot into the sun EVER to avoid damage is analogous to advising you to stop breathing because the air is polluted and will kill you eventually.


----------



## Teraflame

Does anyone have experience with the 70-300VR? I'm thinking of getting it for nature/landscape and street photography with occasional outdoor sports mixed in.


----------



## bigshot

I've been investigating the 70-300 VR too. It appears to be a wash image quality wise with the 55-200 VR. If I didn't already have the 18-200 VR, I'd probably just save the money and get the 55-200 instead.


----------



## Teraflame

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> It appears to be a wash image quality wise with the 55-200 VR.


 

 Really? From what I've read people say that its incredibly sharp from 70-200mm. I can't imagine that its on the level of the 55-200


----------



## JaZZ

teraflame said:


> Really? From what I've read people say that its incredibly sharp from 70-200mm.


 

 It is. Stopped down it is sharp up to 300 mm. I have no idea how it compares to the 55-200, though.
   
  Photozone:    55-200    70-300
.


----------



## bigshot

The 18-55 / 55-200 combo are among Nikon's sharpest lenses. They're slow, but so is the 70-300. Check out the MTF charts on the Nikon site.

 The main difference is the extra reach of the 70-300. They both have plastic mounts.


----------



## nik0lai

Sharp is relative.
   
  Anyway, I left all the gear chasing when I got my D2h years ago, so I have nothing to add to this thread . She's been my left nut for the past 6 years, and you can have it when I'm out of ammo and you pry it from my cold dead fingers. (It and the Tokina 28-80 2.8 PRO that's been permanently mounted on it, ha.)


----------



## bigshot

One correction... The 70-300 has a metal ass mount (but platic filter threads).


----------



## cj3209

Nice to see another Nikon forum (in an audio forum...).
   
  I too left my gear chasing with my trusty D2x (although when the D700 goes down in price, I may bite).  I've noticed that my focus is not as automatic as it used to be, especially after mating it with my 24-70/2.8.  Is it my aging body or my lens?
   
  Anyone else have this issue w/a D2x?  It's not a major issue as I've been taking additional shots to compensate for some pics that seem to be back-focused.
   
  CJ


----------



## nik0lai

My D2h does it sometimes. Whens the last time you cleaned it? They occasionaly loose the calibration from the factory too.


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The 18-55 / 55-200 combo are among Nikon's sharpest lenses. They're slow, but so is the 70-300. Check out the MTF charts on the Nikon site.
> 
> The main difference is the extra reach of the 70-300. They both have plastic mounts.


 

  
  For being cheap, slow, plastic based lenses, yes.  The 18-55mm is a freak of a lens.  Despite it being a kit lens and extremely slow, it is rather sharp.  Too sharp for a kit lens, but heck, better for the consumer. 
   
   
   
   
  I own a D90, 80-200 2.8 AF-D [two ring], Sigma 18-50 2.8, and sb-800.  If you have any questions just ask because those two lenses are extremely popular vs their much more expensive big brothers.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote: 





teraflame said:


> Does anyone have experience with the 70-300VR? I'm thinking of getting it for nature/landscape and street photography with occasional outdoor sports mixed in.


 

 I have it, and I've used it for all those purposes (though primarily #1, just what I favor most).
   
  I really can't register any complaints about the lens, given the price.  The build is very reasonable for such a lens, and definitely a step or two above current Nikon kit lenses (not pro level, but it definitely feels more solid/tight than the 18-200vr, 18-135, and 18-70 that I've owned).  It manages to feel nice, while still being quite light for the focal lengths it covers.  It does have a rubber gasket at the rear, for weathsealing the mount, if you have a D200 or higher body.
   
  The optical quality is great overall, very sharp indeed, and my copy does very well at 300mm.  There is a touch of correctable CA here and there.  The bokeh is very nice if you have sufficient subject/background distances, which is simply a limitation of the small aperture.
   
  Sadly, I haven't used this particular lens a whole bunch lately, as the Sigma 150 macro has been taking most of my telephoto time during wildflower season.  As hiking season approaches, I will probably be using the 70-300vr more for its' versatility.
   
  In the end, I would highly recommend the 70-300vr if it fits your uses and price range.  I think it would be pretty fair to say it's the best ever 70-300mm f/xx-5.6 lens from any manufacturer.  To address the primary criticisms of the 70-300vr would be to make it a completely different lens.  If you want to shoot 1:1 macro, night-time HS football, or wafer-thin DOF portraits, you should probably consider a different lens, and not criticize this one for not doing things it was never intended to.


----------



## ccbass

Anybody have experience with the new D300s?  It's my next upgrade.
   
  I have the D90 now, and while I love it to death, the plastic body is killing me.  I broke off the metal mount from the plastic body with normal use, and had it repaired for ~$300.  Any opinions on the newest revision of the D300?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

There are no real changes in terms of image quality, versus the original D300.  The main difference is the addition of video, which is still rather lame by comparison to the video capabilities of the 5DMkII, 7D, or GH1.  Unless you absolutely have to have video in a Nikon DSLR, or are enraptured by one of the other small updates, like the ability to use CF+SD cards, I would save some cash and get a regular D300 instead.


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





iron_dreamer said:


> There are no real changes in terms of image quality, versus the original D300.  The main difference is the addition of video, which is still rather lame by comparison to the video capabilities of the 5DMkII, 7D, or GH1.  Unless you absolutely have to have video in a Nikon DSLR, or are enraptured by one of the other small updates, like the ability to use CF+SD cards, I would save some cash and get a regular D300 instead.


 

 Very true.  While I don't do very much video, I am disappointed at Nikon's stabs at HD video in their SLRs.  Canon's 5dm2 and 7D are destroying the Nikon line.  The season finale of house was shot completely with a Canon slr!


----------



## bigshot

The problem with video is that the focusing motors in video cameras are entirely different than in still cameras. For Nikon to compete with video cameras, it would have to introduce an entirely new line of lenses with a different focusing scheme.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The problem with video is that the focusing motors in video cameras are entirely different than in still cameras. For Nikon to compete with video cameras, it would have to introduce an entirely new line of lenses with a different focusing scheme.


 

 If they wanted to make a video camera yes.  But not if they wanted to make a DSLR that could compete with the video capability of the 5Dmkii.  If nikon had figured out 1080p with the D3s, it would easily be the best DSLR for video, with it's high iso, and the lower megapixel count wouldn't matter at all.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Given Nikon's past track record, I wouldn't be shocked if the D4/D400 have 1080 video capabilities that bring them up to, if not beyond the levels of their competitors.  On the other hand, Nikon doesn't have the video experience that Canon and Panasonic do.


----------



## koonhua90

This is a long thread indeed. I was eyeing the D700, but then decided to spend the money on lens and erm, earphones instead. I agree with what Iron_Dreamer said, but there is also reason to believe that the next generation of D700 will have video capabilities as well. Maybe a D700X or D700S. Just like what they did to D3.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Maybe.  I lean more toward the idea that we won't see a D700 refresh until after the D4 comes out.


----------



## rhythmdevils

which won't be for at least a year since they just released the D3s


----------



## nukeu666

Im planning to get a 18-200VR for my D90 as a all-in-one lens
  Would it be a wise choice?
  Extreme telephoto isnt needed


----------



## bigshot

I love my 18-200 vr. It's a great walk around lens. It can be a little soft above 135mm, but if you stop down a bit, it's fine. That lens and the 35 1.8 is all that most people need.


----------



## bigshot

I really don't think video will be really viable until they solve the focusing problems, automate zoom controls, and redesign cameras to suit a hybrid video/still function. The DSLR form just doesn't suit shooting video. But the video camera form could easily be adapted to shooting still.


----------



## danne

I'm in the run off getting a new camera as well to take some sweet shoots when going to Australia next year, been looking at the D300 along with the Nikon 24-70/2.8.
  By the looks of it you could get them for a very decent price when buying them secondhand.


----------



## JaZZ

danne said:


> I'm in the run off getting a new camera as well to take some sweet shoots when going to Australia next year, been looking at the D300 along with the Nikon 24-70/2.8.
> By the looks of it you could get them for a very decent price when buying them secondhand.


 

 Not the wisest choice in my book. While the 24-70 is certainly an excellent lens, you pay the price and carry the weight of an FX lens on a DX camera, so you give up the inherent advantage of the DX system. Maybe you could get along with a good, more compact DX zoom instead, like Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS, the new 17-50/2.8 OS (if it's any good) or Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC – which moreover have VR. However, I support the choice of a D300 (own one and am happy).
.


----------



## danne

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Not the wisest choice in my book. While the 24-70 is certainly an excellent lens, you pay the price and carry the weight of an FX lens on a DX camera, so you give up the inherent advantage of the DX system. Maybe you could get along with a good, more compact DX zoom instead, like Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS, the new 17-50/2.8 OS (if it's any good) or Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC – which moreover have VR. However, I support the choice of a D300 (own one and am happy).
> .


 

 Are the Sigma or Tamron weather protected? That one of the reasons Im chosing the D300 for, to be able to play with it in the snow 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  The only DX one that seems some what simular is the Nikon 17-55/2.8


----------



## koonhua90

Quote: 





danne said:


> Are the Sigma or Tamron weather protected? That one of the reasons Im chosing the D300 for, to be able to play with it in the snow
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 The DX 17-55/2.8 I believe, is not far behind the 24-70/2.8 in terms of price and weight. If you are planning to go full frame in due time, I'd recommend to go for the 24-70. Or you can choose to do what I do, by carrying a few primes. An el cheapo 50mm/1.8 can bring you far, at a price that's less than 1/10 of the 24-70. And plus it's super light and compact. Plenty of reason to get one.
   
  And in extreme cases, you'd stand to lose less if the 50mm is stolen, as compared to the 24-70.
   
  Regarding the Sigma and Tamron, I believe the newer ones should be weather protected, but I know that both companies' offering has pretty good optical quality, focusing speed/accuracy/build quality apart.


----------



## JaZZ

danne said:


> Are the Sigma or Tamron weather protected? That one of the reasons Im chosing the D300 for, to be able to play with it in the snow


 
   
  I can't tell for sure, since I don't know them personally and can't find corresponding info, but I doubt it. If any of them is, it's the new Sigma 17-50.

  


> The only DX one that seems some what simular is the Nikon 17-55/2.8...


   
  ...which is expensive and heavy as well, so not a too attractive alternative.
.


----------



## danne

The sigma 17-50 doesnt seem to be weather protected, and the price is about the same as a secondhand nikon 17-55.
  I should head over to a store and feel the weight thing, see if it would be a problem.


----------



## bigshot

I think if I was bouncing around in snow and extreme cold, I'd rather have a simple prime to shoot with. In fact, I would probably keep a point and shoot warm in my shirt and use that instead of a full size camera.


----------



## koonhua90

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I think if I was bouncing around in snow and extreme cold, I'd rather have a simple prime to shoot with. In fact, I would probably keep a point and shoot warm in my shirt and use that instead of a full size camera.


 

 As bigshot (I am sure he has some bigshot camera and lens) suggested, it'd be easier to shoot with a prime or a compact camera, especially a cheap one. But then you won't really need weather sealing, unless you plan to bury the camera in the snow.


----------



## bigshot

Also, you aren't apt to need a 2.8 aperture in the snow in full daylight. The Nimon 18-55 vr would do as good a job as the 17-55 for less weight and money. Weather sealing is fine, but it isn't a magic protective field. Wetness isn't good, no matter whether you have an ass gasket or not.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I really don't think video will be really viable until they solve the focusing problems, automate zoom controls, and redesign cameras to suit a hybrid video/still function. The DSLR form just doesn't suit shooting video. But the video camera form could easily be adapted to shooting still.


 

 Focusing is challenging, but the pros use manual focus anyways, though they might need a few people to operate a video camera that way.  It limits certain things, but I've had no problem with it.  Same with zoom, it doesn't look that good anyways, it's better to move the camera. 
   
  I agree though that video on a DSLR won't be viable for consumers until they make some changes.  But for many pro applications, the image quality makes the other issues pretty minimal.


----------



## koonhua90

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> Focusing is challenging, but the pros use manual focus anyways, though they might need a few people to operate a video camera that way.  It limits certain things, but I've had no problem with it.  Same with zoom, it doesn't look that good anyways, it's better to move the camera.
> 
> I agree though that video on a DSLR won't be viable for consumers until they make some changes.  But for many pro applications, the image quality makes the other issues pretty minimal.


 

 Well high end video recorder can be very expensive on the other hand. Another advantage I think using DSLR to shoot video is that if you have an excellent lens with extremely shallow depth of field, it can be interesting too. Normal video recorder without interchangeable lens won't be able to do this easily.


----------



## goober-george

Hey guys, I've been wanting to get into photography and looking to get my first DSLR camera. Is a Nikon D3000, 18mm-55mm lens, carrying bag, strap, and 16gb card for $400 a good deal? Also, how does it compare to the Canon 30D cause that is what I was going for originally. Do they compete against each other or is one obviously better/worse then the other? Thanks.


----------



## bigshot

That's a good deal, a good camera and a good lens. You might want to consider adding a flash to that. Both Canon and Nikon make great cameras. I prefer Nikon DSLRs and Canon pocket cameras myself.


----------



## Teraflame

You can get a refurb D5000 which is significantly better with 18-55 for not much more here
   
  http://www.adorama.com/INKD5000RD.html
   http://www.adorama.com/INKD5000RD.htmlcan get a refurb D5000 which is significantly better with 18-55 for not much more here
   
   http://www.adorama.com/INKD5000RD.htmlYou can get a refurb D5000 which is significantly better with 18-55 for not much more here
   
   http://www.adorama.com/INKD5000RD.html


----------



## koonhua90

Quote: 





goober-george said:


> Hey guys, I've been wanting to get into photography and looking to get my first DSLR camera. Is a Nikon D3000, 18mm-55mm lens, carrying bag, strap, and 16gb card for $400 a good deal? Also, how does it compare to the Canon 30D cause that is what I was going for originally. Do they compete against each other or is one obviously better/worse then the other? Thanks.


 

 It depends on how far you plan/want to go down photography. It's a system we are talking about here, a system that consist of the camera and the lens. $400 seems fine with me, but do you have any specific thing that you really like to shoot? Like events, people, nature stuff, macro, etc etc. Having a good idea of what you like to shoot will help a lot in deciding. I started with a D80, then decided to get some fast prime lens with it. Stock lens will do fine, but if you plan to shoot indoor without using flash, then stock lens is not fast enough. You can also start with a used D80/D90, and get one of the 50mm f/1.8 lens and start from there. Usually, using a prime lens first is a good way to train one's eye, especially with things like perspective and framing.


----------



## goober-george

Quote: 





koonhua90 said:


> It depends on how far you plan/want to go down photography. It's a system we are talking about here, a system that consist of the camera and the lens. $400 seems fine with me, but do you have any specific thing that you really like to shoot? Like events, people, nature stuff, macro, etc etc. Having a good idea of what you like to shoot will help a lot in deciding. I started with a D80, then decided to get some fast prime lens with it. Stock lens will do fine, but if you plan to shoot indoor without using flash, then stock lens is not fast enough. You can also start with a used D80/D90, and get one of the 50mm f/1.8 lens and start from there. Usually, using a prime lens first is a good way to train one's eye, especially with things like perspective and framing.


 

 I'm looking to shoot things like architecture, landscaping, candid downtown shots, possibly nature. Shots I won't be doing are fast action shots or portraits. Nothing one on one with a person. I just like finding interesting angles, scenes, and patterns outside. Thanks for the advice guys, I will look into the Nikon D5000 as well, seems a lot better.


----------



## jpelg

Funny article from "The Online Photographer" regarding giving advice on what camera to buy:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html
   
  (see the "Letter to George" post)
   
  Thoughts?


----------



## dj_mocok

Funny, and there's some truth in it (although some people do actually downgrade)


----------



## bigshot

goober-george said:


> I'm looking to shoot things like architecture, landscaping, candid downtown shots, possibly nature. Shots I won't be doing are fast action shots or portraits. Nothing one on one with a person. I just like finding interesting angles, scenes, and patterns outside. Thanks for the advice guys, I will look into the Nikon D5000 as well, seems a lot better.





Either model should do a great job for you.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





jpelg said:


> Funny article from "The Online Photographer" regarding giving advice on what camera to buy:
> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html
> 
> (see the "Letter to George" post)
> ...


 
  I couldn't find the "Letter to George" post.  But I thought his post called "The Importance (or Not) of the Print(ing)" was interesting.  One thing he talks about is the technical shortcomings of a slide presentation, but that it doesn't matter because the experience more than makes up for it.  I agree that the experience of viewing a slide presentation is a good one, but I'm not sure I agree about the technical shortcomings.  I did a whole project using medium format film photographed with a hasselblad and projected with a Hasselblad projector.  It was absolutely gorgeous, at the time I felt that it was better than I would ever see my work shown again.  But I guess most slide presentations aren't done with medium format film or nice projectors.
   
  Interesting to see a photographer embracing the change to screen viewing.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





jpelg said:


> (see the "Letter to George" post)
> 
> Thoughts?


 

 Straw man argument. You could spend $400 on a D3000 and a pair of kit lenses and have just as much potential for shooting great shots as the D700 and pair of pro lenses he recommends. To me, recommending a pro rig to a person just starting out in photography is absurd.


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Straw man argument. You could spend $400 on a D3000 and a pair of kit lenses and have just as much potential for shooting great shots as the D700 and pair of pro lenses he recommends. To me, recommending a pro rig to a person just starting out in photography is absurd.


 

 It's all about quality and needs.  Ignoring Ken Rockwell and his D40 for everything argument, it all depends on what picture quality you want or need.  Composition and lighting are one thing, but the actual actual act of capturing the light through a lens and onto a sensor is a whole different matter.  Equipment matters in the case of quality and ability.  Better gear captures light better because of better optics or better sensors. 
   
  I totally agree with you.  Photography is a learning experience and nobody should start with pro gear, D300s and up.


----------



## bigshot

Pro gear doesn't make for higher quality images. Just about every modern camera can capture quality images in good light with an eye for composition. Pro gear is built to be used on a daily basis in extreme conditions, and it is designed to be able to be useful in less than optimal light and with extreme action. None of these things matter to a beginner. It's idiotic to suggest that a beginner should spend thousands of dollars for a million features that only distract from the basics of exposure, wb and composition. Most amateurs overbuy when it comes to equipment anyway. I did it myself when I bought my camera body, but I've learned my lesson when it comes to lenses.


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Pro gear doesn't make for higher quality images. Just about every modern camera can capture quality images in good light with an eye for composition. Pro gear is built to be used on a daily basis in extreme conditions, and it is designed to be able to be useful in less than optimal light and with extreme action. None of these things matter to a beginner. It's idiotic to suggest that a beginner should spend thousands of dollars for a million features that only distract from the basics of exposure, wb and composition. Most amateurs overbuy when it comes to equipment anyway. I did it myself when I bought my camera body, but I've learned my lesson when it comes to lenses.


 

 Define higher quality.
   
  I'm talking merely quality of capture.  Pro gear is meant to be durable but also capture images in better quality.  You cannot tell me that D40's sensor is going to capture the same amount of detail that the better D3X's sensor is going to capture, especially in low light or action, where better sensors, capture rate, and more robust AF systems come into play.  Gear needs are also determined by how large you are planning to print.
   
  And you should buy what you need.  I currently own the D90 and it satisfies my needs right now.  If I has purchased some thing lesser, I would not have captured a few great shots, especially in low light.  You need to buy based on what you want to do, and I did that.
   
  Yes, it is stupid to buy a D3s as a beginner, I never said to do that.  Every photographer should know, like the back of their hand, exposure settings and other basic knowledge.


----------



## bigshot

Again, under normal lighting conditions, image quality isn't the difference between an entry level DSLR and a pro grade one. They are both capable of producing equally good images. Printed out, even large, you wouldn't see any difference. The difference in pro gear is speed, low light performance and build quality, all of which are things that matter much more to a pro than a non-pro. Many people believe the myth that expensive equipment produces higher quality images. That is only true under the most adverse conditions. For the typical advanced amateur who shoots travel and people photos, it isn't true at all.



 Most people (myself included) fall into the trap of buying more camera than they really need. The difference in low light ability between a D3000 and a D90 is less than the difference between a kit lens and the 35mm 1.8. It makes more sense to get a cheaper camera body and faster glass, particularly with the rapid rate of obsolescence of camera bodies lately. High ISO isn't as important as you might think. ISO 800 is just one stop slower than 1600, and 1600 is just one stop slower than 3200. The numbers are big, but the differences aren't.


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Again, under normal lighting conditions, image quality isn't the difference between an entry level DSLR and a pro grade one. They are both capable of producing equally good images. Printed out, even large, you wouldn't see any difference. The difference in pro gear is speed, low light performance and build quality, all of which are things that matter much more to a pro than a non-pro. Many people believe the myth that expensive equipment produces higher quality images. That is only true under the most adverse conditions. For the typical advanced amateur who shoots travel and people photos, it isn't true at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people (myself included) fall into the trap of buying more camera than they really need. The difference in low light ability between a D3000 and a D90 is less than the difference between a kit lens and the 35mm 1.8. It makes more sense to get a cheaper camera body and faster glass, particularly with the rapid rate of obsolescence of camera bodies lately. High ISO isn't as important as you might think. ISO 800 is just one stop slower than 1600, and 1600 is just one stop slower than 3200. The numbers are big, but the differences aren't.


 

 You can't tell me that a D40 and a Hasselblad shooting without Bayer interpolation are going to have the same image quality.  Define entry level system.  Are we talking about something like the D40 with a 18-55 vs a D3 with a 24-70? 
   
  Even was I was just beginning, I wanted performance out of my gear.  If that meant skipping the basic D40 and going to the D90, fine.  No issue.  Buy what you need, not what you want.  I wanted decent FPS, good high ISO, and decent built quality.  The D40 does not have good FPS, terrible high ISO performance, and has basic build quality.
   
  There's a huge difference between a kit lens and a 35 1.8  That's a difference of two full stops from 1.8 to 3.5.  That's the difference between 1/20 sec and 1/80 sec.  Combine that with a good high ISO body, and you have the ability to shoot in low light in better conditions.
   
  Of course you buy glass to keep for decades and bodies for 2 or 3 years, but putting a 70-200mm 2.8 on a D40 is pointless. 
   
  But the real issue is, the introduction of noise at higher ISO.  Especially in low level bodies, the difference between ISO400 and ISO 800 is huge.  You can easily see noise.  And 1600 becomes unusable, without sacrificing a ton of detail.


----------



## bigshot

I'm talking about comparing an entry level DSLR to a pro grade DSLR, (D3000 vs D3) not medium format. I don't think you are reading what I'm saying. I'll repeat it one more time... For the sorts of pictures most advanced amateurs shoot- daylight travel pictures, people shots with good lighting or flash, flowers in the garden, baby and dog pictures, etc.- a D700 or D3 is total overkill. Those sorts of pictures would look exactly the same using a D3000. The only reason for pro equipment is if you are shooting sports, low light concerts or weddings or things like that. And except for low light, those features fall into the category of performance issues, not image quality. Most people rarely if ever need that kind of thing. If they do on rare occasions, it would be much cheaper to rent pro equipment for the day than to spend thousands of dollars more on equipment with features they never use.
   
  Back when I was shooting film with my F2, shooting at night handheld was impossible. It meant time exposures and tripods. Today, even pocket cameras can do a decent job of it. How much low light ability is enough? I've shot handheld by the light of a single candle with my prehistoric D200. Higher and higher ISO is swell, but it's still just a stop or two difference. Using a faster lens would be much more effective and cost efficient. Lenses are what count, not camera bodies. Come to think of it, spending money on lighting equipment would be much better for image quality than shooting high ISO in lousy light with the best sensor.
   
  When most people shop for a camera, they decide how much they want to spend, and then end up buying a model at least 20% more than that amount. They convince themselves they need the features that come with the more expensive model. But the truth is, they will rarely if ever use them. They would get equal image quality for 99% of their pictures using an entry level DSLR. The money would have been better spent on getting a full range of lenses.


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I'm talking about comparing an entry level DSLR to a pro grade DSLR, (D3000 vs D3) not medium format. I don't think you are reading what I'm saying. I'll repeat it one more time... For the sorts of pictures most advanced amateurs shoot- daylight travel pictures, people shots with good lighting or flash, flowers in the garden, baby and dog pictures, etc.- a D700 or D3 is total overkill. Those sorts of pictures would look exactly the same using a D3000. The only reason for pro equipment is if you are shooting sports, low light concerts or weddings or things like that. And except for low light, those features fall into the category of performance issues, not image quality. Most people rarely if ever need that kind of thing. If they do on rare occasions, it would be much cheaper to rent pro equipment for the day than to spend thousands of dollars more on equipment with features they never use.
> 
> Back when I was shooting film with my F2, shooting at night handheld was impossible. It meant time exposures and tripods. Today, even pocket cameras can do a decent job of it. How much low light ability is enough? I've shot handheld by the light of a single candle with my prehistoric D200. Higher and higher ISO is swell, but it's still just a stop or two difference. Using a faster lens would be much more effective and cost efficient. Lenses are what count, not camera bodies. Come to think of it, spending money on lighting equipment would be much better for image quality than shooting high ISO in lousy light with the best sensor.
> 
> When most people shop for a camera, they decide how much they want to spend, and then end up buying a model at least 20% more than that amount. They convince themselves they need the features that come with the more expensive model. But the truth is, they will rarely if ever use them. They would get equal image quality for 99% of their pictures using an entry level DSLR. The money would have been better spent on getting a full range of lenses.


 

 I consider myself an advanced amateur, and I disagree.  Whether I am shooting pictures of my friends in the park or shooting headshots for a theater production, I care about quality.  Maybe this is because I am a pixel peeper and I want sharp photos that a low-end SLR can't provide.  It's all about what your overall desire and experience is.  If you're just a teenager taking picture then yes, nobody is going to notice between a point and shoot and a D3.  But for somebody like me, or any photographer for that matter is going to notice flaws and issues with lower performing cameras. 
   
  High ISO is both a performance and quality issue.  Any good photographer is going to notice noise introduced by a sensor.  And if you can't have noise, then it's an issue.  I hate noise, it bothers me, unless of course I am going for that desired look.  Lenses can only get you so far.  Sometimes faster lenses just aren't possible, like the 70-200mm, the workhorse of pretty much every photographer who needs that focal range.  And f2.8 is only going to get you so far.  If I got married and saw my wedding pictures had noise in them, I'd ask for a refund.  If you're going to take on something as insane as a wedding in, you better have the equipment to deal with poor lighting, lenses, bodies, and flashes.
   
   
  Pocket cameras do an ok job, but that's about it.  I hate looking at photos that look terrible when others think that looks great, all because they have never experienced a better quality camera/picture.  It's a simple fact that a sensor the size of half a dime is going to perform as well as one that the size of 2 or 3 quarters.  It's about quality not pixel density. 
   
  The average consumer is stupid like that.  It's a simple part of the economy.  A salesman give a bullshits explanation, gets every dollar out of the person, then moves on without care.  That's why research is necessary.  Again, you need to look at your needs, not what you want. 
   
   
  I understand your whole argument, but there's somethings some cameras can do and some can't, it's just a fact.  Are lenses more important than a body?  Of course.  I see dozens of sale threads saying, "oh, this was too much of a camera for me."  And the like.  It's because people don't realize that it's more about the glass than the body.  But most people also don't think and or want to spend $2000 for a decent lens and body.  All they see is the product and the price, not their needs or what they want.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





ccbass said:


> Ignoring *Ken Rockwell* and his D40 for everything argument


 

 Way to go man, now 20 pages of useless dribble is sure to follow


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> Way to go man, now 20 pages of useless dribble is sure to follow


 

 Yea.....about that....sorry.


----------



## rhythmdevils

dribble


----------



## bigshot

What form do your photos ultimately take ccbass? Do you print most of your shots, publish them on the web or go to press? I'm guessing that you are doing very large wall sized prints or cropping drastically, because other than blowing up a tiny section of a photo in Photoshop, that would be the only way to see the differences you're talking about. Or is it just the peace of mind of knowing you have more resolution than you really need?


----------



## rhythmdevils

I borrowed a D90 and went shooting for a day a while ago, and the images look like crap even on screen compared to my D3.  I don't think it takes cropping/blowing up.  for me, it's just years of printing from film, and using medium and large format film, and getting used to the subtle tonality and detail that they provide a good print. 
   
  I really disagree about a cheaper body with multiple lenses over a nicer body with fewer lenses.  At least for the fun work I like doing.  If it's something specialized like nature/weddings than certain lenses really help for the things people expect today. 
   
  Than again, I won't claim to be a photoshop magician.  I've seen incredible things done with crap cameras.  But those guys are few and far between, and the time it takes you to get to that level, you might as well save up for a better camera body as well.


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> What form do your photos ultimately take ccbass? Do you print most of your shots, publish them on the web or go to press? I'm guessing that you are doing very large wall sized prints or cropping drastically, because other than blowing up a tiny section of a photo in Photoshop, that would be the only way to see the differences you're talking about. Or is it just the peace of mind of knowing you have more resolution than you really need?


 

 Some prints, some published online, rarely into newspapers.  Maybe it's my style, but I like sharp, images, which usually means, yes, zooming in on a photo and seeing if it is in focus or sharp.  More resolution never hurts given that I cop a far amount of images depending on how I want the final image to look. 

  
  Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> I borrowed a D90 and went shooting for a day a while ago, and the images look like crap even on screen compared to my D3.  I don't think it takes cropping/blowing up.  for me, it's just years of printing from film, and using medium and large format film, and getting used to the subtle tonality and detail that they provide a good print.
> 
> I really disagree about a cheaper body with multiple lenses over a nicer body with fewer lenses.  At least for the fun work I like doing.  If it's something specialized like nature/weddings than certain lenses really help for the things people expect today.
> 
> Than again, I won't claim to be a photoshop magician.  I've seen incredible things done with crap cameras.  But those guys are few and far between, and the time it takes you to get to that level, you might as well save up for a better camera body as well.


 

 I wish I was able to get more into film, but I never got into the darkroom in highschool.  
   
  For me, it's buying quality lenses and a decent body.
   
  I love the 80-200mm 2.8 AF-D.  Just as sharp as the 70-200mm without VR and AF-S.  Not to mention about 1/4 to 1/5 the price.  Combined with the D90, it's a great combination.  And given that the D300 and D90's sensor are almost the same, there's really no difference in image quality until a jump is made until a FF D700 or up.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





ccbass said:


> Some prints, some published online, rarely into newspapers.  Maybe it's my style, but I like sharp, images, which usually means, yes, zooming in on a photo and seeing if it is in focus or sharp.  More resolution never hurts given that I cop a far amount of images depending on how I want the final image to look.
> 
> I wish I was able to get more into film, but I never got into the darkroom in highschool.
> 
> ...


 
  yes, it is a nice lens, that's what I have.  The focusing motor is really intense, practically knocks me over when it jumps back and forth.  But I don't really care, it seems just about as good optically and saved me a bunch of cash.  I don't use it very much as I don't shoot action or wildlife.  Just for the weddings where the church keeps the photograper locked in a little cage in the corner of the room.  And it's nice for events/receptions/parties/etc for just getting people's faces without intruding too much.  Nice having some close up portraits thrown into the mix like that.
   
  Do you have any pictures up anywhere?  yall should post up links to some of your work.


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> yes, it is a nice lens, that's what I have.  The focusing motor is really intense, practically knocks me over when it jumps back and forth.  But I don't really care, it seems just about as good optically and saved me a bunch of cash.  I don't use it very much as I don't shoot action or wildlife.  Just for the weddings where the church keeps the photograper locked in a little cage in the corner of the room.  And it's nice for events/receptions/parties/etc for just getting people's faces without intruding too much.  Nice having some close up portraits thrown into the mix like that.
> 
> Do you have any pictures up anywhere?  yall should post up links to some of your work.


 
   
  I use the 80-200mm for everything including sports and wildlife!  While the AF-D isn't nearly as fast as it's AF-S counterpart, it's pretty fast on my D90.  I have this great shot from a college football game that almost landed me in huge newspaper, until we lost. 
   
  I'll post up my portfolio after I finish updating everything.  It's so ugly right now, ha.


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I've been investigating the 70-300 VR too. It appears to be a wash image quality wise with the 55-200 VR. If I didn't already have the 18-200 VR, I'd probably just save the money and get the 55-200 instead.


 

 I had that lens for a couple of years (got it about 6 months after debut) and think it is reasonable, but not a great value. Anything after 200mm is pretty unusably soft. The VR helps a lot, but the 4,5 aperture means you need VR for anything over 120mm or so. I used it with a D200, so it got a looooong way out ~450, but was only worthwhile till about 200 or DX 300. It wasn't slow or fast in its focusing and not a bad lens, but I'd much rather a 2.8 el cheapo 80-200 since it is much more usable, fast, and proper.


----------



## bigshot

The problem is that I really need vr on a lens this long. A constant 2.8 with vr would cost so much, and I would use it so infrequently, it would be better to just stick with my 18-200 vr.


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The problem is that I really need vr on a lens this long. A constant 2.8 with vr would cost so much, and I would use it so infrequently, it would be better to just stick with my 18-200 vr.


 

 What is the primary subject of your photography?  A used 80-200 2.8 can be had for under $550 if you look around.


----------



## rhythmdevils

look around where?  I paid 800 for mine I beleive


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> look around where?  I paid 800 for mine I beleive


 

 KEH.com, ebay, craigslist.


----------



## shigzeo

The extra 150 or 200$ spent for the 2,8 would be worth it. The 70-300 isn't worth its VR. If you want same or better optical performance in a compact package with the same aperture stops as the VR 70-300, you can get a much nicer full frame lens here: 80-200 4,5-5,6 - it's lighter, any bit as good optically, and costs next to nothing. It needs a motor-driven camera though, so forget d3000-5000


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





ccbass said:


> KEH.com, ebay, craigslist


 

 there's different versions of the 80-200 I guess.  The one I got couldn't be found easily for 500 bucks


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> there's different versions of the 80-200 I guess.  The one I got couldn't be found easily for 500 bucks


 
  There is two major versions.  The easy to find, still in production 80-200mm 2.8 AF-D, and the much harder to find, 80-200mm 2.8 AF-S.  The latter of the two is highly sought after given the AF-S motor instead of relying on the camera body's lens motor.


----------



## bigshot

I need VR. Can't hold steady longer than 100mm on DX. I would use this mostly for detail shots on architecture. I don't like to shoot people from a long ways away. It feels creepy, and the subjects always feel distant even if they fill the frame. Looking at the mtf, it doesn't appear that softness would be a problem for the prints I make. The other alternative is the 55-200 vr, but it seems that it would be more useful getting something that goes longer than my 18-200. Size and weight are also a big factor for me. I don't want a big honkin heavy lens.


----------



## rhythmdevils

hmmm when I was looking 800 seemed pretty standard.  Craigslist is usually more expensive in my experience.  Don't often see very good deals on craigslist, but I'm always looking for that long lost gem...


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> hmmm when I was looking 800 seemed pretty standard.  Craigslist is usually more expensive in my experience.  Don't often see very good deals on craigslist, but I'm always looking for that long lost gem...


 

 I almost managed to pick up a 50mm 1.4 AF-D for $125 on CL.  The seller was some really angry girlfriend that was selling her ex's stuff.  Missed the sale by a day.  I think I still have the e-mail, hahaha.


----------



## rhythmdevils

nice!  I found a guy who wanted to sell me 3 pairs of Fostex T20v2's for 35 each, but passed it up.  Not an amazing deal, but pretty good.  I also found a pair of Headphile HP3000 for sale across the country and talked to the guy, he offered them for 900.  But I didnt feel so good about sending that much cash to a stranger.  He found a local head-fier to sell them for him and they sold within hours of being posted for 1400 I believe.  ah well.  Can't afford 900 dollar cans anyways, or I'd have bought an LCD-2 by now


----------



## dj_mocok

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> double post.  darn it


 

 Double post... they're so annoying but you can't help but accidentally do it at times... just like peeing in your pants.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> hmmm when I was looking 800 seemed pretty standard.  Craigslist is usually more expensive in my experience.  Don't often see very good deals on craigslist, but I'm always looking for that long lost gem...


 

 $800 is pretty standard for the two-ring version.  Sometimes you see them go down to $700 or so.  The sub-$600 ones are just about always the push-pull zoom version.


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





iron_dreamer said:


> $800 is pretty standard for the two-ring version.  Sometimes you see them go down to $700 or so.  The sub-$600 ones are just about always the push-pull zoom version.


 

  
  I got mine for $900, new.  I was looking around for deals for weeks, and found nothing at the time.  Recently though I've seen the 2R version for $600ish. 
   
  I still can't seem to find any used SB-800's.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Speaking of SB-800's, how do you guys feel about the iTTL in the Nikon flashes?  I got much better exposures with my canon system than with Nikon.  Very unpredictable, underexposed, overexposed and sometimes I get exposures that are just completely blown out.  Very frustrating.  I'm using an SB-900 but I might start using my SB600 to see if it's better.


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> Speaking of SB-800's, how do you guys feel about the iTTL in the Nikon flashes?  I got much better exposures with my canon system than with Nikon.  Very unpredictable, underexposed, overexposed and sometimes I get exposures that are just completely blown out.  Very frustrating.  I'm using an SB-900 but I might start using my SB600 to see if it's better.


 

 Really depends on your ambient.  I find that in darker conditions, shooting flash dead on gives your blown out, ugly photos.  Bouncing works much better in these situations.  In normal lighting, using the 800 for fill, I find no issues. 
   
  Though I mostly shoot with no flash or in a studio setting where manual power setting is necessary for consistent results.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> Speaking of SB-800's, how do you guys feel about the iTTL in the Nikon flashes?  I got much better exposures with my canon system than with Nikon.  Very unpredictable, underexposed, overexposed and sometimes I get exposures that are just completely blown out.  Very frustrating.  I'm using an SB-900 but I might start using my SB600 to see if it's better.


 

 I've been using the SB800 for a few years, with both the D200, and to a lesser extent, the D700.  I have no complaints with its' performance.  I've always used 5 batteries, as the recycle speed is significantly better.  Any exposure issues I have had were generally due to my own stupid user errors, like leaving the camera ISO too low to get a good blend of ambient and flashed light.
   
  I do tend to always use flash in manual mode, getting a good idea of how much ambient light I need/want in the exposure before doing anything critical.  I tried to use ISO400 on the D200, and ISO800 now on the D700, as much as possible to preserve flash power.
   
  Although honestly, I don't use the flash nearly as much since getting the D700.  I mostly just use it for product shots, which could just as easily be done with fixed lighting.


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





iron_dreamer said:


> I've been using the SB800 for a few years, with both the D200, and to a lesser extent, the D700.  I have no complaints with its' performance.  I've always used 5 batteries, as the recycle speed is significantly better.  Any exposure issues I have had were generally due to my own stupid user errors, like leaving the camera ISO too low to get a good blend of ambient and flashed light.
> 
> I do tend to always use flash in manual mode, getting a good idea of how much ambient light I need/want in the exposure before doing anything critical.  I tried to use ISO400 on the D200, and ISO800 now on the D700, as much as possible to preserve flash power.
> 
> Although honestly, I don't use the flash nearly as much since getting the D700.  I mostly just use it for product shots, which could just as easily be done with fixed lighting.


 
   
  The D700 is ridiculous at high ISO, 800 and up, so little noise. 
   
  Does anybody else use CLS?


----------



## Tsengsta

D90 for $470 AU on tradeshopping888.com fake? Can I get a better price?


----------



## danne

Got a good deal on a secondhand MB-D10 and nikon 70-200/2.8, that was to hard to resist, so now Im walking with a bit heavier bag, with a bit bigger smile on my face


----------



## blackbird

Thinking about buying a D40 for under $400 as my first DSLR. Could I get a better deal than KEH?
   
  What's the difference between these two?
  http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Digital-Camera-Outfits/1/sku-DN019990903180?r=FE
  http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Digital-Camera-Outfits/1/sku-DN019991021880?r=FE
   
  KEH would bring it to $410 after shipping. I remember it being $360 shipped a few months back, but I hesitated. Should I wait for an inevitable drop?


----------



## rhythmdevils

KEH is always a bit more expensive than ebay.  Maybe 10% more or something?  But you get amazing customer service.  If something doesn't work right, even if you discover it months later, you can get a refund.


----------



## Teraflame

You should save up for a D5000.


----------



## QuantumCarrot

I would recommend trying to find a used D50 in good shape over the D40. Same sensor but the D50 has an internal focus motor which will come in handy later down the line. A D50 with 18-55 and a 50 1.8 would be a great starter kit, especially if you can get a good price on the VR version of the 18-55.


----------



## dj_mocok

D50 is a bit too old - not good high ISO compared to newer cam, small back LCD....


----------



## bigshot

Someone who is buying a low end Nikon DSLR probably isn't going to be buying a lot of lenses either. A D3000 would be best. A D50 is the perfect second body for someone with a D200 or D300 though.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote: 





blackbird said:


> Thinking about buying a D40 for under $400 as my first DSLR. Could I get a better deal than KEH?
> 
> What's the difference between these two?
> http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Digital-Camera-Outfits/1/sku-DN019990903180?r=FE
> ...


 
   
  Personally, I'd go for the D40 if you want better high ISO (it has the cleanest output of any of Nikon's 6MP DSLR's), or the D3000 if you want better low ISO (the 10MP CCD gives a clean ISO100 which is very nice for landscape/architecture and anything else benefiting from more resolution).  I favor the D3000 because it has a newer image processing engine than the D40x/D60, which gives cleaner pics, and does automatic CA removal for JPEG's.
   
  The 12MP D5000/D90 sensor will give you a bit better high ISO, but is more expensive, and I still prefer the look of the 10MP CCD files overall (I find the on-chip noise reduction of the 12MP CMOS chip makes the images look a touch plastic-y).
   
  So anyway, if you are going to be doing mostly people/indoor photos, I'd get a D40/35 1.8.  Outdoor landscape, D3000/18-55vr.  Outdoor sports/nature D3000/55-200VR (70-300VR if you can swing it).
   
  KEH is kinda on the pricey side for used bodies.  You'd have better luck on a photo message board like FredMiranda, or say B&H or Adorama used stuff.  If going for a D3000, you might be able to find some really cheap factory refurbs (I think B&H had body-only for $269 a few months ago).


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

BTW here's a shot from the other night, testing the nighttime usefulness of a new-to-me 50 1.4G.  Even shot wide open, the coma and corner softness is much better than the 50 1.8.  Coma is noticeable at 1.4 and 2.0 in the corners, but is basically gone at f/2.8.
   
  The streaks on the mountain are holiday visitors on the way home down the mountain after a fireworks show, the dots communication towers and homes:
   

   
   
  Here's what the same scene can look like at daytime:


----------



## cswann1

Just a heads up here...
   
  Amazon.com has the D90 body (new, not refurbished) for $751.89
   
  I hope anyone whose been waiting for price drop sees this, it may not last long.


----------



## rhythmdevils

You guys sure get a lot of stars out in Nevada Iron Dreamer!  I haven't been out into the countryside much in a while, I miss it!  As Johnny Cash said, "I hate the city!"


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> You guys sure get a lot of stars out in Nevada Iron Dreamer!  I haven't been out into the countryside much in a while, I miss it!  As Johnny Cash said, "I hate the city!"


 

 Hehe, well all you need to do is drive a few hours east.  Any of the major pass roads up into the Sierra Nevada are beautiful, with different features, mountains, and lakes.  It is easy to find peace, darkness, and quiet, if that is what you seek.  And take some great night shots.
   
  On that note, I'll be heading off next week for the Northern Rockies with a Nikkor 14-24 in tow.  I hope I can do it justice with some great wide-open night shots.


----------



## rhythmdevils

yeah I know it is close that's what makes it so annoying.  I'm sick a lot these days and so I have to put my energy towards the necessities like work and home and food.  FOOEY!


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Yeah, that's no fun.  Well, I hope you feel better soon, and get out to the country.  There is always Point Reyes, just on the other side of Marin, very beautiful and serene.


----------



## dj_mocok

I thinned out many of me (excellent) rarely used lens. I don't feel so good now.


----------



## chews89

^ Which ones did u get rid of? I'm trying to get an idea of good lenses to look out for on ebay.


----------



## goober-george

Just bought a Nikon D3000 kit with the 18-55mm VR lens and it's refurbished from adorama. Really excited and anxious, can't wait to try it out.


----------



## moouers

I've only ever owned Nikon cameras, for 35mm anyway. I used Canon cameras back in the 10D days in a studio and I hated the image quality.
   
  Bought my Nikon N80 in 2000, my Coolpix 3200 in 2004 (I think? Yes it's old, but it still works perfectly for snapshots!) and my D50 in 2006. That's all I use for that format size and they suit my demands quite well. If I were to use my DSLR for the majority of my images, I would surely upgrade to something with higher dynamic range (D700 would be a good choice), but I do mostly film and rarely do landscapes with bright skies and dark land on my digital, so the D50 suits my needs all right for now. Lenses: Nikkor 20mm 2.8D, Nikkor 50mm 1.8D, Micro-Nikkor 60mm 2.8D, Nikkor 180mm 2.8D.
   
  I just recently purchased a Mamiya RB67 and I'm in love with the 6x7 format...but this is a Nikon thread, so that's all I'll say


----------



## nukeu666

Managed to snag a D80+nikkor 18-200VR for about 950$ last week
  Coupled with dad's old nikkor 50/1.4, doubt ill need to upgrade anytime soon


----------



## encg

edit


----------



## ccbass

Taken on Cape Cod.
   
  D90 + Sigma 18-50 2.8
   
  Stack of 58 images.


----------



## shigzeo

Nikon D200 and 24-70 2,8 (I am spoiled)
   
Ghost house in Cape Breton, Canada. 3 exposures merged in Photomatrix Pro. Not really cleaned up or anything, just merged. I know a lot of people don't like HDR, but I do!
   
  Just the link as I don't think this photo (or anyone's non-headphone photos) belong to Headfi.


----------



## rhythmdevils

So would it be really dumn to get a D700 right now?  I need a second camera body as a back-up and so I don't have to change lenses all the time.  Can't afford another D3, but a used D700 isn't that bad.
   
  But it doesn't seem like a good time for that!  They must be coming out with a D4 or D700x/s sometime soon. 
   
  I wonder if the used prices for D700's will drop much when a new one comes out.


----------



## bigshot

If you need a second body, you need it... Unless renting is an option until a new one comes out.


----------



## musicmaker

i got a like-new D700 on CL for a very very good price. I had the same dilemma about a new one coming out. However the timeframe is uncertain and I didnt want to miss taking pictures in the interim. Also even if the 700x/s comes out I think its going to be more expensive that what I can get a new/like-new D700 for now. The D700 does everything I want and more. I couldn't be happier.


----------



## musicmaker

Also what other features do you think a D700x/s or D800 will have. My guess is a megapixel improvement to catch up with the Canon 5d mark II, perhaps hd video and maybe other minor improvements. If they add too much, how can they justify their D3s  ?


----------



## rhythmdevils

yeah I don't think a D700s is likely.  I think that by the time a D4 comes out, a D700x would be more likely, a year or so from now when the D3X has been out for a while.  So the D700x would have that same sensor.  They're loosing a lot of sales to 5dmkii owners.  I mean there's lots of ways the D700 is a better camera- build quality, autofocus, color, high ISO.  But the 5D has twice the magapixels and barely has more noise, and it shoots gorgeous cinema quality 1080p video. 
   
  Musicmaker, do you mind if I ask how much you paid for your D700?  I'm guessing I'll have to pay around 1700.  I can kiss my LCD2 dreams good bye


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> If you need a second body, you need it... Unless renting is an option until a new one comes out.


 

 yeah I hate renting.  I'd rather buy used, and then just sell it and whatever loss I have will be much less than what I'd pay for renting.


----------



## musicmaker

My D700 had about 7K actuations, came with a grip and 2 additional batteries and a 4gb Sandisk Extreme. I paid $1775.
  
  Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> yeah I don't think a D700s is likely.  I think that by the time a D4 comes out, a D700x would be more likely, a year or so from now when the D3X has been out for a while.  So the D700x would have that same sensor.  They're loosing a lot of sales to 5dmkii owners.  I mean there's lots of ways the D700 is a better camera- build quality, autofocus, color, high ISO.  But the 5D has twice the magapixels and barely has more noise, and it shoots gorgeous cinema quality 1080p video.
> 
> Musicmaker, do you mind if I ask how much you paid for your D700?  I'm guessing I'll have to pay around 1700.  I can kiss my LCD2 dreams good bye


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





musicmaker said:


> My D700 had about 7K actuations, came with a grip and 2 additional batteries and a 4gb Sandisk Extreme. I paid $1775.


 

 Nice!  Yeah it looks like around 2k is what they often go for.


----------



## musicmaker

Also re the 5D MkII it was a camera I considered as I sold my D90 and all lenses I had and started from scratch. The 5D is a great landscape and portrait camera but frankly its AF system is nothing to write home about. The D700 AF system rocks. Also its low light performance is better than the 5D mkII (not night and day better but better). Also video was not a consideration for me. If you've read about focus constraints the 5D has with video, it becomes less appealing. Moreover, I carry a separate video recorder, so. Like I said I have no regrets. Also I love Nikon glass. Expensive but something about them (I have the 24-70mm f2.8 and 85mm 1.8). Planning to get the 14-24 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 VRII.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





musicmaker said:


> Also re the 5D MkII it was a camera I considered as I sold my D90 and all lenses I had and started from scratch. The 5D is a great landscape and portrait camera but frankly its AF system is nothing to write home about. The D700 AF system rocks. Also its low light performance is better than the 5D mkII (not night and day better but better). Also video was not a consideration for me. If you've read about focus constraints the 5D has with video, it becomes less appealing. Moreover, I carry a separate video recorder, so. Like I said I have no regrets. Also I love Nikon glass. Expensive but something about them (I have the 24-70mm f2.8 and 85mm 1.8). Planning to get the 14-24 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 VRII.


 

 Yeah I agree completely.  I own a 5dmkii (for video and backup camera) and focusing with it after shooting with the D3 is really frustrating.  I like my D3 so much more than the 5d for photography that I don't even want to use the 5d as a second camera.  But to be fair, it's also the fact that trying to use a nikon and canon at the same time would be nearly impossible for me, with the differences in the menus and controls.  I don't have to think at all when I shoot with my D3, my hands have a life of their own.  Whenever I pick up the Canon I'm always like ok, how do I change ISO again? 
   
  High ISO on the 5D is surprisingly good considering it's twice the megapixels.  I'd say it's a half-stop difference or so.  Maybe more, I haven't done tons of comparisons.


----------



## musicmaker

Yes the ISO performance at that megapixel is without doubt an achievement. If only they put a better AF system in it, the 5d mk2 would've been a killer camera and Canon would've eaten Nikon's lunch. I don't use flash much and take a lot of low light portraits etc. That AF system would not have been fun in low light not to mention action photography.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Yeah.  Even just putting aside physical focusing power, the ability to have so many different focusing points with the Nikons is amazing.  Not having to recompose after focusing is great I love taking a picture with the focus point right on someone's face.


----------



## lan

So what does everybody think of the new lenses?


----------



## rhythmdevils

I could care less about dx lenses.  It's nice they have a faster 85mm but Canon has a 1.2 that's been out for some time now and is drop dead gorgeous.  I still think Nikon must not realize who their customer base is.  A LOT of wedding photographers and photo-journalists shoot Nikon and the 85 prime is a studio lens.  Where's the 35 1.2?


----------



## bigshot

I'm interested in the continuous focus for video on the new version of the D3000. I wonder if it performs as well with very long or third party lenses. I'd love a really good mirrorless still video hybrid camera.


----------



## choka

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> I could care less about dx lenses.  It's nice they have a faster 85mm but Canon has a 1.2 that's been out for some time now and is drop dead gorgeous.  I still think Nikon must not realize who their customer base is.  A LOT of wedding photographers and photo-journalists shoot Nikon and the 85 prime is a studio lens.  Where's the 35 1.2?


 

 A LOT? My observation is, every dozen wedding photogs, there might be one Nikon guy...
   
  Anyway, Nikon is sure coming out with some awesome lenses lately. I got my 24/1.4 lately and it is drop dead amazing. I'm probably going ot pre-order the new 85... unless someone convinces me to wait for the new Sigma 85 to come out and show me convincing reviews that it is better.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





choka said:


> A LOT? My observation is, every dozen wedding photogs, there might be one Nikon guy...


 
   
  Well I don't really know I don't pay much attention to people's equipment.  But if that's true, then it's pretty weird.  I can't see why a wedding photographer would want a 5dmkii/Canon over a D700/Nikon. 
   
  But regardless I don't get why they prioritized a 24 and 85 over the 35.  But it's good they're making some kickass lenses!  The more the merrier!
   
  And continuous video is sweet too!  I am guessing that Nikon's next pro camera will really perfect DSLR video.  I bet they're just testing that tech in their consumer cameras


----------



## rhythmdevils

Do you guys think a subwoofer could damage my camera equipment?  I just got a car and the previous owner put a sub in the back, which is where I put all my equipment when I travel.  Last time I unplugged it for the trip cause I was worried about it.  Seems like those low frequencies could move things around a bit....
   
  I'm also wondering about having gear in a rolling bag- seems like all the bumps and vibrations wouldn't be good for gear either.


----------



## bigshot

Good cameras are designed to take abuse and rough treatment. The things you are worried about aren't even on the scale.


----------



## Teraflame

I went on a trip to china recently. I'd greatly appreciate it if you guys commented on my photos.
   
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/teraflame/sets/72157624749356297/detail/


----------



## rhythmdevils

Holy smokes.  Either this is a scam, or someone got a D3X for 900 dollars. 
   
  http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-DSLR-D3X-Body-Kit-Bat-Gift-2YrsWty-D3-X-05-NEW-/200515682494?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item2eafaa80be


----------



## bigshot

Would you bank wire a grand to someone in China? I sure wouldn't.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I might if there was a chance I'd get a brand new D3X for 950


----------



## bigshot

I guess that's why the scammers can keep on doing this.


----------



## mierenneuker

Nice, but overpriced.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I'm not sure it's that overpriced.  It's got a lot of cool features.  You practically don't have to do anything.  It has high iso, noise reduction, smile detection, red eye removal, vibration reduction, etc etc  
   
  And they finally are coming out with a super fast 35mm prime!  I hope it's not too expensive.  The 50mm 1.4 is around 350, but I don't imagine this will be in that ballpark because that's what the 35 f2 costs.  Would be nice though.  It couldn't cost as much as Canon's 1.2.  
   
  Also the new SB700 looks cool.  And I just bought an SB800 a week ago!  I probably still would though, because my radiopoppers don't work with the SB900 and likely won't with the SB700 either.  I'm curious what the deal is, if it's just a smaller SB900 or what.  Looks like it has some nice buttons on the back like a light modifying switch.


----------



## l1f35ux

If anyone is interested in Nikon 70-200 VR I please PM me.
   
  Thanks,


----------



## The Uam

Hey guys, need a quick answer.
  So I bought a new camera from a buddy (friend of a friend) that was selling his DSLR. The only reason I bought it was because I'm taking a photography class and it requires a DSLR (which my Canon S90 is not). So I bought his camera with two lenses for $500 Canadian.
  It is a Nikon D70S with two Sigma Lenses (both in great condition).
  One is a 24-70mm F2.8 DG Macro
  And the other is a 50-150mm F2.8 APO EX DC
  I'm just wondering If I got it for a good deal or not. If not, what should it be priced at?
  Any answers are greatly appreciated!!!


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





the uam said:


> Hey guys, need a quick answer.
> So I bought a new camera from a buddy (friend of a friend) that was selling his DSLR. The only reason I bought it was because I'm taking a photography class and it requires a DSLR (which my Canon S90 is not). So I bought his camera with two lenses for $500 Canadian.
> It is a Nikon D70S with two Sigma Lenses (both in great condition).
> One is a 24-70mm F2.8 DG Macro
> ...


 
   
  I'd say you got a good deal, the value of that stuff is probably around $800 or more?


----------



## choka

Anyone got the new 85/1.4G yet? I am seriously thinking about it...


----------



## jude

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> I'm not sure it's that overpriced.  It's got a lot of cool features.  You practically don't have to do anything.  It has high iso, noise reduction, smile detection, red eye removal, vibration reduction, etc etc
> 
> And they finally are coming out with a super fast 35mm prime!  I hope it's not too expensive.  The 50mm 1.4 is around 350, but I don't imagine this will be in that ballpark because that's what the 35 f2 costs.  Would be nice though.  It couldn't cost as much as Canon's 1.2.
> 
> Also the new SB700 looks cool.  And I just bought an SB800 a week ago!  I probably still would though, because my radiopoppers don't work with the SB900 and likely won't with the SB700 either.  I'm curious what the deal is, if it's just a smaller SB900 or what.  Looks like it has some nice buttons on the back like a light modifying switch.


 

 The P7000 looks interesting.  I picked up a Canon S90, thinking I could use it as a sort of occasional SLR replacement.  It's an impressive little camera, but one thing I miss on it is a flash shoe, just for those times that I want to do a product shot or something, and I just can't get the exposure I need without cranking up the ISO.  What I'm not liking about the P7000 are the initial reports I've seen in the dpreview.com forums about how long it takes to cycle when shooting RAW+JPEG--like over four seconds.  That's just way too long, and I'll be interested in seeing if firmware updates will be able to address that.
   
  I'm thinking of selling the S90, though, and getting the Panasonic Lumix LX5 to replace it, just for the shoe.


----------



## rhythmdevils

You could also get the G11.  It's essentially the same camera as the S90 (same senor) except with a bigger body which accomodates a hot shoe.


----------



## jude

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> You could also get the G11.  It's essentially the same camera as the S90 (same senor) except with a bigger body which accomodates a hot shoe.


 

 I've never handled the LX5, but it looks smaller than the G11 to me (but larger than the S90, the small size of which I dig).  Also, I know the LX5 is quite a bit shorter on the long end than the G11, but I like that it's a big ol' f/2.0 on the short end, going down to only f/3.3 at it's high side (90mm).
   
  An S90 (well, I guess it's an S95 now) with a hot shoe would be a groovy thing.  An S90 with my SB900 mounted to it...that would be quite a sight.
   
  But you're right that the G11/G12 look like impressive options to me.  (Before anyone recommends 4/3, which I know would net me better photos than any of the aforementioned compacts, they're still generally bigger than I'd like for the kind of focal length ranges that the fixed-lens ones above cover.)


----------



## rhythmdevils

I think what you really need is a second s90 (I'm selling mine 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)
   
  I want to see pics of your sb900 duct taped onto the top of your S90.  haha


----------



## JeckyllAndHyde

Any non-digital Nikon SLR's users here?
   
  A week ago I picked Nikkormat EL + Micro Nikkor 55mm 3,5 + 105 2,5 + Bellows PB-4 (with PS-4 slide adapter).
   
  My impressions: WOW! what a maschine! Its a semi-pro body with most of the Nikon F features and a nice automatic mode. Still waiting for battery replacement, but I'm very impressed so far.


----------



## Pseudonyms

Just picked up myself a Nikon D60 used from a friend of mine.  Got it plus a 50mm f/1.8 lens for only $300.  Not bad if you ask me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  A few pictures from it: NOTE: None of these are postprocessed except for resizing when needed. I've only had this little number for a week and I'm liking it so far. 
   

   
   

   
   
  My girlfriend was on the powderpuff football team and they had just won their game when I took this.  Thus the facepaint and mouthguard
   

   
  Anyways, sorry for eating up a chunk of the page. I've just been enjoying it a lot.


----------



## Exediron

Hey all, just ducked in here for a bit of advice. I'm looking for a lens for use on a Nikon DX camera (a D7000, in this case), in the super-telephoto range. The requirements for what I'm looking for are:
   
  Must be under $2000 in cost, new (or used from a reputable dealer such as B&H)
  Must cover the 400mm focal length, and preferably 500 as well.
  Must have AF.
   
  What I've given a serious look at so far are: Nikkor 80-400 VR and the Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 (OS versions). The 150-500 does everything I want, except that I've heard fairly consistently that it isn't sharp past 300mm. The 50-500 isn't any cheaper than the Nikkor, but it does have slightly more range. A third option that I've considered would be to get the new TCE-20 III teleconverter and use it with my 70-200 VRII. I'm sure that the 70-200 is optically superior to any of the others, but I don't know how well it would retain that advantage with a 2x teleconverter. Also, it wouldn't go to 500mm.
   
  Any advice is welcome, except for people telling me to just get closer. I know what I want, and it's naive to think that you can always 'just get closer'.


----------



## ccbass

Quote: 





exediron said:


> Hey all, just ducked in here for a bit of advice. I'm looking for a lens for use on a Nikon DX camera (a D7000, in this case), in the super-telephoto range. The requirements for what I'm looking for are:
> 
> Must be under $2000 in cost, new (or used from a reputable dealer such as B&H)
> Must cover the 400mm focal length, and preferably 500 as well.
> ...


 


  Primary use?


----------



## rhythmdevils

Pseudonyms, the second picture of the trees with fall colors is fantastic.  Really a great shot.  The light is gorgeous, and you must have gotten the exposure dead on because you have tons of detail thoughout the highlights and shadows.  Very impressive!  I'm guessing the soft winter light helped with this one, but that is definitely a picture to look at and sit with and think about.  Not that you need to replicate it, but whatever your process was for that picture, it worked.  The other two I'm not quite as fond of, with the blown out highlights in the first and very dark exposure in the third.  But it's clear that you're having fun and playing around with different angles and ideas because none of these pictures are straightforward, which is good.  Keep it up! 
   
  And congrats on the D60 by the way.


----------



## Exediron

Quote: 





ccbass said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Small wildlife, outdoors.


----------



## Pseudonyms

Quote:


rhythmdevils said:


> Pseudonyms, the second picture of the trees with fall colors is fantastic.  Really a great shot.  The light is gorgeous, and you must have gotten the exposure dead on because you have tons of detail thoughout the highlights and shadows.  Very impressive!  I'm guessing the soft winter light helped with this one, but that is definitely a picture to look at and sit with and think about.  Not that you need to replicate it, but whatever your process was for that picture, it worked.  The other two I'm not quite as fond of, with the blown out highlights in the first and very dark exposure in the third.  But it's clear that you're having fun and playing around with different angles and ideas because none of these pictures are straightforward, which is good.  Keep it up!
> 
> And congrats on the D60 by the way.


 

 Thank you! I did particularly enjoy the second picture, and I thought it was one of the better ones I have taken. I'm still learning, so I'm taking all the C&C I can get! 
   
  Oh yeah. I went for a bike ride today. Grabbed a couple pics, but none turned out that particularly great.

   
  That one turned out ok I thought.


----------



## Stormbringer

You shouldn't crop a small part of the subject. For example, a head shot is fine of course, but a headshot where the left ear or the top of the head is cropped is not so nice. What I'm saying is that that whole wheel should be on the picture. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Also, it's very tight, there's no room at the top either.
   
  And most of the time it's nicer if you don't have the subject in the middle, see Rule of Thirds (Google it). In your case I would have placed the bike more to the right, as it faces to the left. That will give you more depth.


----------



## Stormbringer

Quote: 





choka said:


> Anyone got the new 85/1.4G yet? I am seriously thinking about it...


 


  Me too, but I don't have the money!  First priority is saving for the D800.


----------



## Pseudonyms

Actually I didn't crop that.  I was just in a crappy position when I took it.
   
  I'll remember that next time.  Thanks!


----------



## milkpowder

Quote: 





exediron said:


> Hey all, just ducked in here for a bit of advice. I'm looking for a lens for use on a Nikon DX camera (a D7000, in this case), in the super-telephoto range. The requirements for what I'm looking for are:
> 
> Must be under $2000 in cost, new (or used from a reputable dealer such as B&H)
> Must cover the 400mm focal length, and preferably 500 as well.
> ...


 


   
  My father just picked up a 50-500OS.  It was between it and the 150-500OS.  There's very little to choose between them but decided to get the newer of the two.  Decent pro-sumer lens with 2-3 stops of effective OS/VR.  You're never going to get the sharpness of the 70-200 but then again it costs quite a bit less and the zoom range is pretty incredible.  My only real concern is AF speed especially at the long end.  Actually, the max aperture is already at F/6 roundabout 300mm or so I recall.  Anyhow, I posted my brief impressions at another forum already:
   
  Quote: 





> It's quite decent actually.  The OS works much better than expected.
> 
> I wonder if there's a slight focus issue on this copy.  Focus speed is generally good but there is a bit more searching than I would like, especially at the longer end.  My D300 doesn't like AF'ing at F/6.3.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stormbringer

What about a 300mm f/4 + 1.4TC? My personal choice would be the 70-200mm + 2.0TC like you said, because I would use the 70-200mm on his own extensively. But the 300mm is cheaper, with slightly more reach.


----------



## dirkpitt45

Hello camera people 
   
  Anyone have an idea for a good (not too expensive) gift for my father who has a D90? He mostly shoots outdoors and just has one lens so far. I remember seeing these hood things for cameras, kinda sorta cases but they can cover the whole thing? He left his old SLR (forgot the kind, it was from the 80s though, nikon still I think) outside on the deck one night at camp and it got rained on and ruined. So he's kinda paranoid about his camera now.


----------



## boymasskara

Hi guys!
   
  just wanna ask something. Is it worth it buying the 17-55mm f2.8 or should i just stick with the kit lens(18-55mm)? i have a D60 and D90 for my bodies.


----------



## chews89

I have a friend who has a 17-55mm 2.8
   
  Pretty awesome lens and incredibly sharp. However I think it would make more sense to get a 24-70mm 2.8 as it gives you  room to upgrade to a full frame body (which is inevitable for everyone hehe) and it's not that much more expensive.


----------



## Stormbringer

I would get the Tamron 17-50mm. As sharp as the Nikon, for 1/3 of the money! Of course the build quality is not as good, and the focusing is not lightning fast, but optically it really matches the Nikon.
   
  The 24-70 (or the new 24-120 for that matter) are better of course, and you could indeed upgrade to full frame without having to replace all of your lenses, but 24mm (=36mm equivalent) wouldn't be wideangle enough for a DX body. However, if you have something like a 12-24mm, you could do great things with those two. But I just would go for the 17-50 (or Nikon 17-55) and upgrade the lens too if you'll go full frame.


----------



## bigshot

It's a huge mistake to buy a lens for a camera you don't have instead of getting one you can use with the camera you have. A 24-70 is lousy on DX.

I have both the 18-55 kit lens and the Tamron 17-50 2.8. The kit lens is great for carrying around all day. It's lightweight and sharp in daylight. The Tamron is more versatile in low light without being too much heavier. The Nikon 17-55 2.8 is about the same as the Tamron, just much heavier.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





stormbringer said:


> What about a 300mm f/4 + 1.4TC? My personal choice would be the 70-200mm + 2.0TC like you said, because I would use the 70-200mm on his own extensively. But the 300mm is cheaper, with slightly more reach.


 


  That's exactly what I would do.  It's as good with the TC-14E as without.  Any of the zooms with the TC-20E are absolutely horrendous.  Even with the TC-14E they don't perform at the same level as the primes.  You could even take the remaining money and get an 85mm f/1.8D or a used 80-200mm f/2.8D to compliment it on the short end.
   
  The prime will be far and away better (in image quality, build quality, and focusing speed [assuming the AF-S version]) than any of the super-zooms will provide.

 Actually, if you're willing to spring for used you may be able to find one of the 300mm f/2.8 AF-I lenses for under $2000.  A manual focus one (if that would suit you) will be well under $1000 (I got one for about $600).
   
  I personally don't need that kind of reach so bad, so I've got an 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S and a TC-14E II.  I'm thinking about getting rid of the TC and buying a 300mm f/4 AF, which I had a while ago - great lens but slow AF.
   
  As for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - yeah, that's my favorite lens - the one I would take if I could only have one.  Relatively small and lightweight, good build quality, and stunning image quality.  It's wide enough that I hardly ever wish I had a wider lens.  I'd rather save the money or spend it on long glass (or the F3/T I may get soon).  It's nice not to ever have to switch for something wider, either.
   
  If I didn't have any need for the speed, the kit lens would be awesome.  Maybe even the kit lens + 35mm f/1.8G AF-S.  Well, if I didn't already have a 35mm f/1.4 AI-S.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> A 24-70 is lousy on DX.


 

 Gonna have to disagree with you on that one.


----------



## bigshot

The only use for a 24-70 on DX I can think of is as a portrait lens. But I would much rather use a 1.4 50mm for that.

For a general use walk around lens, 24 just isn't wide enough. For landscapes an architecture it would be extremely limiting.

Telephoto and wide zooms can have uses on both DX and FF. It just shifts purpose along with the crop factor. But an extremely short tele zoom is a poor replacement for a zoom that covers a little wide to a little long.


----------



## Stormbringer

Like I said before, I too think 24mm is too long for general use on DX. But I know some people for whom 35mm (equivalent) is more than enough. Still, if you want one walk-around zoom-lens, 95% of the people would prefer 24-70mm (16-47mm on DX, but the 17-50mm lenses are pretty much the same) over 36-105mm (24-70mm on DX).


----------



## bigshot

You lost me on the math there. Are you applying the 1.5 crop the wrong direction? A 35mm isn't much of a wide angle in FF range.


----------



## Stormbringer

Sorry, now I see it's not very clear.
   
  What I have between brackets is in DX terms, outside the brackets is FX. This is what I was trying to say:
   
  You have these options in lenses:
  1) 24-70mm on FX (16-47mm DX-equivalent)
  2) 17-50mm on DX (26-75mm FX equivalent)
  3) 24-70mm on DX (36-105mm FX equivalent)
   
  So I would go for 1) or 2), which are practically the same thing.


----------



## Graphicism

I have the 35mm f/1.8G on my Nikon D3100 and consider it wide enough for a walkabout/general shooting lens. The only time you would need anything wider is for landscape, for anything else I can just use my feet to zoom.


----------



## bigshot

A normal prime is a little closer than a short tele zoom, but it doesn't serve the same function as a midrange zoom.


----------



## Teerawit

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> You lost me on the math there. Are you applying the 1.5 crop the wrong direction? A 35mm isn't much of a wide angle in FF range.


 

 Yes it is. 35mm is still a wide angle on FF.
   
  Then again I like my FF + 85mm as a walkaround.


----------



## bigshot

The poster asking the question has a D90.


----------



## Teerawit

That doesn't change anything. He's talking about getting a 24mm lens on APS-C, which has the equivalent angle of view as a 35mm on FF. 35mm on FF is still a wide angle, just not uuuuuuuuuuultra wide.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





teerawit said:


> That doesn't change anything. He's talking about getting a 24mm lens on APS-C, which has the equivalent angle of view as a 35mm on FF. 35mm on FF is still a wide angle, just not uuuuuuuuuuultra wide.


 


  Plenty of people would call it a normal lens, or perhaps "normal-wide".  It's only ever so slightly farther from the hypothetical "normal" lens for 35mm/FX than 50mm is.  Would you call 50mm or 55mm a long focus lens (often incorrectly considered synonymous with "telephoto")?
   
  A 35-105mm f/2.8 equivalent lens surely isn't a bad thing, especially if you have a wider lens too (which probably means a DX lens, so you'll have invested in DX glass anyway).  But the 24-70mm (and 14-24mm) is hella huge on a D300 compared to say, a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - and for me (and others) that goes wide enough that you'd rarely want wider.  What that means is you carry one less lens, and the one you do carry is a whole lot tinier - not to mention cheaper.
   
  When I worked as a photojournalist, I could have done 99% of my photography (excluding sports and theater) with just the wide-short tele zoom.  Of course, I love to use telephotos for their ability to visually compress things - so I didn't.  Most of the time though, that was for outdoor personal photography and not assignments.


----------



## bigshot

The numbers in focal lengths mean a lot more the wider you get. The difference between 18 and 35 is a lot more than the difference between 35 and 55. A 35mm equivalent lens on DX is still in the normal range. I don't know what I'd do with a 35 to 70. Portraits I suppose, but I'd have to stay away from the schnozz enhancing 35 end.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The numbers in focal lengths mean a lot more the wider you get. The difference between 18 and 35 is a lot more than the difference between 35 and 55. A 35mm equivalent lens on DX is still in the normal range. I don't know what I'd do with a 35 to 70. Portraits I suppose, but I'd have to stay away from the schnozz enhancing 35 end.


 


  Well, for photojournalists during the '90s it was their go-to lens.  I don't blame them either, because that's the most useful range for that work.
   
  I'm not talking differences, I'm talking percentage differences - which is what matters.
   
  85mm/43.3mm = 96.3% longer than "normal"
  55mm/43.3mm = 27.0% longer than "normal"
  35mm/28.4mm = 23.3% longer than "normal"
  50mm/43.3mm = 15.5% longer than "normal"
  43.3mm/35mm = "normal" is 23.7% longer
  43.3mm/28mm = "normal" is 54.6% longer
  43.3mm/24mm = "normal" is 80.4% longer
  43.3mm/20mm = "normal" is 116.5% longer
   
  So as you can see, a 35mm lens on DX is almost the same difference from the "normal" focal length as a 35mm lens is on 35mm/FX.  Also, I believe that most of Nikon's 50mm lenses also measure about 52mm nominally - which would also put them almost as away from "normal" at 20.2% when compared to a 35mm lens.


----------



## bigshot

We are talking about a good midrange zoom for DX. 24 isn't wide enough to be wide on DX. It doesn't cover the range of wide to long as well as a 17-55.


----------



## Stormbringer

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> 85mm/43.3mm = 96.3% longer than "normal"
> 55mm/43.3mm = 27.0% longer than "normal"
> 35mm/28.4mm = 23.3% longer than "normal"
> 50mm/43.3mm = 15.5% longer than "normal"
> ...


 
  Can you explain me why the diagonal of the sensor is "normal"?


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





stormbringer said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 I'll just do a little cut'n'paste from Wikipedia (here):
   
   
  Quote:


> In photography and cinematography a *normal lens* is a lens that reproduces perspective that generally looks "natural" to a human observer under normal viewing conditions, as compared with lenses with longer or shorter focal lengths which produce an expanded or contracted field-of-view. Lenses of shorter focal length are called _wide-angle lenses_, while longer focal length lenses are referred to as long focus lenses[1] (with the most common of that type being the _telephoto lenses_).
> 
> A lens with a focal length about equal to the diagonal size of the film or sensor format is known as a normal lens; its angle of view is similar to the angle subtended by a large-enough print viewed at a typical viewing distance equal to the print diagonal;[2] this angle of view is about 53° diagonally.


 
   
  Basically, a photograph taken with a lens with the same focal length as the diagonal of the imaging area will have the same angle of view as you have when viewing a print of the photograph.  In other words, it preserves the spacial relationship of the objects in the photo from our point of view.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> We are talking about a good midrange zoom for DX. 24 isn't wide enough to be wide on DX. It doesn't cover the range of wide to long as well as a 17-55.


 

  
  A 35-70mm equivalent lens is definitely a good midrange zoom - that was the standard for 20 years...  THE _original _mid-range zoom.  Well, as long as you don't count the abysmal 43-86mm lens.
   
  Now, is 28-70mm or 24-70mm better?  Yes, all else equal.  But plenty of people are happy using their 35-70mm f/2.8 on FX cameras as a lighter, much cheaper alternative to the big and expensive zooms of the 2000s.  You can get one for under $250 on eBay, and it performs just as well as the newer lenses.
   
  E.g. http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond700/discuss/72157612451902147/


----------



## bigshot

Wiggly mind.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Wiggly mind.


 


  Ummm?
   
This is all that I found on that subject...


----------



## Stormbringer

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Basically, a photograph taken with a lens with the same focal length as the diagonal of the imaging area will have the same angle of view as you have when viewing a print of the photograph.  In other words, it preserves the spacial relationship of the objects in the photo from our point of view.


 
  Ok, thanks! So that "50mm = normal" is not entirely true. Good to know.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





stormbringer said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Yeah - 50mm was pretty much a compromise, because it's a lot easier to design a fast lens for.  Up to 60mm is even easier - that's why you see lots of 55mm and 60mm macros - and older fast lenses are often 55mm or 58mm.  Part of the problem is that mirrors get in the way of SLR lens design, making retrofocus lens design necessary for about 50mm and shorter lenses that aren't for rangefinder or P&S cameras.


----------



## Pseudonyms

Just got a D3100. I was going to get a D60 but the seller ended up backing out on the deal. Oh well, I like the D3100 more as of now.
   
  Heres a test video I took with it. Excuse the black box frame. It's a render issue that I need to fix. But I like how it turned out
   





   
  If anyone is curious: It came with an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, but for this test I was using a 50mm f/1.8 that my dad used to use on his late 80's Nikon film SLR  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I love how SLR manufacturers stick to the same mount types.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





pseudonyms said:


> I love how SLR manufacturers stick to the same mount types.


 


  Not canon!


----------



## Pseudonyms

Well I know Nikon and Pentax do. Aswell as Tamron. But they dont make DSLRs last time I checked


----------



## definitelydan

i just got myself a d90 less than a month back but recently had a minor accident with the camera. it was slung behind me as i was picking something up from the floor but as i stood up the lens knocked quite hard against the bottom of a table. any chance that the lens/camera is damaged? are there any diagnostic tests that i can run?


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





definitelydan said:


> i just got myself a d90 less than a month back but recently had a minor accident with the camera. it was slung behind me as i was picking something up from the floor but as i stood up the lens knocked quite hard against the bottom of a table. any chance that the lens/camera is damaged? are there any diagnostic tests that i can run?


 


  Look for physical damage.  If no noticeable physical damage, just keep on using it.  If you notice no problems, then you lucked out.


----------



## definitelydan

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 okay everything seems fine on the surface i guess. im just worried that it may've affected the autofocus or something because there are certain times it just won't focus but that may be due to other factors


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





definitelydan said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  Keep trying it and make sure you are using your auto focus on things with very well defined shape and texture.  Still, even if the object is not well defined the auto focus should take, at most a second, and then 'hunt' for focus (by zooming all the way out and then in).  If the auto focus does nothing, then you may have broke it.
  My hunch though is that even if it was a good wack, if the lens glass is not broke and the outside plastic is not broke, everything should still be fine.  Even nikons cheapest plastic lenses are fairly resistant to breaking from bangs.  (3ft drops, not so much).


----------



## definitelydan

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  great, thanks for the advice.


----------



## jononku

Hey, anybody else using an SB-400?  My 600 died unexpectedly a few months before xmas and I decided to go with it's little brother since my main use was for bounce and the odd time I need a bit more power. 
  I am very impressed with it, does a great job and it is so small I can pretty much leave it on my D70 all the time.  A buddy of mine that is professional photographer, and originally sold me on the SB-600 a couple years back, came over and was so impressed with it he went out and got one for himself.


----------



## Pseudonyms

It was icy out this morning.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





jononku said:


> Hey, anybody else using an SB-400?  My 600 died unexpectedly a few months before xmas and I decided to go with it's little brother since my main use was for bounce and the odd time I need a bit more power.
> I am very impressed with it, does a great job and it is so small I can pretty much leave it on my D70 all the time.  A buddy of mine that is professional photographer, and originally sold me on the SB-600 a couple years back, came over and was so impressed with it he went out and got one for himself.


 


  I have one.
  I wish it could rotate 90º so that I can bounce flash in portrait orientation.
 Other than that, nice little flash.


----------



## jononku

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> I have one.  I wish it could rotate 90º so that I can bounce flash in portrait orientation.
> Other than that, nice little flash.


 


  Yeah, that is the only drawback.  I've found that bouncing off a side wall works okay though, and I read that using a small mirror works too.


----------



## Butler

My Current Gear Gear: Nikon D7000 + MB-D11 Grip, Nikon SB-700 Speed Light, AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm 3.5-5.6f VRII, AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1.8f, AF Fisheye Nikkor 10.5mm 2.8f
   
  Case: LowePro Outback 200, and a LowePro Backpack
   
  Portfolio: http://revsum.com 
   
  It's nice having a event photography contract to pay for all my hi-fi equipment. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
   
  I love all my gear so much, I have little to no complaints. The 18-200 VRII is a godsend.  I'm almost as big as a Nikon fanboy as I am for Audio Technica's!


----------



## rjoseph

My first post in this thread. I have a D3100, along with the 18-55mm and 50-200mm lens. I'm looking to add a wide angle lens to the mix to shoot akin to some of the awesome wide angle shots I've seen online. Mind you, I'm a novice and so may not be able to grasp all the technical stuff. Would you recommend a make/type etc thats not too expensive? Thanks.


----------



## bigshot

The best is probably the Tokina 11-16 2.8, but all of the third party ultrawides are good.


----------



## rhythmdevils

My sister just got a D7000 for her trip to Africa and I was helping her get to know it beforehand.  It's an amazing camera!  Anyone considering it should just pull the trigger.  I was amazed how many features they put into that little prosumer body.  I always thought they would save dual card slots for the pro cameras.


----------



## caracara08

was choosing between the d3100 and the t3i.. went with the t3i but the more i read, i think the d3100 would have been a great choice at a lower price..


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> My sister just got a D7000 for her trip to Africa and I was helping her get to know it beforehand.  It's an amazing camera!  Anyone considering it should just pull the trigger.  I was amazed how many features they put into that little prosumer body.  I always thought they would save dual card slots for the pro cameras.


 


  I have been thinking about upgrading my D90 to D7000, but I have problems fiding the time to do research and am a bit of a scrooge


----------



## Towert7

Quote:  





> Would you recommend a make/type etc thats not too expensive? Thanks.


 


  I like the Nikon lenses.  They work good with Nikon cameras.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> I have been thinking about upgrading my D90 to D7000, but I have problems fiding the time to do research and am a bit of a scrooge


 

 That sounds more like a side-grade than an upgrade.  The D90 was such a great camera.  I can't see anyone needing much more than it can deliver unless you are a serious pro.


----------



## Towert7

A couple of weeks ago I did my typical yearly undergraduate commencement job, and this year I decided to bring along my Nikon Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G on my second rig.  Not the expensive VR mind you, but the cheap old 150$ lens.
   
  I can not say enough good things about the photos I get off this lens.   It seems every time I use this lens I want to recommend it to people.  If you have a need for the 70-300mm range and are on a budget, you OWE it to yourself to pickup this lens.  I'm going to post up a few photos from it shortly.
   
  The images it produces have a certain softness to the bokeh that is just dreamy.  I love it!  Color is fantastic as well.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> That sounds more like a side-grade than an upgrade.  The D90 was such a great camera.  I can't see anyone needing much more than it can deliver unless you are a serious pro.


 

 I agree in the sense that the D90 is going to be more than what most people are able to take advantage of, and most of the features and capability of the D7000 will not be used.  But I used the D90 for a day, and was really not happy with it's usability or the images it made.  The D7000 on the other hand seemed like a great camera to me even coming from the D3.  It's got probably the best auto mode of any camera I've ever used, I was amazed at the exposures it made on it's own.  And high iso is surprisingly good considering it has more megapixels and it's a smaller sensor than my D3.  That's just a few things.  It's really a pro camera in a small, cheap package.  At least that is my impression based on limited use of each camera.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> But I used the D90 for a day, and was really not happy with it's usability or the images it made.


 
   
  Hm.
 I'm always shocked when I hear things like this. 
   
  My main camera is an old D50 (6mp, 1600 ISO max with grain, small viewfinder).  When the D90 came out I said to myself "boy, no one would every need more camera that this.... unless if they actually do photography as a job."  It fixed every qualm I had with my little D50.  I could live with a D90 and be the happiest photographer in the world.
   
  Truth be told, I almost never say to myself  "gee, the D50 is holding me back".  What I usually wind up saying is "Dam, I wish I had more expensive lenses".
  And that's the truth.  ^_^
   
  Funny how that works.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> I have been thinking about upgrading my D90 to D7000, but I have problems fiding the time to do research and am a bit of a scrooge


 



  Quote: 





towert7 said:


> That sounds more like a side-grade than an upgrade.  The D90 was such a great camera.  I can't see anyone needing much more than it can deliver unless you are a serious pro.


 


  It would indeed be more of a side-grade than an upgrade, but all things considered D7000 seems to be a much better camera than D90. It is, at the same time, much more expensive and that puts me off as I am just an enthusiast who takes photos from time to time (spending 9months a year in the field where I am not even allowed oto take my camera out does not help this hobby at all). 
   
  Hence at this point I am more thinking about getting a tele lens to complement my Tamron 17-50 than upgrading the camera. Upgraditis is a disease I suffer a lot though, in all departments of my gaget life.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I guess we have different perspectives. The D3 is the only digital camera I've ever used heavily, I went to it from medium format film.  Going to the D90 from the D3 felt like a fairly huge downgrade and annoyance.  Going from the D3 to the D7000, I didn't feel like I was missing much except for that last bit of image quality and high ISO performance.  The handling and usability was almost as good, which is pretty impressive. 
   
  I agree that the D90 is plenty for probably everyone looking for that kind of camera, but I did think that the D7000 had better usability (screen on top, not just the LCD on the back), better auto modes, better auto focus, better high iso, moar megapixels, dual card slots, more custom functions and features.  I think even just left in auto mode, the D7000 will make much better pictures than the D90.  Whether they need that improvement or not for what they use if for, I'm not sure.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> I guess we have different perspectives. The D3 is the only digital camera I've ever used heavily, I went to it from medium format film.  Going to the D90 from the D3 felt like a fairly huge downgrade and annoyance.  Going from the D3 to the D7000, I didn't feel like I was missing much except for that last bit of image quality and high ISO performance.  The handling and usability was almost as good, which is pretty impressive.
> 
> I agree that the D90 is plenty for probably everyone looking for that kind of camera, but I did think that the D7000 had better usability (screen on top, not just the LCD on the back), better auto modes, better auto focus, better high iso, moar megapixels, dual card slots, more custom functions and features.  I think even just left in auto mode, the D7000 will make much better pictures than the D90.  Whether they need that improvement or not for what they use if for, I'm not sure.


 


   
  D7000 is definitely a better camera than D90.
   
  As for the scren on top = D90 has that too, I do not know how you missed that.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> As for the scren on top = D90 has that too, I do not know how you missed that.


 

  
  I was going to respond with this very thing.  Now I'm wondering, were you talking about the D60 perhaps?


----------



## marko93101

Any suggestions on a good 50mm for the D3100? I only have the stock 18-55 and it really is getting on my nerves :3


----------



## bigshot

If you mean a normal prime, the Nikon 35 1.8 is the one to get. A 50mm will be a short tele on DX.

What's wrongwih the 18-55?


----------



## marko93101

It just gets annoying. I never adjust it and i dont need it


----------



## bigshot

Anything you buy to replace it will cost at least twice as much as you paid for it. The 18-55 is a remarkably sharp lens. It might be easier to suggest a replacement if you could articulate what you're looking for.


----------



## BigBird

I'm just a amature photographer, my setup is pretty basic
  -Ancient Nikon D70
  -usually a 60mm Micro Nikkor Lens or Nikkor 24-120mm lens
    Like i said I'm no expert but is it just me or to anyone who has owned the AF-S 24-120 lens. Its TERRIBLE in my opinion the build quality is flimsy to say the least and no aperture ring.  The only thing good about it is the fast and silent Auto Focus and VR.


----------



## marko93101

I'm not sure what I need because I'm new to this. Alot of people suggested a nifty fifty..
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Anything you buy to replace it will cost at least twice as much as you paid for it. The 18-55 is a remarkably sharp lens. It might be easier to suggest a replacement if you could articulate what you're looking for.


----------



## bigshot

When you are looking for new lenses, it's important to figure out what you want to shoot with it. A 50mm lens is useful for portraits, but it is a short telephoto, making it not very useful for landscapes.

Your 18-55 VR is an excellent lens. Don't underestimate it. It isn't the best at shooting in the dark, but under daylight, it can do an awful lot. Before you buy another lens, you should think about what kinds of things you want to shoot and use your 18-55 to see if you would like a lens that is more of a telephoto, or more of a wide angle. Better to supplement what you have with something different than to replace what you already have.


----------



## rexg

if you are using the digital format, the 35mm f1.8 is actually better. I use one myself and it is like a 50mm in full format.


----------



## bigshot

That is a great lens for low light. The other option is to get the 55-200 VR to complement the 18-55. It all depends on what he wants to shoot. The 18-55, 55-200 and 35 1.8 are all most people will ever need. Great kit of lenses.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





marko93101 said:


> I'm not sure what I need because I'm new to this. Alot of people suggested a nifty fifty..


 
   
  If you want to experiment with what a really nice lens is, get the Nikon 50mm F1.8 for starters.  Best 100$ you can spend for image quality.
  That should whet your appetite for wanting better and more expensive lenses!


----------



## Butler

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> When you are looking for new lenses, it's important to figure out what you want to shoot with it. A 50mm lens is useful for portraits, but it is a short telephoto, making it not very useful for landscapes.
> 
> Your 18-55 VR is an excellent lens. Don't underestimate it. It isn't the best at shooting in the dark, but under daylight, it can do an awful lot. Before you buy another lens, you should think about what kinds of things you want to shoot and use your 18-55 to see if you would like a lens that is more of a telephoto, or more of a wide angle. Better to supplement what you have with something different than to replace what you already have.


 
   
  The 18-55 is considerably slower. You're going to have much better luck in average to low light with a fixed 50mm. I use my fixed 35mm 1.8f much more than even my 18-200 because of the aperature.


----------



## mbriant

Generic, non-Nikon, Nikon EN-EL3e batteries
   
  Sorry if this has been covered here somewhere, but I was wondering if anyone has any actual experience with these batteries.  They're much cheaper to buy than genuine Nikon batteries.  Are their advertised specs true?  Can they damage my camera.  Is one brand better than another?  Has anyone actually purchased and used these batteries?
   
  I have a D700 and D300s, both with battery grips.
   
  Thanks


----------



## jude

Quote: 





mbriant said:


> Generic, non-Nikon, Nikon EN-EL3e batteries
> 
> Sorry if this has been covered here somewhere, but I was wondering if anyone has any actual experience with these batteries.  They're much cheaper to buy than genuine Nikon batteries.  Are their advertised specs true?  Can they damage my camera.  Is one brand better than another?  Has anyone actually purchased and used these batteries?
> 
> ...


 

 mbriant, I have a D300, and I only use Nikon batteries with it.  My decision to do this has nothing to do with any specific experience with this camera, but with aftermarket third-party batteries for PDAs (back when PDAs weren't our phones or tablet computers).  Many would advertise higher mAh ratings, but I've never had a so-called high-capacity PDA lithium-ion battery outperform the stock batteries, with a couple performing substantially worse.
   
  If you already have the Nikon battery grips, spring for at least one Nikon EN-EL4a.  It's expensive (in combination with the charger you need to buy for it), but, with it, I'll use my D300 for _extended _periods without having to recharge.  I've gotten away with just that battery through a whole CES with charge to spare when I got home.


----------



## mbriant

Thanks for the input Jude. This is just as I suspected. I've owned several other digital Nikons and have never used anything but genuine Nikon batteries in any of them...not because of the likelihood their specs were bogus (when you can buy 5 generics for the price of 1 Nikon, I could live with a shorter charge) but because I'm concerned about them somehow frying my camera's circuitry or catching fire during charging. Guess I'll stick with the expensive Nikons.


----------



## Towert7

Just purchased the nikkor 24mm F/2.8D.  I've been lusting over this lens for years, and it finally stayed in stock long enough for me to order one.
   
  Just took a few tests photos, and it's reputation as one of the sharpest nikkor lenses is well deserved.
   
  This was handheld:
   



  Full Size: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5200/5892041672_89c95801f8_o.jpg
  Taken with an old 6mp D50.  I can't imagine how much sharper you can get with a full frame 24mp camera like the D3's.
   
  I'm so excited!


----------



## marko93101

That is one nice photo!


----------



## Szadzik

I have to ask you guys for advice.
   
  I have had a Nikon D90 and Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (old non-VC version) for over 2 years now and have wondering about buying an additional tele lens forever. 
   
  I do lots of photography inside, portraits and stuff like that, but twice a year I go on a -city-trip. I have been to Rome, Florence, Paris, etc., etc. 
   
  My question to you is - how much would I benefit from buying a tele and using it while I am visiting those nice cities? Soon I am going to Amsterdam and Paris and will be doing a lot of photos architecture and keep thinking about getting the additional lens. 
   
  The problem is, I prefer to carry only one lens with me and I am not sure if carrying only something like 70-300 will be good enough.
   
  If I decided to buy a tele lens, what would you recommend for my D90 in a resonable price? I am just an amateur who si still learning and would prefer not to spend $2000 on a lens I will use twice a year.
   
  UNLESS that something is really good.
   
  I can always buy a 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VRII Nikkor, but maybe there are other lenses I am not aware of that would be better than this one - it is not the fastest lens I have seen and my f2.8 Tamron got me used to a lot of light 
   
  P.S. About that reasonable price - I would say $1200 would be my price range, but it is just a figure and can change depending on circumstances. I live in Europe, and will be buying from there.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> I have to ask you guys for advice.


 


  Reading your post the lens that jumped to mind was the nikon 18-200mm VR.  I'm surprised you didn't mention this as one you were considering.
   
  It is not the last word in optical clarity, and at the wide end it has a little spherical distortion, but these are pretty minor things all considered.  Color distortion is quite minimal, and the VR is nice.  It also does pretty ok closeup photography at the 200mm end (but again, not the last word on macro photographs).  Flare control is good.
   
  When I go on vacation, and I only want to bring one lens, it is the 18-200VR and a polarizer.  It has enough range that I can get all sorts of images.  From wide angle views to telephoto closeups.
   
  Being stuck at 70mm would be way too limiting for the vacation photos I do (though you may be different).
   
  I'm not sure if you have already ruled it out, but I would recommend considering it.  It is also easily within your budget.


----------



## Towert7

dbl post


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> Reading your post the lens that jumped to mind was the nikon 18-200mm VR.  I'm surprised you didn't mention this as one you were considering.
> It is not the last word in optical clarity, and at the wide end it has a little spherical distortion, but these are pretty minor things all considered.  Color distortion is quite minimal, and the VR is nice.  It also does pretty ok closeup photography at the 200mm end (but again, not the last word on macro photographs).  Flare control is good.
> 
> When I go on vacation, and I only want to bring one lens, it is the 18-200VR and a polarizer.  It has enough range that I can get all sorts of images.  From wide angle views to telephoto closeups.
> ...


 


   
  I have to agree that 18-200 sounds very interesting and I have given this lens a lot of thought, but still cannot believe it is the best choice. 
   
  It's relatively light, has nice zoom range and ok optics with great VR system. Looking at its price however - I can get the forementioned Tamron 70-200 F2.8 that is a class better in every single aspect acording to dslrgear:
   
Nikkor 18-200
   
Tamron 70-200
   
  The Nikon seems to be a great holiday lens, but is a big compromise in optics and still leaves me with no real tele-photo lens. 
   
  Since I do most of my photography while on holiday if I buy the Nikkor I will have to use it all the time and compromise image quality all the time. and I would have to sell my 17-50 too a it would be pointless to keep both. lenses covering the same range. I do not want to do that, even if it means I will have to lug 1.5kg of lenses around - 17-50 and 70-200.
   
  I am still undecided, but I think I do not want the 18-200 for it means too many compromises 
   
   
  EDIT: I know I am going crazy, but I also noticed the Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 that seems to be a great performer and even though its price is at least 2x the price of Tamron I am tempted to buy it.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Szadzik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> is a big compromise in optics
> 
> and compromise image quality all the time.


 

 That's a bit harsh.
  I should have been more specific.  When I said the 18-200mm was not the last word on optical clarity, I didn't mean to imply that it gives bad photos.  I simply meant that it does not have quite the sharpness of nikon's best primes.  The sharpness is still fine for me.
   
  Having said that, let me show you just how much of a compromise in imagine quality you would be making:
   
   























  















  
  Those are just a tiny sampling of photos I like from the 18-200.
   
  With the 18-200mm VR, the biggest thing you are giving up over a lens costing 2-4x as much is that you have to put up with a little barrel distortion in the wide angles (if using digital, can be corrected in software), and at the tele end you have to make do with F5.6, I think, as opposed to F2.8 for example.
   
  Oh well.  Sounds like you have already made up your mind anyways.  If you demand the absolute best, you'll have to buy the expensive glass and lug it around.  ^_^     Then you should have no excuses for making world class photos.  Though to be honest, if you want the absolute best just skip nikon and go straight to large format.


----------



## bigshot

I wouldn't trade my 18-200 for anything. I have several primes, but none of them replace the 18-200. The truth is, just about all lenses are sharp at f/8. The expensive ones are faster, and perhaps have less distortion. But speed is the main difference, not sharpness in daylight.

If I had to survive on two lenses, it would be the 18-200 and a 35 1.8. I own the Tamron 17-50 too, and I love it, but the 18-200 is a really useful and well designed lens.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> That's a bit harsh.
> I should have been more specific.  When I said the 18-200mm was not the last word on optical clarity, I didn't mean to imply that it gives bad photos.  I simply meant that it does not have quite the sharpness of nikon's best primes.  The sharpness is still fine for me.
> 
> Having said that, let me show you just how much of a compromise in imagine quality you would be making:
> ...


 


  I have to say these ar eimpressive photos.
   
  It is not the lens or camera that takes photos - the photographer does. For a beginning photographer like me however, the better equipment the better result.
   
  18-200 is a great all-around lens, but I do not want an all around one, I have my T17-50 and treat it as such, do not need another one, a more specialised one so to speak.
   
  Besides, the Tamron can be had for the same or lower price than the Nikon. No contest here.
   
  I still do not know what I will buy, but the more I look into this and the more reviews I read to more expensive gear comes to mind


----------



## Towert7

Oh well.  I tried.
  Good luck finding the right lens.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I wouldn't trade my 18-200 for anything. I have several primes, but none of them replace the 18-200.


 

  
  Now that's one thing we agree on!


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> I still do not know what I will buy, but the more I look into this and the more reviews I read to more expensive gear comes to mind


 


  You know, after reading your response over again, I have one more suggestion.
   
  If your 17-50mm is your everyday lens, and you want to get a tele lens to compliment it, that sounds perfectly reasonable.  Problem is, 70-200mm F2.8's are expensive.
  If you are not in a rush, I would suggest trying the cheap nikon 70-300mm F5.6G.  It costs about 150$.
   
  The reason I suggest getting this cheap lens is so that you get an idea of what it would be like to work with 2 lenses, and to get used to the 70-300mm range.  It's cheap enough to try, and if you decide you want something more expensive you can always sell it for half of what you paid (or just keep it).
   
  I can't afford expensive tele lenses, sadly, and actually make do with the nikon 70-300G.  I use it for important events.  I'll have my 18-200 on one camera, and my 70-300G on another camera.  It actually takes some nice photos if you know to use it best.


 Anyway, that's what I would recommend.  Try the cheap'y first, and see what you think.  That's what I would do at least.
   
   
   
   
  Quote: 





			
				Szadzik said:
			
		

> For a beginning photographer like me however, the better equipment the better result.


 
   
  PS:  Don't be too hard on yourself.  All it takes is time experimenting and the experience will come.


----------



## bigshot

Beginners don't need better equipment. They need more basic equipment so they can focus on their technique. Better equipment takes the exact same pictures as inexpensive ones do. Internet forums are filled with advice designed to upsell beginners into buying equipment that is beyond their ability to take advantage of. No offense, but your replies and comments indicate to me that you're going down that road.

Decisions on equipment should be about features, not image quality. All Nikon lenses are sharp under the right conditions. Your job as a beginner is to learn to squeeze the most out of basic equipment.

The 70-300 or 55-200 would be good choices if you want a tele. VR is necessary for a lens in this range.


----------



## Szadzik

Thanks guys for all the valuable information, I appreciate it. 
   
  Main reason against 70-300 VR or non VR are sharpness and slowness. The Tamron I intend to buy will cost me 516 Euros delivered, while the 70-300VR (if I decide to buy it it will be the VR version) will cost me 400 Euros.
   
  In my opinion these lenses are in a totally different class of quality. I will try the Tamron and if I do not like it I will rethink the whole thing and either give up for some time or buy something more expensive.
   
  I know it sounds a bit expensive, but money is no object here so I do not wantto compromise quality for 100 Euros.


----------



## Nocturnal310

bought my first DSLR finally 
   
  Nikon D5100
   
   
  got 18-55mm vr lens with the bodykit.
   
   
  should i get a Filter also?


----------



## Redcarmoose

You should get a Nikon glass polarizer filter. Good to use sometimes.
   
   
   A UV/ skyligh is what people used to use on the lens all the time for protection. @ Nocturnal310
   
   
   
  You will find the polarizer with the 18mm to give you impressive landscapes with detailed sky shots.
   
   
   
   
  Towert7 I am amazed at how clear you photographs are what equipment do you use? Telephoto zoom lens have come along way from my day!
   
   
  Another cheapo way to get into Nikon prime telephoto would be an old 300mm IF ias lens. You see them on E-bay for anywhere from $250 to $400. The fastest they get is to f4.5 and if placed on a Nikon DX body you are getting close to 500mm but I love the quality of the lens. Not a lot of depth of field and the focus is critical most of the time. As I need glasses for reading (49) having the viewer lens dialed in just right is also a requirement. The lens is smaller than some telephotos. I paid $400.00 for my first one and liked it so much I found another perfect one on E-bay for $165.00! I took the chance and the lens was great when I recieved it.
   
   
  These lens do not have VR or auto focus. The ED edition of the 300mm is prefered. I found no problem mounting the ais lens on my camera.
   
  Another telephoto that is floating around is the 200mm IF Micro Nikkor. This is one of my favorite all time lens. Great for portraits as will as micro photography. Again no autofocus and the DX formate issue. They take 55mm filters too so it's cool!


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





nocturnal310 said:


> bought my first DSLR finally
> 
> Nikon D5100
> 
> ...


 

 If you care about resale value and/or protection from salt spray, yes.  Otherwise, just get a hood and keep it on all the time.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


>


 

 I had one of those...  The early model f/2.8 AI-S version, although it was in rougher shape.  Absolutely spectacular lens once you practice focusing with it.  Shooting sports I decided an 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S was more versatile though, and it weighs half as much.  I'll get a 300 again someday.
   
  Today I shot indoor box lacrosse...  Absolutely horrid lighting.  I was at ISO 3200 (HI 1 on my D200, actually), f/2.8 and 1/250s - any darker and I couldn't really have shot reasonable shots with my gear.  I'm going to have to convert the underexposed ones to black and white - I accidentally stopped down my lens a few stops (the actual aperture ring) and didn't notice for almost half an hour.  Even my AF had trouble with the low contrast - I ended up setting the "big AF points" custom function unique to the D200.  A D3s would be nice...


----------



## Redcarmoose

Wow Blackbeard, I changed my photo I never had a f2.8.
   
  I do want to get another faster tele than the 4.5. I see the 2.8s around and because they are mostly used by pros they have that pro/beat up look like you see. Was it heavy after awhile? What did yours cost? You must have great memories as wanting it again!


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





nocturnal310 said:


> should i get a Filter also?


 

 Hope your new camera brings you lots of enjoyment.
   
  I will second what Redcar said.
  I would buy a nice clear filter or UV filter and put it on the lens and leave it on.  If anything were to scratch the lens, it would be much better to scratch a 10$ filter and replace it than to replace a 180$ lens.
  Pretty much every lens I have I purchase it with a Nikon clear filter.  There is a bit of a price premium, but the nikon's have fantastic optical qualities!  Usually I unwrap my lens and put the filter on the second I remove the lens cap.
   
  The polarizer is another very nice thing to get.  For digital, a circular polarizer will work best.  The polarizer can intensify colors, darken the sky, and reduce glare (just like any other polarizer).  It can also serve as a 1.7 ND filter in a pinch. 
   
  These are two filters that I would highly recommend.  The Clear/UV for safety, the polarizer for dramatic effects.
   
  I would recommend this for an inexpensive start:  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/136009-REG/Tiffen_52TPK1_52mm_Photo_Essentials_Filter.html
  Gives you Tiffen UV filter, 812 Warming Filter, Circular Glass Polarizer, and a pouch to put them in for 46$.  Not bad.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Redcarmoose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Towert7 I am amazed at how clear you photographs are what equipment do you use? Telephoto zoom lens have come along way from my day!


 

 Thank you Redcarmoose!  That's as nice of a compliment as I could ever hope for!
   
  I use a Nikon D50.  It was the very first sub 1000$ DSLR, and I was thrilled to get one!
   
  Since then I've pretty much invested everything in lenses and accessories.
  My lenses are (all Nikon):
  24mm F2.8
  35mm F2.0
  50mm F1.8
  60mm F2.8 Micro
  85mm F1.8
  18-200mm VR
  35-70mm F2.8
  70-300mm F5.6G
  80-200mm F4.5n (just for a fun natural vignette effect)
  2x teleconverter
   
  and a B+W Circular Polarizer
   
  All those photos in my post above were specifically from the Nikon 18-200mm VR.
   
  Thank you again.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> Wow Blackbeard, I changed my photo I never had a f2.8.
> 
> I do want to get another faster tele than the 4.5. I see the 2.8s around and because they are mostly used by pros they have that pro/beat up look like you see. Was it heavy after awhile? What did yours cost? You must have great memories as wanting it again!


 
   
  I was a bit confused as you were obviously were talking about the f/4.5 versions but put the f/2.8 photo there!  It was beat up, with scratches on the front that scare people away but make no difference to the photos, but it still worked great.  I paid about $650 for it about three years ago and sold it for about the same last year.  It came with an excellent perfectly-fitting soft LowePro case for it, too.  It was heavy, and bulky - I really only brought it when I really knew I'd want it.  I had the f/4 AF lens first, which wasn't nearly as good but was a lot easier to carry around.  I think I'd get the 300mm f/4 AF-S if I got any one now - a better hit percentage than the manual focus one, and it's a lot easier to carry around.  Newer cameras help make up for the lost stop too.
   
  Here it is, with my F3, MD-4, and rare MK-1 vertical release.  All that I have have left from that photo is the ball head (which admittedly isn't suitable for the 300).  Well, I think I still have the motor drive but it's falling apart (they tend to do so after all these years - I've had two fail on me).
   

   
   
   
  And here's a few taken with it:
   

   

   

   
   
   
  Nocturnal310, the reason I say to get a hood rather than a filter unless you're really worried about resale value or heavy salt spray (or other corrosives, or heavy dust [i.e. you live in the desert and it's always coating everything, or are photographing rally races up close]) is several-fold:
   
  1. Filters only worsen flare, and cheap ones can be quite bad.  Better multicoated filters can have minimal impact.  I would recommend you get a used Nikon L1Bc filter from KEH if you absolutely want a filter.  A 52mm one should be $10 or less.
   
  2. Hoods protect from flare rather than make it worse.  They also provide far _better_ protection from drops and hitting things, where there is much more plastic or metal in a hood to absorb the energy of the impact.  Filters often provide little or no protection for impacts - I've learned this through experience.  Hoods keep fingers and everything else away from the surface of the lens as well.
   
  3.  A good filter, unless you buy used, is going to cost a very significant proportion of the price of that lens.  Actually, if you look at the cost of kitting out a whole lens arsenal with new filters, it actually turns out that for anything except the most expensive lenses (or the most butterfingery of people) it actually isn't cost effective.
   
  4.  Scratches and fingerprints on lenses are extremely overrated.  My 300mm lens that produced the images above had a 1" scratch on it, and several others.  Granted, that's out of a 6" diameter.  Read this and this:
   
  http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches
  http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
   
  I once shattered (well, badly cracked) a filter on a wide angle lens, and didn't even notice until a few days later when I saw some funny flare when I was shooting into stage lights at a concert.
   
  So unless you plan on selling your lens, don't worry about it.  Scratches hurt the resale value of lenses, not their images.
   
  Oh, and get a LensPen for cleaning your lenses, when you do do that.  It's much better than any cloth.  For tough-to-remove things, Zeiss pre-moistened lens wipes are the best thing.  Microfiber cloths and "lens cleaning tissue" will scratch your lens coatings eventually (and the glass too if you have sand stuck in them), but the pre-moistened wipes are very soft and come with isopropyl alcohol already in them to clean off any gunk.
   
  But I find all of that more important for looks than images.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Nocturnal310, the reason I say to get a hood rather than a filter


 


  Maybe I am missing something here, but why does it have to be one or the other?  Why not use both for lens protection and flare reduction?
   
  If your hood is a snap on, then a filter will have no impact.
  If your hood is a screw in, it will still screw into the filter.


----------



## bigshot

I'm a street shooter and I keep my camera hidden in a side bag until I'm ready to shoot. I use a filter so I don't need a lens cap. A hood wouldn't protect against all the stuff bouncing around in the bag. Hoya HMC filters are great. No problem with flare unless I shoot into the sun.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> Maybe I am missing something here, but why does it have to be one or the other?  Why not use both for lens protection and flare reduction?
> 
> If your hood is a snap on, then a filter will have no impact.
> If your hood is a screw in, it will still screw into the filter.


 

 Oh, you can use both, no question.  It's just that you'll still have the same flare problems from the filter any time you're outside the hood's coverage.  Admittedly, good filters usually have little impact until you shoot directly into the light - but it depends on the lens too.
   


  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I'm a street shooter and I keep my camera hidden in a side bag until I'm ready to shoot. I use a filter so I don't need a lens cap. A hood wouldn't protect against all the stuff bouncing around in the bag. Hoya HMC filters are great. No problem with flare unless I shoot into the sun.


 

 I do street stuff too and I rarely cap my filterless walkaround lens (the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8), even in the bag.  It sits sideways though, which keeps it out of the grit in the bottom of my bag, and the hood is always on.
   
  My 80-200 doesn't have a filter, lens cap or a hood... period... just a soft water bottle insulator thing it sits in within my camera bag.
   
  I have other lenses that I use different ways...  A 35mm f/1.4 AI-S that has a beat-up highly scratched (from over-cleaning) filter and hood but no cap, a 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E that has a filter and a cap but no hood (to keep the size down), my DP1s goes with just an aftermarket Ricoh-copy cap, and so on...  Really, it's whatever works best for the situation.
   
  But for just a basic kit with the 18-55mm...  It's small but not pocketable so I'd stick a hood on there.  A filter if you'd like, okay, just nothing less than a Hoya HMC or Nikon NIC filter.  If you find yourself collapsing/reversing/removing the hood for storage then I'd say a filter isn't really necessary except in bad conditions, but if you want to leave the hood extended/on all the time then a filter would come in handy as you'd really never need the lens cap.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> I do street stuff too and I rarely cap my filterless walkaround lens (the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8), even in the bag.  It sits sideways though, which keeps it out of the grit in the bottom of my bag, and the hood is always on.


 


  I have this lens too, I like it a lot.
   
   
  Quote: 





> My 80-200 doesn't have a filter, lens cap or a hood... period... just a soft water bottle insulator thing it sits in within my camera bag.


 
   
  Would you mind taking a photo so I can see how this works?
   
  I just paid for a Tamron 70-200 and am trying to think how to arrange my Kata Access-17.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> I have this lens too, I like it a lot.
> 
> Would you mind taking a photo so I can see how this works?
> 
> I just paid for a Tamron 70-200 and am trying to think how to arrange my Kata Access-17.


 

 Yeah, I love the 17-50.  A near-perfect lens at a bargain price.  It goes wide enough for me 90% of the time, too, so I don't even have to bother spending the money, carrying, and switching yet another lens.  If I had unlimited funds...
   
  I'm feeling a bit lazy right now but here's a photo from Flickr showing basically what I have:
   

   
  I have a Domke F-3X, just in olive drab.  See the 70-200mm on the right?  That's exactly how my 80-200mm goes in, just without the lens collar and inside the large size one of these.  That Air Cooler thing has four pairs of belt loops on it, so I can also lash it to my belt or the outside of my pack for hiking.  The camera goes in the same way too - sideways, although I have it at the back since the 17-50 stays on and the front pocket is full of stuff.  Sometimes I carry another lens or two in the pocket (well, it's really just a collapsible divider) on the left, and finally my flash and sometimes other small lenses, my charger, or a small backup camera (my DP1s, which is becoming my main camera for everything except sports) go in the side pockets.  There's also a small pocket in the cover that holds flat stuff like my gels and business cards, and a flat pocket on the back that's perfect for a notepad.  Really, it's a photojournalists' bag.
   
  It all fits nicely, especially with just the 17-50 on the D200 and the 80-200, although it gets cramped with five lenses and a whole bunch of accessories...  If the same bag came 25% bigger I'd have no complaints.  It's a soft bag made of thick canvas and the only padding is on the bottom - the only place you need it.
   
  For trips when I expect to have the camera out most of the time, I just lash the big lens onto my backpack (which I'll have with me for a trip anyway) and stick my spare batteries, memory cards, and filters in the top pocket of my pack (or my pockets).  The flash goes in a similar strap-on water bottle holder as the 80-200.  It's way faster to get at than a photo backpack, and leaves the entire 32 L of my pack for non-photo related stuff.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Yeah, I love the 17-50.  A near-perfect lens at a bargain price.  It goes wide enough for me 90% of the time, too, so I don't even have to bother spending the money, carrying, and switching yet another lens.  If I had unlimited funds...
> I'm feeling a bit lazy right now but here's a photo from Flickr showing basically what I have:


 


  Thanks. I hope that the 17-50 and 70-200 will be enough for all the city trips I do and maybe if I move back to working in a normal environment a 400-500mm lens would be nice for birds etc. Nice setup. Do you feel your gear is safe in an unpadded bag? I have to admit I am a bit clumsy because of my eyesight, but I would be afraid to carry my gear around in a bag like that.
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> I have a Domke F-3X, just in olive drab.  See the 70-200mm on the right?  That's exactly how my 80-200mm goes in, just without the lens collar and inside the large size one of these.  That Air Cooler thing has four pairs of belt loops on it, so I can also lash it to my belt or the outside of my pack for hiking.  The camera goes in the same way too - sideways, although I have it at the back since the 17-50 stays on and the front pocket is full of stuff.  Sometimes I carry another lens or two in the pocket (well, it's really just a collapsible divider) on the left, and finally my flash and sometimes other small lenses, my charger, or a small backup camera (my DP1s, which is becoming my main camera for everything except sports) go in the side pockets.  There's also a small pocket in the cover that holds flat stuff like my gels and business cards, and a flat pocket on the back that's perfect for a notepad.  Really, it's a photojournalists' bag.


 
   
  Yes, looks like a journalist's bag indeed. Thanks for the tips about those bottle isulators, might be good alternative to lens pouches.
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> It all fits nicely, especially with just the 17-50 on the D200 and the 80-200, although it gets cramped with five lenses and a whole bunch of accessories...  If the same bag came 25% bigger I'd have no complaints.  It's a soft bag made of thick canvas and the only padding is on the bottom - the only place you need it.
> 
> For trips when I expect to have the camera out most of the time, I just lash the big lens onto my backpack (which I'll have with me for a trip anyway) and stick my spare batteries, memory cards, and filters in the top pocket of my pack (or my pockets).  The flash goes in a similar strap-on water bottle holder as the 80-200.  It's way faster to get at than a photo backpack, and leaves the entire 32 L of my pack for non-photo related stuff.


 
   
  I hope the Kata Access-17 will be enough for me for trips. D90 with 70-200 lens on and 17-50 in the pocket or D90 with 17-50 and 70-200 in side pocket. There is a spare small pocket for batteries and memory cards. Everything just under 6lbs/ 3kgs.


----------



## Towert7

I'm not very familiar with the new Nikon's and their video use.  Are there any of the current nikons that capture video without the 'rolling shutter' effect?
   
  I have a nice consumer camcorder, but if I could get a DSLR that takes as good video, I would have so much more flexibility with my lenses.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> I'm not very familiar with the new Nikon's and their video use.  Are there any of the current nikons that capture video without the 'rolling shutter' effect?
> 
> I have a nice consumer camcorder, but if I could get a DSLR that takes as good video, I would have so much more flexibility with my lenses.


 


   
  The new D7000 seems to get great reviews regarding its video capabilities.
   
  Here is a test someone posted on youtube for this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-E66joBG5Y and another one: http://vimeo.com/16026172
   
  Some say it is as good as 60D and basically one of the best in its class.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> Thanks. I hope that the 17-50 and 70-200 will be enough for all the city trips I do and maybe if I move back to working in a normal environment a 400-500mm lens would be nice for birds etc. Nice setup. Do you feel your gear is safe in an unpadded bag? I have to admit I am a bit clumsy because of my eyesight, but I would be afraid to carry my gear around in a bag like that.


 

 Yeah, the only thing I ever add to those two are macro lenses.  For trips when that's not expected, I can go with just the two lenses (sometimes I'll swap the 80-200 for a lightweight 75-150/3.5).  If I don't need the telephoto, I can leave everything at home and take my little Sigma (the DP1s).  If I were to do safaris or get serious about outdoor sports I'd want something in the 300-400mm range too, but as you know glass is expensive.
   
   
  Quote: 





> Yes, looks like a journalist's bag indeed. Thanks for the tips about those bottle isulators, might be good alternative to lens pouches.


 
   
  For me it was intended as a dual-use thing - actually, the first trip I bought it for it was a holder for my thermos, and it serves that duty sometimes still.  A smaller nylon pouch served as a lens holder then, but for the 80-200 the big one fits perfectly.  Now, if I used it mostly strapped to other bags I'd get a padded lens pouch - the insulation it has is so thin that it only protects against minor bumps on its own.  That's not a problem in a bag, but strapped on the outside of my backpack there's the potential for a whole lot more damage.
   
   
  Quote: 





> I hope the Kata Access-17 will be enough for me for trips. D90 with 70-200 lens on and 17-50 in the pocket or D90 with 17-50 and 70-200 in side pocket. There is a spare small pocket for batteries and memory cards. Everything just under 6lbs/ 3kgs.


 
   
  It looks like a nice bag - I do like holster bags, and I was considering the larger ones like that before I ended up getting the Domke for its greater versatility.  Don't get me wrong - holster bags are definitely lighter and nicer to access and carry if you always have gear that fits.  If I had unlimited funds I'd probably get one.  It's just that their not as versatile.
   
  For a while I had a Contax G1 and two lenses - that's tiny, but it still fit in the F-3X just fine, with extra room for all my film, a water bottle, and other stuff.  Since it's soft sided it's a lot smaller when it's not so full either.  On the other hand, I've crammed it full with my normal D200 kit plus a small Nikon FG and four small manual focus lenses, all at the same time.  I haven't found another bag that works nearly as well with a wide variety of stuff, yet isn't huge and hard to carry around.
   
  As for the lack of padding... Well, the padding on the bottom is there to protect lenses when you set it down or drop it - and of course you set the bag down all the time.  Between lenses and on the outside though - well, I don't know about you, but I don't go around swinging my bag trying to hit stuff on its side, and any impacts it takes to the side are just brushing against something, etc. where the flexibility of the bag allows items to shift while the canvas mostly protects everything from contact damage.  The same about the inside - unless you're banging stuff together impossibly hard, the canvas prevents the lenses from scratching and dinging each other, and further damage is not ever a problem unless you spend your time running full bags over with a truck.


----------



## bigshot

blackbeardben said:


> I rarely cap my filterless walkaround lens (the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8), even in the bag.  It sits sideways though, which keeps it out of the grit in the bottom of my bag, and the hood is always on.




I have two problems with hoods. Security guards seem to associate hoods with "professional" photographers and harrass me more, and it's hard to be inconspicuous in a crowd with one. I use the Sigma 30 on the street so my rig looks small and I can get right up nest to them to shoot without my camera screaming say cheese at everyone. I'm actually seriously considering that sweet little Fuji. It may work better for me.


----------



## nikongod

I have wanted a Nikon FM2 for a very long time. 
   
  I found an FM on craigslist at a price that I could not say no to so I got an FM instead. Ooh, it came with the lens which is good because my current 50F1.4 is kind of beat.
   
  Anyways, here's a picture of my camera that I took with my camera. I have always wanted to write that.
   

   

   
  Now I get to take REALLLLLLY wide pix with my 14mm lens


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Yeah, the only thing I ever add to those two are macro lenses.  For trips when that's not expected, I can go with just the two lenses (sometimes I'll swap the 80-200 for a lightweight 75-150/3.5).  If I don't need the telephoto, I can leave everything at home and take my little Sigma (the DP1s).  If I were to do safaris or get serious about outdoor sports I'd want something in the 300-400mm range too, but as you know glass is expensive.
> For me it was intended as a dual-use thing - actually, the first trip I bought it for it was a holder for my thermos, and it serves that duty sometimes still.  A smaller nylon pouch served as a lens holder then, but for the 80-200 the big one fits perfectly.  Now, if I used it mostly strapped to other bags I'd get a padded lens pouch - the insulation it has is so thin that it only protects against minor bumps on its own.  That's not a problem in a bag, but strapped on the outside of my backpack there's the potential for a whole lot more damage.


 


  Looks like you have a lot of gear and use it on a daily basis as your work tools. Me, I am just a guy who like city trips and taking photos 
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> It looks like a nice bag - I do like holster bags, and I was considering the larger ones like that before I ended up getting the Domke for its greater versatility.  Don't get me wrong - holster bags are definitely lighter and nicer to access and carry if you always have gear that fits.  If I had unlimited funds I'd probably get one.  It's just that their not as versatile.
> 
> For a while I had a Contax G1 and two lenses - that's tiny, but it still fit in the F-3X just fine, with extra room for all my film, a water bottle, and other stuff.  Since it's soft sided it's a lot smaller when it's not so full either.  On the other hand, I've crammed it full with my normal D200 kit plus a small Nikon FG and four small manual focus lenses, all at the same time.  I haven't found another bag that works nearly as well with a wide variety of stuff, yet isn't huge and hard to carry around.


 
   
  I got the Kata as it is the same size or smaller than most 70-200 holsters and still has the extra space for a lens a accessories.
   
  What I do is pack a medium-sized backpack and put the camera bag inside and only travel with the backpack. When I reach my destination, I leave the backpack at the hotel and just take my camera bag. 
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> As for the lack of padding... Well, the padding on the bottom is there to protect lenses when you set it down or drop it - and of course you set the bag down all the time.  Between lenses and on the outside though - well, I don't know about you, but I don't go around swinging my bag trying to hit stuff on its side, and any impacts it takes to the side are just brushing against something, etc. where the flexibility of the bag allows items to shift while the canvas mostly protects everything from contact damage.  The same about the inside - unless you're banging stuff together impossibly hard, the canvas prevents the lenses from scratching and dinging each other, and further damage is not ever a problem unless you spend your time running full bags over with a truck.


 
   
  Haha, I did not mean that I do treat my gear with no care. Photography gear is expensive and I work hard to earn the money to buy it so I am carefl with it.


----------



## xxhaxx

Omg Nikon thread :] Subscribed


----------



## Butler

The Nikkor 18-200 VRII is a god send to me. I may some day sell other lenses, but this one will always be with me. I do event photography with a D7000 and it's such a wonderful all-round lens. It's a great way to ensure that you wont miss a shot because something is too close or far. It's not the fastest, but the iso to noise rate is considerably lower than nikon's lower end DSLRs, so even 800 is crystal clear.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





nikongod said:


> I have wanted a Nikon FM2 for a very long time.
> 
> I found an FM on craigslist at a price that I could not say no to so I got an FM instead. Ooh, it came with the lens which is good because my current 50F1.4 is kind of beat.
> 
> ...


 

 Very Vintage!  14mm on full frame will be crazy.  What would that translate into, 160º field of view?  Wow.
   
  Out of curiosity, what have you decided upon for developing the film?  Do you have a local camera shop that does it, the local pharmacy / club store, or will you have your own setup?


----------



## Redcarmoose

@ nikongod
   
  What a score! Looks in great shape. I purchased an FM in 2009. The great part is you can use a light meter if the batteries start to get hard to find.
   
  You will have to post your ultrawide shots. My 18mm ais prime takes 72mm filters as does my 300mm ais prime. I need to get a polarizer. The cool part is 1 72mm filter will work with both lens.
   
   
  @Towert7
   
  That is quiet the collection of fast glass! If I ever do get a zoom I will blame you for those great examples. The zoom lens has really improved from the time it was introduced. So all your prime lens are auto-focus? It is cool when someone posts all their equipment because you can see the thought put into the selection.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> @Towert7
> That is quiet the collection of fast glass! If I ever do get a zoom I will blame you for those great examples. The zoom lens has really improved from the time it was introduced. So all your prime lens are auto-focus? It is cool when someone posts all their equipment because you can see the thought put into the selection.


 
   
  Yes, all of my lenses can be used with auto focus, with the exception of the 80-200mm F4.5n.  That is a true AI lens.


----------



## nikongod

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> Very Vintage!  14mm on full frame will be crazy.  What would that translate into, 160º field of view?  Wow.
> 
> Out of curiosity, what have you decided upon for developing the film?  Do you have a local camera shop that does it, the local pharmacy / club store, or will you have your own setup?


 

 Its about 116* on full-frame, and 94* on DX.  
   
  I shot this on DX from the sidewalk in front of the building:
   

   
  I really like how easily this lens gives VERY weird perspectives, but without going circular fisheye on the world.
  It has somewhat complex distortion, but I have gotten a few Full-Frame pix I downloaded off of flickr to very acceptable levels with the lens distortion tools in GIMP. (I tweaked that picture just a little bit to reduce barrel distortion) 
   
  I plan to take color film to Costco, and DIY B&W.


----------



## anoobis

I may be in the market for a new zoom telephoto lens and would welcome any advice from the experienced here. If this has already been covered, please point me to the posts (I did search first!).

 My Sigma 70-300mm slide zoom is sticking. I'm looking into having to repaired but am searching for alternatives in case it's not worth it.

 I've come up with a Nikon shortlist (it's for a D50) based on budget but would consider third party:

 > 70 - 300mm G f/4-5.6 (used, $110)
 > 55 - 200mm VR DX f/4 - 5.6 (new, $430)
 > 55 - 300mm VR DX f/4.5 - 5.6 (new, $430)

 Prices are approximate conversions from GBP.

 According to http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm, the first one is a great lens. I'm assuming that the reason it's no longer recommended is because it lacks VR.

 Bottom line is, which of these would you go for and why?

 Questions I'm trying to answer:
 > is VR all that (i.e. do I just get the cheapest option, almost a direct replacement)?
 > are the VR lenses optically equally?  Should the f/4 vs. f/4.5 be of concern?
 > given the similar prices, is there any (other) reason to choose the 200mm VR over the 300mm? I can think of reasons to do with user ability/usability but surely better to learn than not have the option, all other things being equal.

 Many thanks.
   
  Forgot to ask, is there much to be gained using the '35mm' lenses on the DX sensors in respect of edge effects?


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





anoobis said:


> I may be in the market for a new zoom telephoto lens and would welcome any advice from the experienced here. If this has already been covered, please point me to the posts (I did search first!).
> 
> My Sigma 70-300mm slide zoom is sticking. I'm looking into having to repaired but am searching for alternatives in case it's not worth it.
> 
> ...


 

 1.  The non-VR, non-AF-S 70-300mm is okay, but pales in comparison to all the newer consumer zooms.  I wouldn't bother at all, with the 55-200 not unlikely to give better results by cropping from 200 than this lens at 300.  Used it may be a decent bargain because it has been in production for a very long time.
   
  2.  Both the 55-200mm VR and the 55-300mm VR are very good.  The 55-200 only weighs 3/5 of what the 55-300 does; it's much smaller.  Basically, choose between the two in terms of price/size/focal length.
   
  3.  The price you quote for the 55-200 (and to a lesser extent the 55-300) is absurd, even in the UK.  You can get the 55-200 from Amazon.co.uk for 210 GBP, and if you buy from their preferred merchant (shipped by Amazon itself), it's down to 160 GBP.  The 55-300 is more expensive, closer to the prices you give.  Since there's no additional Nikon UK lens warranty like there is in the US, there's no reason not to go for the lower price.  Don't tell me you're buying from Grays of Westminister...
   
  4.  The 70-300mm VR is a significant upgrade in performance, with far faster autofocus and instant manual override (with actual useful manual focusing).  It is of course significantly more expensive, and much larger.
   
  5. VR can be useful but it depends what you are doing.  For me - shooting indoor sports - it is useless.  I need fast shutter speeds anyway, and only a fast lens will do.  For someone taking landscape photos without a tripod, it could be very useful.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> 1.  The 70-300mm is okay, but pales in comparison to all the newer consumer zooms.
> I wouldn't bother at all


 
   
  Can you be more specific?
  In some ways the 70-300G is better than newer consumer zooms.  It has a smoother bokeh, is VERY light, has a very nice hood that goes with it.
   
*@anoobis:*
  I have the Nikon 70-300 G, and even for its new price it's well worth it (150$US).
  For 150$, you do not get a wide aperture, and no optical image stabilization.  The front element also rotates for different focus points, which can be tough if you use a polarizer.  For 150$, you can not expect these features.
  If you accept this, and will be using it in medium to bright light, it is a great lens for the price.  I love the photos that come from it.
  It's bokeh is smooth as butter.  It truly has one of the best bokehs I have seen from a lens when used accordingly.
   
  Here are some photos from my 70-300G:











































  
   
  If you can't take nice pictures with the 70-300G in well lit areas you're doing something very wrong.
  For 150$ I think it's a great lens for the price!  I highly recommend it.
   
  Once again, it should be noted that the 70-300G has a smoother bokeh than the new 70-300VR.
   
  Maybe BlackbeardBen wouldn't bother, but I love my little 70-300G!
  Hope this helps.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> Can you be more specific?
> In some ways the 70-300G is better than newer consumer zooms.  It has a smoother bokeh, is VERY light, has a very nice hood that goes with it.
> 
> *@anoobis:*
> ...


 

 Almost any lens can take decent photos at 640 pixels wide, especially in bright light...
   
  I'm just saying that it isn't spectacular.  There's nothing special about it except the price, which the 55-200mm VR is rather close to.  The bokeh doesn't look that great either - just really blurred as you'd expect from a long lens shooting things close up.  Look at the commencement photo with the crowd in the background - horrible bokeh.  The others are fine but nothing special.

 If it were a really good performer all the way to 300mm I'd say it's definitely the bargain of the bunch, but when you factor in its very poor performance above 200mm plus lack of VR compared to the slightly more expensive, much smaller, and sharper 55-200mm VR, I'd say it's not worth buying.  I'm not the only one either:
   
  http://photocamel.com/forum/nikon-forum/128509-300mm-d3100.html
   
  And there's others...
   
  Or Photozone.de's review of each:
   
  http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/249-nikkor-af-70-300mm-f4-56-d-ed-review--test-report
  http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/246-nikkor-af-s-55-200mm-f4-56g-if-ed-dx-vr-review--test-report
   
  The 55-200 VR is better at 200mm wide open at f/5.6 than the 70-300G is at f/8 - in fact, the 70-300G never gets as good as the 55-200 VR at 200mm.  Or at 70mm, either.  Really, the 55-200 VR is a significantly better performing lens in every respect except the maximum focal length - compare the full-size examples they have there as well as the MTF measurements.  On top of the just plain better performance of the 55-200 VR, it weighs half a pound less, doesn't have a rotating filter ring, does have a 52mm filter ring, and it has VR...  So it'll have an even bigger advantage when it gets darker.
   
  Honestly, I still don't see any reason to get the 70-300G.  Is it useable?  Sure.  Would I want to? Not at all with a lens as good as the 55-200 VR to compare to.  Then again, I'm anal-retentive about this sort of thing.  The only telephoto zooms I've been satisfied with so far are the 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E and 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S...  More or less perfect performance from both of them from one end of the range to the other, and wide open until stopped all the way down.  I'm not sure I can accept anything less any more.  I'd get the 55-200 VR myself as a travel lens if I had the money and I didn't like the 75-150 so much.


----------



## bigshot

I wouldn't get a lens this long without VR. I couldn't ever afford a fast tele zoom, so VR is the next best.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Look at the commencement photo with the crowd in the background - horrible bokeh.


 
   
  That's funny.  You consider it horrible bokeh, and I think it's a fantastic image.
   
  In the interest of full disclosure, did you ever own the 70-300G, or are you just going off of what other people say and photos you've seen?  Be honest.  ^_^
   
   
   
  Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Almost any lens can take decent photos at 640 pixels wide


 
   
  I must state that my reason for posting 640px pictures is out of respect for those with small monitors / slow internet.  It is also easier to see the whole photo when in a preview size.  It is not to hide detail.  Every photo you see is sharp as a tack at full resolution (with the exception of the cat photo).  If you wanted to see any at full size, ask.
   
   
  Oh well, we seem to agree to disagree.
  I stand by my recommendation for the 70-300G lens.  For those of us on a budget, it's a fantastic 70-300mm lens.  I am very thankful Nikon continues to make it.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I wouldn't get a lens this long without VR. I couldn't ever afford a fast tele zoom, so VR is the next best.


 


 On sunny days I'm usually at 1/2000 sec to 1/5000 sec at ISO200.
  On overcast days I'm usually at 1/500sec at ISO 800.
   
  If it's dark out, the lens would certainly need a tripod.
   
  Sometimes if I don't mind the bother, I'll use a monopod.  Works great.


----------



## bigshot

I don't always shoot on sunny days. In fact, I rarely shoot on sunny days.


----------



## Towert7

I felt compelled to add just one more.  I always liked this one.
   



  70-300G


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> That's funny.  You consider it horrible bokeh, and I think it's a fantastic image.
> 
> *A decent image, perhaps.  Horrid bokeh though, and that's what you were specifically pointing out as being "good".*
> 
> ...


 


   


  Quote: 





towert7 said:


> On sunny days I'm usually at 1/2000 sec to 1/5000 sec at ISO200.
> On overcast days I'm usually at 1/500sec at ISO 800.
> 
> If it's dark out, the lens would certainly need a tripod.
> ...


 

 ISO 800 outside for overcast?

 See, that would be entirely unacceptable to me.  400 at most.  Then again, I have a faster lens, and I'm only using a D200.
   
  I gave up on regular monopod use when I realized that I could handhold just as good sitting down, and any time there was action I already need to be shooting fast enough anyway.  I still have it but never use it - I'm keeping it in case I buy another 300mm f/2.8.  That's just too heavy to handhold for very long.  I can do it, but not for 10 hours like I can do with the 80-200...


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> ISO 800 outside for overcast?
> 
> See, that would be entirely unacceptable to me.  400 at most.  Then again, I have a faster lens


 


  Please remember that I am not suggesting you get the 70-300G.  I am recommending it to anoobis.  You can buy what ever you want for how ever much you want to spend.
  For his budget, your lenses would *not* be acceptable for anoobis (price prohibitive).


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> Please remember that I am not suggesting you get the 70-300G.  I am recommending it to anoobis.  You can buy what ever you want for how ever much you want to spend.  For his budget, your lenses would *not* be acceptable for anoobis (price prohibitive).


 

 Yes, I realize that.  All I'm saying is that for a modest increase in price you get a significant increase in performance _and_ features in a smaller package.  There's a reason the 55-200 VR is Nikon's most popular tele and not the 70-300 AF-D.


----------



## bigshot

I thought the 18-200 was Nikon's most popular tele zoom.


----------



## anoobis

Guys, thanks for the replies, the discussion's really helped.
   
  First off, you've pointed me in the right direction for much cheaper prices 
   
  On balance, I've decided the 55-300VR would be the best buy for me, though I'm going to hold off buying for the moment. Please let me know if there are any howlers in my thinking (obviously on the more objective points):
   
  - why not just up the ISO on a non-VR lens? At 300mm I suspect it would take f/5.6 (i.e. wide open on these lenses) and ISO 800 to get a hand-holding shutter speed in many situations. This presents possible depth-of-field issues. I wouldn't want to go above ISO 800 on a D50. I don't know if the newer (non-pro) models are better for noise.
   
  - why not just get a faster lens? To be honest, this may not be a bad solution. However, AFAIK, there's nothing with a similar focal length remotely in the same price bracket. Further, if you did want to slow the shutter speed for depth-of-field purposes (any other reason?), you're no better off.
   
  - it seems the 300mm VR is optically superior to the G, especially at 200mm plus. It's not a huge difference (in lens terms!) to pay.
   
  - do I need 300mm? No. Would I regret not having it? Yes. I'll justify the difference over the 200mm in two ways: a) VR(II) vs VR(I) (so what?!); b) I would expect the performance of the 300mm to be better at 200mm than the 200mm, as limits always seem worse and these lenses are so similar. I think I'm correct in saying that the 300mm max. aperture at 200mm is wider than the 200mm lens.
   
  - how about 200mm + teleconverter? Well, it would have to be x2, otherwise I'd just get the 300mm lens. Too expensive.
   
  - what about a non-Nikon alternative? I simply haven't found a stabilised or faster lens for less than the Nikon.
   
   
  Once again, thanks for the help.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





anoobis said:


> On balance, I've decided the 55-300VR would be the best buy for me
> 
> 
> Once again, thanks for the help.


 
   
   
  Step 1:  Determine the focal length you are looking for
  Step 2:  Determine the features you want
  Step 3:  Buy the lens that satisfies step 1 & 2 as best as you can afford.
   
  If the 55-300VR first your list, then there you are.
  If in the end you still can't make up your mind, and can't seem to find any useful information from other people, just pick one and go with it.  Use it, and be happy.  Then you will get experience with it and start to see if your choice was a good one or not.  After you've used it for a while you will have a much better idea of what you *really* need in a lens.
   
  Don't worry about VR1 or VR2.  Even VR1 works fantastic.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> If in the end you still can't make up your mind, and can't seem to find any useful information from other people, just pick one and go with it.  Use it, and be happy.  Then you will get experience with it and start to see if your choice was a good one or not.  After you've used it for a while you will have a much better idea of what you *really* need in a lens.


 

 Exactly!  To be honest, until recently I was on a big rotation through lenses, trying to find what suited me.  For the last year and a half or so I've mostly settled down and gotten rid of all the lenses I never use.
   
  And actually anoobis, if what you really want is performance at 300mm, Redcarmoose suggested the 300mm f/4.5 ED AI-S IF.  That's a really good lens, and the non-IF version (still AI-S) is even better according to Bjorn, but not so easy to focus (IF is a pleasure to focus for long lenses).  I haven't used either, but I hear nothing but praise for them.
   
  The 300mm f/4 AF is very good as well, but has a small touch of CA and is very slow to focus.  It may be close to your budget, but it's big and the lack of flexibility means you're giving up a lot in return.  I did own that one, but sold it to fund the 300mm f/2.8 AI-S I had, which is a more or less near-perfect performer limited only by your ability to focus.  Same goes for the 180mm f/2.8 ED AI-S - that lens is so sharp it's scary.  I don't think I have ever seen any lens better than that one.  I just don't particularly like the 180-200mm focal length on DX, or on FX for that matter.  For whatever reason I tend towards liking specific lenses and focal lengths more than specific angles of view.  85mm, 135mm, and 300mm are what I tend to like in the long range.  I'm still kicking myself for selling my 135mm f/3.5 AI, but I'd love to replace it with a 135mm f/2 someday...


----------



## Trysaeder

Quote: 





anoobis said:


> Guys, thanks for the replies, the discussion's really helped.
> 
> First off, you've pointed me in the right direction for much cheaper prices
> 
> ...


 

 Don't use a teleconverter with those lenses, they will not work well and will cost more than the lens itself.
  If you care about quality at 300, look at the tamron 70-300 VC, which is better than the nikon there (similar price).
  If you've never used a 300mm before, I'd go out on a limb and say that you won't be using 300 very often. It's not very useful (450mm equivalent) unless you're photographing sports as a consumer.
  Go out to a shop and try out a 200mm, then a 300mm and really think about how often you'll use it. The 55-200 is the only kit lens that I've found useful over some of the non kit alternatives, although my 85/1.4 is stopping me from getting one.
   
  Here are some technical reviews of some telephotos under $500ish. Remember that normal usage is usually less demanding.
   
  http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/246-nikkor-af-s-55-200mm-f4-56g-if-ed-dx-vr-review--test-report
   
  http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/250-nikkor-af-s-70-300mm-f45-56-g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report
  http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/592-tamron70300f456vceosapsc
   
  http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/249-nikkor-af-70-300mm-f4-56-d-ed-review--test-report
  http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/326-sigma-af-70-300mm-f4-56-apo-dg-macro-test-report--review
   

  
  Quote: 





towert7 said:


> If you can't take nice pictures with the 70-300G in well lit areas you're doing something very wrong.
> For 150$ I think it's a great lens for the price!  I highly recommend it.
> 
> Once again, it should be noted that the 70-300G has a smoother bokeh than the new 70-300VR.


 
  If you can't take nice pictures with a point and shoot in well lit areas you're doing something wrong.
   
  If that's true (it isn't), avoid the new 70-300VR as well. The bokeh in that is frankly horrible.
  Bokeh should be judged not too far behind the subject, not far off in the background. It's like comparing lenses at f/8. Anything will do decently as long as it is long enough.
   
  http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/819402433_mdifE-O.jpg
  http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/819401143_hNQW3-O.jpg
  http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/819402232_jg3oj-O.jpg
  That is good bokeh at 200mm. The background circles do not have rings around them and are not distracting. Close to the focal plane, it is still quite smooth.
   
   
   
   
  Now, a bit about me.
   
  I really really hate how there's no good DX equivalent of a fast 35mm (FX doesn't really have one either ). There's a 24/2.8 and 24/1.4, the first of which is pretty bad and the second is a bit expensive.
  Perhaps a wide zoom that touches 24mm is a possibility, but I'm not a fan of killing two birds on the basis that there's always compromise (ie, 24mm end of some wide angles isn't very good and variable aperture zooms would leave me working with f/5.6).
  I guess the 16-35/4VR is possibly a great two in one walkaround+wide angle though.
   
  I love VR and I love primes, but sadly the two rarely ever mix. If I get a fullframe, I'll definitely be getting a 105/2.8 macro VR as well as the nikon 50. I actually started photography using a fullframe, with the 35L and 135L available to me, so this is a big annoyance.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





trysaeder said:


> Don't use a teleconverter with those lenses, they will not work well and will cost more than the lens itself.


 
   
   
  So true.  It depends how demanding you are - I've never been happy except with good 1.4x teleconverters on 300mm primes...  Other people I know will stick a bad 2x converter on a consumer zoom and be totally happy.  But as far as these zooms a TC is definitely a no-go.
   
   
  Quote: 





> If you've never used a 300mm before, I'd go out on a limb and say that you won't be using 300 very often. It's not very useful (450mm equivalent) unless you're photographing sports as a consumer.
> 
> Go out to a shop and try out a 200mm, then a 300mm and really think about how often you'll use it. The 55-200 is the only kit lens that I've found useful over some of the non kit alternatives, although my 85/1.4 is stopping me from getting one.


 
   
  Well, I'd certainly say it depends on your own style...  I love 300mm on DX for pretty much everything, but I know there's plenty of others that rarely ever want/need anything that long.  Certainly for a beginner it's not something that is strictly necessary.  I don't even have a 300 right now, out of practicality...  In fact, I honestly get better results on average by shooting at 200mm and cropping than with a slower (or manual focus) 300mm - for fast action, anyway.  If you've ever shot box lacrosse you'd understand what I mean.
   
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> Now, a bit about me.
> 
> I really really hate how there's no good DX equivalent of a fast 35mm. There's a 24/2.8 and 24/1.4, the first of which is pretty bad and the second is a bit expensive.
> Perhaps a wide zoom that touches 24mm is a possibility, but I'm not a fan of killing two birds on the basis that there's always compromise (ie, 24mm end of some wide angles isn't very good).
> I guess the 16-35/4VR is possibly a great two in one walkaround+wide angle though.


 
   
  I do lament the lack of a 24mm f/2 DX or similar, but when we've got an inexpensive zoom like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 it's not so much of a big deal to me...  That lens is just insanely good, and at 24mm it's just about at its peak performance.


----------



## Trysaeder

I've tried the tamron and it's great bang/buck, but it just doesn't have the magic of the 35 equivalent primes.The build, image quality and handling of those lenses made them a joy to use.
  I met a friend of a friend with a 5d2, 35/1.4L, 135/2L and some wide angle that I never got to play with. Since then I've been using the 85 on dx which feels great, but I don't really use/like my 35/1.8.
   
  I just noticed the 24/3.5, which looks like a fun lens to use that'll be able to straighten up when things get traditional. Too bad it's still over 2k and has no autofocus when you need it. Might as well get a 14-24 for 1.9k and kill two birds without compromise on either. Too bad it's huge and heavy though.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





trysaeder said:


> I've tried the tamron and it's great bang/buck, but it just doesn't have the magic of the 35 equivalent primes.The build, image quality and handling of those lenses made them a joy to use.
> I met a friend of a friend with a 5d2, 35/1.4L, 135/2L and some wide angle that I never got to play with. Since then I've been using the 85 on dx which feels great, but I don't really use/like my 35/1.8.
> 
> I just noticed the 24/3.5, which looks like a fun lens to use that'll be able to straighten up when things get traditional. Too bad it's still over 2k and has no autofocus when you need it. Might as well get a 14-24 for 1.9k and kill two birds without compromise on either. Too bad it's huge and heavy though.


 


   
  There are lots of 2.8 zoom lenses like those I have Tamron 17-50 and 70-200 both 2.8 and you can enjoy the truckloads of light you get with them the same way you would enjoy a prime lens. 
   
  Unless you are a professional photographer making money out of it, what is the point of getting lenses for a few thousand dollars?


----------



## Trysaeder

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> There are lots of 2.8 zoom lenses like those I have Tamron 17-50 and 70-200 both 2.8 and you can enjoy the truckloads of light you get with them the same way you would enjoy a prime lens.
> 
> Unless you are a professional photographer making money out of it, what is the point of getting lenses for a few thousand dollars?


 

 Because I'm a hobby photographer making money out of it (but not enough to justify getting $2k lenses).
   
  I enjoy the weight and build quality of the primes. Once I tried them, I couldn't go back. There's a feel to the 85/1.4 that the 70-200 just doesn't have.
  It's something that I just love. I'd take the 85/1.4 over a 70-200 any day, even though I could hold the 70-200 better in low light due to vr. I'd take a 35/1.4 (never touched a 24/1.4) over the 24-70 easily. There's no comparison with that one.
  (I know what I'm looking for when I want a 24 and an 85. If I wanted a telephoto then of course I'd get the 70-200).
   
  I know there has to be some zooms that are actually good, and I have nothing against them, but I don't need the weight and price of the extra focal lengths when I know that I will not be needing them at all. If I want a shot at 200 for some reason, I'll either miss it, take it and crop, or chuck on the kit lens to get it. When I go out shooting, I accept that I will be missing some great shots, but there are only 0-2 truly great shots per outing I do. None so far have been at a focal range that I couldn't meet with the 35 and 85, so I'm happy.
   
  I'm just a little annoyed that there isn't a mid priced version of some of the popular primes. There's the 18-55 kit lens at dirt cheap, there's the 17-50 tamron/tokina/sigma at 300-600, and there's the brand name 17-55 at 1700. With the primes, there are old, expensive and wildly varying lenses around 300-600 that are only slightly ahead of the quality of the mid price zooms (however nikon (and sigma) got the 85 primes really really right).
   
  There's no 50/1.4G quality and price at different focal lengths. Go up or down and the price exceeds 1.5k instantly.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





trysaeder said:


> If you can't take nice pictures with a point and shoot in well lit areas you're doing something wrong.
> 
> If that's true (it isn't), avoid the new 70-300VR as well. The bokeh in that is frankly horrible.
> Bokeh should be judged not too far behind the subject, not far off in the background. It's like comparing lenses at f/8. Anything will do decently as long as it is long enough.
> ...


 

 Trysaeder, I know this comment was referring to what I said (since you quoted my picture), but I have no clue what you were trying to say.  Is it possible to rephrase this being more specific?


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





trysaeder said:


> Because I'm a hobby photographer making money out of it (but not enough to justify getting $2k lenses).
> 
> I enjoy the weight and build quality of the primes. Once I tried them, I couldn't go back. There's a feel to the 85/1.4 that the 70-200 just doesn't have.
> It's something that I just love. I'd take the 85/1.4 over a 70-200 any day, even though I could hold the 70-200 better in low light due to vr. I'd take a 35/1.4 (never touched a 24/1.4) over the 24-70 easily. There's no comparison with that one.
> ...


 


  Lucky ar ethose who have hteir hobbies as their jobs/ even part-time.
   
  I tried the 35 f1.8 some time ago and after one city trip I decide it was not what I wanted. Primes are great for their low distortion and low light capabilities, but not always useful.


----------



## MorbidToaster

So I just bought a D5100 and it may come in the mail today. I'm ridiculously excited and am already painfully aware of the fact I'll need a telephoto lens. 

Seems like that has been discussed recently. Though it's hard to find somewhat of a conclusion on which is best. Hmmm...

Edit: You've been discussing the options I've been looking into


----------



## xxhaxx

Morbid: congratulation on your camera
   
  I see a prime vs zoom argument 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  First of all do not get the Nikon 24mm 1.4 on a crop body. You are paying a premium for a Full Frame lens that you wouldn't really need. I would recommend a sigma 30mm 1.4 
  And if you are getting a 200mm I am really jealous... Shooting at f/2 and the way it renders the picture is fantastic


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Trysaeder, I'm assuming you don't do (or follow) photojournalism work?  There's a reason that it is taking Nikon a few decades to bring its wide primes up to date - no one hardly buys them any more...  Especially when you have zooms that outperform every prime you ever produced...
   
  Funny that you say the you want the weight and build quality of the primes when the zooms are built exactly the same way...  Sure, the Tamron 17-50 is no tank, but it's a Tamron...  The Nikon 17-55 is built just like the new 24mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4...  It's about the same size too.  Unlike those lenses, it's perfectly fine to use wide open.
   
  Don't get me wrong, I really want an 85/1.4.  I had a 105/1.8 for a while and liked it a lot, but the difficulty of focusing combined with the minimal increase over the 105/2.5 resulted in me selling it.  Same thing about the 180/2.8.  It's just that the 70/80-200mm f/2.8 zooms have the versatility to do nearly everything with prime-like performance but incredibly consistent results that primes can't always provide.  Now, if I could afford to carry around half a dozen bodies with all the different primes I'd want...
   
  Honestly, it's the small size along with a modest speed and performance increase that attracts me more... look at the tiny 35/1.8 DX.  I think the problem is that Nikon thinks additional prime DX lenses won't sell that well.  Perhaps a 24/2 DX would considering the success of the 35/1.8 DX, but it would have to be more expensive as well.  And then, why not f/2 primes at all the other focal lengths?  Do they make them all DX, eliminating the FX market?  FX, so that they price out much of the DX market?  Both, and incur high development/production/marketing/distribution costs and confusion among consumers as a result?  I don't think there's any good answer, but at the same time I doubt they're sitting on their asses and not doing anything.
   
  At the same time, I've been shooting more and more with a Sigma DP1s - a fixed 28mm equivalent lens.  That's perhaps my favorite all-around focal length; if I could only have one that would be it.  The camera is so tiny - for the first time ever I feel comfortable taking a tiny pocket camera as my only camera.
   
  Anyway, speaking of wanting a prime 35mm equivalent lens, why don't you get a Fuji X100?  Use that for your wide stuff and leave the 85mm glued on your Nikon.  I think the X100 or its successor is going to be my next camera, and an interchangeable lens version might replace all my SLR equipment except for telephoto and macro work.  I'd love a Foveon sensor, but given my customer service experience with Sigma and the build quality issues I've had with the DP1s, I'll never be buying a Sigma product again.


----------



## Trysaeder

I'd love to get an x100 like. The idea of a small, retro looking thing sounds great for the stuff I like to do (street, but not very good right now ). The reason I want a 24 is because I used to use a 35 on fullframe and it feels natural for me.
   
  Right now I'm most likely to get a 16-85 and use the 24/4 VR on it. It seems similar or better than the 16-35/4 VR for the same focal lengths at half the price.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Anyway, speaking of wanting a prime 35mm equivalent lens, why don't you get a Fuji X100?  Use that for your wide stuff and leave the 85mm glued on your Nikon.


 


  You just gave me the best reason to spend money! I have been thinking about getting a compact/ semi-compac camera for casual use, but now that you mentioned it, maybe it would be a good idea to have my D90+70-200 on and a smaller camera with something wide on. My wallet is screaming noooooooo!


----------



## Redcarmoose

I just wanted to post this amazing story which has taken place. I'm using a 50mm 1:2  ais on a DX body and really enjoying seeing things with a fixed perspective. At a Head-Fi meet I was talking about using a fixed lens as working for myself. Instead of zooming or changing lens, I seem to see everything I want to photograph in this tele perspective. I know it seems weird but that's what I'm into. My fellow Head-Fi friends all using zoom lens looked at me with faces and smerks and ended up laughing knowing how strange I am at times.
   
   I was looking at my RAWs really close up and I noticed a lens distortion always in the same place. The distortion was right at the middle of the left edge. It was not on the right.
   
  This issue was really small but could be noted upon close inspection. I used the lens for maybe 3 months this way. Yesterday I started looking really close at the rear element and noticed a small dark red smudge. The smudge was on the middle right where the distortion was as the image is upside down on the sensor!
   
  I have had a habit of not cleaning my rear elements much and doing a visual inspection. Due to the dark dull red color of this smudge I never noticed it. I just wondered what the lens distortion was but never thought to give a close inspection to the rear element. WOW!


----------



## Butler

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> I just wanted to post this amazing story which has taken place. I'm using a 50mm 1:2  ais on a DX body and really enjoying seeing things with a fixed perspective. At a Head-Fi meet I was talking about using a fixed lens as working for myself. Instead of zooming or changing lens, I seem to see everything I want to photograph in this tele perspective. I know it seems weird but that's what I'm into. My fellow Head-Fi friends all using zoom lens looked at me with faces and smerks and ended up laughing knowing how strange I am at times.
> 
> I was looking at my RAWs really close up and I noticed a lens distortion always in the same place. The distortion was right at the middle of the left edge. It was not on the right.
> 
> ...


 
  Primes are very special lenses. They may be smirking at you because you're not standing in the same place and letting the zoom do all the work, but you're going to have better pictures than they will. Varied angles and such.
   
  College level photography courses generally discourage use of zoom lens and try to refine your actual skill with prime lenses and appropriately framing that way- without cropping or zooming doing all the work.
   
  It's a lot more involved and active process.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





butler said:


> Primes are very special lenses. They may be smirking at you because you're not standing in the same place and letting the zoom do all the work, but you're going to have better pictures than they will. Varied angles and such.
> 
> College level photography courses generally discourage use of zoom lens and try to refine your actual skill with prime lenses and appropriately framing that way- without cropping or zooming doing all the work.
> 
> It's a lot more involved and active process.


 


  Right on.  Zoom lenses also make previsualization very difficult, because the focal length is always changing, so you can't get to know exactly where your camera's frame will fall, thus you can't previsualize the frame- look at a scene and see an image- you tend to have to frame looking through the viewfinder, zooming in and out.  This cuts off a lot of imagination.


----------



## bigshot

Creativity has nothing to do with whether you use a zoom or a prime. Having to step a few steps forward or back doesnt make better pictures. Its just as possible to previsualize with a zoom as it is a prime. Any lens you use enough to become second nature to you will serve you.

Primes are good for shooting in low light. They also can help create narrow slivers of focus for portraits. They're generally a little lighter and more compact than zooms. That is their advantage. Most photographers would be well served at having both zooms and primes. It isn't an either/or thing.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> Right on.  Zoom lenses also make previsualization very difficult, because the focal length is always changing, so you can't get to know exactly where your camera's frame will fall, thus you can't previsualize the frame- look at a scene and see an image- you tend to have to frame looking through the viewfinder, zooming in and out.  This cuts off a lot of imagination.


 
   
  There's no "can't" or "have to" about zoom lenses - they're an enabler.  You don't _have_ to frame zooming in and out - you _can_.  Pre-visualization is up to you, not the lens.  Discipline and understanding what you can and can't do and the composition you want is _all up to you_.
   
  It doesn't matter for zoom or prime - they're tools to be used when appropriate.  Certain primes can do things zooms can't do - speed, macro, etc. - and vice versa.  Use whatever is appropriate for the job.
   
  If one can't get past the false "zooms cull imagination" hypothesis, perhaps it is time to reconsider one's thought processes that occur before pressing the shutter button, because that is what is at fault, not the lens.


----------



## bigshot

blackbeardben said:


> If one can't get past the false "zooms cull imagination" hypothesis, perhaps it is time to reconsider one's thought processes that occur before pressing the shutter button, because that is what is at fault, not the lens.



This sort of thinking leads to people piling up with bags full of primes to cover all focal lengths. Which is going to be most conducive to getting great pictures, using one or two zooms or slugging arond a fifty pound camera bag full of primes?


----------



## Redcarmoose

Many folks here on this thread are taking great photographs with zooms. I think that the improvement of the zoom may be one of the biggest changes besides the introduction of digital to photography in the last 25 years. The zooms in the mid 80s were really bad. There may have been a couple of good ones but the over all view of them was bad. You had light fall off, you had slow f stops and you had chromatic errors. They were giant and long and heavy.

 I always thought of the zoom as the great helper for the wedding photographer. No invention is better as a gift to him!



 Now we have a level of sharpness (that as far as I can tell is) at the level of primes. I have a large collection of Nikon ais glass and am just having fun with photography as a hobby. With that in mind I guess I can walk around with 2 prime lens. If a professional in the field had a major goal in mind it is easy to see how a zoom or collection of lens would be essential. The crazy part of my story listed above is I was using one lens only and it had a smudge on the rear element. LOL


 I have known friends who started to travel with expensive Lecia gear and due to it's price would only own one or two lens. They took great pictures but again they may have only been into a certain type of photography. I guess what I'm getting at is that even if you have many lens choices that it could be a normal thing to slowly get into one or two primes, depending on the style of photography your into. I really see it often now as many photographers post photographs using only a couple of lens choices when walking around taking photographs on the street.

 The other thing I have learned this year is that it's OK to use telephotos for landscape photography. What is really amazing is I was using an 18mm for some landscapes but when I put it away I found that I could also get great landscapes with an 80mm. I have been using Nikons for 35 years and I have just learned this one. Using one lens I feel can help bring about a new style and a new understanding of photography. Ok, so you feel your forced to use the lens for the first 5 hours but then a whole new world opens up after you start to see everything with a new eye.

 The old habits that give us the same photographs that we have always taken is using the zoom a specific way and zooming at the subject the same way. Getting a 35mm, a 18mm for landscapes because our old way of thinking was that that was the right lens to use. Len perspective is really stranger than I have ever thought about.

 You can take a photograph of a large object like a giant boat with a 500mm telephoto and because it is big many viewers including photographers will think you used a wide angle lens.

 We are taught what is right or wrong but in photography there is no right or wrong it is all in our mind in relationship to our past styles of the art.

 I was never fond of folks using wide angles for portrait work. We all see this documentary style where they go around with a 35mm and shoot everything. To some people the style is great. I may never get used to how peoples faces are distorted. You look at the prints and some are cool and passable when they are farther away from their subject but then they get one foot away and the persons nose is half the photograph and the other photographer just thinks it's the coolest effect. LOL I will not judge anyones work different than mine as that is there way of doing things. Heck I shoot landscapes with an 80mm, who am I to talk.

 So there is no rules on lens use. That may be the key to finding interesting shots. Maybe we could get a small roulette wheel with 18-35-50-80-200-300-500 and take the picture with what ever lens the small roulette wheel told us to. Talk about a learning experience.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> There may have been a couple of good ones but the over all view of them was bad. You had light fall off,


 

 As an aside:
  A lot of people see light fall off as a bad thing.  Maybe I'm just odd, but I usually like a small amount of it, especially if the subject it smack dab in the middle of the frame.

 I can't tell you how many times I've used modern lenses and gone into software to purposefully add light fall off effects (vignetting).
   
  I got an old AIS 80-200mm F4.5n just to see firsthand what a true vignetting looks like.  I love the natural effect it gives!


----------



## Redcarmoose

OK maybe I'm going out soon with my 1985 Fedco Nikon mount zoom! I guess if you wait long enough everything comes back around! Where are my flash bulbs?


----------



## Redcarmoose

Yes, that effect would have been cool here. The amazing thing is many crappy ais oldschool lens work because they were full frame. With a Nikon DX body your only using the center part of the lens. It is the lens edge refraction distortion that is an issue, the center not as problematic.


----------



## WhiteCrow

I got the D3100 a week or two ago, Killer deal on it as well. The best sub $1000 camera I have seen and the interchangeable lenses make it an even better deal. HD video is just the icing on the cake.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> Yes, that effect would have been cool here. The amazing thing is many crappy ais oldschool lens work because they were full frame. With a Nikon DX body your only using the center part of the lens. It is the lens edge refraction distortion that is an issue, the center not as problematic.


 


  Yes, that has been in the back of my mind.  If I am getting noticeable vignetting on a DX frame, what would it be like on 35mm / FX!  I can't even imagine how bad.


----------



## Butler

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Creativity has nothing to do with whether you use a zoom or a prime. Having to step a few steps forward or back doesnt make better pictures. Its just as possible to previsualize with a zoom as it is a prime. Any lens you use enough to become second nature to you will serve you.
> 
> Primes are good for shooting in low light. They also can help create narrow slivers of focus for portraits. They're generally a little lighter and more compact than zooms. That is their advantage. Most photographers would be well served at having both zooms and primes. It isn't an either/or thing.


 

 I'm just saying what I heard from my multiple photography teachers throughout college. But hey, what do they know- they're paid to teach photography and have years of field experience.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





butler said:


> I'm just saying what I heard from my multiple photography teachers throughout college. But hey, what do they know- they're paid to teach photography and have years of field experience.


 

 My sarcasm meter went off the scale with this post.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


butler said:


> I'm just saying what I heard from my multiple photography teachers throughout college. But hey, what do they know- they're paid to teach photography and have years of field experience.


 

 The reason high school and entry level college photography courses limit students to a single prime is to reduce the number of variables so a student can focus on the fundamental techniques. It isn't because shooting with a prime makes students "more creative". When you master those fundamentals, you can move on from shooting with a single prime and start using a wider range of tools. Different tools have different applications. Glass doesn't make you creative. Your brain does.


----------



## music_man

maybe someone could help me please. i got a couple of very fine scratches on my camera screen. i don't like screen protectors. is there any way to remove the scratches that is not risky?

thanks

oh btw, it is a nikon!


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





music_man said:


> maybe someone could help me please. i got a couple of very fine scratches on my camera screen. i don't like screen protectors. is there any way to remove the scratches that is not risky?
> 
> thanks
> 
> oh btw, it is a nikon!


 

 If the scratches bother you a lot, you can ship your camera into nikon and they will repair it.
  If not, I would say just be careful and try and avoid any more scratches.


----------



## xkRoWx

Quote:


bigshot said:


> Creativity has nothing to do with whether you use a zoom or a prime. *Having to step a few steps forward or back doesnt make better pictures*. Its just as possible to previsualize with a zoom as it is a prime. Any lens you use enough to become second nature to you will serve you.
> 
> Primes are good for shooting in low light. They also can help create narrow slivers of focus for portraits. They're generally a little lighter and more compact than zooms. That is their advantage. Most photographers would be well served at having both zooms and primes. It isn't an either/or thing.


 

 Shooting at 24mm 3 feet away is not the same as shooting 200mm from 20 feet. I bet 90% of the people with zoom wouldn't even bother walking that extra 17 feet, when a full twist of the zoom ring can "bring you there".
   
  Perspective can make or break the photograph.


----------



## Butler

[size=medium]Quote: 





xkrowx said:


> Quote:
> 
> Shooting at 24mm 3 feet away is not the same as shooting 200mm from 20 feet. I bet 90% of the people with zoom wouldn't even bother walking that extra 17 feet, when a full twist of the zoom ring can "bring you there".
> 
> Perspective can make or break the photograph.





   
   
  Exactly. Compression can be quite this killer. "Oh is that 10 feet between the boy and the house or is he leaning against it?".
  ​[/size]

   


  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Quote:
> 
> The reason high school and entry level college photography courses limit students to a single prime is to reduce the number of variables so a student can focus on the fundamental techniques. It isn't because shooting with a prime makes students "more creative". When you master those fundamentals, you can move on from shooting with a single prime and start using a wider range of tools. Different tools have different applications. Glass doesn't make you creative. Your brain does.


 
   
   
  I agree with you on all of this.
   
  These are senior level courses. I'm not saying zoom lenses dont have their place, but at comparable focal lengths it's usually the better decision, weather is be a faster lens or whatever. Primes are the best lenses to learn on, that's all I'm saying. It keeps one variable static in the many elements that go into a composition and exposure. One you understand those two things, among others, then it's appropriate to introduce zoom lenses. But it's always important to make sure that that zoom isn't a creativity crutch.
  My best shots are with primes, hands down, because the situations I'm put in with them are the most creative and require extra forethought.


----------



## bigshot

xkrowx said:


> Shooting at 24mm 3 feet away is not the same as shooting 200mm from 20 feet. I bet 90% of the people with zoom wouldn't even bother walking that extra 17 feet, when a full twist of the zoom ring can "bring you there".




And I bet someone who just put a 200mm prime on their camera wouldn't be bothered to switch to a 24mm to get one shot... Particularly if the 24 was in the car in their bag instead of being in their pocket.

The best way to get the shot is to have the proper tool. A lens is just a tool. If you're shooting candids of people or fast changing action, having the right focal length on the camera is the only way to get the shot. The action won't stop for you to switch lenses. Primes have their place, but they aren't a substitute for a good zoom.

If you can't be creatiVe with a zoom, that's your weakness. It isn't the fault of the lens.


----------



## Redcarmoose

There are no rules in photography...........none!
   
  There are laws which we have leaned from science and there are the values of art they teach in collage and we are exposed to in the media.
   
   
  Towert7 is taking pictures with a first generation 198? zoom and enjoying the effect it gives his photos. You could use the lens out of the center of your front door that you use to see people knocking. The results might be cool. Towert7 has a whole collection of modern equipment but enjoys a LO/FI effect you can't create in Photo Shop.
   
   
   
  It's up to each photographer to explore their own style. Chromatic distortion, uneven light falloff, all end up being cool after the trend of years and years of perfect photographs.
   
   
  The trick is to be inventive and use the tools at hand to create new styles or effects which have not been seen before as long as they help communicate the message that the photographer is trying to tell. At times the trick is for the viewer to say "Wow" "How did he do that?" Facts are that there are effects that will be invented in Photo Shop which will be released in the next 20 years never seen by man. Facts are someone will take a photograph out the window of a car going 40mph reflected off a mirror and get another effect never seen by man. These are some of the photographs which win contests because they cause us to pause for a moment and realize that life still holds mysteries that we have yet to experience. By the way photographers, that's our job!
   
   
   
  I own a zoom lens but I am learning to see things another way. Using one prime would never get someone a company yearly report portfolio as there is a mission and a larger story to tell which justifies the use of many different perspectives in photography. There is a story to tell and a job to do to tell the story.
   
  Walking around with a single prime lens could almost get a person to loose the one great photograph they have a chance to take in their life. No one walks around with one lens. Early news paper photographers would go out for the day with one medium format camera and photograph stuff to print in the paper. They could take the negative into the dark room and enlarge the focal perspective in the printing process and pull the telephoto photograph straight out of the wide angle shot. We can also do this today with cropping. To be printed in the newspaper the quality was really not that important as long as the photograph told the other half of the story the printed letters fell short on.
   
  The cool part is all of us when using photography as a hobby have the freedom to play.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Some old junk I'm into.
FM,FE,FE2 This stuff was expensive to purchase when I was in my 20s. Now almost the price of a night in a hotel room.


----------



## Redcarmoose




----------



## Redcarmoose




----------



## Redcarmoose




----------



## Redcarmoose

The great part about the N90s are that you can pick one up for $30 or $40 bucks and they take AA batteries! A 1000.00 usd when they came out, one of the finest Nikons ever made.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





butler said:


> Primes are the best lenses to learn on, that's all I'm saying.


 


  Again, maybe I'm different, but I never had trouble learning on a zoom lens (18-55mm and 70-300mm at first, then an 18-200mm).  There really are not that many variables to control.  Perspective, zoom, f-stop, shutter speed, subject, lighting...  For me, the zoom aspect never complicated things and likewise never took away from my creativity...  Trust me, learning how to use an oscilloscope was much harder than learning the basic concepts of photography. 
  Now with Digital photography, learning photography has never been easier.
   
  I am a self taught photographer (never had a formal course).  Perhaps the teachers are the ones that like to break photography down into it's components?
  I also find myself not bound to these 'rules' or guidelines that so many people talk about.  I just take the photographs I like.
   
  Now, video and video editing I'm having a MUCH harder time picking up, despite already having knowledge of things like shutter speed, f-stop, focal length.  Time and audio sure do complicate things!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:  





> Towert7 is taking pictures with a first generation 198? zoom


 
   
  Not quite sure when, but it was made sometime between 1977 and 1981...


----------



## bigshot

All early zooms weren't bad. I can't bring myself to part with my old Vivitar Series One 70-210 macro. It served me too well over the years. But I wouldn't mind chucking my old 43-86 off a cliff if I could see it fall all the way to the bottom.


----------



## MorbidToaster

I'm certainly enjoying my modern zooms. 
   
  I'm not too sure what people are fussing about anyway. I mean...think what you think I guess, but Primes don't mean you're more creative than a zoom user.


----------



## bigshot

I have three zooms... Tokina 11-16 2.8 (which is as sharp as any lens), Tamron 17-50 2.8 (my everyday favorite) and the Nikon 18-200 VR (the most versatile lens ever). I also have four primes (7mm, 30mm, 50mm and 100mm). At this point, the only lens I really want is the Nikon 70-300 VR. That would complete my kit.


----------



## Trysaeder

I'm close to finishing my setup now.
  11-16 tokina - wide angles are incredibly hard to use. The zoom on this makes it quite a bit easier, but I still treat it as a prime.
  17-50 sigma - boring lens. Use for events that I have less experience in, as well as lower lighting stuff. It's a nice 24/4 OS though.
  55-200 - $150 for practising birding lens. Best bang/buck.
  85/1.4 - Love it
  35/1.8 - For size and weight conscious trips.
   
   
  Just missing a few of those from my actual posession, but that'll be my kit indefinitely. Only problem is that it's hard to justify the extra lenses as the 85 sits on the mount 70% of the time.


----------



## Butler

That FE2 is super sexy, by the way. I'm a little jealous..
   
  *brings up ebay...*


----------



## WhiteCrow

I seriously love my camera.
  Nikon D3100 best sub $1000 cameraI have yet to try.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote: 





butler said:


> That FE2 is super sexy, by the way. I'm a little jealous..
> 
> *brings up ebay...*


 


  The FE2 was my camera in photography school. One of the first with Nikon TTL flash metering. It did 1/250th of a sec fill flash too in daylight. They are all over E-Bay. I sold my black FE2 after I was out of school and needed money. Found that silver one for $125.00 usd. in 09. It has a really small ding in the prism top but pretty clean all and all. They are great film cameras. Even though you may read that the FM and FE take older lens and the FE2 does not, I was somehow able to get some older (Q?) non ais lens to fit the FE2. The fun part is the sb15 flash cord that lets you put tape or paper over a TTL flash and hold it directly close to a subject for macro photography. People talk about taking old cameras in and having them "tuned". My Dad used to take his Nikon is and have it cleaned and gone though. The guy I purchased my FE from ran a roll in 1985. I put a roll in in 2009 and every photograph and exposure was dead on perfect. Nikons Rule!


----------



## Redcarmoose

Better though to get an FM as the batteries for theses FE, FE2s may get rare. With the FM you can use a light meter.


----------



## Szadzik

Just a quick update for those I talked to about my 70-200 f2.8 purchase. A few weeks ago I purchased a cheap Tamron (1/3 price of a Nikon branded alternative) and just wanted to show a few photos after my first shootout with it, nothing special - I do not consider myself a good photographer either.


----------



## blufox4900

Looks pretty awesome! I'm thinking about getting the tamron 70-200 for portraits later on in the fall after I get all the things I need for my next photography semester in college. This semester in particular's gonna kill me..I need to buy a tripod, a speedlight, and a light meter.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





blufox4900 said:


> Looks pretty awesome! I'm thinking about getting the tamron 70-200 for portraits later on in the fall after I get all the things I need for my next photography semester in college. This semester in particular's gonna kill me..I need to buy a tripod, a speedlight, and a light meter.


 


   
  It is great for portraits. I took a few really nice ones, unfortunately cannot post them here.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





blufox4900 said:


> Looks pretty awesome! I'm thinking about getting the tamron 70-200 for portraits later on in the fall after I get all the things I need for my next photography semester in college. This semester in particular's gonna kill me..I need to buy a tripod, a speedlight, and a light meter.


 


  Not sure if you know, but being a photography student qualifies you for additional discounts at bhphoto.com  ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/eduRootPage.jsp ).
  Every little bit helps.


----------



## Butler

Yeah, and I've seen the B&H Student discounts.. and when you say "every little bit", you mean "a very very little bit on select products".


----------



## MorbidToaster

My next lens
   
  It'll be my first prime.
   
  EDIT: Maybe not. Looking at the DX 35mm as well. They're the same price...Tough choice.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Because your camera is not a full frame sensor you will be using it as a 75mm telephoto lens. This 75mm telephoto perspective is what I am using 80% of the time. You will love it!
  
  Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> My next lens
> 
> It'll be my first prime.


----------



## MorbidToaster

Yeah I know. That's what I want somewhat excited about. Trying to decide what I want to do. 
  
  Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> Because your camera is not a full frame sensor you will be using it as a 75mm telephoto lens. This 75mm telephoto perspective is what I am using 80% of the time. You will love it!


----------



## nikongod

I personally prefer a 35mm(fullframe)/28mm(crop) prime, but it is a very personal choice.


----------



## Redcarmoose

The thing is, in the past portraits were done with an 85mm. So the perspective is a little off in that regard. It is still great for portraits but very nontraditional in a way. I use a 300mm X 1.5 for portraits so who am I to talk. You could always get an FX Nikon body someday!
   
  I really like the 75mm perspective, maybe because it seems different.  I use a 450mm for portraits and people. Very different.


----------



## MorbidToaster

I'm still a little confused about FX vs DX. How would my DX lenses function on an FX body. I know that FX lenses scale up on a DX body (is there an exact amount on that, by the way?), but it's a little confusing.
  
  Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> The thing is, in the past portraits were done with an 85mm. So the perspective is a little off in that regard. It is still great for portraits but very nontraditional in a way. I use a 300mm X 1.5 for portraits so who am I to talk. You could always get an FX Nikon body someday!
> 
> I really like the 75mm perspective, maybe because it seems different.  I use a 450mm for portraits and people. Very different.


----------



## nikongod

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> I'm still a little confused about FX vs DX. How would my DX lenses function on an FX body.


 

 DX lenses dont always work right on an FX body. If they worked right on an FX body, nikon would sell them to everyone 
   
  FX lenses work on DX or FX bodies, but are generally a bit larger and heavier than lenses designed for DX. 
   
  When you use a DX lens on an FX digital body the camera crops the sensor size to DX automatically. You can over-ride it but you you risk getting crazy light fall off or really soft corners. Sometimes the lenses (zooms) will cover full frame at some settings, but mneh. When the new nikon flagships come out second hand D700 will be dirty-cheap. Im saving up.


----------



## MorbidToaster

Hmm...Maybe I should've bought the 70-300 FX instead of the 55-300 DX. Either way, I'm enjoying the 55-300, and it's not like I'm upgrading anytime soon (although if I did it'd probably be a D7000, which is also DX).
   
  It'll be at least a month before I make the decision, but the FX may be the way to go. We'll see I suppose. I'm sure I'll enjoy whatever I get...they both take fabulous photos.
  
  Quote: 





nikongod said:


> DX lenses dont always work right on an FX body. If they worked right on an FX body, nikon would sell them to everyone
> 
> FX lenses work on DX or FX bodies, but are generally a bit larger and heavier than lenses designed for DX.
> 
> When you use a DX lens on an FX digital body the camera crops the sensor size to DX automatically. You can over-ride it but you you risk getting crazy light fall off but it may look interesting anyways (like with the 10.5mm fisheye). Sometimes the lenses (zooms) will cover full frame at some settings, but mneh. When the new nikon flagships come out second hand D700 will be dirty-cheap. Im saving up.


----------



## Redcarmoose

I'm no expert here. I own almost all older Nikon gear. If I was to put a DX auto focus Nikon lens on an old 35mm film body like an FM it would have dark edges around every picture.
   
  All DX cameras have a sensor which is smaller than a 35mm film camera piece of film. The FX digital Nikons have a sensor the size of a piece of 35mm film to be exposed. This is how I understand it anyway.
   
  Using full frame FX lens or a ais 1980s lens will give you a magnification factor of 1.5.  A 35mm wide angle gets you to 52.5mm. The question is are people liking the new perspective or are we messed up not using the traditional mm which has always been used.
   
   
  What I'm saying is there may be a reason why Nikon does not make a 75mm telephoto. Remember there really are no rules but an 85mm or 100mm with portraits ends up making peoples noses seem in order with the rest of their face. Certain focal perspectives are good looking for people photography. A 75mm may not look as good and you may want to be farther back, to get the look of a 85mm lens. I walk around all day with the 75mm. I do portraits and landscapes. I just do what I want. I try to judge how my own stuff looks to me and don't listen really to anyone.
   
  All the photographs of leaves that I have been taking have been with a 75mm prime and mostly opened-up. The telephoto gets you the lower depth of field too over having a 50mm. I don't know just something I became used to.
   
  Some folks believe that 35mm is what we see with our eyes. Back in the 70s everyone thought 50mm or 55mm was the natural perspective we had.
   
   
  One thing you will find though is that photography with a telephoto is tons easier to do than a wide. It takes much more skill and effort to make wides take good photographs. They put so much in the photo that you have to work so that your photographs don't have too much stuff going on and become too busy. Thats why 85mm or 100mm or 75mms are easy and fun.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Yes, my dream is a D700. I have a major collection of 18mm primes 20mm primes, 24mm primes and I do want to do some landscape photography with the D700.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Here is a photograph I did last night with 75mm.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> Hmm...Maybe I should've bought the 70-300 FX instead of the 55-300 DX. Either way, I'm enjoying the 55-300, and it's not like I'm upgrading anytime soon (although if I did it'd probably be a D7000, which is also DX).
> 
> It'll be at least a month before I make the decision, but the FX may be the way to go. We'll see I suppose. I'm sure I'll enjoy whatever I get...they both take fabulous photos.


 
   
  If I remember correctly, you have a wide zoom (17-50mm?) and the 55-300 zoom.  Do you find you have been taking certain "types" of photos more than others?  It might be way too early to know.  Sometimes it takes people years until they discover the types of photos they enjoy taking.
  There are SO many nice nikon primes, and most of them are quite reasonably priced.  Picking one at random is ok, you'll get to see how much different it is when compared to your zoom, but later on you may have wished for a different focal length.
   
  If you don't have a preference, why not start cheap and get the nice nikon 50mm F1.8.  I would suggest getting the older version, still being made today.  It's 125$, vs the 219$ you linked to.  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-USA/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html
  I have one, and respect the lens greatly.  I never felt the desire to have the 50mm F1.4.
   
  Out of the nikon primes I have, I have found myself using them most for (on DX):
   
  24mm F2.8:  Landscape, product photos
  35mm F2.0:  Indoor people photos, holiday photos.
  50mm F1.8:  Action indoor photos of people
  60mm F2.8:  Macro, product shots
  85mm F1.8:  Closeups of people indoors, closeup product photos
   
  I think I reach for the 24mm and 85mm the most of all of these.  The 24mm has barely left my camera since I got it (I love landscapes!).
   
   
  I absolutely lust after a 105mm or 135mm DC nikkor, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.


----------



## MorbidToaster

18-55 f/3.5-5.6 and 55-300 f/4.5-5.6
   
  I like landscapes the most, followed by wild animal (hence the big zoom) and macro. I haven't been able to do a lot since I got my camera since it's so blasted hot here lately, but I want to be ready once it cools off a little.
   
  Quote: 





towert7 said:


> If I remember correctly, you have a wide zoom (17-50mm?) and the 55-300 zoom.  Do you find you have been taking certain "types" of photos more than others?  It might be way too early to know.  Sometimes it takes people years until they discover the types of photos they enjoy taking.
> There are SO many nice nikon primes, and most of them are quite reasonably priced.  Picking one at random is ok, you'll get to see how much different it is when compared to your zoom, but later on you may have wished for a different focal length.
> 
> If you don't have a preference, why not start cheap and get the nice nikon 50mm F1.8.  I would suggest getting the older version, still being made today.  It's 125$, vs the 219$ you linked to.  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-USA/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html
> ...


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 and 55-300 f/4.5-5.6
> 
> I like landscapes the most,


 

 Not sure if you do the same type of landscape that I do, but perhaps a 24mm?
  It's about twice the price as a 50mm f1.8.


----------



## MorbidToaster

I think I might keep thinking about it because of the general price range of my choices. 
   
  Right now for the price, the 35mm DX seems like my best choice because of the conversion from FX to DX. We'll see though. Maybe I'll just keep using my 18-55 for landscapes right now. Not the best choice, but it'll work for at least a month or so. 
   
  Quote: 





towert7 said:


> Not sure if you do the same type of landscape that I do, but perhaps a 24mm?
> It's about twice the price as a 50mm f1.8.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





morbidtoaster said:


> I think I might keep thinking about it because of the general price range of my choices.
> 
> Right now for the price, the 35mm DX seems like my best choice because of the conversion from FX to DX. We'll see though. Maybe I'll just keep using my 18-55 for landscapes right now. Not the best choice, but it'll work for at least a month or so.


 
   
  Great thing about landscapes is that it doesn't have to be very demanding on the lens.  Plop the camera on a tripod, set the F stop to something like 8 for a full DOF, and your done.  As long as you can avoid things like barrel distortion, you're doing good.
  I nice monopod or tripod, along with a polarizer can make more of a difference than a single prime lens.


----------



## Redcarmoose

So far I only have a 52mm polarizer so I ended up using my  DX VR Nikon 18mm to 55mm kit lens a lot for landscapes. One thing that really improved things for me was using the viewfinder marks to get everything super level.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> One thing that really improved things for me was using the viewfinder marks to get everything super level.


 

 That's one of the things I wish my D50 had!
  I don't know how many times I've taken slanted photos and had to crop.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> That's one of the things I wish my D50 had!  I don't know how many times I've taken slanted photos and had to crop.


 


  My D90 has it iand still from time to time a photo will come out slanted  I think it is a great feature (the whole display showing aperture, shutter speed, ISO etc., is a great thing in general IMO).


----------



## nwsswn

Anybody else here waiting for a replacement to the D700?  I love my D700 but I would to see Nikon upgrade it to more modern features (like video).


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





nwsswn said:


> Anybody else here waiting for a replacement to the D700?


 
  Not I.  I can't even afford lenses I want.


----------



## nwsswn

What's the best place to sell my used Nikon gear for top dollar?  B&H and Gazelle are offering me decent prices but it looks like I could get more on eBay.  Unfortunately, I have never sold anything on eBay so it would be difficult to sell there without a seller's reputation.  Any thoughts?  Would craigslist be my best bet?


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





nwsswn said:


> What's the best place to sell my used Nikon gear for top dollar?  B&H and Gazelle are offering me decent prices but it looks like I could get more on eBay.  Unfortunately, I have never sold anything on eBay so it would be difficult to sell there without a seller's reputation.  Any thoughts?  Would craigslist be my best bet?


 


  Try everything you can.  Bottom line, you need to find the person who wants the item.
   
  Also, you can't get top dollar for your item unless it is in top shape or you find a sucker.


----------



## nwsswn

makes sense.  and yes, the stuff is in mint condition.


----------



## blufox4900

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> Not sure if you know, but being a photography student qualifies you for additional discounts at bhphoto.com  ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/eduRootPage.jsp ).
> Every little bit helps.


 
  Yeah I have the EDU special. I just have no money yet at all yet. At best maybe I'll have $200 in a week or two which is practically all going towards an off camera flash setup.


----------



## Butler

Hey maybe you guys can give me some direction on what this issue is.
  I'm pretty sure it only happens, or only happens this bad, on my 35mm 1.8f lens.
  Although when I borrowed my friend's 1.4/f 50mm it did something very similiar. 
  It's not flares, but almost like reflections of ghosts or something. It's REALLY noticeable on video's shot with that lens.
  I'll upload a photo to give you an idea of what it is.
   
  Friends have suggested that something with my mirror may be off, but I'd really like to get it sorted out before my event photography contract gets busy up again in the next few weeks.
  The artifacts are at the top, I could take a screen grab of a video of people playing brass instruments where you can visibly see the entire instrument reflected as a ghost elsewhere.


----------



## nikongod

Quote: 





butler said:


> It's not flares, but almost like reflections of ghosts or something. It's REALLY noticeable on video's shot with that lens.
> I'll upload a photo to give you an idea of what it is.
> 
> Friends have suggested that something with my mirror may be off, but I'd really like to get it sorted out before my event photography contract gets busy up again in the next few weeks.
> The artifacts are at the top, I could take a screen grab of a video of people playing brass instruments where you can visibly see the entire instrument reflected as a ghost elsewhere.


 
   
  I doubt it has anything to do with the mirror. 
   
  More likely it is an internal reflection in your lens, or more commonly between your lens and filter(s). 
   
  Try shooting the same scene without a UV filter, if your using one. If the problem is reduced to an acceptable level try a coated UV filter (may not work). If that doesn't help go naked in the dark. 
   
  Here is the first thread I found googling "photo ghosting" Its specifically about canon cameras, but whatever.
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00HSdL
  Describes the problem your having pretty well.


----------



## Butler

Interesting. I noticed it never happens on my more expensive lenses, although it's not like 200 is chump change for me either. My 35mm wasn't always like this… Which is really disappointing but it looks a lot like this person's examples. I'd rather not go naked in the dark with the boisterous events that I do, so I suppose I'll try with a coated one. Maybe I'll just try cleaning it. I just dont like that I put down 200 for this two years ago and it makes such unfortunate ghosts for low light photography.

Do you think Nikon would work on it? Or some store?


----------



## xxhaxx

First of all what UV filter are you using with the lens. It looks like you have a filter on that's bouncing light around in the lens. I used to have a crappy UV filter to "protect" my kit lens before I noticed these things in low light shots. Try shooting w/o the UV filter or try out Multi-coated filter.


----------



## Butler

It's a Ziekos 52mm UV filter, one of the cheapest I could find but still a recognizable brand, and it's on a Nikkor DX 35mm 1.8/f. Like I said I'd rather not take the filter off but I'm not 100% sure its the filter because I used this combination for a long time and am just now beginning to see such harsh ghosting. Regardless, I'm going to look the coated filter because this isn't a super expensive lens but it's a great general use one that I dont want to replace.


----------



## Towert7

Looks like dirty glass somewhere butler.


----------



## bigshot

It's your filter reflecting back. Never use a filter when you shoot into the sun or bright lights at night. They're fine for normal light.


----------



## xxhaxx

Towert7: Unless the dirt have some reflective property you won't be able to see it in the image. Unless of course it is super dirty 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.  I just had to... http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches
   
  Butler: Not all UV filter are created equally. You are putting a $4 dollar filter in front of a $200 dollar lens. Cheap filters can actually degrade your image quality. 
   
   
  Naked vs B+W vs Hoya: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=34206309
  UV filter comparison: http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





xxhaxx said:


> Towert7: Unless the dirt have some reflective property you won't be able to see it in the image. Unless of course it is super dirty
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  The dust need not be reflective, per se.  All it needs to do is disperse the light.  Dust, finger prints, anything that makes glass dirty can disperse the light giving the look of a 'dirty window' which is exactly what the problem photo shows. 
  Dispersing the light will have the effect of taking the light from bright light sources and dispersing it, smearing it around the light source.  That is exactly what I saw in the problem photo.

 I stand by what I said.  Looks like the glass is dirty.


----------



## Butler

bigshot said:


> It's your filter reflecting back. Never use a filter when you shoot into the sun or bright lights at night. They're fine for normal light.




Like I said, I'd rather not run naked at night- no pun intended. I'm going to look into a coated UV filter of higher quality than the cheap one I'm sporting right now. If there's money on the line I'll take the filter off.




xxhaxx said:


> Towert7: Unless the dirt have some reflective property you won't be able to see it in the image. Unless of course it is super dirty
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's interesting how there's actually WORSE flare with the low quality UV filter, and it's pretty bad even with the high quality filter but it looks just fine with the high quality Hoya, which looks like the brand I'll be going with. Regardless of the dirt debate I'm going to give the cheap filter a good cleaning, but it looks like I'll really need to invest in some better filters if I want to avoid these issues. I dont think that it's dirt though because I shot a concert through the same lens, and like I said, I was seeing the entire image of one of the brass instruments I was filming ghosted around the screen.


----------



## xxhaxx

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> The dust need not be reflective, per se.  All it needs to do is disperse the light.  Dust, finger prints, anything that makes glass dirty can disperse the light giving the look of a 'dirty window' which is exactly what the problem photo shows.
> Dispersing the light will have the effect of taking the light from bright light sources and dispersing it, smearing it around the light source.  That is exactly what I saw in the problem photo.
> 
> I stand by what I said.  Looks like the glass is dirty.


 
   
  From your argument can't you also say that by using a cheap UV filter it would also cause the light to get disperse since the optic quality of a $4 filter isn't on par with a $200 lens. 
   
   
  Another link: http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





butler said:


> I'm going to look into a coated UV filter of higher quality than the cheap one I'm sporting right now.


 
   
  It is not a UV filter, but I can not recommend the nikon clear filters enough.  They are absolutely fantastic.  WELL worth their price.
   
  When ever I get a nice new lens, the very first thing I do the second I take off the lens cap is install a nikon clear filter.


----------



## Butler

Will that reduce these effects? Like I said, I want a filter on at night and or low light and yet I want to minimize these ghosts. I'll look into that as well. This may be a case of "cant have my cake and eat it too" I suppose.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





butler said:


> Will that reduce these effects? Like I said, I want a filter on at night and or low light and yet I want to minimize these ghosts. I'll look into that as well. This may be a case of "cant have my cake and eat it too" I suppose.


 

 Assuming your filter is either dirty or of poor quality (and the glass on the lens is clean), then yes, going to a nikon clear filter will minimize these ghosts.  Just keep the nikon filter clean as well.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Dude, relax, try running without a filter.  It won't kill your lens.  Normal optical glass is extremely hard and resistant to scratches - and good filters cost good money.  Buy new UV/clear ones for all of your lenses, and you may have just spent enough to replace a lens which may well break when you drop it anyway.  Well, that depends on how much your lenses cost...
   
  I have dropped multiple lenses before with filters on them - they offer almost no protection.  Well, yes, some, and you'll find occasions where they saved a lens - but a hood offers far superior protection.  They keep fingers and other things away from the lens, help prevent flare from out-of-frame objects, and absorb many, many times more energy from an impact than a filter can.
   
  There are many situations where a filter is definitely smart - and honestly, I keep them on many of my lenses.  Not all of them, though, and believe it or not I have no cap, hood, or filter for my 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S - I just keep it in a form-fitting bag.
   
  Sometimes - and I know many others do this as well - I just forget about having a lens cap and use just a filter plus a hood.  It's great, although dust will build up on the filter.  I don't care, I clean them and they're fine.  A few scratches - whatever, it won't make any difference.
   
  Do yourself a favor, and get used filters from KEH.  Any Nikon filter has some variation of Nikon's excellent multicoating (i.e. NIC) and will perform well.  Hoya HMC filters are just about as good but have thicker rings - not so good for stacking filters if you ever do that, and they can be problematic on some wideangles.  You'll find what you need for about $10 on KEH (half or less of what a new one would cost at B&H); don't be afraid to get a BGN condition one - and get several to make your shipping worth it.  If you don't have polarizers, color filters, GNDs, etc., you should look there.  They've got a huge stock at any one time.


----------



## Butler

Used filters? Interesting! I'll have to check out KEH, because honestly I've never heard of it untill today.
I'm just extra careful because most of my commercial photography is club photography and it's a really rough and rowdy scene to be taking pictures in. Elbows jutting into everywhere is just what I don't need. I'm curious, If a 3rd party has made some sort of filter to fit my fisheye, afterall, it has a tiny build in hood but the glass is so exposed. That's the lens I use perhaps the most because club is just so **** crowded and packed. 
For example, even if I was using a 35mm these wouldn't have worked with the space that I have at my disposal. So. Packed.


----------



## bigshot

I have to say, I bought a used filter from one of the big NY camera stores that was represented as being flawless... And I'm sure it was before they shrunk wrapped it and tossed it in a drawer loose. There was a ding in the shrink wrap that corresponded with a ding in the coating. The savings wasn't worth it to me.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Some fish eyes have the filter holder in the rear of the lens. What fish eye do you own? The widest I have is 18mm which just takes a 72mm. My lens is not a fisheye though. It does look like you need a lens cover filter with drinks splashing and lit smokes flying your way.


----------



## Butler

I have the AF Fisheye Nikkor 10.5mm 2.8f, on a D7000 so it's DX sensor. Regardless, it's a has a meager built in hood but it's a EXPENSIVE lens and I would love to have it more protected in such a rough environment.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Yes, that lens only takes rear mount filters. I would take the lens cap and try and attach a string to it. Leave the lens cap on all time time then in the club when you want to take a photograph take the lens cap off. Have the string let the lens cap dangle from the lens as you take the picture then put in right back on the camera. This way you don't have to spend time putting the lens cap away or in your pocket each time you take a picture. You also have both hands ready to use your camera. Super Cool Lens! Seems perfect for getting everyone in the shot in a tight place.


----------



## Butler

Yeah and rear mount filters arn't going to protect my glass… I will have to try that string thing. Things are just so hectic that it may seem like a bother, but protecting the lens is extremely important. It was an investment, to say the least. Even with the 35mm things are made very uncomfortable by the fact that I have to back up so darn far. Although when it gets late and people start filing out I get some beautiful portraits with it. I suppose 18 on my 18-200 would work moderadely well, but honestly this lens is perfect for what I do.I couldn't get most of my spur of the moment shots in such a cramped space without it. Thanks for the suggestions!


----------



## bigshot

The 8mm Samyang (Bowen, Vivitar) fisheye is optically superior to the Nikon, and it's inexpensive enough you don't have to baby it.


----------



## Trysaeder

Quote:  





> ...fisheye is optically superior...


 

 Does it really matter?


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





butler said:


> Yeah and rear mount filters arn't going to protect my glass… I will have to try that string thing. Things are just so hectic that it may seem like a bother, but protecting the lens is extremely important. It was an investment, to say the least. Even with the 35mm things are made very uncomfortable by the fact that I have to back up so darn far. Although when it gets late and people start filing out I get some beautiful portraits with it. I suppose 18 on my 18-200 would work moderadely well, but honestly this lens is perfect for what I do.I couldn't get most of my spur of the moment shots in such a cramped space without it. Thanks for the suggestions!


 


  I know someone who does professional nightclub photos.  I like the ones he takes at 11mm.
   
   









   
  Might be worth asking him what lens he uses.
 His flickr account is:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/ktoffl7574/


----------



## Butler

bigshot said:


> The 8mm Samyang (Bowen, Vivitar) fisheye is optically superior to the Nikon, and it's inexpensive enough you don't have to baby it.




It's not like I'm "in the market" anymore for one so it's kind of irrelevant if you feel that is is optically superior. Mine is faster, which is a more of a plus for what I do. If I ever have 300 dollars lying around it's probably not going to go to have a beater fisheye. Even if it was 300 dollars I would still baby it just like I do my 200 dollar 35mm or my ~800 dollar 18-200 VRII, I just like keep my items at tip top shape for resale. No joke, I have a circular cut "invisible shield" over the wood on my ESW9's. 
Also, I am a huge Nikon fanboy when it comes to camera equipment so that extends to my Nikkor Lenses of course. But that's more foolishness/ brand loyalty than practicality. 
Besides, that 300 dollars is reserved for my bifrost DAC.:atsmile:





towert7 said:


> I know someone who does professional nightclub photos.  I like the ones he takes at 11mm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Those shots / lens profiles are similar to what I have. Somewhat less cramped than what I deal with. I'm not interested in picking up another lens as much as I am protecting what I have.
It looks like he uses a wideangle zoom lens, which is awesome and something that's great to have on hand. I would like something like that for framing but it's not the end of the world. What I'd like to ask him is why go all the way down to (and past) f22 on some of his club shots? Hahaha. Oh well. To each their own. He's got some great stuff here, some stuff that I wouldn't be able to do.


----------



## Trysaeder

Dark shots should be underexposed to retain the feeling of the environment. The photos all look really unnatural, giving the same feeling as overdone hdr.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





butler said:


> It's not like I'm "in the market" anymore for one so it's kind of irrelevant if you feel that is is optically superior. Mine is faster, which is a more of a plus for what I do. If I ever have 300 dollars lying around it's probably not going to go to have a beater fisheye. Even if it was 300 dollars I would still baby it just like I do my 200 dollar 35mm or my ~800 dollar 18-200 VRII, I just like keep my items at tip top shape for resale. No joke, I have a circular cut "invisible shield" over the wood on my ESW9's.
> Also, I am a huge Nikon fanboy when it comes to camera equipment so that extends to my Nikkor Lenses of course. But that's more foolishness/ brand loyalty than practicality.
> Besides, that 300 dollars is reserved for my bifrost DAC.
> 
> ...


 

 More important than what lens he uses, he uses ceiling-mounted strobes.  That's also why he's stopping down so much.


----------



## bigshot

trysaeder said:


> Does it really matter?




I guess it does if you plan to do panorams. The Samyang can do a full 360 in four shots while the Nikon takes six. The distortion pattern on the Samyang makes it easier to defish using software too.


----------



## Butler

Ah. I suppose that would make sense. I just have my flash which I either use on the off the shoe. I wouldn't like to stop down that much and lose all the DOF, you know? That and it would pick up every nitty gritty detail and trust me these people can look sloppy and sweaty! :atsmile:


----------



## Nocturnal310

the hollow squarish building in the first pic...i have seen it in real life while i was travelling in europe...is it paris?
  Quote: 





szadzik said:


> Just a quick update for those I talked to about my 70-200 f2.8 purchase. A few weeks ago I purchased a cheap Tamron (1/3 price of a Nikon branded alternative) and just wanted to show a few photos after my first shootout with it, nothing special - I do not consider myself a good photographer either.


----------



## nikongod

I went to hang out with some folks from a camera forum, and had a great time. 
   
  One of the guys at the meet had a Noct-Nikkor 58 F1.2 lens. No, I take that back. Its not a "lens" - "lens" describes what is in front of a holga, this is more like a light magnet. 
   
  Some pictures from inside a poorly lit bar. A few 15-40W lightbulbs overhead, and natural light on an overcast day through the windows. 
   

   
  Ok, this lens is a PITA to focus on my D200. I doubt its ever an easy lens to focus, but the D200 makes it extra hard. 
   

   
  Corona... It was in the middle of the table and far enough away that I thought that the non-existent DOF would make shooting it easy... yea right. It took 6 photos of "bokeh of corona" and this was the best of them. It could be better.
   

   
  One of the guys who came to the meet, from about 3-4ft away.


----------



## Butler

1.2?! Dear god… I could imagine that almost being inconveniently fast! Such soft pictures, so much bokeh and such a deep depth of field. WTB sharp focus and clarity amirite?


----------



## liamstrain

1.2 isn't too fast to focus if you have a good viewfinder (FF with split prism) or have it slapped on a rangefinder (often easier to focus in dim light).
   
  The Noct-Nikkor is a great lens. Very unique bokeh... and yes, that extremely narrow depth of field - going in a flash from razor sharp, to creamy smooth...


----------



## nikongod

Quote: 





butler said:


> 1.2?! Dear god… I could imagine that almost being inconveniently fast! Such soft pictures, so much bokeh and such a deep depth of field. WTB sharp focus and clarity amirite?


 
   

  I would not call this lens soft. 
  Open the picture of the guy in a new window. I uploaded full size - you can see individual hairs on his face & pores in his skin. 
  Its not a soft lens, soft lenses blur all of that together. 

  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> 1.2 isn't too fast to focus if you have a good viewfinder (FF with split prism) or have it slapped on a rangefinder (often easier to focus in dim light).
> 
> The Noct-Nikkor is a great lens. Very unique bokeh... and yes, that extremely narrow depth of field - going in a flash from razor sharp, to creamy smooth...


 

 I'm a bit bummed at how much you have to spend to get a split prism focus screen for a digital camera, even for the D*00 series. Maybe I'l get one when the D800 comes out and I get a D700. 
   
  The guy who owns the lens had it on an F3hp, which was an absolute joy to focus.


----------



## Butler

You're right. I didn't mean soft. I meant narrow depth of field. 
However, because of the aperture if he was further away from the subject- despite being in focus- it would be soft.


----------



## liamstrain

If he is in focus, he is sharp (unless the aperture is at f22 or smaller, then it would soften due to diffraction...), if he is *not* the subject - then yes, his distance to it would affect his sharpness ...


----------



## bigshot

The Sigma 50 1.4 is very similar to the Noct, and it's got a focus motor, so it's much easier to use on a D200. I have one and it's my favorite portrait lens. I can post a couple of examples if you're interested.


----------



## liamstrain

I've had nothing but terrible luck with Sigma's over the years. I'll never buy another. The Nikon 50/1.4 is nice enough though, even if it doesn't have the character of the older Noct. 
   
  As nice as the Noct was/is, it's not my favorite 1.2 of all time... but now we're moving away from Nikon schtuff.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The Sigma 50 1.4 is very similar to the Noct, and it's got a focus motor, so it's much easier to use on a D200. I have one and it's my favorite portrait lens. I can post a couple of examples if you're interested.


 


  Wondering what you think of the color/saturation rendition of the Sigma 50 1.4.  I tried it on my Canon body vs the Canon 50 1.4 lens, and while quite sharp, I thought the Sigma colors were significantly cooler..


----------



## liamstrain

Nik glass has always seemed warmer to me than modern Canon glass, so likely it would seem even more cool in comparison.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


jon l said:


> Wondering what you think of the color/saturation rendition of the Sigma 50 1.4.  I tried it on my Canon body vs the Canon 50 1.4 lens, and while quite sharp, I thought the Sigma colors were significantly cooler..


 

 No problem with that. I get plenty warm colors with it. No problem with quality control either. I have two Sigmas, a Tokina, a Tamron and a Samyang and they all worked fine out of the box.
   
  Here are some head shots using the Sigma 50
   

   

   
  Sigma bokeh wide open


----------



## nikongod

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I've had nothing but terrible luck with Sigma's over the years. I'll never buy another. The Nikon 50/1.4 is nice enough though, even if it doesn't have the character of the older Noct.
> 
> As nice as the Noct was/is, it's not my favorite 1.2 of all time... but now we're moving away from Nikon schtuff.


 

 I have gone through a couple Nikon 50/1.4 (through the purchase of a couple of film cameras), and agree 100% its not the same as this lens. I didnt shoot the 1.2@1.4, but still. 
   
  OOC, what is your favorite F1.2? I am on something of a bokeh quest...


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





nikongod said:


> OOC, what is your favorite F1.2? I am on something of a bokeh quest...


 

 The Canon 50/1.2 made for Canon/Leica LTM Rangefinders (mine is circa 1959). Bokeh gets very painterly, but the lens still performs well enough at "normal" apertures to be used everywhere if you don't mind the size (compared to other LTM 50's, it's a bit heavy).


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





nocturnal310 said:


> the hollow squarish building in the first pic...i have seen it in real life while i was travelling in europe...is it paris?


 


  Yes, Paris. Arc de Triomphe in La Defense.


----------



## Butler

liamstrain said:


> If he is in focus, he is sharp (unless the aperture is at f22 or smaller, then it would soften due to diffraction...), if he is *not* the subject - then yes, his distance to it would affect his sharpness ...




I firmly believe that at f 1.2 he would be sharper if he was in focus if he was closer, think about the way the light works with the aperature. If he was in focus and was 12 feet away he wouldn't be as sharp as if he was 2.


----------



## liamstrain

That has little to do with the aperture selected (diffraction aside)... but just how much information has to be resolved. More information on more pixels/grains vs. Trying to cram that same information onto half as many pixels/grains. 
   
  The aperture has nothing to do with that... It *might* have something to do with whether the optics are optimized for close focus use, or flat field... but even that is minor compared to the resolution/percentage of frame issue. And really - if you're that worried about it, small format digital or film are WAY not the way to go. 
   
  --
   
  Edit - do you mean the amount of apparent separation between subject and background, when the subject is closer to the camera? (e.g. a highly blurred background with sharp near subject) If that is the case, then yes, I agree - I wouldn't call that sharpness - the amount of sharpness would still be equal, there is just more separation.


----------



## Butler

liamstrain said:


> That has little to do with the aperture selected (diffraction aside)... but just how much information has to be resolved. More information on more pixels/grains vs. Trying to cram that same information onto half as many pixels/grains.
> 
> The aperture has nothing to do with that... It *might* have something to do with whether the optics are optimized for close focus use, or flat field... but even that is minor compared to the resolution/percentage of frame issue. And really - if you're that worried about it, small format digital or film are WAY not the way to go.
> 
> ...




Well you clearly sound like you know more than me about this stuff, so I'm not going to say you're wrong. For example, I have my 35mm 1.8, and if the object in focus is far far away, and I'm 1.8 it just doesn't feel as sharp as when it's close it feels softer. It's probably a mixture of what you said in both your original message, and even more so of the edit.

I just recall my photography teachers proclaiming that a higher f stop is always going to yield more detail, and I think that messes with what I was thinking. 

It makes sense when you say it, I guess it was in my head. I've always just jumped it up to 5+ if I'm using my 35mm and want to focus on something far away.


----------



## bigshot

Diffraction starts affecting sharpness in smaller apertures, especially on DX.
   
  A lens that is working properly should be equally sharp at any focus distance.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





butler said:


> I just recall my photography teachers proclaiming that a higher f stop is always going to yield more detail


 

 Your photography teacher taught you a misconception.
  There are times when higher f stops yield less detail.
   
  That's what happens when you learn optics from a photography teacher and not a physicist.  ^_^


----------



## nikongod

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> The Canon 50/1.2 made for Canon/Leica LTM Rangefinders (mine is circa 1959). Bokeh gets very painterly, but the lens still performs well enough at "normal" apertures to be used everywhere if you don't mind the size (compared to other LTM 50's, it's a bit heavy).


 

 Canon... Blasphemy!
   
  Seriously, Thanks for the tip I'l keep it in mind.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





nikongod said:


> Canon... Blasphemy!


 


   
  I use it all (including a lot of medium and large format gear). Each tool for its own purpose.  But seriously, if Nik doesn't throw a serious competitor to the 5D MkII at a similar price point out there soon, I'm going to abandon them - my clients are demanding more, and I'm sure not going to shell out for a D3X just to finally get a Nik 24mp ff sensor.


----------



## bigshot

I've got a sweet little Canon pocket camera. They do some things better than Nikon.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> my clients are demanding more, and I'm sure not going to shell out for a D3X just to finally get a Nik 24mp ff sensor.


 
  Your clients don't pay you enough.
  ^_^


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> Your clients don't pay you enough.
> ^_^


 

  
  Ain't that the truth. 
   
  The few that do though, I'm shooting 4x5 for.. not small format digital anyway, so it's mostly moot. I'm finding I'm getting more calls for that mid tier though - need to keep them happy if I can... at least if I am ever going to get those Stax 009's..


----------



## rhythmdevils

D4  !!!!!!!!!
   
  Want!!!!


----------



## blufox4900

I can only dream of affording that one day. Kinda overkill for the kind of shooting I do, though.


----------



## nikongod

Quote: 





blufox4900 said:


> I can only dream of affording that one day. Kinda overkill for the kind of shooting I do, though.


 

 Its digital. In 5-6 years you should have no problem affording one, particularly if you are diligent about saving ~$1 per day. The stoopid-high ISO will still be stoopid high. The camera will still rip off 9-10 frames/second. The camera will still work nicely with legacy lenses. The camera will have the right name on the front of the 100% coverage prism/viewefinder...


----------



## blufox4900

I still say it's overkill for the kind of shooting that I do. Events, weddings, strobist portraits and just casually taking pictures around town is the kind of things I do. Can't imagine the strange looks I'll get if I walk downtown with a huge camera like the D4. I still haven't even stepped up from my lowly D3000 yet although I'm gonna need to upgrade that eventually.


----------



## Szadzik

I have had my D90 for 3 years now and I had a thought to upgrade to D7000, but I do not like the new design. I was also tempted to change to Sony's new Alfa 77, but did not like the lagging in menus.


----------



## bigshot

I shoot with a D200 and I see no need to upgrade my camera body. I want more lenses!


----------



## nikongod

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I shoot with a D200 and I see no need to upgrade my camera body. I want more lenses!


 

 High ISO? 
   
  I have a D200 too. LaLaLove it. Except for high ISO.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> but I do not like the new design.


 


  What about it didn't you like compared to your D90?


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I shoot with a D200 and I see no need to upgrade my camera body. I want more lenses!


 


  Speaking of which, lenses are expensive now!!!
  Looked at the 105 and 135mm DC nikon lenses, and boy are they price.  The 200mm nikon micro is pricey too!


----------



## thenorwegian

D4 is very sweet, but I'm looking forward to the official announcement on the D800 in febuary. Hopefully we'll see cameras and reviews before summer. I couldn't care less about improved noise, because the D700 is already good enough - but I'm very interrested in increased dynamic range. And hopefully the rumor about 36 megapixels on the D800 is true. Working on canon's 21mp files from the 5D MKII was great compared to my current 12mp D700.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I shoot with a D200 and I see no need to upgrade my camera body. I want more lenses!


 


  I shoot with a D3 and see no need to upgrade my lenses.  I want higher ISO capability!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I have a couple nice Nikon primes, 24-70 2.8, an older 70-200 and other than a bit faster primes, or an old Zeiss, new lenses would have 0 effect on my images...


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





thenorwegian said:


> And hopefully the rumor about 36 megapixels on the D800 is true. Working on canon's 21mp files from the 5D MKII was great compared to my current 12mp D700.


 


  Why was it great working on the 21 mp files compared to the 12mp files?  What size prints do you need to make?  12mp is plenty unless you're making pretty large prints.  I wish the D4 stuck with the 12mp and just kept bumping high iso.  It's a sports and journalist camera, and those folks don't often need to make big prints at all.  However, taking pictures in the dark would come in handy!!


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





nikongod said:


> High ISO?
> I have a D200 too. LaLaLove it. Except for high ISO.


 


  With my Sigma 30 I can shoot at night handheld. I really haven't run into situations where I need faster. It's a heck of a lot faster than my old film camera. That's for sure!


----------



## Towert7

The low light performance on current nikons is out of this world.  If you want any better performance I think you're going to have to go to IR nightvision!
   
  I would love to have one of the new nikon bodies for their movie mode.
  The ability to use nikon lenses for movie making would be AWESOME.  To move into a professional video camera system where you could interchange lenses would cost tens of thousands of dollars.  All I would need is a new nikon body, since I already have a ton of lenses!


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





towert7 said:


> What about it didn't you like compared to your D90?


 


  The new dial for modes and the fact that the new design is less ergonomic - at least to me. I am now waiting for D7000 successor to see if anything is change or not. If not, maybe I will look into D300 next generation series.


----------



## rhythmdevils

What about image quality?  I thought the D7000 was a lot nicer to handle than the D90, but different strokes I guess.


----------



## thenorwegian

It's not about the size of prints, but how I edit shots. Cleaning up details etc etc was a much better experience on the 21mp vs 12mp.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> What about image quality?  I thought the D7000 was a lot nicer to handle than the D90, but different strokes I guess.


 


   
  Image quality is better, but not light and day and 60% price extra better. I paid 560 GBP when I bought my D90 3 years ago and D7000 is 950 GBP.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





thenorwegian said:


> It's not about the size of prints, but how I edit shots. Cleaning up details etc etc was a much better experience on the 21mp vs 12mp.


 

 What are you cleaning up? Lens aberrations? Dusty sensor? Unbalanced exposure?


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





thenorwegian said:


> It's not about the size of prints, but how I edit shots. Cleaning up details etc etc was a much better experience on the 21mp vs 12mp.


 

 Wow, if 12MP doesn't keep you happy you would probably hate my camera (6.1MP)


----------



## thenorwegian

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> What are you cleaning up? Lens aberrations? Dusty sensor? Unbalanced exposure?


 


  If you look at my site you'll see I'm not a big fan of "natural" photos and do a lot of editing  http://www.mariusaasheim.com


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





thenorwegian said:


> If you look at my site you'll see I'm not a big fan of "natural" photos and do a lot of editing  http://www.mariusaasheim.com


 


  I don't know.  Most of the photos look natural to me, just with changes to the colors and removal of some of the dynamic range.
  I enjoyed the photos.  Some of the car photos were very nice.


----------



## jchandler3

Wow, nice photos. Car shots aren't easy.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





thenorwegian said:


> It's not about the size of prints, but how I edit shots. Cleaning up details etc etc was a much better experience on the 21mp vs 12mp.


 


  Ditto. Tho sometimes print size and detail is an issue for me. I have zero need for high-iso/low light stuff. I shoot at 50 on a tripod and throw 3000+ w/s of strobes on an average scene. 
   
  I'm still very annoyed with Nik for not bringing a full-frame competitor to the 5D mk II to market yet. I have found recently I've been renting canon bodies more often than i've been using the Nik gear I own, and that is annoying.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I kind of think that if you need more than 12mp just to edit on the computer you're zooming in too much.  That's a generalization though I guess. 
   
  I think if you don't need high iso and always shoot at 50 and want high mp, you should go with Canon because that's kind of their thing- high mp over all else.  The D700/D3 are actually better at 100 than at 50 AFAIK.  I don't want to see Nikon chase Canon at their own game, I'd rather see them stick with their own goals and priorities and make different cameras than Canon.


----------



## liamstrain

Probably true. I was just hoping to stay loyal to the brand since I swore off Canon when they abandoned the FD/FL mount and rendered my expensive L glass collection effectively obsolete. Nikon at least preserved the F mount, and I would have liked to keep rewarding them for that. (I switched to Nikon when they released the D1, and I gave up 35mm film for professional use).


----------



## thenorwegian

If it wasn't for the piss-poor AF on the 5DMKII, I would have sold my nikon gear and gone back to canon in an instant. Loved the pictures it took, even if they had more noise than the D700. What's bugging me now is that the rumours about the 5DMKIII says canon will again shoot the 5D right in the nuts with an inferior AF system (compared to the competition). I really don't understand the decisions beeing made at canon HQ if that proves to be true.
   
  As far as the D800 goes, if they're going 36mp nuts (please do) then I'm guessing noise handling simmilar to the D700. The D4 looks like it's the typical "1 step better than previous model" upgrade, but that's only 18mp. So if they pull off D700 quality on 36mp, I'll be very impressed.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





thenorwegian said:


> If it wasn't for the piss-poor AF on the 5DMKII, I would have sold my nikon gear and gone back to canon in an instant.


 

 Really?  Do you shoots sports or lots of moving objects?  If so, you're probably right.  There's a reason 5D II has become the darling of portrait/landscape shooters.


----------



## thenorwegian

When photographing cars on the track, the 5DMKII missed a lot and was also focus hunting a lot. That's never a problem with the D700, even with a budget lens like the 70-300 VR (which is the one I've used for all trackday shots). When photographing cars just parked, I got re-acquainted with the annoying "focus and re-compose" way of shooting because there are way too few focus points AND the 5DMKII struggled to focus on solid color panels (door, hood, etc). Again, no problems with the D700.
   
  If you've used nikon's 51-point AF, then the 5DMKII is a horrible experience. If you havn't, you probably think it's "not that bad". Before I tried the D300, I thought the 9 point canon AF was perfectly alright myself.


----------



## Jon L

What, no Nikonians posting about the D800/D800e announcement?
   
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25480/D800.html


----------



## liamstrain

I feel like Nikon is finally going after commercial/studio photographers again (especially with the option to nix the AA filter). Looks great. Making my decision to possible swap over to Canon much more difficult.


----------



## LFF

Quote: 





jon l said:


> What, no Nikonians posting about the D800/D800e announcement?
> 
> http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25480/D800.html


 


  $3,000.00 though! It sucks being poor and having expensive hobbies!!!


----------



## liamstrain

That's a pretty standard price with its intended competition... this is certainly not intended to be a bargain camera in Nikon's lineup.


----------



## LFF

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> That's a pretty standard price with its intended competition... this is certainly not intended to be a bargain camera in Nikon's lineup.


 


  Yeah....I'm well aware of that fact. Just sucks not having a spare $3k in change.


----------



## liamstrain

Indeed.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





lff said:


> $3,000.00 though! It sucks being poor and having expensive hobbies!!!


 


  Photography isn't just a hobby for everyone, I bet you have some mastering gear that's worth 3k or more.  I know that you know that, I'm just saying.   And I agree it sucks not having 3k! 
   
  I can't decide whether I'd want the D4 or D800.  I think I'd rather have the D4 though...


----------



## LFF

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> Photography isn't just a hobby for everyone, I bet you have some mastering gear that's worth 3k or more.  I know that you know that, I'm just saying.   And I agree it sucks not having 3k!
> 
> I can't decide whether I'd want the D4 or D800.  I think I'd rather have the D4 though...


 

 True....still sucks not having $3k just laying around to spend freely.
   
  Also...mastering is a hobby as well as a passion of mine. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I just get paid for it from time to time.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





lff said:


> Also...mastering is a hobby as well as a passion of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  Yeah well put I agree and I feel the same way about photography.  That's why I wasn't really saying that to you, I just think for some reason photography has a "hobby" mentality in the general public that's a bit weird.  You don't see people buying a a pair of K240 Studios and a Mackie Big Knob and trying to master albums for free or next to free during the weekends on craigslist.  Or do they?  In many other fields there seems to be more respect for the technical and conceptual understanding required (to make/produce good work)


----------



## Szadzik

TBH, I looked at the camera it is great - but - does everyone need one? Nope. I am still hoping for either a successor to D300S and all of its additional controls over D7000, or D7100, if it becomes the APSC highest model and adds stuff present in D300S, but no in D7000.


----------



## bigshot

I want a new DX camera. I have no need for FX.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Why?


----------



## bigshot

I like DX lenses better. They're lighter and less expensive. I don't like primes except for very low light and the zooms available for DX are great. Lots of great third party options too.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I like DX lenses better. They're lighter and less expensive. I don't like primes except for very low light and the zooms available for DX are great. Lots of great third party options too.


 


  I agree.
   
  As a hobby-photographer, I do not need FX.


----------



## jchandler3

**GASP**
   
  Someone on Head-fi settling for less than the best/ most expensive thing? FX is better and you _intentionally _don't buy it?? How will you be able to live with yourself?!
   
  No, just kidding  I need FX for studio work and weddings. 99% of people do not need the extra cost and bulk of FX and it's nice to know that some people understand that. Good logic, *bigshot*!


----------



## LFF

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> Yeah well put I agree and I feel the same way about photography.  That's why I wasn't really saying that to you, I just think for some reason photography has a "hobby" mentality in the general public that's a bit weird.  You don't see people buying a a pair of K240 Studios and a Mackie Big Knob and trying to master albums for free or next to free during the weekends on craigslist.  Or do they?  In many other fields there seems to be more respect for the technical and conceptual understanding required (to make/produce good work)


 


  I agree to some extent. A lot of people don't value the arts as much as we think they should. I can't tell you how many times people give me "the opportunity" to master an album for free. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Photography, like a well mastered album, should appear effortless to an outsider and that's the sign of a job well done. I have messed around with photography quite a bit and have even been paid for some of it. I know that re-touching a photo might require 2-5 hours of work alone. It's certainly not fast nor easy and requires a keen eye as well as skill at taking pictures and skill manipulating your digital darkroom as well as knowing how to best present your work and talent. LOTS OF WORK! It's no wonder artists tend to congregate in groups....


----------



## purrin

I long for the time long ago when we could get the 2nd best Nikon camera (F100) for a little over a $1000.


----------



## liamstrain

Those days died with the D1.


----------



## purrin

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Those days died with the D1.


 

 I know. What pisses my off is the AF on most Nikons sucked (that is worse than the F100) - until very recently. I always felt Nikon purposely gimped the AF for anything less than their flagship on the digital models.
   
  Love the Nikon color rendition, especially of flesh tones, better than anything else out there.


----------



## LFF

Quote: 





purrin said:


> I know. What pisses my off is the AF on most Nikons sucked (that is worse than the F100) - until very recently. I always felt Nikon purposely gimped the AF for anything less than their flagship on the digital models.
> 
> Love the Nikon color rendition, especially of flesh tones, better than anything else out there.


 

 I always felt the same too because you could get amazing stuff with MF but yet the AF lacked that last bit of polish.


----------



## liamstrain

Meh - the AF has never been a factor for me. Just doesn't really apply to my usage for these cameras.


----------



## bigshot

I have absolutely no complaint about the AF in my D200. I don't know how recent you mean by recent. I have screwdriver drive and focus motor lenses... Lenses by Nikon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. They all focus beautifully.
   
  I only use one manual focus lens, the Vivitar 7mm fisheye. Thankfully, The depth of field is huge so focusing isn't an issue.  I have a bag full of great MF glass for my F3, but they're just gathering dust. I would never go back to the manual everything any more. It was fine to learn on, but I understand all the concepts now. I want the camera to get me where I want to go faster.


----------



## purrin

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I have absolutely no complaint about the AF in my D200. I don't know how recent you mean by recent. I have screwdriver drive and focus motor lenses... Lenses by Nikon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. They all focus beautifully.
> 
> I only use one manual focus lens, the Vivitar 7mm fisheye. Thankfully, The depth of field is huge so focusing isn't an issue.  I have a bag full of great MF glass for my F3, but they're just gathering dust. I would never go back to the manual everything any more. It was fine to learn on, but I understand all the concepts now. I want the camera to get me where I want to go faster.


 

 Fast action, sports, wildlife in motion. No problem with the F100 and D2X (TOTL DSLR back then) with the big expensive fast zoom lenses wide open. Big problem with the D300 (back when it was the 2nd best DSLR camera from Nikon.) They totally gimped the D300 AF compared to the D3. It was even worse than the N80 if I recall correctly. I've since decided to sit on the sidelines until Nikon implements 90% of the TOTL (the big bodies) AF (not 50%) on their 2nd tier models like how it was when they used to make film cameras. I've heard the AF is finally good now on their 2nd tier models. Still I'm leery about giving them more money considering that DSLRs lose value so quickly. Hopefully things will slow down.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> TBH, I looked at the camera it is great - but - does everyone need one?


 


  Yup.
  Just the same as everyone needs a Ferrari! Then there would be no traffic jams.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I think Nikon's current TOTL's are leaps and bounds above Canons as far as AF (at least when the 5dmkii was released, I haven't tried their newest camera).  Going back to the 5dmkii's 6 points or whatever is really frustrating. 
   
  And the D7000 has that same AF system AFAIK, so I think the time you've been waiting for has arrived Purrin!


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I like DX lenses better. They're lighter and less expensive.


 

  
  Hate to say it, but this is much lighter and less expensive than any dx lenses:
   




   
  I on the other hand would LOVE a nikon FX body.


----------



## bigshot

A pickle is lighter and less expensive, but it can't take a deccent picture.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Are we talking about a pickle made with vinegar, or a pickle made the old fashioned way with just salt brine, which is cultured and creates vinegar inside the bottle?  Organic, or el barfo?


----------



## bigshot

Digital Pickle


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> A pickle is lighter and less expensive, but it can't take a deccent picture.


 

 Well, actually a pickle is probably heavier than the disposable camera.  But anyways.
   
  Then you have to define decent picture.  And some people would claim you need the heavy boded DSLR with heavy lenses to get a lot of "decent pictures".


----------



## bigshot

Some people test lenses by laying in bed and focusing on their feet.


----------



## rhythmdevils

My D3 fell over on it's tripod today and hit lens first.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			














  Worst way to fall?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  That's never happened to me before, all the huge cameras in strange precarious places and it was indoors of all places.  I had the tripod at it's lowest setting so the legs weren't very wide.  Not sure why it fell, I just heard the crash when I turned around after setting it up.  One of the legs probably wasn't pulled out all the way I guess.  I was pretty exhausted after a sleepless night and was feeling clumsy but you can't control when good opportunities present themselves!
   
  Luckily I had just taken off my 24-70 2.8 and put on the 35 f2.  Which I'm pretty sure is toast as the housing around the front lens element is bashed in and crooked.  The glass isn't broken but the UV filter sure is of course.  I can accept the loss of that lens and get another, but I'm worried about the lens mount as it took quite a hit.  It doesn't look damaged but...  probably a good excuse to have it serviced.


----------



## liamstrain

Set up a quick range test (known distance, and flat textured surface - brick wall is nice, gives you a grid and sharpness tests). That will tell you if the mount's distance or alignment is off.)
   
  I once had the lens board fall off the front of an 8x10 camera (inexplicably) while out on a pier. Cushioned the the lens with my foot. Broke the toe, saved the lens.  
   
  Nearly had a few view cameras blow over on location as well... those bellows act like sails. Never had it happen with a dSLR though.


----------



## jc9394

Guys, need help deciding on a new camera.  I know I'm getting the D800 but still unsure to get the "E" or not, I know I really don't need to the "E" on the pictures I'm taking but that slightly sharper image on the "E" bug the hell out me.


----------



## xxhaxx

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> Guys, need help deciding on a new camera.  I know I'm getting the D800 but still unsure to get the "E" or not, I know I really don't need to the "E" on the pictures I'm taking but that slightly sharper image on the "E" bug the hell out me.


 
  :] Oh the d800. What is your current lens lineup? But w/o the AA filter you might get the moire effect which would be another step in post processing. But if you don't mind the extra step and dropping another $300 :] get the E version


----------



## Jon L

Here's a decent article about D800 or D800e.  It's a little skewed toward D800e, being written by an on-line website photographer type, but the points are well taken. 
   
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_or_d800e.shtml


----------



## rhythmdevils

What are you going to do with the pictures JC?


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





xxhaxx said:


> :] Oh the d800. What is your current lens lineup? But w/o the AA filter you might get the moire effect which would be another step in post processing. But if you don't mind the extra step and dropping another $300 :] get the E version


 

 I have both 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 and plus older auto focus "D" prime lens from the film days.  e.g. 50 and 85 f/1.4 and 60 and 105 2.8 macro
   


  Quote: 





jon l said:


> Here's a decent article about D800 or D800e.  It's a little skewed toward D800e, being written by an on-line website photographer type, but the points are well taken.
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_or_d800e.shtml


 


   
  me too, and I think I will kick my self if I did not get the E version
  
  Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> What are you going to do with the pictures JC?


 

 I use CS5 and NX2 currently and probably 25-40% are post processed.


----------



## rhythmdevils

I mean what are you going to do with them?  Are they for posting online, or printing, and if so what size prints, what kind of prints?


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> I mean what are you going to do with them?  Are they for posting online, or printing, and if so what size prints, what kind of prints?


 


  Both online and print, and all kinds of prints. size up to 20x30.


----------



## jchandler3

Interesting article, though it's nothing I haven't heard before. Like the author said, these issues aren't unlike the ones experienced by medium format shooters. 
   
  I would say, more than anything, will _you_ be able to appreciate the difference? Not to doubt your photographic skill at all—no offense intended (you might be the world's best for all I know)—but while the difference may warrant an entirely new model for some, most people probably won't be able to take advantage of the extra sharpness. Sharpness involves a lot more than the sensor. 
   
  But hey, this is Head-fi and from the looks of your signature, you go for the best of the best. Maybe just go for the 800E


----------



## Mr.Sneis

As embarrassing as this is I feel I've gotten to this part of my picture taking that I feel like I don't give two craps anymore about gear and reality has hit me really hard that I suck at shooting photos.  It's so discouraging that I almost feel like I've "lost it" completely and don't even bother to try to get creative anymore.  I think  it's a combination of a few things that irk me:
   
  1) Having a hard time focusing on the right subject, this is worse with my UWA lens but I'm getting a lot of blurred subjects/pics and focusing on a completely dumb part of the picture.  I keep it at AF-A and usually go with autofocus over manual.  I honestly don't know how to "pick" from the 39 af points, is it even possible?  I recently started wearing contacts (should have for a long time before but refused to go to the doc), I don't think that's helping much.
   
  2) Terrible exposures, I'm usually overexposed but I prefer it to underexposed.  I play around with the quick setting but sometimes it's just horribad.  Example: Kid is standing in the shade of a tall building (I am also in the shade) and the weather outside is super bright.  I usually shoot program mode - the kid is either WAY too dark or WAY too bright.
   
  3) ISO - I usually have it cranked up to 3200 or something, my noise almost always seems terrible and I don't know how to analyze the "graph".  What should I set this to?  Doesn't help the d7000 menu for this is confusing as all get out.
   
  4) Artificial lighting.  Maybe I don't have enough lights but my single sb600 feels useless outdoors; I feel a little bored of the flash honestly only using it to get pics of things for classifieds/ebay.
   
  5) Car photography.  I originally had this big vision in mind of shooting all sorts of pictures at car shows, well as life turns out the soon to be wife doesn't care much for me to do anything car related anyways so I really don't get out all that much.  That and I got SO bored of shooting the same angles time and time again.
   
  Currently my outfit is: d7000, 35mm fixed (correction!) f1.8, wide angle 16-85 f3.5, tokina 11-16 f2.8, Manfrotto ball head tripod, sb-600
   
  Halp me, plaes!


----------



## jude

mr.sneis said:


> 1) Having a hard time focusing on the right subject, this is worse with my UWA lens but I'm getting a lot of blurred subjects/pics and focusing on a completely dumb part of the picture.  I keep it at AF-A and usually go with autofocus over manual.  I honestly don't know how to "pick" from the 39 af points, is it even possible?  I recently started wearing contacts (should have for a long time before but refused to go to the doc), I don't think that's helping much.


 

  I don't have a D7000, but I've been shooting Nikon SLRs for a while now. I'm guessing that the D7000's focus is like the D300 (and above), and that you can choose your focus points. Check out *this discussion thread on Flickr*.
  
  Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> 2) Terrible exposures, I'm usually overexposed but I prefer it to underexposed.  I play around with the quick setting but sometimes it's just horribad.  Example: Kid is standing in the shade of a tall building (I am also in the shade) and the weather outside is super bright.  I usually shoot program mode - the kid is either WAY too dark or WAY too bright.


 
   
  Maybe someone more experienced than me (like Iron_Dreamer, rhythmdevils, Jon L, jamato8, bigshot, or others) can help you more here, but I've had success taking photos of even rather strongly backlit subjects by using spot metering and AE-L. For such a scenario, I center my subject, press and hold AE-L (it depends on how you define the button's action, if your camera allows you to customize this), focus on the subject (focus+recompose if in AF-S; move focus point to subject if in AF-C--in both cases, still holding down the AE-L button), then snap the photo.
   
  Again, we have some far more experienced photographers here who might have better advice for you.
  


mr.sneis said:


> 3) ISO - I usually have it cranked up to 3200 or something, my noise almost always seems terrible and I don't know how to analyze the "graph".  What should I set this to?  Doesn't help the d7000 menu for this is confusing as all get out.


 

  Again, I don't have a D7000, but on the D300, ISO 3200 is pretty noisy. I just upgraded to FX (full frame), and this camera is completely forcing me to re-think how I can shoot in low light.
   
  The key is understanding the shot you want (and its requirements), and balancing that against what your camera is capable of. So, for a _casual_ party shot and/or family shot, I don't care as much if my shot is noisy--I'm more concerned there with the moment, the fun. For that, then, I'll set my auto-ISO upper ISO limit pretty high. I have some camping shots I shot with the D300 that were very noisy, but I love them anyway, as they ended up very cool, people's faces lit only by the embers of the fire. (Again, with the new camera, the limitations have been shifted monumentally--relative to what I'm used to--so I'm looking forward to using it in a similar situation again in fall.)
   
  If you're doing a product shot, or any kind of photo where the casual, noisy look isn't going to be acceptable, then, again, you have to do what you can to balance everything out, and take control of as much of it as you can (like having your subjects stay more still, use flash or other artificial lighting, etc.).
   


mr.sneis said:


> 4) Artificial lighting.  Maybe I don't have enough lights but my single sb600 feels useless outdoors; I feel a little bored of the flash honestly only using it to get pics of things for classifieds/ebay.


 

  Are you using your SB-600 mostly at night, or during the day for fill? I'm guessing the former, as it should be plenty powerful for the latter. If you're using it at night outdoors, what kind of photos are you typically taking then?
   


mr.sneis said:


> Currently my outfit is: d7000, 35mm fixed f2.8, wide angle 16-85 f3.5, tokina 11-16 f2.8, Manfrotto ball head tripod, sb-600


 

 The 35mm f/2.8 is pretty fast, but one thing you might consider, if you want to start having a lot of fun immediately again, is getting a super-fast prime lens. For DX, I have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, and I've had _loads_ of fun with that lens. With the crop factor, it reminded me somewhat of the 35mm film days with the 50mm f/1.4 (minus the big viewfinder). Going to f/1.4 opens up a whole new bunch of possibilities, in terms of low light stuff, and in terms of having fun with subject isolation and bokeh (background and foreground defocusing).
   
  My first digital SLR was the Canon Rebel XSi, and I almost immediately picked up a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for it, and _loved_ shooting with it. When I went to a Nikon D300, one of the first things I did was buy the Nikon mount version of that Sigma. It's sharp enough for me at f/1.4 for most of what I use it for, but it gets sharper at f/1.8 and increasingly so above that. Most the time, I sacrifice some sharpness to use it wide open at f/1.4.
   
  Here are some of the first shots I took with it when I got it. (They're not going to win me any awards, but I had a lot of fun shooting images like these, and countless more, with the Sigma.)
   
*http://www.flickr.com/photos/the-jude/sets/72157605817672715/with/2809723122/*  (I think three of the four images were shot at f/1.4.)
   
  Now that I'm shooting FX, I needed something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (which, again, is 48mm equivalent on a crop sensor), so I picked up the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G.
   
  Anyway, take my advice with a grain of salt. There are many much more experienced photo enthusiasts and photographers here at Head-Fi, and I'm hoping some of them can offer you better advice than I have here.


----------



## thedunnyman

Off the Nikon bandwagon now!!! M4/3 here we come!


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Thanks for the info Jude!  I will look into AE-L some more, I don't think I've ever used it but I have an idea of what you're recommending. 
   
  For the flash, as an example I recently tried shooting in the middle of the day during overcast weather with the flash pointing directly towards the subjects.  I believe it had nothing to bounce off of in a grassy area and the pictures ended up all duds.
   
  I also just realized my 35mm fixed is actually f1.8 (my mistake!) it was one of my first lenses and I agree it's one of the better ones and was pretty cheap.  Your 30mm f1.4 shots look really great.
   
  Now that you shoot FX, what did you mean by rethinking your low-light shooting?


----------



## jude

Quote: 





thedunnyman said:


> Off the Nikon bandwagon now!!! M4/3 here we come!


 

 We also have the Panasonic Lumix GF1 and GH2 here, and the lens I use pretty much all the time with either of those cameras is the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 (40mm equivalent). That is a remarkable little lens, and I highly recommend you pick it up, in addition to whatever other lenses you're getting.
   
  I tried switching completely over to compacts, but the SLRs have been pulling me back. Sometimes, though, there's only room for a compact, depending on where I'm going or what I'm doing, so it's great to have at least one good compact around.
   
  Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> ...I also just realized my 35mm fixed is actually f1.8 (my mistake!) it was one of my first lenses and I agree it's one of the better ones and was pretty cheap.  Your 30mm f1.4 shots look really great...


 

 Thank you! Those were some of my earliest shots with a digital SLR. I hope I've gotten better since. I look at shots by some of the other Head-Fi'ers here, and still aspire to their levels of shooting.
   
  A 35mm f/1.8 is plenty fast. C'mon, you have to be able to find some fun with that one! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   


mr.sneis said:


> ...Now that you shoot FX, what did you mean by rethinking your low-light shooting?


 

  I just mean that the limitations have changed dramatically. My D300 can shoot up to 6400 ISO, but at 6400 ISO, the images I'm getting are simply not usable, not even casually most of the time. The detail lost at that ISO is simply too great (with the D300), so I've learned not to even venture there with that camera.
   
  With the FX camera, however, I'm able to go to 6400 and well beyond, and get images that satisfy me completely, in terms of detail retention and the amount of noise. I think your D7000 is significantly more capable than my D300 in low light, so you're doing better than I was with DX sensors--I imagine you can be a bit more daring than I can be (with the D300) as far as high ISO settings go.
   
  Because the FX sensor camera can retain strong detail, even at much higher ISO than I'm used to being able to use, I get more keepers, because I can use far faster minimum shutter speeds in low light than I've ever been able to before. I shoot almost entirely handheld, so being able to be bolder about my shutter speed is a very welcome thing.
   
  Anyway, that's what I meant by that.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> For the flash, as an example I recently tried shooting in the middle of the day during overcast weather with the flash pointing directly towards the subjects.  I believe it had nothing to bounce off of in a grassy area and the pictures ended up all duds.


 


  Why were they duds?  You shouldn't even need a flash at all for overcast weather.  It's some of the best light for color photography there is.  The whole sky is a huge soft box and there are no harsh shaddows to try to fill in with a flash.  So I'm not sure what you're trying to do with the flash, you may have a mistaken idea of what you want it to do (at least considering how you feel about them).  On camera flash is either used to fill in dark shaddows from direct sunlight and effectively bring down the exposure difference between the brightest highlight and the darkest shaddow because in direct sunlight, cameras (and film) don't have the dynamic range (difference btwn darks and lights) to capture both without either the highlights going white or the shadows going black, and in either case loosing detail.  So a "fill flash" in sunlight brings up the shaddows so you can set a darker overall exposure and keep the highlights from going butt white.  Or on camera flash is used to illuminate something that is too dark for some other reason, like at night or inside.  Overcast weather with no flash is excellent for portraits.  You may not realize how many excellent professional photographs are done with nothing but overcast light. 
   
  I'd recommend learning more about aperture, shutter speed, and iso- what effects they have on the image as well as how they go about changing the exposure.  Then use aperture or shutter speed priority to start taking some control so you're controlling some of the settings, but not everything.  Look at the images on your viewfinder and learn how to read the histogram (the graph).  There's surely some nice online tutorials.  Then use the +/- exposure setting to fix mistakes the camera makes and re-shoot. 
   
  I shoot in full manual mode and can't have it any other way.  But that's not necessary if you can control the auto metering a bit.  Jude's advice was good.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> I think Nikon's current TOTL's are leaps and bounds above Canons as far as AF (at least when the 5dmkii was released, I haven't tried their newest camera).  Going back to the 5dmkii's 6 points or whatever is really frustrating.
> 
> And the D7000 has that same AF system AFAIK, so I think the time you've been waiting for has arrived Purrin!


 

 Well 5D MkII had the same AF system as 5D MkI, which is a 2005 camera so a 7-year-old AF system.  
  5D MkIII has 65 AF points, 41 cross-type points, AF points everywhere enough to feed the world.  They are very snappy and accurate, said to be a little better than AF from D800 in some of the reviews so far even. 
   
  Ironic thing is, I still find myself setting 5D MkIII AF to single point/spot AF despite all the AF points.  I still trust my judgment more over the machine


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> 1) Having a hard time focusing on the right subject, this is worse with my UWA lens but I'm getting a lot of blurred subjects/pics and focusing on a completely dumb part of the picture.  I keep it at AF-A and usually go with autofocus over manual.  I honestly don't know how to "pick" from the 39 af points, is it even possible?  I recently started wearing contacts (should have for a long time before but refused to go to the doc), I don't think that's helping much.
> 
> _Did you tried to use the auto focus lock?  I use it a lot when shooting kids._
> 
> ...


 

 Try take some outdoor pics using manufacture default setting, if it still turn out crappy, take it back to the dealer or contact Nikon as there may be some issue with your camera.


----------



## rhythmdevils

yeah the 5Diii wasn't out yet when I wrote that, or at least I didn't know about it.  I don't really follow Canon at all, or camera tech much in general for that matter.  I just got a D3s and I love the crap out of it.  The new 5D looks nice, but I hated my 5Dii and it would take a lot to make me go back to them.  Just don't have good feeling about them now. 
   
  But you don't have to use the complete auto focus mode to take advantage of all the points.  The great thing (and frustrating thing about the 5Dii after using a Nikon) is being able to move the AF point so you dont have to focus and re-compose.  If you're shooting really shallow DOF with moving subject matter, re-composing isn't really possible.  At least after shooting Nikon I have no idea how people do it.  If you or the subject matter moves a few inches you're off focus.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Well 5D MkII had the same AF system as 5D MkI, which is a 2005 camera so a 7-year-old AF system.
> 5D MkIII has 65 AF points, 41 cross-type points, AF points everywhere enough to feed the world.  They are very snappy and accurate, said to be a little better than AF from D800 in some of the reviews so far even.
> 
> Ironic thing is, I still find myself setting 5D MkIII *AF to single point/spot AF despite all the AF points*.  I still trust my judgment more over the machine


 


  I do the same too on D300 and will see what D800 can do.  Still waiting for it.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Wow you're going from D300 to D800?  That's going to be intense.  I think your retinas might tear when you look at your first image..


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> Wow you're going from D300 to D800?  That's going to be intense.  I think your retinas might tear when you look at your first image..


 


  I had the D700 last year but decided to return it.  Yes, I agree that I will tear seeing the first image on my Mac 27" cinema display.


----------



## Zulkr9

Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> As embarrassing as this is I feel I've gotten to this part of my picture taking that I feel like I don't give two craps anymore about gear and reality has hit me really hard that I suck at shooting photos.  It's so discouraging that I almost feel like I've "lost it" completely and don't even bother to try to get creative anymore.  I think  it's a combination of a few things that irk me:
> 
> 1) Having a hard time focusing on the right subject, this is worse with my UWA lens but I'm getting a lot of blurred subjects/pics and focusing on a completely dumb part of the picture.  I keep it at AF-A and usually go with autofocus over manual.  I honestly don't know how to "pick" from the 39 af points, is it even possible?  I recently started wearing contacts (should have for a long time before but refused to go to the doc), I don't think that's helping much.
> 
> ...


 
  Have af on AF-S if you're shooting a still subject or AF-C (there is also something called 3d tracking I think dont remember as I dont use anything besides AF-S) for moving object. Dude 3200 iso is a hell lot high for normal use, about exposure what you are talking about is the high contrast situations where there is strong source of lighting in the frame the matrix meter will compensate for that thus your image will either be too dark or too bright, usually you want to change the exposure modes in these times also if you are shooting a subject which is a dark color by nature have the ev compensation on negative and if it is a bright colored subject eg white then have it on a positive value. 
  
   
  D800E is for professionals in studio who need absolute resolution, its quite useless for general photographers because of moire.
  Shooting with fullframe is a dream simply because of the viewfinder, I couldnt give a crap about noise performance, only the tech geeks talk about noise and what not and IMO in some places especially  b&w photos grain add a feeling to the photo . The D800 files should be huge X_X, raw files that is


----------



## rhythmdevils

noise is not the same as grain.  Although the D3 gets more grainy than noisy until you get above 6400 and with D3s it's higher even. 
   
  But grain is not necessarily bothersome, it can be a "look", while noise looks pretty crappy.  Of course maybe that will change as we get used to digital photography.  Maybe noise will become more acceptable.


----------



## bigshot

Or maybe people will go back to the fundamentals and shoot within the latitude of their equipmnt.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





zulkr9 said:


> Have af on AF-S if you're shooting a still subject or AF-C (there is also something called 3d tracking I think dont remember as I dont use anything besides AF-S) for moving object. Dude 3200 iso is a hell lot high for normal use, about exposure what you are talking about is the high contrast situations where there is strong source of lighting in the frame the matrix meter will compensate for that thus your image will either be too dark or too bright, usually you want to change the exposure modes in these times also if you are shooting a subject which is a dark color by nature have the ev compensation on negative and if it is a bright colored subject eg white then have it on a positive value.
> 
> 
> D800E is for professionals in studio who need absolute resolution, its quite useless for general photographers because of *moire*.
> Shooting with fullframe is a dream simply because of the viewfinder, I couldnt give a crap about noise performance, only the tech geeks talk about noise and what not and IMO in some places especially  b&w photos grain add a feeling to the photo . The D800 files should be huge X_X, raw files that is


 

 Moire is not much of an issue with me, it can fix using software.  The issue I have is how much post processing that I'm willing to do and do I need to upgrade my Mac RAM to 16GB to able handle multi images loaded on Photoshop and Aperture.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Or maybe people will go back to the fundamentals and shoot within the latitude of their equipmnt.


 


  There's no reason using high iso = not understanding the fundamentals.  High iso capability just gives you more options in limiting situations. 
   
  edit:  I agree though in that it could mean that or lead to laziness.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> There's no reason using high iso = not understanding the fundamentals.  High iso capability just gives you more options in limiting situations.


 


  high iso on the modem camera (last year or so) is extremely nice feature, there is no way to can capture the indoor of Notre Dame of Montreal without a tripod.  even with tripod, the vibration on the floor will mess up the shot as people walking pass you every seconds.


----------



## blufox4900

I would love to say how useful the D800 would be for my school assignments but I'm too poor


----------



## bigshot

rhythmdevils said:


> There's no reason using high iso = not understanding the fundamentals.




It does if you are getting noise. Back in the film days, there was a much narrower latitude and people still got great shots. If someone is coming even close to getting high ISO noise in their shots today, they should consider the advantages of using light to their advantage instead of shooting as if they are bats in a cave.


----------



## Szadzik

One conclusion from the whole discussion. If you want to buy a DSLR be prepared to spend at least 200-300 hours learning about what it can do and how it works (to get a general idea) as otherwise it is just going to be a waste of money.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

When I originally changed from d90 to d7000 I had done so largely based on the "better high iso" performance.  I'm learning the hard way that something like 3200 is still maybe too high - best for point and shoot type situations I suppose.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


szadzik said:


> One conclusion from the whole discussion. If you want to buy a DSLR be prepared to spend at least 200-300 hours learning about what it can do and how it works (to get a general idea) as otherwise it is just going to be a waste of money.


 

 Also, once you learn your camera and it becomes an extension of you, don't upgrade it too often or you'll go right back into that learning curve again. I've just become comfortable with my D200. Even though newer models have much better high ISO, the familiarity is worth more to me than shooting in the dark.


----------



## jude

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> It does if you are getting noise. Back in the film days, there was a much narrower latitude and people still got great shots. If someone is coming even close to getting high ISO noise in their shots today, they should consider the advantages of using light to their advantage instead of shooting as if they are bats in a cave.


 

 Hey, man, if the latitude widens, I'll gladly take it! There are things I can do now that I couldn't in the past, like take photos by campfire, with only the light from the campfire and its embers (just one example). With the D300 I was doing that, fully accepting the noise as a consequence. Having just moved to FX, I can already see that my next set of camping shots will be a lot less noisy, and (thanks to being able to use significantly faster shutter) much less motion-blurry.
   
  If I was shooting film, I'd be broke, as I admit my relatively low keeper rate would be prohibitively expensive to maintain. (Although my keeper rate has recently gone up with FX, with the ability to choose faster shutter speeds and higher ISO than I've ever been able to before.)
   
  I am admittedly far too novice to be a purist in my photography methods, but graciously accepting of the crutches afforded me by technology! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  EDIT: By the way, bigshot, have you posted any photos recently? I seem to recall you posting awesome photos of your friends in the past, and always enjoyed them.


----------



## bigshot

To be honest, I got an iPhone 4 and I'm so happy with the camera, I've been shooting more with it than with my Nikon. I'll post a few of my iPhone shots if you don't mind them not being made with a Nikon....


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> It does if you are getting noise. Back in the film days, there was a much narrower latitude and people still got great shots. If someone is coming even close to getting high ISO noise in their shots today, they should consider the advantages of using light to their advantage instead of shooting as if they are bats in a cave.


 


  Yeah I agree but that's a slightly different argument than the one you were making before.  Yes, I agree that getting good pictures does not depend on high ISO.  People have been making incredible pictures for decades and light sensitivity was lower with 35mm and even lower with larger format film.  You can only shoot handheld with medium format film in pretty bright light.  (I laugh when I see people in movies pick up a rollei and just take a picture handheld in a room with nothing but window light...)
   
  But that doesn't mean that if you use high iso you don't understand the fundamentals.  Sufficient light is one of the limitations of photography.  Of course, having limitations is often a good thing because it forces you to be creative.  So much so that I think a lot of new photographers might be better off with less proficient gear, or starting with film so the gear doesn't become the focus of what is possible, the focus moves towards your ideas.  But it can also be limiting.  High iso gives you more opportunity in certain kinds of photography.  For instance, documenting something where flash is not allowed.  There are times when I have been somewhere wanting to photograph something really special, but it's just too dark and bringing a flash in wouldn't be appropriate so I have to just let it go and remember that not everything in life can or should be photographed.  There are still those times, but I think some of them are possible that weren't before when you have usable 6400 iso. 
   
  In almost all cases, that's not going to make or break a photographer, you can just photograph the next thing where there is more light.  But I'm currently working on a project that I'm not sure would be possible with film.


----------



## bigshot

There are always ways around it if you have some techniques in your utility belt. Take this shot for instance...
   

   
  I shot this with my D200 and dirty thirty at a Halloween party lit only by Christmas lights. If I had popped my flash, I would have blinded everyone. So I braced against a pillar and told the girls to hold still. I shot one shot available light and then told a friend to point a keychain flashlight at the first girl and shot one exposed for that. Then I had him point the light at the other girl and shot a third shot. I used the available light for the background and overlaid the two girls in photoshop. You would never know that this picture was illuminated with a three inch flashlight. Even with the highest ISO, I'd never get it looking like this because there's two completely different white balances going on here. It's not how much light you have, but how you use the light you've got.


----------



## blufox4900

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> Yeah I agree but that's a slightly different argument than the one you were making before.  Yes, I agree that getting good pictures does not depend on high ISO.  People have been making incredible pictures for decades and light sensitivity was lower with 35mm and even lower with larger format film.  You can only shoot handheld with medium format film in pretty bright light.  (I laugh when I see people in movies pick up a rollei and just take a picture handheld in a room with nothing but window light...)
> 
> But that doesn't mean that if you use high iso you don't understand the fundamentals.  Sufficient light is one of the limitations of photography.  Of course, having limitations is often a good thing because it forces you to be creative.  So much so that I think a lot of new photographers might be better off with less proficient gear,* or starting with film* so the gear doesn't become the focus of what is possible, the focus moves towards your ideas.  But it can also be limiting.  High iso gives you more opportunity in certain kinds of photography.  For instance, documenting something where flash is not allowed.  There are times when I have been somewhere wanting to photograph something really special, but it's just too dark and bringing a flash in wouldn't be appropriate so I have to just let it go and remember that not everything in life can or should be photographed.  There are still those times, but I think some of them are possible that weren't before when you have usable 6400 iso.
> 
> In almost all cases, that's not going to make or break a photographer, you can just photograph the next thing where there is more light.  But I'm currently working on a project that I'm not sure would be possible with film.


 
  -shudders- so..many..hours in that darkroom in my fundamentals class. My professor worked us like dogs. And I do agree with the fact that beginners should just get started with more entry level gear rather than going for the latest/greatest. Little rant I have is just seeing how many people splurge on the nicer equipment thinking that a more expensive camera can make up for their lack of experience. Learning how to get a proper exposure is the first step before anything else. Besides, saving on the camera body and spending the rest on a nicer lens or just saving it up is a smarter plan IMHO anyway. 
   
  Just needed to add my 2 cents there, get tired when people scoff off entry level equipment as no good when I'm using my old D3000 till the thing breaks.


----------



## Zulkr9

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> It does if you are getting noise. Back in the film days, there was a much narrower latitude and people still got great shots. If someone is coming even close to getting high ISO noise in their shots today, they should consider the advantages of using light to their advantage instead of shooting as if they are bats in a cave.


 


  Film did not have the chroma color noise problems of digital camera's but they did have more grain at a given iso than digital.


----------



## purrin

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> There are always ways around it if you have some techniques in your utility belt. Take this shot for instance...
> 
> 
> 
> I shot this with my D200 and dirty thirty at a Halloween party lit only by Christmas lights. If I had popped my flash, I would have blinded everyone. So I braced against a pillar and told the girls to hold still. I shot one shot available light and then told a friend to point a keychain flashlight at the first girl and shot one exposed for that. Then I had him point the light at the other girl and shot a third shot. I used the available light for the background and overlaid the two girls in photoshop. You would never know that this picture was illuminated with a three inch flashlight. Even with the highest ISO, I'd never get it looking like this because there's two completely different white balances going on here. It's not how much light you have, but how you use the light you've got.


 
   
  Nice. You MacGyver'd the shot. I used to carry a monopod around since good tripods were not portable. 
   
  I expect we can just hand-hold a lot of stuff nowadays with ISO256000, etc.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> There are always ways around it if you have some techniques in your utility belt. Take this shot for instance...


 


  Yeah this is a good example of limitations forcing you to be creative as I said in my post....  However, I'm not personally a fan of the light in that shot.   Even a D3s can't make pictures in nothing but christmas lights, but if it could, the light would be soft and beautiful.


----------



## bigshot

Available light in that shot would have been blood red.


----------



## Mad Max

Lookin' for nikon coolpix s3100 lens correction photoshop cs5 profile, any help appreciated, thanks.


----------



## ModMax

Can anyone recommend a good guide / handbook for learning to master the Nikon D7000 SLR?


----------



## jc9394

Anyone received the D800/D800E?


----------



## rhythmdevils

I'm still trying to get hold of a D3s.  They're sold out everywhere and I had to get a used one.  I'm on the waiting list at a whole bunch of different stores.  grrrr


----------



## jc9394

I don't think any one will receive a new D3s, you probably get a better chance get it used.


----------



## rhythmdevils

No one seems to show them as "discontinued" so I'm hoping there will be some stragglers.  I guess even when they were in production they were hard to get ahold of though. 
   
  I already got one used, I just don't like the idea of a used sensor.  God knows what they rubbed on it in the middle of the night... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  It only had 5k shutter actuations though, and it was 1k less than a new one.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> No one seems to show them as "discontinued" so I'm hoping there will be some stragglers.  I guess even when they were in production they were hard to get ahold of though.
> 
> I already got one used, I just don't like the idea of a used sensor.  God knows what they rubbed on it in the middle of the night...
> 
> ...


 
  It did show discontinued on BH Photo.  Nikon does seem like they got it right on the D800/E and D4, never see a new release with that long of waiting list.  The BH rep kinda told me that my D800E will be delivered by end of summer I'm lucky, and I placed the order not long after it is official released.


----------



## rhythmdevils

They seem to have gotten it right since the D3.  I had a lot of stores tell me they've never been able to keep D3s' in stock.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> They seem to have gotten it right since the D3.  I had a lot of stores tell me they've never been able to keep D3s' in stock.


 
   
  I did see a few at Hunt's photo before but never upgraded since I really don't need the professional version and don't like the D700 fro some reason (maybe holding out for D800).


----------



## rhythmdevils

Why don't you like the D700?


----------



## jc9394

most likely the first prosumer version of fx.


----------



## drunkn

D800s are such a pain to get right now. Retail it supposedly goes for 3k on Amazon but if you try to get one off eBay bids are going as high as 5k!


----------



## jc9394

drunkn said:


> D800s are such a pain to get right now. Retail it supposedly goes for 3k on Amazon but if you try to get one off eBay bids are going as high as 5k!




The E version been sold for almost $6K. I should have ordered when it first became available preorder.


----------



## anoobis

Well I'm back. Thanks for the previous advice BTW. I now find myself with a new dilemma and I feel a bit out of my depth discussing such low end gear here!
   
  I eventually bought a 50-300mm VR and I'm not really happy with it. I freely admit that some of the issues will be down to me but ultimately I feel as though I should be getting more detail and sharpness from the lens. I also seem to struggle with accurate autofocus (even in good light). I can't rule out a bad copy of the lens.
   
  I'm seriously considering exchanging it for the Tamron 70-300mm SP VC, which has faster AF and full time MF override. I feel that these will lead to fewer missed shots. However, I also expect better image quality in general. Is this the case?
   
  I can exchange for approx. £100. My concern is whether I will see an improvement on a D50 or whether I'm just wasting my money (I'd try another 55-300mm in that case)? Am I expecting too much from the 55-300mm/D50 combination, am I making a mistake looking at images at 100% (surely that's how you check the focus?)?
   
  I'm sure there will be suggestions to just get the Nikon 70-300mm VR. Well, it's simply down to budget, however, I have asked the store to contact Nikon to see if they can get a refurbished unit.
   
  I do have some examples but I didn't think it would be appreciated if I posted several full size images (even if they are only 6MP  )
   
  Finally, I'm on a bit of a tight time scale here. Ideally, I would like to purchase the Tamron tomorrow but I could probably stall until next weekend.


----------



## bigshot

There are a lot of reasons shots with a 300mm lens are not sharp. You really should try to pin down why before you buy another lens. You might just end up with the same problem.

First, try to eliminate camera shake. This is the most likely reason shots are soft with long lenses. Shoot a bunch at 300 on a tripod and see what you get.

Second, eliminate softness wide open. Shoot a bunch wide open on a tripod, and then a batch at f/8. See if that makes a difference.

Next see if te zoom has bad range. On a tripod shoot a batch wide open and at f/8 in various regions of the zoom from wide to long.

Lastly, pay attention to how you click the shutter release. Do you squeeze it slowly or punch it with a jab? Some longer lenses require a fraction of a second longer to lock on focus. The way you press the button can have a big impact on your ratio of junk to keepers.

If you know exactly what the problem is, you can improve your technique and shoot around the lens's limitations and get ood shots. No lens is perfect. You need to know how each one behaves to get good shots.

Used properly, the 50-300 is a very sharp lens. I doubt the problem is your copy. I'd bet five bucks you discover it's your technique. Long slow lenses take a bit of finesse to coax into giving their best.


----------



## anoobis

bigshot, thanks for the advice. You're right that I would be better off spending more time before changing but I'm in a window of maybe a week where I can (hopefully) get a refund. Believe me, I have been trying lots of different settings!

 Unfortunately, I am not equipped to test as fully as I would like. However, I have tried to account for camera shake with the shutter speed, allowing for the 1.5x crop factor. The whole point of VR is to help out here too. I have taken shots with varying apertures and haven't found a huge difference between wide open and f/8.

 Mostly I am allowing VR to settle before releasing the shutter. This helps with reducing any 'jabbing' effect. Regardless, I've read that a faster VR kicks in on the actual release. I'm using the back button for AF.

 Short of using a tripod (which wouldn't be how I use the lens in real situations), I've done everything I can think of to maximise quality. No doubt my technique can be improved but I was still expecting better. This is the level I'm at and if that's not good enough to get decent images out, then I think I'll have to give up on the >200mm range.

 I keep reading that this lens is sharp. Question is, even if more expensive lenses aren't sharper when both are used optimally, is it more likely that generally you'll (I'll) get better images out of them? Also, is there a distinction between sharpness/detail/resolution? And of course, sharpness isn't the only thing that yields image quality.

 I think my original questions still stand (please see original post) but especially, is the D50 sensor a limiting factor that won't show an improvement with the Tamron?

 At the moment, I considering: i) exchange the 55-300 for another, just to check; ii) go to 70-300 as an investment, even if the D50 can't do them justice (how do I check I've got a good lens?); iii) give up on that telephoto range!


----------



## bigshot

If camera shake is the problem, and you can't do anything to improve your technique, you're going to need a faster lens to correct the problem. In this focal length a f/2.8 lens ain't cheap, and isn't going to be as sharp as your 50-300 stopped down. In general, more expensive lenses aren't sharper than cheaper lenses, they're just faster. Most lenses are sharp when used properly.

Again, I'm going to suggest making a few tests on a tripod. If they turn out sharp, no exchange is going to fix your problem. In order to get good shots with a long lens, you need really good technique. It's all too easy to mess up shots because you aren't bracing yourself or because the light isn't good. You can't shoot at 300 the same way you do at 50, and f/4.5 lens isn't going to be as easy to handhold as a f/2.8 one.

VR helps, but at 300mm with a relatively slow shutter speed, it's got a big job to do. It may not always be enough.

The way to check your lens is to go outside and tape a newspaper on the wall of your house in full daylight. Put your camera on a tripod and shoot at various focal lengths in the zoom range both wide open and stopped down to f/8. That will tell you if the lens is sharp.


----------



## Jon L

If all else fails, a light Monopod may fit into the workflow much easier than tripod.  Unlike tripods, a good monopod can be quite cheap actually.


----------



## Szadzik

Bought a wide angle lens today to compliment my system.
   
  Until now I have had a D90 with Tamron 17-50 and 70-200 f/2.8.
   
  Today I bought a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (the older version with no motor as the new one is not widely available and I do not need the motor anyway).
   
  Will be testing the new lens in Barcelon when I go there in less than 3 weeks.
   
  Has anyone had any experience with this Tokina?


----------



## bigshot

I have the 11-16. Fantastic lens! You're going to have a lot of fun with it on your trip. It's great for architecture and nature. Night shooting too!


----------



## Jon L

Love my Tokina 11-16mm, which is a little nicer experience for Canon as we don't have to deal with the no-motor thing.  What I really would like is a full frame version Tokina, say 14-24 f/2.8, but I would take f/4 which is no big deal for wide angles anyway.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> Bought a wide angle lens today to compliment my system.
> 
> Until now I have had a D90 with Tamron 17-50 and 70-200 f/2.8.
> 
> ...


 
   
  You need a prime!!


----------



## bigshot

rhythmdevils said:


> You need a prime!!




There aren't many options for DX wide angle primes that don't cost a fortune or aren't all manual. The 11-16 is fairly fast and is optically just as good as a prime. It's a narrow zoom range, so it performs kind of like a prime too.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> You need a prime!!


 
   
  What for exactly? I used to ave 35mm 1.8, but decided it was much easier to shoot with a zoom lens. All my lenses are f/2.8, cannot complain.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Why is a zoom easier to shoot with?


----------



## bigshot

[VIDEO][/VIDEO]With a zoom you can easily compose exactly how you want it, which with a fast wide angle is particularly important, because you may be shooting indoors and it may not be easy to back up or move forward. With longer zooms, you can control the amount of bokeh and flattening of perspective. With wide zoom anges, you don't need as many lenses in you kit to cover the variety of subjects you may run across in travel. And the optical quality of zooms can be just as good as primes.

Primes are best or low light and formal portraiture on sticks.


----------



## rhythmdevils

We've discussed this briefly before, and I didn't feel like getting into it at the time so I dropped it. 
   
  But suffice it to say, we disagree on zoom vs prime.  Zooms are more convenient, and I agree, they can be as good optically as primes, or close enough that it doesn't matter at least.  And they can take the place of multiple primes.  I use a zoom for wider angles than 35 because I don't shoot wide often enough to use multiple primes, or when I have to travel light and will be shooting something in a small room so may be forced to use 28 or 24mm. 
   
  But I believe, (and I'm not alone in this) that most people shoot differently with a zoom and it is good practice to shoot with primes at least sometimes.  Or at least mindfully set your zoom to a certain focal length instead of just zooming in and out to compose.  I imagine there are rare photographers out there who can overcome this mentally, but most photographers will photograph differently with a prime than with a zoom. 
   
  Both have their place.  And neither one is "bad".  But I do like to encourage people to use primes when possible.


----------



## bigshot

Equipment doesn't affect my creativity. I shoot with my eye, not my gear. I can be just as creative with my iphone camera as my Nikon, and the lens doesn't matter either. Other people may be different. I've been shooting for forty years now. I've moved way beyond equipment mattering except on a purely technical level.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> We've discussed this briefly before, and I didn't feel like getting into it at the time so I dropped it.
> 
> But suffice it to say, we disagree on zoom vs prime.  Zooms are more convenient, and I agree, they can be as good optically as primes, or close enough that it doesn't matter at least.  And they can take the place of multiple primes.  I use a zoom for wider angles than 35 because I don't shoot wide often enough to use multiple primes, or when I have to travel light and will be shooting something in a small room so may be forced to use 28 or 24mm.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Understood and agreed, it does make your shooting habits different.
   
  However, I am a person working 12hrs a day over 300 days a year. I usually get 3-3.5 weeks off every 4 months and only 1-2 times a year I get to go on holiday for 5-7 days. Believe me, I want the convenience.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Equipment doesn't affect my creativity. I shoot with my eye, not my gear. I can be just as creative with my iphone camera as my Nikon, and the lens doesn't matter either. Other people may be different. I've been shooting for forty years now. I've moved way beyond equipment mattering except on a purely technical level.


 
   
   
  Ha.  You have a way of twisting my posts around.  I didn't say creativity.  Of course you can be creative with whatever.  Monkeys can be creative with their poop. 
   
  But equipment does effect the way you work.  Do you want to argue that people generally make the same images with 8x10 view cameras as they do with point and shoots?  Note, I did not say better/worse, I said _same_.  Photographs made with 8x10 view cameras have a look, and it's because of how big the camera is and how much previsualization you have to do, and how long it takes to set up a shot.  Do you think Gary Winogrand's work would look _the same_ if he used an 8x10?  Equipment does effect the way we work.  The equipment isn't the point.  But it does have _an effect_, for better _or_ worse. 
   
  It is _harder (not impossible)_ to previsualize an image if you are shooting with a zoom lens, because the frame and perspective is fluid, so it's harder to get a feel for where your frame is going to fall, which is important with previsualization,  Primes are good practice because the frame and perspective is fixed, so you get to know exactly how the camera will capture and frame the world.  Then soon you can visualize that frame and that look in your minds eye, and see the world that way- you can imagine the world through you camera's perspective.  It helps connect your imagination to the process.  Zooms are fluid, so people don't get to know a frame/perspective, and thus they _often_ don't know how the world will look through their lens, and thus they _often_ don't frame in their imagination, they frame through the camera.  Which encourages people seeing subjects, not images.  Instead of seeing a frame around the world (an image) they see a subject, and just put the camera up to their face and zoom back and forth until they like what they see, which is often just tightly framing that subject.  It's a more passive way of shooting, there's a disconnect from the imagination.  You don't _have_ to shoot that way with a zoom.  But a zoom adds another factor to something that is already spacially challenging.  With a zoom, not only do you have to previsualize the framing, but also the focal length, and if all you've used is fluid focal lengths, that is going to be challenging.   
   
  I'm not saying you can't be creative with a zoom.  I'm not saying they are bad.  I'm not saying you're a crappy photographer if you use a zoom, or that you can't use your imagination with a zoom.  To be completely clear, _I'm saying none of that_.  Tons of great photographers use zooms.  They are preferred in certain demanding situations like weddings where you don't have time to change lenses.  Or if you need different focal lengths but can't carry lots of gear.  And if you _really_ know what you're doing it shouldn't make a difference (though many of these people probably shot with primes for years).  But I do believe there are sacrifices to be made for that convenience and I think beginners and novices, and many experienced photographers will benefit from having one less factor to previsualize, using nothing but a single prime for an extended period of time and getting a feel for shooting in that way because it _encourages_ a more active, involved way of shooting.  I think starting out this way is a great idea for a similar reason that it's a great idea to learn darkroom black and white because it helps you have a deeper understanding about photography. 
   
  This isn't as ideal because it takes constant diligence, but if you want to practice this with a zoom lens, you can mindfully set the lens to specific focal lengths _before_ you frame a shot.  Popular focal lengths should be written on your zoom lens.  So instead of composing by zooming with the camera in your face, you look at the subject, decide on your preferred focal length, set the zoom that way, and then try to compose it the way you saw it in your imagination, without changing the zoom.  This is how I use a zoom unless I'm in a time crunch situation like a wedding. 
   
  It all comes from the person.   But the equipment does have an effect and I encourage people to pick up a neutral prime lens to practice with, and spend a good chunk of time using only that lens so you get a feel for that frame and focal length and see how it effects the way you work.  A couple months at least, maybe more.  See if you notice what I've described.  At the very least, notice how you wind up moving your body more to get the right shot, and you might become more engaged when shooting.  You might notice that your pictures have more variety of angles and composition (from below, from above, etc).


----------



## purrin

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> We've discussed this briefly before, and I didn't feel like getting into it at the time so I dropped it.
> 
> But suffice it to say, we disagree on zoom vs prime.  Zooms are more convenient, and I agree, they can be as good optically as primes, or close enough that it doesn't matter at least.  And they can take the place of multiple primes.  I use a zoom for wider angles than 35 because I don't shoot wide often enough to use multiple primes, or when I have to travel light and will be shooting something in a small room so may be forced to use 28 or 24mm.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Zooms have their place, but I like to use primes if I know beforehand what and how I am going to shoot. I guess things are easier now with ISO26000000 and image-stabilization, but that only goes so far. I have also learned special techniques to "zoom" primes, i.e. walking up to or backing away from the subject. Also, there is no such thing as a f1.4 30mm zoom. I like the very shallow DOF of the fast primes, especially with these cropped sensors which inherently produce deeper DOF. There is a certain simplicity in not having to futz with a zoom ring too, allowing me to concentrate on other aspects or forcing me to work with what I have.
   
  Then again, I'm old fashioned. My first camera body was an AE-1 and I only had a 50mm. My current camera (that I actually use) is an iPhone4 - and I didn't even know there was a zoom function on it until yesterday. LOL, I thought it was a fixed lens.
   
  And yeah, I'll take an f4 300mm VR over any 50/70/80-300mm any day. It's not like I would ever want to shoot 50mm, or even 105mm or 175mm with such a big honkin' zoom lens anyways.


----------



## bigshot

rhythmdevils said:


> Ha.  You have a way of twisting my posts around.  I didn't say creativity.  Of course you can be creative with whatever.  Monkeys can be creative with their poop. .




I'll explain a bit more... Zooms don't affect the way I compose a shot. I use the exact same principles of composition when I use my Mamiya RB67 as my DSLR and my pocket cameras. I could be using a telephoto or a wide angle, and it wouldn't change how I visualize my shots. My equipment doesn't affect the way I shoot creatively at all.

The only thing equipment affects is technical stuff... Can I open up wide enough for a low light situation? Is the framing what I see in my head? If it isn't I can usually fudge it, but a more versatile lens makes that easier. I visualize first and then figure out a way to get the equipment to give me the shot I see in my head. I don't visualize by holding the camera up to my face and walking around and bending over to see what I can see. I don't raise the eyepiece to my eye until I know exactly what I want to shoot. Maybe I'm different than most people.

If it was optically possible to have a compact, lightweight zoom that covered all focal lengths at f/1.4 cleanly, I'd pop it on my camera and never take it off. I wouldn't ever have to think about equipment again and that would make me happy. But I'm sure I would shoot the exact same shots as I do now with my bag full of stuff.

My equipment doesn't affect the way I shoot. I affect the way my equipment shoots.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





purrin said:


> (...) is an iPhone4 - and I didn't even know there was a zoom function on it until yesterday. LOL, I thought it was a fixed lens.
> 
> And yeah, I'll take an f4 300mm VR over any 50/70/80-300mm any day. It's not like I would ever want to shoot 50mm, or even 105mm or 175mm with such a big honkin' zoom lens anyways.


 
   
  It IS a fixed lens, you are only using digital zoom.
   
  Quote: 





> And yeah, I'll take an f4 300mm VR over any 50/70/80-300mm any day. It's not like I would ever want to shoot 50mm, or even 105mm or 175mm with such a big honkin' zoom lens anyways.


 
   
  And yet, loads of people use 70-200mm. The moment I put my 70-200 f/2.8 a smile appears on my face, shooting portraits from far,  far away is awesome.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> My equipment doesn't affect the way I shoot. I affect the way my equipment shoots.


 
   
  You might like to think this, and it sounds nice.  I would take you more seriously if you fessed up to it at least a little bit, but this kind of absolute statement just isn't true.  I guarantee your images would be composed and framed differently if you used an 8x10 camera as opposed to a cell phone camera.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





rhythmdevils said:


> You might like to think this, and it sounds nice.  I would take you more seriously if you fessed up to it at least a little bit, but this kind of absolute statement just isn't true.  I guarantee your images would be composed and framed differently if you used an *8x10 camera* as opposed to a cell phone camera.


 
   
  8X10 camera is totally different animal, I remember that I have to choose the composition very very careful since the film is so damn expensive.


----------



## liamstrain

His point is a good one though. Equipment does affect how you approach a shot. Not just due to the cost of the film, but because of the interface with the world... some invite more flexibility and quick response to action, others more careful framing and contemplative composition... and not all are appropriate for another type of shooting.


----------



## jc9394

I know what he meant, when I was in school, the 8x10 film cost arm and leg and it is only available in fixed lens and most likely I only have one shot.  So framing and composition has to be perfect, sometimes it took me a good hour to take one picture.


----------



## bigshot

rhythmdevils said:


> You might like to think this, and it sounds nice.  I would take you more seriously if you fessed up to it at least a little bit, but this kind of absolute statement just isn't true.  I guarantee your images would be composed and framed differently if you used an 8x10 camera as opposed to a cell phone camera.




I've even taken pictures where I didn't operate the camera. I had a series of unusual portraits of myself that I wanted to shoot and Sears Portrait Studio was having a sale, so I drew exactly the composition and angle I wanted on 4 by 5 cards and told the guy at Sears to match the drawings precisely. The photos were exactly like my drawings. Everyone in the photo department came out to ask me questions when I came back to pick them up, because the photos looked totally different than the normal portraits of babies and couples they shoot there.

Seriously, I don't walk around with a camera around my neck when I'm shooting. The camera stays in the sidebag until I've figured out what I want. Then it comes out, is quickly set and the shot is taken. Most people don't even know I'm taking pictures, because the camera is in the bag 90% of the time. I don't end up with a lot of pictures, but the proportion of keepers to misfires is very high.

When I set up my hot lights and shoot formal portraits, it's a little different. I usually set the camera on sticks, adjust the exposure and focus, then lock it down and shoot standing next to the camera with a shutter release. I really don't like to look through the camera, because it is like a barrier between me and my subject to have a camera over my face. I get better results standing to the side chatting and snapping using my predetermined framing.

I'm a LOT more interested in composing and planning pictures than I am taking them. Shooting this way, there is no randomness and the lens on your camera isn't controlling what you shoot. I can't do this with my fisheye, but I only use that on very specific occasions anyway.

Here is a shot that would normally be taken by a large format camera with a wide angle fast lens, but I took it with my iPhone...

http://animationresources.org/pics/clclubhouse-big.jpg

I needed a shot of this room quick and my equipment was all packed away. So I chose my angle and framing, set the exposure, braced myself for a slow shutter and shot a series of nine overlapping shots with my iPhone, Photoshop stitched them all together for me. Even though it wasn't the ideal equipment (not quite enough latitude) it was the exact same image I would have taken if I had my Mamiya RB67 set up with a wide angle.

In a pinch, I can jerry rig just about any camea and lens to give me what I want. The idea always comes before the machine.


----------



## bigshot

jc9394 said:


> 8X10 camera is totally different animal, I remember that I have to choose the composition very very careful since the film is so damn expensive.




I choose the composition that carefully, even when I'm shooting with my iphone. My time is more valuable than film. If I'm going to expend the time and energy to make a picture, I'm not going to leave things to chance. I probably spent the better part of an hour setting up and planning the iphone shot above... Just like I would have with a large format camera. The shot required the time to plan.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I choose the composition that carefully, even when I'm shooting with my iphone. My time is more valuable than film. If I'm going to expend the time and energy to make a picture, I'm not going to leave things to chance. I probably spent the better part of an hour setting up and planning the iphone shot above... Just like I would have with a large format camera. The shot required the time to plan.


 
  Well during the college days, I have more time than money.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I choose the composition that carefully, even when I'm shooting with my iphone. My time is more valuable than film. If I'm going to expend the time and energy to make a picture, I'm not going to leave things to chance. I probably spent the better part of an hour setting up and planning the iphone shot above... Just like I would have with a large format camera. The shot required the time to plan.


 
   
  While I don't disagree with you... especially for a shot that requires planning - you then have to consider if it makes sense to use the iPhone as your tool, rather than one better suited for the job.
   
  *shrug*
   
  Horses for courses, use the right tool for the right job. Sure you *can* force a screwdriver to be a hammer... but if you have a hammer, then you probably shouldn't bother.


----------



## bigshot

It all depends on whether you "take pictures" or "make pictures".

Every image I snap the shutter release on requires planning.


----------



## liamstrain

Not really. It all depends on the requirements of the shot.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> It all depends on whether you "take pictures" or "make pictures".
> Every image I snap the shutter release on requires planning.


 
   
  I get what you're saying but it's oversimplified.


----------



## bigshot

I try to shoot simply


----------



## xxhaxx

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Equipment doesn't affect my creativity. I shoot with my eye, not my gear. I can be just as creative with my iphone camera as my Nikon, and the lens doesn't matter either. Other people may be different. I've been shooting for forty years now. I've moved way beyond equipment mattering except on a purely technical level.


 
  Wouldn't the limitation of your gear affect your creativity


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





xxhaxx said:


> Wouldn't the limitation of your gear affect your creativity


 
   
  Creativity? No. 
   
  Ability to implement the idea you have effectively, possibly.


----------



## bigshot

Not really. I can brace myself and shoot at a slower shutter speed in low light if I don't have a fast prime. I can shoot panorams if I don't have a wide angle. For longer shots I can crop in post.

I have a bunch of lenses, but most of the time I just use my Tamron 17-50 2.8. That can do just about everything I need perfectly, except for night shooting (Sigma 30 1.4 does that better) and formal portraits (I use the Sigma 50 1.4 for that). But in a pinch, I can make the Tamron work in those cases. Changing lenses when I'm working stops me dead. I put a lens on and go all day with it, and I don't feel constrained at all.

Lately, I've been shooting a lot with my Canon pocket camera and my iPhone. I can get great pictures out of them. Equipment meant a lot to me when I was in my 20s. But lately, I've been focusing on the creative aspects and planning my shots, so the equipment just doesn't matter all that much. I may never upgrade my D200. There really isn't any need to.


----------



## MicroNik

I have a D70s. It's old, but its better than a point and shoot.


----------



## Szadzik

I can see some ppl considering themselves true artists. I would like to know their names as maybe we have some famous photographer here . Modesty, a great virtue, is it not?


----------



## bigshot

Approaching photography as an art doesn't mean you're immodest. We don't think a guy playing a guitar is immodest if he refers to himself as a musician. There are snapshot takers and there's nothing wrong with that. But I'd think if you spend a thousand dollars or more on camera equipment, you're doing it for more than just taking snapshots.

When I take my camera out, I'm working, creating images in my head based on what I see and trying to use the tools to create that image. When I was a kid, I approached it differently. I would use my camera to try to document were I had been and what I had done. But when my folks died and I ended up with tens of thousands of their slides documenting where they had been and what they had done, my feelings about shooting that way changed. What's the point of yet another photograph of Big Ben or the leaning tower of Pisa that looks just like every other tourist photo?

When I die, I'm not going to leave behind a huge pile of shots like that. I'm going to leave behind a handful of interesting images and leave it at that. People who come after me can like them and keep them, or throw them out if they don't. I won't expect them to preserve tens of thousands of slides like the ones with my Mom smiling, standing in front of every tourist location in creation.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Please post a link to your photography online.  I'd like to see some images instead of all this talk.


----------



## bigshot

http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/jojobaptista-big.jpg
http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/skipcanters-big.jpg
http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/sigmabob02-big.jpg
http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/georgejones01-big.jpg
http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/calico10-big.jpg
http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/haggard02-big.jpg
http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/countyfair12-big.jpg
http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/hotdogwheel-big.jpg
http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/jdshoot03-big.jpg
http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/sandiego02-big.jpg


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Approaching photography as an art doesn't mean you're immodest. We don't think a guy playing a guitar is immodest if he refers to himself as a musician. There are snapshot takers and there's nothing wrong with that. But I'd think if you spend a thousand dollars or more on camera equipment, you're doing it for more than just taking snapshots.
> When I take my camera out, I'm working, creating images in my head based on what I see and trying to use the tools to create that image. When I was a kid, I approached it differently. I would use my camera to try to document were I had been and what I had done. But when my folks died and I ended up with tens of thousands of their slides documenting where they had been and what they had done, my feelings about shooting that way changed. What's the point of yet another photograph of Big Ben or the leaning tower of Pisa that looks just like every other tourist photo?
> When I die, I'm not going to leave behind a huge pile of shots like that. I'm going to leave behind a handful of interesting images and leave it at that. People who come after me can like them and keep them, or throw them out if they don't. I won't expect them to preserve tens of thousands of slides like the ones with my Mom smiling, standing in front of every tourist location in creation.


 
   
  I was not talking about being immodest by calling yourself an artist, never mentioned that. I meant that you talk about the fact that you were posting like you WERE one of the best photographer in the world, flawless basically.
   
  Now I have had a look at your photos, I know you are not a famous name. I am not either, but I do not advertise myself as one.


----------



## bigshot

I didn't say I was the best or a famous name. I described my process. Shoot pictures. Don't be so insecure.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I didn't say I was the best or a famous name. I described my process. Shoot pictures. Don't be so insecure.


 
   
  Not insecure, just the opposite.


----------



## liamstrain

That's it. You two have driven me to Canon. 
   

   
  (only half kidding... I'm keeping my Nikon gear for my wife to use, but my pro dslr kit is Canon now)


----------



## bigshot

Ha! Canon makes good cameras. My pocket camera is a Canon. The night shot af the city I linked to was shot with my pocket camera.... But of course I couldn't have taken it with that because a nikkor nocht would be the only thing I could use for that.


----------



## anoobis

I know it's going back a bit but thanks again for the advice; I've been busy in the meantime.

 Couldn't put my finger on it but I wasn't entirely happy with the 55-300 so it went back. I managed to take some test shots from a stable platform. I did try a Tamron 70-300 VC but unfortunately I was only able to take a couple of test shots in the store. Far from ideal and there was significant chromatic aberration on one of those images (taken with a D3100). While the Tamron is undoubtedly a nicer lens, personally I can't justify it at the moment as due to its size and this year's weather (!) it may not get as much use as I'd like. Ultimately, I'm not yet convinced I'd get better images out of it. You have to work within the limitations and I always seem to be pushing the shutter speed limits.

 Fortunately, in the meantime an 80-200 f/4.5-5.6D lens came up so I grabbed that as a stop gap. I'm treating it as a 'better than nothing' lens while I work out priorities and my limitations better.

 Interestingly, although the new lenses did AF faster on newer bodies, the difference wasn't as much as I'd expected and I've found the 80-200 to be pretty quick on the D50.


----------



## anoobis

Think the Armada must be making another attempt or something because there were bonfires lit across the country last night. I managed to get myself a couple of good photos but unfortunately stood in the wrong place. My camera (and probably lens) now has an unpleasant smoky smell. I do have room deodourising spray but that might be a bit too liquid if sprayed at the camera and would probably dry sticky.
   
  Any advice on how to get rid of it?


----------



## bigshot

Put some of that citrus cleaner stuff... Oxy whatever... Orange... Can't remember the name... In a little dish and set your camera in a plastic trash bag with it for a couple of days.


----------



## anoobis

Good idea, thanks. Now that you've mentioned it, I think bicarbonate of soda also neutralises odours so I'll add some of that. I might also try rice; it's known to dry out electronics, maybe it will absorb other molecules.


----------



## bigshot

I got that citrus cleaner idea from an antique phonograph forum. Apparently rats love to make nests in old phonographs. Citrus cleaner is the surefire way to get rid of the stink.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

d7000 to d700, worth my while?


----------



## liamstrain

IMO - no. The D700 offers very little to you. I'd wait for the next mid-tier full-frame (D600?) if you have a specific need for FF and don't want to pay for the D800.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

OK.  I wish I could just borrow someone's FX camera and lens equivalent to see if it makes any difference to me!  Seems with the new bodies around d700 prices should be creeping lower.


----------



## bigshot

The main advantage of a full frame camera is the bigger and brighter viewfinder. Manual focus is possible on FX, but it's a royal pain in the ass on DX. I'm perfectly happy with my DX kit. It does what I want a million times better than my of F2 and manual focus kit.


----------



## rhythmdevils

That's decidedly not the main advantage.  The main advantage is a bigger sensor, with more/bigger photosites.  A full frame sensor looks better than a smaller version of that same sensor in every way. 
   
  However, d7000 vs d700 isn't just a bigger sensor.  The D7000 sensor is much newer.  So it's a more complicated comparison than just dx vs fx, the D700 has the advantage because of it's bigger size, but the d7000 makes up for a lot of those advantages with improved sensor tech. 
   
  I have a D3 and my sister has the d7000 and I think in the end, my D3 makes better looking pictures esp in low light.  Whether it's worth it to you depends on how serious you are and what kind of images you're making, but if I had to choose between the two cameras, I would still take the D3 even with the price difference.


----------



## bigshot

DX also has great low light capability and plenty of resolution. For non-pros that isn't at all an issue.


----------



## William007

Also with full frame's your viewfinder has a 100% coverage and a 50mm lens is a 50 mm lens not x1.8 like with a crop sensor dslr


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





william007 said:


> Also with full frame's your viewfinder has a 100% coverage and a 50mm lens is a 50 mm lens not x1.8 like with a crop sensor dslr


 
   
  For one; APS is 1.5x or 1.6x and not 1.8. For two, for APS there are dedicated lenses, you do nto have to buy FF lenses.


----------



## William007

szadzik said:


> For one; APS is 1.5x or 1.6x and not 1.8. For two, for APS there are dedicated lenses, you do nto have to buy FF lenses.



Yes sorry i thought it was wrong, and i what i ment is that when you buy a Canon L lens (EF) and you put it on an EFS body then you'll have your crop, and (i know this is a nikon thread) canon doesn't make that many good lenses for efs only


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





william007 said:


> Yes sorry i thought it was wrong, and i what i ment is that when you buy a Canon L lens (EF) and you put it on an EFS body then you'll have your crop, and (i know this is a nikon thread) canon doesn't make that many good lenses for efs only


 
   
  Canon and Nikon are not the only lens manufacturers either.


----------



## William007

szadzik said:


> Canon and Nikon are not the only lens manufacturers either.



I know i studied photography.


----------



## PinoyPogiman

i have a Nikon Coolpix S5.
   
  old discontinued model.. indeed, but it still works fine even though it has quite a lot of nicks and scratches..
   
  im suprised it makes some pretty nice pictures.. even though it IS my first point in shoot.. because im morely fond of Sony camcorders and Action/Helmet cameras
   
 < i love making closeup Macro shots. makes Airsoft replica guns look really cool.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





william007 said:


> I know i studied photography.


 
   
  Awesome.


----------



## jc9394

Finally received the shipping notice after almost 4 months of wait time. 

post 4000...


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> Finally received the shipping notice after almost 4 months of wait time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Finally here...


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> Finally here...


 
   
  Awesome, enjoy. A shame I am just a hobby photographer and would not fully utilize this beast, as it would already be on order


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> Awesome, enjoy. A shame I am just a hobby photographer and would not fully utilize this beast, as it would already be on order


 

 Same here, I'm not a professional but I had D200 and looking for upgrade and moving to full frame to use all my old lens from the film days.  I still have to get a 24-70 f/2.8 for everyday use, all my old lens are prime.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> Awesome, enjoy. A shame I am just a hobby photographer and would not fully utilize this beast, as it would already be on order


 
  Strong suggestion: use a good CF card (SanDisk Extreme Pro is great) and not that SD card.  CF cards are considerably faster and more reliable.  Especially when you're using a 64GB card, you don't want to have one die on you 3/4 of the way through your day.
   
  Here's my suggestion: keep the SD card and buy a couple of 16GB CF cards.  Write to both and use the SD as backup.  Belt and suspenders!


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Strong suggestion: use a good CF card (SanDisk Extreme Pro is great) and not that SD card.  CF cards are considerably faster and more reliable.  Especially when you're using a 64GB card, you don't want to have one die on you 3/4 of the way through your day.
> 
> Here's my suggestion: keep the SD card and buy a couple of 16GB CF cards.  Write to both and use the SD as backup.  Belt and suspenders!


 

 Have a 64GB Extreme Pro CF already, it is not shipped the same time.  It is set to save RAW to CF and JPG to SD.


----------



## jc9394

Testing...


----------



## PinoyPogiman

These pics were taken with an old Nikon Coolpix S4, not bad quality, but HEAVILY *Outdated, discontinued*


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> Same here, I'm not a professional but I had D200 and looking for upgrade and moving to full frame to use all my old lens from the film days.  I still have to get a 24-70 f/2.8 for everyday use, all my old lens are prime.


 
   
  Yeah, I started with DX and already have 90% of lenses I might ever need especially for DX. I am impatiently awaiting D400 or D7100.


----------



## blufox4900

Tried any studio shots with that D800?


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





blufox4900 said:


> Tried any studio shots with that D800?


 
   
  Not yet, just got it yesterday.  I need to book a studio and models...


----------



## blufox4900

You don't have a speedlight? You could pretty easily set up a macro studio with a speedlight, a cardboard box, paper and tape. Models are nice but not convenient, least in my experience at school where they backed out with alarming regularity.


----------



## Audio-Omega

What's a good compact camera for video recording ?  A reviewer said Nikon S8200 had poor audio recording.


----------



## bigshot

I like the Canon small cameras better than the Nikons. Check KenRockwell.com He's been reviewing video in his articles lately.


----------



## whitefero

I love my d3100 though I can already feel the need for a bigger aperture lens (my 3.5-5.6 18-55mm is not particularly good for low light.. also adding that the camera can barely focus if there's little to no light.
   
  I am not yet good enough at manual focusing. So this is a hassle.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





whitefero said:


> I love my d3100 though I can already feel the need for a bigger aperture lens (my 3.5-5.6 18-55mm is not particularly good for low light.. also adding that the camera can barely focus if there's little to no light.
> 
> I am not yet good enough at manual focusing. So this is a hassle.


 
   
  Nikon 35 mm f/1.8G AF-S go for $199 and Nikon 50 mm f/1.8G AF-S around $230.  
  When such fine cheap prime lenses exist, why not just go for it?


----------



## bigshot

I read on Ken Rockwell's site that the Nikon 50 1.4 AF-D is on sale at Adorama for $294. That's a great deal on a great lens.


----------



## Szadzik

What are we expecting to see on Sep 13th?
   
  I have an irresistible itch to upgrade my D90 and would like to se D7100 and D400 to choose between them.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> What are we expecting to see on Sep 13th?
> 
> I have an irresistible itch to upgrade my D90 and would like to se D7100 and D400 to choose between them.


 
   
  Nikon D600 is your man, and at $2100, it may even be a bargain.
   
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25488/D600.html


----------



## bigshot

When are they going to freshen up the DX line? That's what I'm waiting for.


----------



## xxhaxx

Highly doubt the d7000 is going to get updated anytime soon. Guessing there might be an update for the d300s


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





xxhaxx said:


> Highly doubt the d7000 is going to get updated anytime soon. Guessing there might be an update for the d300s


 
   
  D400 was what I was hoping for.
   
  Quote: 





jon l said:


> Nikon D600 is your man, and at $2100, it may even be a bargain.
> 
> http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25488/D600.html


 
   
  I have a set of f/2.8 lenses for DX and not willing to replace them with FX ones, too much money.
   
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> When are they going to freshen up the DX line? That's what I'm waiting for.


 
   
  Exactly.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> I have a set of f/2.8 lenses for DX and not willing to replace them with FX ones, too much money.


 
   
  I agreed, upgraded from D200 to D800E and my wallet hurts like hell.  Luckily, I have brunch of prime lens that I have from the film days hold me over for a while.  At least that is what I was thinking until I mounted the 24-70.


----------



## bigshot

The main reason I'd go to full frame would be for the bigger viewfinder for manual focus. But the auto focus on my D200 works so well, I actually prefer it. I like the smaller and lighter size of DX.


----------



## choka

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The main reason I'd go to full frame would be for the bigger viewfinder for manual focus. But the auto focus on my D200 works so well, I actually prefer it. I like the smaller and lighter size of DX.


 
  d200 is actually 20g heavier than d800


----------



## bigshot

What about the zooms?


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





choka said:


> d200 is actually 20g heavier than d800


 
   
  Not if you have the battery pack on it.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> What about the zooms?


 
   
  Actually I prefer the FX zoom, it is more realistic (I guess I'm old school from the dark room time).


----------



## choka

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> Not if you have the battery pack on it.


 
  You mean d200 without battery VS d800 with battery? 
   
  From everything I read online, the difference in weight between the 2, with battery, is just around 20 grams or so. (d800 is 900g with battery, while d200 is 920g with battery) I actually have both of them and they feel absolutely the same in my hands. The only difference is that the d800 is taller because of the larger viewfinder. You can't complain about the increase in size because of the viewfinder when a larger viewfinder is what you've been asking for.
   
  While there is no difference when there is enough light, when it gets slightly darker, the d200 really fades in comparison...


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





choka said:


> You mean d200 without battery VS d800 with battery?
> 
> From everything I read online, the difference in weight between the 2, with battery, is just around 20 grams or so. (d800 is 900g with battery, while d200 is 920g with battery) I actually have both of them and they feel absolutely the same in my hands. The only difference is that the d800 is taller because of the larger viewfinder. You can't complain about the increase in size because of the viewfinder when a larger viewfinder is what you've been asking for.
> 
> While there is no difference when there is enough light, when it gets slightly darker, the d200 really fades in comparison...


 
   
  What I mean the additional vertical grip/battery pack attached.  The D800 is heavier.


----------



## bigshot

Compare the weight of the D200 with the 18-55 to the equivalent FX.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Compare the weight of the D200 with the 18-55 to the equivalent FX.


 
   
  D800 with 24-70?  Much heavier...but that lens is as good as it gets from a zoom.


----------



## choka

you can also buy a vertical grip for d200. you have to compare apples to apples.


----------



## choka

the 18-55 is a consumer lens with variable aperture. The 24-70 is a pro lens with constant 2.8 aperture and much better weather sealed. It is not an equivalent to 18-55 DX


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





choka said:


> you can also buy a vertical grip for d200. you have to compare apples to apples.


 
   
  Yes.


----------



## choka

why not get a d600? it's much cheaper than a d800, it has a similar body to that of a d7000, which is much lighter than d200. it's full frame, with all the modern features. with a pro lens like 24-70 attached, it might not weight much more than a d200 with a 18-55.


----------



## xxhaxx

My main reason for choosing the d800 over the d600 is the 1/250 sync speed and the max shutter speed 1/8000 also I have a crap ton of CF cards


----------



## jc9394

xxhaxx said:


> My main reason for choosing the d800 over the d600 is the 1/250 sync speed and the max shutter speed 1/8000 also I have a crap ton of CF cards




Your crap tons of CF cards may not keep up with 40 MB raw, it probably fine with JPG. I have to get the Extreme Pro SD and CF to keep up 5FPS.


----------



## choka

What do you shoot? Why is 1/200 sync speed vs 1/250 a deal breaker for you? You try to overpower the sun all the time? Are you sure you absolutely need 1/8000 shutter speed instead of 1/4000?


----------



## xxhaxx

I shoot wedding/portraits. I have a total of 8x16gb CF sandisk extreme so i can survive on the d800 MP .
  1/200 vs 1/250 in term of sync speed dictate how you control your lighting. But the 1/200 vs 1/250 isn't a major deal breaker for me since I can just use a ND filter.
  If you are shooting wide open 1.4 in the daytime you would be at 1/8000. Not a fan of using ND filters unless I have too.


----------



## jc9394

85 1.4 I assume? That is one heck of glass, it is so sharp that most of the time I can't show the client unprocessed raw file.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





xxhaxx said:


> I shoot wedding/portraits. I have a total of 8x16gb CF sandisk extreme so i can survive on the d800 MP .
> 1/200 vs 1/250 in term of sync speed dictate how you control your lighting. But the 1/200 vs 1/250 isn't a major deal breaker for me since I can just use a ND filter.
> If you are shooting wide open 1.4 in the daytime you would be at 1/8000. Not a fan of using ND filters unless I have too.


 
  1/200 vs. 1/250 is at most a 1/3 stop difference and not really an issue.  Good and affordable ND filters such as Tiffen White Water ND really cause no significant IQ degradation.  
  Judging by this D600 review video, I have a feeling a whole lot of people will be preferring the D600 over D800 for various reasons:
   
http://www.youtube.com/user/thecamerastoretv?feature=results_main


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





choka said:


> the 18-55 is a consumer lens with variable aperture. The 24-70 is a pro lens with constant 2.8 aperture and much better weather sealed. It is not an equivalent to 18-55 DX


 
   
  Isn't the D200 a pro body with weather seal as opposed to the D600?


----------



## choka

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Isn't the D200 a pro body with weather seal as opposed to the D600?


 
  That is also true. D200 vs D800 then. D800 is still lighter and basically wins in every aspect.


----------



## PMAP

I have a bunch of APS-C DSLR and some film SLRs from Nikon. Though frankly, recently I've been doing more selling and less buying of equipment, and also less taking pictures. There's jot enough time. I also switched from DSLR to compacts so I can have the camera with me more often.
   
  This is what is making the Nikon 1 system so tempting for me. Small package with manual zoom lenses and at least OK quality (very good in case of the Nikon 1). However after almost a full year, they weren't able to ship anything useful for this system. Only now, a 'normal' lens was announced and that's too little too late. No wide angle lens for example. No reasonably upgraded body. So I ended up with a prosumer compact camera. As much as I love the idea of the Nikon 1 system - especially J1 is a total joy - I won't spend twice as much money on rather simple point and shoot rather than a nice wide angle compact. And I surely won't haul around an FX camera.
   
  Anyone else feels the same?


----------



## bigshot

I shoot some of my best photos on my iphone.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

I bought a reverse macro ring for my camera for kicks, I know that you lose auto-everything but how in the hell do you use this thing settings wise.


----------



## Teraflame

I bought a nex rather nikon's poor mirrorless attempt. They have aps-c sensor, focus peaking, can adapt plenty of legacy lenses, and tiltable lcd allows for waist level shooting. Total joy to use except for ergonomics sometimes, my dslr stays at home quite a lot now.
   
  Quote: 





pmap said:


> I have a bunch of APS-C DSLR and some film SLRs from Nikon. Though frankly, recently I've been doing more selling and less buying of equipment, and also less taking pictures. There's jot enough time. I also switched from DSLR to compacts so I can have the camera with me more often.
> 
> This is what is making the Nikon 1 system so tempting for me. Small package with manual zoom lenses and at least OK quality (very good in case of the Nikon 1). However after almost a full year, they weren't able to ship anything useful for this system. Only now, a 'normal' lens was announced and that's too little too late. No wide angle lens for example. No reasonably upgraded body. So I ended up with a prosumer compact camera. As much as I love the idea of the Nikon 1 system - especially J1 is a total joy - I won't spend twice as much money on rather simple point and shoot rather than a nice wide angle compact. And I surely won't haul around an FX camera.
> 
> Anyone else feels the same?


----------



## NeonPirateKing

Hey Guys! I'm looking to delve deeper into photography, but I don't know where to start. I've always used point and shoots, but my point and shoot recently broke, so I thought I would finally upgrade. What are some good resources for learning? Also, what gear should I try to start with?


----------



## bigshot

My advice would be to not overspend on the camera body. Get an entry level DX DSLR and spend your money on lenses. Lenses are what make the difference. Shoot for assembling a set of lenses that go from 18mm to 200mm and one fast 1.8 prime, either 30 or 50mm. Today, all of the major company camera lenses and bodies are of extremely high quality. Your big decision is probably whether you want to go with Canon or Nikon.

Check kenrockwell.com He has good advice for real people, as opposed to gear heads. Lots of great cameras to choose from right now,


----------



## Szadzik

Remember about one thing: OS - optical stabilization. Neither Canon nor Nikon have it built into the body. What that means, is that even though it is better to have it in the lens, not al lenses offer it. 
   
  I chose Nikon a few years ago and am still happy with the choice of lenses that I get for it, but sometimes wonder how great it would be to have all lenses stabilized with an OS system in the body itself.


----------



## bigshot

I think stabilization is in the body with Canon.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I think stabilization is in the body with Canon.


 
   
  Not on my 5D mk II... all lens based. Also, stop reading Ken Rockwell. He has no idea what he's talking about - his whole site is an affiliate links plug... accuracy of information is not his goal. Getting more traffic is.


----------



## xxhaxx

Both canon and nikon bodies does not have in body stabilization. It is built into their lenses.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> stop reading Ken Rockwell. He has no idea what he's talking about - his whole site is an affiliate links plug... accuracy of information is not his goal. Getting more traffic is.


 
   
  This.  There's a video of him on his site where he says that telephoto shooters aren't good enough to use wide angle lenses and that sports shooters only use them because they don't know the athlete and can't go to his house to take a picture there.  What?!?  What about documenting the sporting event then?  The guy is absolutely nuts and says the stupidest stuff.


----------



## bigshot

Best site on the internet I know of. He's a character, but I totally understand where he's coming from.

He makes gear heads mad though


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Best site on the internet I know of. He's a character, but I totally understand where he's coming from.
> He makes gear heads mad though


 
   
   
  If by gear heads you mean those who like objective information and prefer to not line someone's pockets just because he draws a crowd, then I suppose you have a point. 
   
  He's sort of the "cable burn-in" guy of cameras, IMO. Full of woo and superstition, not facts.


----------



## bigshot

Naw. You probably don't read him mutch. I get a lot of great practical info from him. All of the other sites I follow are about focus charts and graphs, not what it's like to actually shoot with the equipment. I wish therewas someone like him for audio.


----------



## NeonPirateKing

I think i'm gonna stick with nikon, unless canon is slightly more advantageous in terms of lens.
   
  Do you guys think I should get a D3100 to start out? http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX30313 $469
  or maybe a T3? http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX32323
  D5100 is $559
  I'm not too sure. I don't know all the technical stuff yet, but if somebody could explain differences, it'd be nice. The couple friends that I know that are into photo, all have T2i.


----------



## bigshot

If I were you, I'd get the brand your friends have. Maybe you can borrow their lenses!


----------



## NeonPirateKing

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> If I were you, I'd get the brand your friends have. Maybe you can borrow their lenses!


 
  They all have kit lenses. Nobody has upgraded lens yet lol.


----------



## choka

Sigh. Yet another discussion about Ken? Sigh... so here's my 2 cents again.
   
  My advice is that you should NEVER read kenrockwell. I do not think he has a deep understanding of the craft of photography and has a lot of false information which he think he's right in his dreams.
   
  For the entry camera questions, get the cheapest camera you can get and invest on lenses! A "capable" body will get eclipsed by much beter ones in a few years but a good lens will remain good!


----------



## bigshot

That's good advice, the same advice Ken Rockwell gives!

Here's a good place to find out about the difference between the D5100 and the D3200.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm


----------



## Chris J

Ken Rockwell..................the guy who thinks audiophiles are pedophiles?


----------



## bigshot

And photographers are pornographers!


----------



## NeonPirateKing

Alright, so Nikon it is. Trying to decide between a 5100 or a 3200 now. Both are similar priced currently. Any ideas?


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





neonpirateking said:


> Alright, so Nikon it is. Trying to decide between a 5100 or a 3200 now. Both are similar priced currently. Any ideas?


 
   
  5100 is a better performer. That gets my vote.


----------



## Chris J

Nikon Capture NX2 vs. Adobe Photoshop.
   
  Please discuss....I want to purchase one or the other...........I can't make up my mind!


----------



## Ponefish

They are used for 2 different things from what I have read. I have never used NX2 but use Photoshop frequently... what exactly are you looking to do with the programs?


----------



## Chris J

Alter saturation, hue, contrast, etc.  Basically improve colour and appearance.
  I'm new to this stuff, so excuse my lack of vocabulary.
  Straighten out pics, crop.


----------



## Ponefish

You can do all of that with a free program called Gimp. It's a good way to start learning about photo manipulation. If you are set on purchasing though I think both programs will do what you want, but NX2 should be able to read your photos better (assuming you are using a Nikon and shooting in RAW). Photoshop can be used more as a pixel editor for doing things like fading two pictures together which I don't believe the NX2 can. Anyone here use NX2 that can chime in and give us a better understanding of what you can actually do with it?


----------



## Chris J

Yes I shoot with a Nikon D90 (I've owned it for about a year) and have justed started to get into shooting in RAW a couple of weeks ago.
  So I am really green when it comes to shooting in RAW and manipulating photos.


----------



## Szadzik

NX2 is pretty good and I purchased it myself a year ago. Money well spent.


----------



## bigshot

I use Aperture. Greatest thing since sliced bread.


----------



## jc9394

I use both Photoshop and Lightroom, love both.  LR for something quick and PS for extensive work.


----------



## HawaiiFi

Between the D5100 and the D3200 I would get the D5100, or fork over a little more for the D7000. The camera should come with View NX2. Shoot fine + RAW and then use the NX2 to play with your RAW files. You can always get Lightroom or Photoshop later if you need more than the NX2.


----------



## jc9394

if you are only viewing the NEF file, you don't need NX2.  Just download this...http://www.nikonimglib.com/nefcodec/


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





hawaiifi said:


> Between the D5100 and the D3200 I would get the D5100, or fork over a little more for the D7000. The camera should come with View NX2. Shoot fine + RAW and then use the NX2 to play with your RAW files. You can always get Lightroom or Photoshop later if you need more than the NX2.


 
   
  If you can afford it, D7000 brings a lot of good things over D5100 and D3200. A lot.


----------



## bigshot

It's twice as much isn't it? For my money, I'd spend more on lenses, not the body.


----------



## xxhaxx

I would say skip the d5100/d31000 and look around for a used D90


----------



## HawaiiFi

The D5100 has the flip screen FWIW. I seem to use mine more than I thought I would. The D5100 also shares the same great sensor as the D7000 and has bracketing. The D3200 does not shoot brackets.


----------



## NeonPirateKing

Quote: 





hawaiifi said:


> The D5100 has the flip screen FWIW. I seem to use mine more than I thought I would. The D5100 also shares the same great sensor as the D7000 and has bracketing. The D3200 does not shoot brackets.


 
  It's kinda weird, that when I first asked the question a couple weeks ago, barely anybody replied. Then 2 or three weeks later, people are finally replying haha. I'm thinking of probably getting the D5100. It's already pushing the limit of my budget(for now).


----------



## Ponefish

I have a d5100 and love it. It is still my first DSLR so I am still learning a lot about it. I found it on ebay for a good price, used with a case, 2 lenses, and 1000 shutter actuations. Might want to try there for a good deal, just be careful what you are looking for.


----------



## Chris J

neonpirateking said:


> It's kinda weird, that when I first asked the question a couple weeks ago, barely anybody replied. Then 2 or three weeks later, people are finally replying haha. I'm thinking of probably getting the D5100. It's already pushing the limit of my budget(for now).




An amateur opinion here:
I'm no expert on this stuff, but when I was buying a year ago, I compared a D90 with a D7000.
For what I do, I could not figure out why I needed the extra features of the D7000 so I went with a D90 and I have never regretted my decision.

I would rather spend the difference on lenses!


----------



## bigshot

Most people spend too much on camera bodies and not enough on lenses. I know I did.


----------



## xxhaxx

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Most people spend too much on camera bodies and not enough on lenses. I know I did.


 
   
  It depends on what lenses you have. I started off w/ a D90 + Tamron 17-50 + 35 1.8 which is a really good setup IMO. Now I am currently sitting on a D800 + 24 1.4 and 85 1.4 might sell my 85 to get the 1.8 since it performs better on teh d800


----------



## bigshot

Most people spend so much on the camera body, they can only afford one lens. A DSLR with one lens might as well be a camera without interchangable lenses.


----------



## xxhaxx

But the image quality is that much better


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





xxhaxx said:


> It depends on what lenses you have. I started off w/ a D90 + Tamron 17-50 + 35 1.8 which is a really good setup IMO. Now I am currently sitting on a D800 + 24 1.4 and 85 1.4 might sell my 85 to get the 1.8 since it performs better on teh d800


 
   
  X2 on the 85 f1.8 bette on D800.  I brought both from BH and end up return the 1.4.


----------



## xxhaxx

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> X2 on the 85 f1.8 bette on D800.  I brought both from BH and end up return the 1.4.


 
  Nobody wants to buy my siggy 85 1.4 :[


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





xxhaxx said:


> Nobody wants to buy my siggy 85 1.4 :[


 
   
  too expensive and the 85 1.8G perform better on d800/e.  For the used price of 85 1.4, i rather get the 16-35 f4.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





xxhaxx said:


> But the image quality is that much better


 
   
  Not really. Not for most people's uses anyway.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Most people spend so much on the camera body, they can only afford one lens. A DSLR with one lens might as well be a camera without interchangable lenses.


 
   
  LOL!
   
  That's why I bought a D90 instead of a D7000!


----------



## wsilvio

If anyone in this thread is looking for a Nikon D700 or F6, I have one of each with accessories I would like to sell.


----------



## musubi1000

Quote: 





wsilvio said:


> If anyone in this thread is looking for a Nikon D700 or F6, I have one of each with accessories I would like to sell.


 
  I'll give you $50 for the 6. no really I'm being serious. stop laughing


----------



## chrislangley4253

so uh... I haven't really read much of any of this thread. Basically, I hate people that do what I'm about to do.

 What do you guys think of the Nikon D5100 for a starter camera? As in, I have *no* dslr experience, but I'm very excited to jump into photography.

 Also, to kit lens or not to kit lens? I was leaning towards the D5100 with the kit lens for myself for xmas, but if you guys scream *NO* I'll reconsider


----------



## liamstrain

The 5100 + kit lens is a fine starting point. I also usually recommend to new shooters that they get a prime (35mm range for a crop body) - this forces one to think a bit more about composition and look for interesting angles and ways of shooting (move your feet) instead of just a zoom ring. 
   
  Learn as much as you can about exposure (the meter in the camera is not infallible) and composition. The rest will take care of itself.


----------



## chrislangley4253

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> The 5100 + kit lens is a fine starting point. I also usually recommend to new shooters that they get a prime (35mm range for a crop body) - this forces one to think a bit more about composition and look for interesting angles and ways of shooting (move your feet) instead of just a zoom ring.
> 
> Learn as much as you can about exposure (the meter in the camera is not infallible) and composition. The rest will take care of itself.


 
  Yes, some sort of prime lens was my next move. I figure after playing around with the kit lens for a while, I'll get a better idea of which prime I'd get the most use out of.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





chrislangley4253 said:


> so uh... I haven't really read much of any of this thread. Basically, I hate people that do what I'm about to do.
> 
> What do you guys think of the Nikon D5100 for a starter camera? As in, I have *no* dslr experience, but I'm very excited to jump into photography.
> 
> Also, to kit lens or not to kit lens? I was leaning towards the D5100 with the kit lens for myself for xmas, but if you guys scream *NO* I'll reconsider


 
   
  D5100 is a fine camera.
  Just beware the D5200 is out there:
  http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/nikon-d5200-with-18/4505-6501_7-35534445.html


----------



## bigshot

To me, the D50 is a good camera.


----------



## musubi1000

bigshot said:


> To me, the D50 is a good camera.


Yes the 50 is a good camera, it's just now you can double the resolution, improve the lowlight performance, increase the frame rate, shoot HD video, improve AF performance and all this for almost half the price of the D50s initial offering at.$999. There are much better out there now but if the 50 fills all you needs now just use it til it goes down.


----------



## chrislangley4253

Quote: 





jon l said:


> D5100 is a fine camera.
> Just beware the D5200 is out there:
> http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/nikon-d5200-with-18/4505-6501_7-35534445.html


 
  Thanks for the heads up. I'll give a good look at the newer model.
  
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> To me, the D50 is a good camera.


 
  You know, there are quite a few of those floating around amazon for 130-150 dollars.. It's tempting to go for something like that to start. 

 I actually haven't really looked into older professional models.. What about the D200 or D300 guys? Am I better off taking my money and buying an older "professional" model or a newer "entry" model?


----------



## liamstrain

The older mid-tier and pro cameras are great - well built, better suited to bad weather, etc, and some have improved shooting speed and autofocus. But their sensors are dated (as noted in other posts, the newer sensors give you improved low light performance and better resolution for less money) and the newer entry level cameras by and large also allow video (if that is interesting to you). 
   
  Overall build quality and shutter life isn't really a major problem on the entry level cameras - unless you really think you are going to be beating these things up, and don't already have a large stock of older lenses to worry about compatibility with, I wouldn't worry about getting a used mid-pro tier camera.  Certainly not as your first dSLR.


----------



## chrislangley4253

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> The older mid-tier and pro cameras are great - well built, better suited to bad weather, etc, and some have improved shooting speed and autofocus. But their sensors are dated (as noted in other posts, the newer sensors give you improved low light performance and better resolution for less money) and the newer entry level cameras by and large also allow video (if that is interesting to you).
> 
> Overall build quality and shutter life isn't really a major problem on the entry level cameras - unless you really think you are going to be beating these things up, and don't already have a large stock of older lenses to worry about compatibility with, I wouldn't worry about getting a used mid-pro tier camera.  Certainly not as your first dSLR.


 
  thanks 

 Any suggestions on MUST GET items?

 I planned on picking up these two things along with the camera.. Anything else I *gotta* get?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002VPE1WK/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
   
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004Q3C98S/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?ie=UTF8&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER


----------



## shipsupt

The 300 is a better option than the 200 if you can go that route, if for no other reason than for being able to shoot much higher ISO without too much noise.  The 200 still struggles there.  And I agree, if you think you'll be shooting outdoors or rough on equipment, these prosumer cameras are weather proofed and tough.
   
  I'd consider a flash, not a mush have since you'll have a built in and a tri-pod.  I'm old school and still think shooting from a tri-pod is good practice when you can do it.... again, NOT a must have.
   
  Have fun with the new hobby.
   
  Quote: 





chrislangley4253 said:


> thanks
> 
> Any suggestions on MUST GET items?
> 
> ...


----------



## chrislangley4253

Quote: 





shipsupt said:


> The 300 is a better option than the 200 if you can go that route, if for no other reason than for being able to shoot much higher ISO without too much noise.  The 200 still struggles there.  And I agree, if you think you'll be shooting outdoors or rough on equipment, these prosumer cameras are weather proofed and tough.
> 
> I'd consider a flash, not a mush have since you'll have a built in and a tri-pod.  I'm old school and still think shooting from a tri-pod is good practice when you can do it.... again, NOT a must have.
> 
> Have fun with the new hobby.


 
  yeah, tri pod and flash are probably my next buy. I'm trying to get the initial sticker shock as low as possible though


----------



## bigshot

I love my D200. It does everything I need to do. It also takes lenses without focusing motors, which to me is more important than resolution or low light. I regularly shoot at night with the D200. It is plenty fast with a good prime.

Sometimes the more recent model isn't always better. I had an F2 forever. I sold it when I inherited my dad's F3. I wish I had never sold it. It was a lot easier to shoot with.


----------



## shipsupt

The D200 is really a good one.  I picked one up recently to replace a worn out back up camera.  It's great.  The only time I feel like it lets me down now is shooting fast moving sports indoors, say Volleyball in poorly lit gyms (as if there are well lit gyms, ha).  Even with a fast prime it just can't do what the new cameras can do in low light.  And you can pick 'em up cheap in super condition.  Other than that I wouldn't hesitate to grab it instead of one of the new bodies when shooting.
   
   
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I love my D200. It does everything I need to do. It also takes lenses without focusing motors, which to me is more important than resolution or low light. I regularly shoot at night with the D200. It is plenty fast with a good prime.
> Sometimes the more recent model isn't always better. I had an F2 forever. I sold it when I inherited my dad's F3. I wish I had never sold it. It was a lot easier to shoot with.


----------



## FieldZ

Going to be buying my first DSLR soon and I am thinking of going Nikon. Not too fond of buying a kit lenses, though I may only be able to afford the awesome deal at costco for the D3100 and have to upgrade lenses later. Very much excited. Also heard the D5200 will be coming out soon, hope it drops prices of other products.


----------



## chrislangley4253

Quote: 





fieldz said:


> Going to be buying my first DSLR soon and I am thinking of going Nikon. Not too fond of buying a kit lenses, though I may only be able to afford the awesome deal at costco for the D3100 and have to upgrade lenses later. Very much excited. Also heard the D5200 will be coming out soon, hope it drops prices of other products.


 
  what's the costco deal?


----------



## bigshot

Ken Rockwell is already reporting a massive price drop on the 5100


----------



## FieldZ

Quote: 





chrislangley4253 said:


> what's the costco deal?


 

 $630 for the D3100, the usual kit lens, and the 55-200mm:
http://www.costco.com/Nikon-D3100-DSLR-Camera-2-Lens-Bundle.product.11622027.html


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





fieldz said:


> $630 for the D3100, the usual kit lens, and the 55-200mm:
> http://www.costco.com/Nikon-D3100-DSLR-Camera-2-Lens-Bundle.product.11622027.html


 
   
  I'd buy this instead:
   
  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/856049-REG/Nikon_25492_D3200_DSLR_Camera_With.html
   
  I might also sell the kit lens for $150 on eBay, add $40 to that and buy the 35/1.8 but that's me.


----------



## FieldZ

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> I'd buy this instead:
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/856049-REG/Nikon_25492_D3200_DSLR_Camera_With.html
> 
> I might also sell the kit lens for $150 on eBay, add $40 to that and buy the 35/1.8 but that's me.


 
   


 Got it. Thanks for the advice. I am excited to get into photography and learn about it.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





fieldz said:


> Got it. Thanks for the advice. I am excited to get into photography and learn about it.


 
  Whoa, there!  Are you aware of the limitations of only owning one normal prime?  Are you willing to accept the compromises?
   
  Have you looked into this in enough detail that you know you want a DSLR and that there isn't a mirrorless solution that might be better for your needs?  If you're not pretty familiar with the principles of photography, it might be a good idea to invest in a good P&S, even, that allows for some manual control so that you know what you are getting yourself into.
   
  I don't mean to discourage your entry into this wonderful thing but jumping into a DSLR for $700 might not be the wisest way to start.


----------



## FieldZ

leftnose said:


> Whoa, there!  Are you aware of the limitations of only owning one normal prime?  Are you willing to accept the compromises?
> 
> Have you looked into this in enough detail that you know you want a DSLR and that there isn't a mirrorless solution that might be better for your needs?  If you're not pretty familiar with the principles of photography, it might be a good idea to invest in a good P&S, even, that allows for some manual control so that you know what you are getting yourself into.
> 
> I don't mean to discourage your entry into this wonderful thing but jumping into a DSLR for $700 might not be the wisest way to start.



 I've taken photos with my moms point and shoot. Played with the basics of photography and composition. But maybe you are right waiting though. Im not prepared to spend that amount of money I think.


----------



## chrislangley4253

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Ken Rockwell is already reporting a massive price drop on the 5100


 
  Boy, I'd like to see them drop even more! The price hasn't dropped since I've first started researching (1-2 months now). At least, if it has, I haven't noticed. Then again.. I was looking at Pentax.

 Anyone else a fan of the red finish option for the D3200? Maybe I'm just a photo-nub, but I think it's sexy as all hell.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





fieldz said:


> $630 for the D3100, the usual kit lens, and the 55-200mm:
> http://www.costco.com/Nikon-D3100-DSLR-Camera-2-Lens-Bundle.product.11622027.html


 
   
  That's all anyone really needs. If you can't get good shots with that, you're doin' it wrong!


----------



## conkerman

+1.

Buy the cheapest body that has the features you need, spend more on good quality glass.

Glass holds its value much better.

As a first camera a used d80/90 is a great place to start.


----------



## chrislangley4253

Conflicting information :'(


----------



## bigshot

It's easy to recommend the expensive choice when it's somebody else's money. The truth is, there are a lot of great DSLRs and they don't all cost a fortune. If you have a finite amount of money to spend, at the very least get a pair of kit lenses that will take you from 18-55mm and from 55 -200mm. If you can swing it, get a 35mm f1.8 too. Then see what you have left and get the best camera body you can afford.

The whole point of a DSLR is to be able to use interchangable lenses. If you only get one lens, you might as well get a pocket camera like a Fuji X100.


----------



## chrislangley4253

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> It's easy to recommend the expensive choice when it's somebody else's money. The truth is, there are a lot of great DSLRs and they don't all cost a fortune. If you have a finite amount of money to spend, at the very least get a pair of kit lenses that will take you from 18-55mm and from 55 -200mm. If you can swing it, get a 35mm f1.8 too. Then see what you have left and get the best camera body you can afford.
> The whole point of a DSLR is to be able to use interchangable lenses. If you only get one lens, you might as well get a pocket camera like a Fuji X100.


 
  Ken Rockwell? Lol


----------



## bigshot

I have a Canon elf pocket camera and an iPhone. I get some fantastic photos with them. You could certainly do the same. The trick is to focus on photography, not equipment. That's the best advice you'll ever get, no matter who is offering it.


----------



## musubi1000

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I have a Canon elf pocket camera and an iPhone. I get some fantastic photos with them. You could certainly do the same. The trick is to focus on photography, not equipment. That's the best advice you'll ever get, no matter who is offering it.


 
  +1 although I can do so much more with a camera that has some degree of control. Today I don't care what kind of camera anymore as long as it can get the job done without frustrating me in the process


----------



## Frank I

I just added the d7000 with my d5100 and I also purchased a 10-24MM ultra wide and also the 1.8G  50MM prime. One more to go with the 35MM 1.8G and that will give me 5 lenses for my two cameras. I use the 55-300MM for sports and some wildlife but I really love the 10-24MM for landscape. I am also in my 3rd class at the college which is landscape and have 3 more to complete for my certificate. Been having fun. I bought the second camera because when shooting cross country racing and indoor and outdoor track I need to mount one wide angle for group shots and is so much easier with the second camera.


----------



## bigshot

A 105 macro might be useful with that kit for portraits and close up. Or an 85 1.8 if macro doesn't matter to you.


----------



## jc9394

bigshot said:


> A 105 macro might be useful with that kit for portraits and close up. Or an 85 1.8 if macro doesn't matter to you.




X2, the 85 f/1.8G is a real bargain. It is crazy sharp lens for the price.


----------



## conkerman

Quote: 





chrislangley4253 said:


> Conflicting information :'(


 
  Not really.
   
  Many here are suggesting you buy a used body (the part that suffers the most depreciation), especially one with an AF motor drive, this greatly increases the lens flexibility you have.
   
  I have a D90 with an 18-200 and 50mm F1.8D (which is silly cheap). The 18-105 kit lens is pretty flexible, but I had the 18-200 so no competition really. Combine with a SB600 and tripod, and you have a lot of bases covered.
   
  Remember, the most important bit of the camera is the bit just behind it. My next purchase will be a nice macro. I have resigned myself to admitting I can not justify a fast tele.
   
  Whilst the S5100 etc. are nice cameras, I would not want to be limited to AF-S lenses only.  Sometimes new and shiny has its downfalls, but may people only like to buy new.
   
  I still have a real soft spot for the D40 though, along with several people I know, some who now shoot FX. There is just something really nice about the pics that camera takes.


----------



## bigshot

I wouldn't recommend a used body. I'd recommend a low end body.


----------



## bigshot

Damn! I have to eat my words about not needing a new body. Cameta Camera sent me an email today with killer prices for Nikon refurbs and I crumbled. A new D7000 is on its way to me. I was going to wait for a 24 megapixel DX that could use lenses without focus motors, but the price for the D7000 was just too good.


----------



## chrislangley4253

Okay guys.. I have a question.

 How do you go about printing a photo if you have a nice one you want to print? I imagine there are places that will do high quality larger prints, but I'm not sure which places...


----------



## bigshot

I used Ofoto once. They did a very good job.


----------



## mark_h

I still shoot a film F2


----------



## wsilvio

AdoramaPix is great and I have also heard great things about Mpix.


----------



## bigshot

The F2 was a great camera. I sold mine when I inherited my Dad's F3 and I still regret it.


----------



## chrislangley4253

Awesome! I didn't even realize there were online services like that.. That's really cool. Thanks guys


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





wsilvio said:


> AdoramaPix is great and I have also heard great things about Mpix.


 
  Mpix is great. I have used them both for color correction and regular no correction prints. Another one is Nations Lab in baltimore which I will try also. I am ordering an Epson wireless printer for basic 4X6 5X7 and 81/2X11 but will still use the online services as ink can be expensive. The great thing is it is so easy to shoot Raw and load them on to photoshop and then send them out online. Two pro's I know use Mpix and Nations Lab and love them both.


----------



## Szadzik

Anyone else waiting for a D300s+D7000 fusion to come out? The highest model in APSC.


----------



## bigshot

I didn't wait. I got a D7000 because it had the pro features I wanted, particularly support for legacy lenses. Great camera.


----------



## jc9394

Have a tripod incoming but can't decide on ball head, it is between Markins Q10 or RRS BH-40. Anyone have used both and can recommend one? Camera is D800 with battery pack, the biggest lens I have is 70-200.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I didn't wait. I got a D7000 because it had the pro features I wanted, particularly support for legacy lenses. Great camera.


 
   
  I still have D90 (since Jan 2009) and am not that hard pressed to upgrade to D700, but will really want to see what the high end APSC is going to bring.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> Have a tripod incoming but can't decide on ball head, it is between Markins Q10 or RRS BH-40. Anyone have used both and can recommend one? Camera is D800 with battery pack, the biggest lens I have is 70-200.


 
  I had the Vanguard ball head tripod sent it back for a Manfretto with a Pan head. if you going to do landscape photography the ball IMO is useless. The Pan head is much easier to work with landscape shots at least for me it was so much easier to work and also to pan with for panorama shots.


----------



## jc9394

I have a Manfretto tripod with mini gear head already, looking for a lighter weight one and I tried ball head with landscape it is not as bad as you said.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> I have a Manfretto tripod with mini gear head already, looking for a lighter weight one and I tried ball head with landscape it is not as bad as you said.


 
  I thought it was a bad as I said IMO. For me I would not use any ball head for landscape work.  If you like balk heads then go for it. I was disappointed with the ballhead I tried. my master photographer teacher who been selling landscape for 40 years uses only a pan head also. He also had similiar results.


----------



## hyogen

howdy do, nikonians.  I've converted from Canon to Nikon with my recent purchase of a D600!  i am waiting to get a lens in the mail...so i've been stuck without a lens for a couple days.  Got it used for about $1500 with less than 800 shots on it and unregistered warrantee card.  Looks like it has no issues--I shot with it and saved onto my memory card before buying it (tested his lens).
   
  for now I'm getting the 50mm 1.8D and looking to buy a 85mm 1.8D.  Prices of used nikon lenses seem really high....and there's almost no telling how old the D lenses are since they've been around for so long........
   
  My third lens will be an ultrawide angle..
   
  I've found used Canon lenses to be really cheap.. I just sold all but one of my 6 lenses along with my Rebel T1i body (It was time to move to full frame). 
  - rokinon 8mm fisheye (super sharp all manual)
  - Sigma 10-20mm ultrawide
  - Sigma 30mm 1.4
  - Canon 40mm 2.8 pancake (friend gave me this one)
  - Sigma 50mm 1.4 (my favorite by far)
  - Sigma 70-300mm APO macro lens which was a cheap $100 but quite good lens.
   
  My decision to go FF was accelerated by the last event (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyogen82/sets/72157632641336362/) I shot recently in which I realized I really only needed the 50mm 1.4 (85mm on FF) and maybe an ultrawide.  And of courrse a wider lens like a 50 or 35mm.  I used pretty much the 50mm exclusively.  On my aging Rebel T1i I was forced to shoot at ISO800, 1/60, and f/1.6.  I could have shot at 1.4, but I would have liked to have stopped down to get a greater DoF.  I had to rely on the center dot focus + recompose in which sometimes I missed the shot.  I didn't want to go higher than ISO800 because of noise and I definitely could have used a faster shutter speed. 
   
  What I kinda worry about is that I'm coming from a huge, heavy, well reviewed 50mm 1.4 by Sigma that I'm going to be getting only $330 for or so.........  to a similarly priced Nikon 85mm 1.8D (no motor inside and super old lens).  Not only is it slower, but probably louder.  What are your guys' thoughts?  I like to shoot wide open for portraits and the Sigma was tack sharp.  For a Sigma 85 1.4 lens I'm going to have to drop almost $900 for used..  I can't do that now, so I'll just get an 85mm 1.8 which is still expensive.  Canon's 85mm 1.8 can be had new for $300 or so. 
   
  I'm going with the 50mm 1.8D because I've read it's significantly sharper than the 1.4 or 1.8G version.  I got one on Canon forums for $90...hehe.  Fred Miranda buy/sell seems to have high prices, Craigslist has even higher used prices...and eBay is pretty high also.  Another example of how much cheaper Canon is for used lenses and how much more available they are is the 135mm F2.0 L lenss which goes regularly for between $700-800 used in-like new condition.  It's an amazing lens, which I only hope the Nikon 135 2.0 can match--although it has the Defocusing--it's something like $1000+ used! 
   
  Anyway, i'm super excited to get A lens and hope to find my favorite focal length of 85mm soon.  I'm not really complaining too bad am I?  I just have a super limited budget and a wife that has made me sign a contract--no new body or lenses for 6 years.  I can have a total of 3 lenses....and I can switch one lens during this 6 years...   So, I have to choose wisely.
   
  I absolutely love the huge, bright viewfinder on the D600.  Maybe it'd be worth getting the Rokinon 85mm 1.4 manual lens with AF confirmation chip?  When I was on Canon side, I almost bought one for $150 like new!!
   
  Any recommendations for ultra-wide lens? 
   
  Even though the D600 was so much better on paper for the most part than the 6D, the 6D's -3EV center dot focus point was at least a little tempting, plus it's slick wifi remote control with smartphone, better video (something I could not be without for 6 years--otherwise I would have gotten the D700).  But canon also dumbed the viewfinder down to the same size as my Rebel pretty much!! 
   
  Sorry for the long first post.


----------



## bigshot

Current Nikon FF lenses are always going to be expensive. The fantastic performing bargain lenses by Nikon are primarily for DX. You should look into third party lenses like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. You're likely to have a better bang for the buck ratio with those.


----------



## shipsupt

I'm a little late to the party... but the Markins is a great product.  I've been using one for years.  Awesome build and very functional.
   
  It's pan axis is great for landscape work, I've never had an issue with it. 
   
  Highly recommended, FWIW.
   
   
  Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> I have a Manfretto tripod with mini gear head already, looking for a lighter weight one and I tried ball head with landscape it is not as bad as you said.


----------



## shipsupt

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> Sorry for the long first post.


 
   
On the wide side you should consider the 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S NIKKOR G ED N.  It's an amazing, sharp lens.
   
If your set on using a prime for your portrait work I'd say it's either the 135 DC or for a little less the 105 DC is a really good lens too.  That is unless you can work with a 50 or consider a mid or tele zoom, of which there are some good choices.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





shipsupt said:


> I'm a little late to the party... but the Markins is a great product.  I've been using one for years.  Awesome build and very functional.
> 
> It's pan axis is great for landscape work, I've never had an issue with it.
> 
> Highly recommended, FWIW.


 
  I hope so, got Markins head and RRS clamp incoming.  The new setup will be much lighter than my current one and just in time for vacation.


----------



## Szadzik

Tokina 11-16 2.8 is a pretty  amazing lens.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





shipsupt said:


> On the wide side you should consider the *14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S NIKKOR G ED N*.  It's an amazing, sharp lens.
> 
> If your set on using a prime for your portrait work I'd say it's either the 135 DC or for a little less the 105 DC is a really good lens too.  That is unless you can work with a 50 or consider a mid or tele zoom, of which there are some good choices.


 
   
   
  I can't decide between 14-24 or 16-35, they both are highly rated but the 16-35 has more zoom range but slower...  The good thing is I can't afford it now so I don't have to think about it.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> Tokina 11-16 2.8 is a pretty  amazing lens.


 
  One of the best, but it's DX. On FX it would just work as a 16mm prime.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> I can't decide between 14-24 or 16-35, they both are highly rated but the 16-35 has more zoom range but slower...  The good thing is I can't afford it now so I don't have to think about it.


 
  What camera are you using. I have a D7000 and use the 10-24MM DX lens which is excellent


----------



## bigshot

He has a D600, or is that someone else?


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





frank i said:


> What camera are you using. I have a D7000 and use the 10-24MM DX lens which is excellent


 
   
  D800e


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> D800e


 
  Nice.  Did you notice a big difference when you went to full frame?


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





frank i said:


> Nice.  Did you notice a big difference when you went to full frame?


 
  It is night and day for me.  Upgraded from D200.  I have to learn everything again, it is so different.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> It is night and day for me.  Upgraded from D200.  I have to learn everything again, it is so different.


 
  in a better way


----------



## jc9394

Yes but it makes you upgrade the lens too, the sensor push the limit.  I was really happy with 35-70 with D200 but when I mounted the 24-70 from rental. I ordered one from BH the next day.


----------



## bigshot

How big do you print your pictures?


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> One of the best, but it's DX. On FX it would just work as a 16mm prime.


 
   
  Yeah, I somehow forgot he was talking D600.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> How big do you print your pictures?


 
   
  Mostly 8x10 but does go as big as poster size.


----------



## shipsupt

I'd always take wider over the zoom range, even if its only a slight amount.  I've got plenty of glass that will cover me on the other end.
   
  Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> I can't decide between 14-24 or 16-35, they both are highly rated but the 16-35 has more zoom range but slower...  The good thing is I can't afford it now so I don't have to think about it.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





shipsupt said:


> I'd always take wider over the zoom range, even if its only a slight amount.  I've got plenty of glass that will cover me on the other end.


 
   
  I agreed but is that 2 extra mm worth the difference.  The biggest issue is a lot of well known photographer said the 16-35 does better with D800 than 14-24.  I read way too many reviews on these two lens.  I think the best approach for me is to order both and return one when the time comes.


----------



## shipsupt

I'm not sure what your current inventory is like, but I also occasionally do some sorting of my shots by focal range.  This lets me actually see where I am shooting the most with my zooms, or if the primes are getting the most shots.  Sometimes it can be surprising to see that you're always shooting at the top end of a zoom, or always trying to get wider... etc...


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





shipsupt said:


> I'm not sure what your current inventory is like, but I also occasionally do some sorting of my shots by focal range.  This lets me actually see where I am shooting the most with my zooms, or if the primes are getting the most shots.  Sometimes it can be surprising to see that you're always shooting at the top end of a zoom, or always trying to get wider... etc...


 

 I'm with you on this, that is why I'm still undecided.   When I travel for business, I usually only take one lens.  It is the 24-70 most of the time but like you said, a lot of time, I wanted that extra wide.  When I was in Shanghai last year with the only 50 prime I got, I'm kicking myself not have a 14 or 16mm range.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> Mostly 8x10 but does go as big as poster size.


 
   
  Your old D200 with 10 megapixels would cover that.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Your old D200 with 10 megapixels would cover that.


 

 yes, i know.  please don't remind me.  it is the gotta have new toys thing...  on the other hand, the color and details between the two is very very big...


----------



## Mr.Sneis

I admit I am totally in GAS mode; not good times.  I sent my d600 in for dirty sensor and have realized the wait is driving me crazy.  Will likely be picking up a d300 today as a backup body which I initially was thinking would be temporary and likely sold later.  I have been scouring the FX sensor UWA lense selections and have settled on the Tokina 16-28 due to much lower price -- it seems all the lenses are not perfect and Nikkor ones are well over $1000.  It occurred to me today that it would be even more economically efficient if I kept both the d300 and the d600 and re-acquire a Tokina 11-16 to take care of UWA for around $450 used versus the cost of buying an FX UWA.  That said, what would you guys suggest?
   
  I'm not a pro; my skills are in that crappy early phase, I enjoy shooting cars and some portraits, some "street", dislike landscape mostly because I don't enjoy lugging around a tripod.


----------



## bigshot

They say the color on the D200 is better... Different kind of sensor. The big difference with full frame seems to be the size of the viewfinder. It makes it possible to use old manual focus lenses.
   
  i just upgraded from a D200 to a D7000. The main difference I've noticed is that the D7000 has nice user presets U1 and U2. All cameras should have that. It also shoots in the dark. But when it comes to sharpness, in practice, there's really no difference. I get sharp pictures with great color with my iPhone. That's a given nowadays.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> They say the color on the D200 is better... Different kind of sensor. The big difference with full frame seems to be the size of the viewfinder. It makes it possible to use old manual focus lenses.
> 
> i just upgraded from a D200 to a D7000. The main difference I've noticed is that the D7000 has nice user presets U1 and U2. All cameras should have that. It also shoots in the dark. But when it comes to sharpness, in practice, there's really no difference. I get sharp pictures with great color with my iPhone. That's a given nowadays.


 
   
  I know everyone's different, I experimented with a MF lens for a few days and just couldn't appreciate it!  I think you don't need full frame to be able to use MF lenses though?


----------



## bigshot

If you have a full frame main body, don't get a DX crop second body. None of your midrange zooms will make sense with it. You'll need a few extra lenses that way. Unless you're doing birding with super long telephotos, there's no advantage to having a DX as a backup to your FX camera.
   
  an FX camera is a rich man's toy and a professional's bread and butter. For a hobbiest, it really doesn't make a lot of sense, because the lenses cost a fortune and there isn't a lot of point to putting second rate lenses on them because the sensor just shows up all the flaws. Also, camera bodies go obsolete so fast, it's a big mistake to sink a lot of money in them. It's great if you're rich though.
   
  most people end up buying way more camera than they need and chintz out on the lenses. That is totally backwards.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> I know everyone's different, I experimented with a MF lens for a few days and just couldn't appreciate it!  I think you don't need full frame to be able to use MF lenses though?


 
   
  Manual focus on DX doesn't work well because the viewfinder is so small, it's hard to see to focus carefully. It's even worse in the dark.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> They say the color on the D200 is better... Different kind of sensor. The big difference with full frame seems to be the size of the viewfinder. It makes it possible to use old manual focus lenses.
> 
> i just upgraded from a D200 to a D7000. The main difference I've noticed is that the D7000 has nice user presets U1 and U2. All cameras should have that. It also shoots in the dark. But when it comes to sharpness, in practice, there's really no difference. I get sharp pictures with great color with my iPhone. That's a given nowadays.


 
   
  Can you please point to where that at?  Few of my friends also upgraded from D200/300 to D800, we all see better colors and details from the sensor.
   
  Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> I know everyone's different, I experimented with a MF lens for a few days and just couldn't appreciate it!  I think you don't need full frame to be able to use MF lenses though?


 
   
  I'm still loving my 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.2 and 135/2.8 AIS lens.  Few weeks ago, one of my friend picked up a Zeiss 28/2.0 from CL.  That thing crazy sharp, I think I'm in love.


----------



## bigshot

The D200 uses a CCD rather than a CMOS sensor. Supposedly that is better for color accuracy. But there are other factors that affect color like white balance, exposure and lighting.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> If you have a full frame main body, don't get a DX crop second body. None of your midrange zooms will make sense with it. You'll need a few extra lenses that way. Unless you're doing birding with super long telephotos, there's no advantage to having a DX as a backup to your FX camera.
> 
> an FX camera is a rich man's toy and a professional's bread and butter. For a hobbiest, it really doesn't make a lot of sense, because the lenses cost a fortune and there isn't a lot of point to putting second rate lenses on them because the sensor just shows up all the flaws. Also, camera bodies go obsolete so fast, it's a big mistake to sink a lot of money in them. It's great if you're rich though.
> 
> most people end up buying way more camera than they need and chintz out on the lenses. That is totally backwards.


 
   
  The quality of shots I've gotten with the d600 are way greater than what I got out of the d7000; for me could see better results immediately in-camera and was very happy with the bump.  I'm getting more stuff in-focus with noticeably better low-light capability.  I know this runs contrary to what I've read on these boards in the past.  I'm also a prime shooter IE midrange zooms go unused for me. 
   
  My original point being; the UWA options for FX seem to have so many compromises and much higher expense; if I want an UWA shot it would be more economical to have a backup DX body for those shots - FWIW the 11-16 should also work to some degree on an FX body at 16mm from the information I have read on the interwebs.  Not that I'd want to use it that way.
   
  Also keep in mind at this point in time the backup DX body is literally just for me to use right now because my d600 is in for fixing and I'm a nutbag.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> The quality of shots I've gotten with the d600 are way greater than what I got out of the d7000; for me could see better results immediately in-camera and was very happy with the bump.  I'm getting more stuff in-focus with noticeably better low-light capability.  I know this runs contrary to what I've read on these boards in the past.  I'm also a prime shooter IE midrange zooms go unused for me.
> 
> My original point being; the UWA options for FX seem to have so many compromises and much higher expense; if I want an UWA shot it would be more economical to have a backup DX body for those shots - FWIW the 11-16 should also work to some degree on an FX body at 16mm from the information I have read on the interwebs.  Not that I'd want to use it that way.
> 
> Also keep in mind at this point in time the backup DX body is literally just for me to use right now because my d600 is in for fixing and I'm a nutbag.


 
   
  Try to pick up a used 16-35, that is what I'm trying to do too.  It is f4 but with VR, it is comparable to f2 but you loose the shallow dof of 2.8.  It is fine for me, I shoot mostly at 5.6-8 on wide angle.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> Try to pick up a used 16-35, that is what I'm trying to do too.  It is f4 but with VR, it is comparable to f2 but you loose the shallow dof of 2.8.  It is fine for me, I shoot mostly at 5.6-8 on wide angle.


 

 Heh.
   
  17-35 f/2.8 - Pro build but seems to have reliability problems.  Good used copy around $1300, new for $1600 to $1700 but will be NOS.
  16-35 f/4 - Consumer build, less reliability problems; slower but has VR.  More distortion than the other lenses but easily corrected.  Good used copy around $1100, new for $1260.
  14-24 f/2.8 - Pro build, very expensive filters, supposedly sharp as hell.  Despite coatings will still flare.  $1600+ used, $2000 new
  16-28 f/2.8 (Tokina) - Pro build, sometimes iffy quality control.  Very expensive filters.  Flares like a mofo.  $700 used, $750-$850 new
   
  It's quite hard to weigh them; aside from the cost I think you're right the 16-35 is the best of the compromises IMO.  Out of pocket the d300 + 11-16 should be around $800-$900 by my calculations; won't be full frame, more manageable flare, 2.8 (aka only really useable beyond f/4 anyways).


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> Heh.
> 
> 17-35 f/2.8 - Pro build but seems to have reliability problems.  Good used copy around $1300, new for $1600 to $1700 but will be NOS.
> 16-35 f/4 - Consumer build, less reliability problems; slower but has VR.  More distortion than the other lenses but easily corrected.  Good used copy around $1100, new for $1260.
> ...


 
   
  There few reviewer said they like 16-35 over 14-24, especially with D800 body.  I can tell you the 17-35 is not as sharp as 16-35, I have not get a chance to use the 14-24 yet.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

I'm kicking myself because on my local CL there was a 14-24 for sale for around $1350 but it seems someone snatched it up real quick so I missed out.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> I'm kicking myself because on my local CL there was a 14-24 for sale for around $1350 but it seems someone snatched it up real quick so I missed out.


 
   
   
  Same here, both 14-24 and 16-35 goes very fast when priced right.  Some crazy people sell them for $100-$150 less than retails, at that price I will go for new.


----------



## third_eye

I have the D800 and 16-35, very happy. Was also debating between this and the 14-24 and chose the 16-35 because it takes common filters (77), is more travel friendly, and had a more usable range for me. Also got a good deal on a used copy. Would love to also try the 14-24 someday.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





third_eye said:


> I have the D800 and 16-35, very happy. Was also debating between this and the 14-24 and chose the 16-35 because it takes common filters (77), is more travel friendly, and had a more usable range for me. Also got a good deal on a used copy. Would love to also try the 14-24 someday.


 
   
  Good to know.  Thanks


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I'm blown away by the quality as well. AF in very low light seems fine.  I'm using old AF non-D 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8, both of which I got today


----------



## Mr.Sneis

So.... the d300 may focus better but it certainly isn't on par with even the d7k in higher iso!


----------



## bigshot

If you can't shoot great pictures that print big from a D50, you're doing something wrong.


----------



## Frank I

I just listed my D5100 with an 18-55mm lens and second battery craigs  list for 450.00 It virtually new. Since I bought the d7000 I have not been using the d5100 much. If anyone interested shoot me a PM.


----------



## chrislangley4253

Quote: 





frank i said:


> I just listed my D5100 with an 18-55mm lens and second battery craigs  list for 450.00 It virtually new. Since I bought the d7000 I have not been using the d5100 much. If anyone interested shoot me a PM.


 
   
  If only I didn't have to take care of other stuff first :/ Best of luck on the sale.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

bigshot said:


> If you can't shoot great pictures that print big from a D50, you're doing something wrong.




I must be doing it wrong


----------



## bigshot

It's all about creativity and technique. If you have that, the equipment is secondary. You can shoot with anything.  Cameras just snap pictures. Photographers make them.
   
  All bodies are about the same nowadays. This interesting shot was posted at a photography forum I hang out at...
   
  http://forums.dpreview.com/files/t/d8c2360944ad4a1b875cf78050d17870
   
  One of these was taken with a D600, one with the D5200 and the other was taken with a D7000. They all look the same to me.


----------



## Frank I

Camera sold I have an extra battery and lens hood I would sell for 35,00 shipped if anyone want it fir their set up The battery is 50.00 new and 18-55 lens hood is 17.00 I will sell them for 35.00 if anyone is interested.


----------



## wsilvio

Anyone here looking for a Really Right Stuff L-bracket for a D700?  I sold my D700. I have both the L-bracket for the body only and the L-bracket that fits the d700 plus battery grip.  PM me if interested.


----------



## hyogen

My first shots


----------



## RAZRr1275

I'm looking at a Nikon D5100 - Would you guys keep the 18-55 zoom kit lens or sell it and buy a prime one? If so which prime would you get?


----------



## bigshot

I love the 18-55. It's sharp as a tack. It isn't as good in low light, but the 5100 can go to super high ISO with no noise, so it doesn't matter. The only thing you'd gain from a prime would be bokeh, and you'd be losing the range of the zoom.


----------



## chrislangley4253

Quote: 





razrr1275 said:


> I'm looking at a Nikon D5100 - Would you guys keep the 18-55 zoom kit lens or sell it and buy a prime one? If so which prime would you get?


 
   
  I'm looking at the same camera and from what I've gathered the 18-55 kit is a very nice capable lens. And pretty much the perfect thing to start with. Go figure, eh? I expected it to be crap and to immediately replace it.. But, it seems that isn't really the case.

 Look up some pictures shot with the kit lens, you should be able to get some very nice pictures with the D5100 and the 18-55


----------



## shigzeo

I get by mainly with a 28/2,8 AiS and a 50/2,0 Ai, both of which are far cheaper and sharper on a D800 than any zoom they are meant to compete with. 

I dislike the D800 though, wishing nikon would return to making FE style bodies that are small, light, and have great viewfinders. Of course, digital.


----------



## Mattimis

Im new to this thread and do not feel like sifting through it, but I personally am a professional photographer and while I dont feel like disclosing my personal site I will just say I am actually a professional photographer... (Its my job, I get paid, I have a degree) haha I got my degree from brooks institute so if anyone would like some professional based advice (from this point on) I will try and help anyone who has tech or photograph questions. Most of the equipment your interested in I can get within an hours notice and give you some first hand insight.
   
  Hope I can help!


----------



## hyogen

sweet, i can pick your brain    I'm getting some  shots with my D600, but I'm realizing I still need a flash.  I have a couple baby shoots, a few engagement shoots, and possibly up to two weddings coming up this year (I just started).  So far, I just got a cheap speedlight YN-560 all manual (actually the neewer tt560 rebrand), and RF-603 wireless triggers.  I plan on adding one more flash.....should it be a big one?  say, an SB-800?
   
  I planned on using the cheap flash in manual mode on a stand with an umbrella box and possibly using my main TTL flash like an SB-800 on-camera or hand-held.  I also probably need some sort of diffuser for that as well, but perhaps the built-in reflector will be good enough..


----------



## hyogen

my first off camera flash shots.  I might have added processing too heavily to these... It was mainly due to the distracting background. :/


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> sweet, i can pick your brain    I'm getting some  shots with my D600, but I'm realizing I still need a flash.  I have a couple baby shoots, a few engagement shoots, and possibly up to two weddings coming up this year (I just started).  So far, I just got a cheap speedlight YN-560 all manual (actually the neewer tt560 rebrand), and RF-603 wireless triggers.  I plan on adding one more flash.....should it be a big one?  say, an SB-800?
> 
> I planned on using the cheap flash in manual mode on a stand with an umbrella box and possibly using my main TTL flash like an SB-800 on-camera or hand-held.  I also probably need some sort of diffuser for that as well, but perhaps the built-in reflector will be good enough..


 
   
  You will get a lot more responses, especially from pro's who actually shoot events, if you post your question here:
  http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/
   
  I don't know if you've actually tried to shoot an event like a wedding, but if you plan to use things like light stands, you will want an assistant.  If you plan to shoot all speedlites in manual mode, there is no need to spend the big bucks on something like SB800, which would be wasted placed on camera.  I would try to get at least 2 speedlites off camera, and if you want one speedlite capable of i-TTL on-camera for chasing kids, Yongnuo YN-568EX is a nice choice at good price.


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> sweet, i can pick your brain    I'm getting some  shots with my D600, but I'm realizing I still need a flash.  I have a couple baby shoots, a few engagement shoots, and possibly up to two weddings coming up this year (I just started).  So far, I just got a cheap speedlight YN-560 all manual (actually the neewer tt560 rebrand), and RF-603 wireless triggers.  I plan on adding one more flash.....should it be a big one?  say, an SB-800?
> 
> I planned on using the cheap flash in manual mode on a stand with an umbrella box and possibly using my main TTL flash like an SB-800 on-camera or hand-held.  I also probably need some sort of diffuser for that as well, but perhaps the built-in reflector will be good enough..


 
  I can honestly say Flash on camera for the most part looks unprofessional, unless you have no other choice I would avoid it. Also when working with student in school via the alumni the biggest issue most new photographers have is getting a grasp on light as a tool, so using it on purpose instead of just adding more light to flatten the image. I would say try doing some lighting patterns on friends with your strobes (loupe, paramount, rembrandt, and split) are some of the main lighting styles. if you google for example "rembrandt lighting pattern" you can see some examples. Try to replicate those and you can really improve your control over your lights. Then from there try playing with the ratio between highlight and shadow, make a really small ratio so they are fairly close and then a large ratio where the shadows go very dark. See and know how to do this will help improve any photographer.
   
  As for event stuff like shows you dont have much choice on lighting so bring a strobe and use it where needed. I honestly dont do allot of music events because the money sucks and I like to enjoy myself instead of working them haha, but a good deal of my friends shoot journalistically like that.
  http://ryanbuller.com/#/singles/singles6 thats one of their sites, if you look he rarely uses anything other than existing light.
   
  And for weddings if you're doing portraits setup lights and do something nice, but for anything else moving stands around is going to suck. The last wedding I did was on the beach, and I just had one of the little 14 years in the family who liked photography hold a bounce card and used that for fill light which is much easier than strobe because you can see it.
   
  hope this helps 
   
  Ps: when shooting people try having them put the weight on their back foot (furthest from the camera) and watch how much better they look.


----------



## Mattimis

Just an example of what you can do in 5 minutes with photoshop. Obviously this completely depends on if your monitor is color correct or not, but if you were to print correctly it would look normal.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Ah, I thought having an iTTL one on-camera would be ideal.  How much larger is the flash/light on a large flash like an SB800 compared to something like the YN-560? 
   
  Quote: 





mattimis said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Thanks for the advice.  I especially didn't think about the weight on back foot thing. 
   
  Quote: 





mattimis said:


> Just an example of what you can do in 5 minutes with photoshop. Obviously this completely depends on if your monitor is color correct or not, but if you were to print correctly it would look normal.


 
   
  This looks pretty magenta on my monitor and iPad.. I actually spent a fair amount of time in lightroom getting it the way I did before--the sun was really yellow and warm.  I think my version came out a little on the green side, though.  I guess I should calibrate my monitor


----------



## Mattimis

Skin tones are always determined by the numbers, highlights are always equal parts magenta/yellow and cyan is always 1/3-1/5 of those in the highlight. If colors dont look correct it's due to an improperly calibrated monitor. (every single screen under 1000$ will be off, and some by a massive amount.) When most people calibrate their monitor it appears green and flat because monitors are naturally too magenta/blue for the most part.
  It seems odd, but unless you are looking for a specific style this is literally how all professional color is done. You also have to remember that a good amount of photographs loose allot of data in the red channel when photographed under an improper white balance which causes some strange color shift due to the red being blown out. I cant tell if that is causing issues without the actual file.
   
  Sb-800 has a GN of 125
  Yungnuo is a GN of 34
   
  So the sb-800 is roughly cable of 8x the power. (doubling the GN require you to quadruple the power, Via the inverse square law)


----------



## Mattimis

oh and the best way to check to see if red was blown out is to go into photoshop for example. Open the channels tab and only view red, then with the eye dropper hover over the highlights and make sure they arent reading 255.(make sure your eye dropper is set to 5x5 not point sample.


----------



## Szadzik

Anyone tried the new Tamron 70-200 VC USD? I am very tempted to upgrade my current non-VC Tamron to the new version.


----------



## shigzeo

I am also a photographer by trade, but tend to shoot nothing but gadgets and tech. Sometimes, I work at interviews and cover events, but my lens stock is best used for still stuff. Eventually I'd like to pick up an AF lens of some sort, probably a zoom. Nikon's 35-70 2,8D looks pretty good and is not too heavy. But I'll be honest, using the D800 outside is a pain. I'm looking into the V1/V2 for carrying to sporting events for use with my 180/2,8ED AiS; for every day non-work stuff, I hope to get a Fuji X-Pro 1 despite is many many flaws and tiny viewfinder. 
   
  The D800 sort of proves to me that if for image quality/resolution Nikon rule, they have lost it with regards to ergonomics and weight. I won't be changing my lenses though. The 28/2,8; 50/2; 105/2,5; 180/2,8 and the Makro Planar I use will be great with adapters. If the Fuji works out, I'll probably sell the D800 and get another Fuji as backup.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





mattimis said:


> Skin tones are always determined by the numbers, highlights are always equal parts magenta/yellow and cyan is always 1/3-1/5 of those in the highlight. If colors dont look correct it's due to an improperly calibrated monitor. (every single screen under 1000$ will be off, and some by a massive amount.) When most people calibrate their monitor it appears green and flat because monitors are naturally too magenta/blue for the most part.
> It seems odd, but unless you are looking for a specific style this is literally how all professional color is done. You also have to remember that a good amount of photographs loose allot of data in the red channel when photographed under an improper white balance which causes some strange color shift due to the red being blown out. I cant tell if that is causing issues without the actual file.
> 
> Sb-800 has a GN of 125
> ...


 
   
  thanks.  Are you sure about those numbers?  http://speedlights.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Man-Flash-Power-Index_04191.gif
   
  I almost ran out and bought a used SB-900 after what you said..
   
  Also, aren't IPS monitors sufficiently color calibrated?  Dell makes good ones for around $300.. also I believe most Apple screens such as Ipad screens are IPS.


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> thanks.  Are you sure about those numbers?  http://speedlights.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Man-Flash-Power-Index_04191.gif
> 
> I almost ran out and bought a used SB-900 after what you said..
> 
> Also, aren't IPS monitors sufficiently color calibrated?  Dell makes good ones for around $300.. also I believe most Apple screens such as Ipad screens are IPS.


 
  If you really want to be careful about colour, the minimum quality monitor you need is an NEC or LACIE. Apple and Dell displays won't cut it. If you are serious about colour, you get an Eizo. Each of those options will likely cost many times what your camera does, and even still needs to be calibrated with external hardware.


----------



## Mattimis

Quote:


hyogen said:


> thanks.  Are you sure about those numbers?  http://speedlights.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Man-Flash-Power-Index_04191.gif
> 
> I almost ran out and bought a used SB-900 after what you said..
> 
> Also, aren't IPS monitors sufficiently color calibrated?  Dell makes good ones for around $300.. also I believe most Apple screens such as Ipad screens are IPS.


 
  I simply sourced the gn data online. (I havent used a TTL flash for years all I ever use now is broncolor, profoto, or hensel)
   
  as for ips monitors, being ips alone does not mean a monitor will be color accurate, and although they tend to be better they still without a doubt need to be calibrated.
   
   

  Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> I am also a photographer by trade, but tend to shoot nothing but gadgets and tech. Sometimes, I work at interviews and cover events, but my lens stock is best used for still stuff. Eventually I'd like to pick up an AF lens of some sort, probably a zoom. Nikon's 35-70 2,8D looks pretty good and is not too heavy. But I'll be honest, using the D800 outside is a pain. I'm looking into the V1/V2 for carrying to sporting events for use with my 180/2,8ED AiS; for every day non-work stuff, I hope to get a Fuji X-Pro 1 despite is many many flaws and tiny viewfinder.
> 
> The D800 sort of proves to me that if for image quality/resolution Nikon rule, they have lost it with regards to ergonomics and weight. I won't be changing my lenses though. The 28/2,8; 50/2; 105/2,5; 180/2,8 and the Makro Planar I use will be great with adapters. If the Fuji works out, I'll probably sell the D800 and get another Fuji as backup.


 
   
  Dont think I have ever met a commercial photographer that shoots using a dslr  I cant remember the last time I photographed a watch without using a medium format bellows camera.


----------



## Mattimis

http://www.amazon.com/NEC-Display-Solutions-P221W-BK-22-Inch/dp/B001IWOB86/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360716113&sr=8-1&keywords=P221W-BK
   
  is the best sub 1000$ monitor I have seen for color, truly amazing. Its discontinued but you can still get them used for relatively cheap I though around 400$, nearly as good as my 2,000 ezio.


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





mattimis said:


> I simply sourced the gn data online. (I havent used a TTL flash for years all I ever use now is broncolor, profoto, or hensel)
> 
> as for ips monitors, being ips alone does not mean a monitor will be color accurate, and although they tend to be better they still without a doubt need to be calibrated.
> 
> ...


 
  Medium format with bellows are wonderful tools. But they are not necessary. In fact, I meet fewer and fewer medium format users among photographers here in Japan. Car photographers and large model photographers tend to stay with MF, but it seems that most are moving to DSLR. Perhaps your location used MF mostly. Generally, Japan is different, even for most product photographs. Bellows, of course, are not an option.


----------



## Mattimis

ahh see I am on the other side of the pacific haha


----------



## Mattimis

id love to live and work in the area for a while though, while im still young.


----------



## shigzeo

Come on over. I don't particularly like Japan as a work environment, though. If you work for yourself, that is one thing, but generally, work environments are pretty poor: employers never pay overtime no matter how long you work, or if they do, it is only after a specified number of overtime hours... lots of bullying in the workplace, sexual exploitation, poor salaries, and always the corporate hand in everything as there are very very few government controls on anything. If things go wrong in Japan, they go very very wrong because no one is there to protect you. But the food is good and post is cheap as is rent (comparatively) and cars are cheap as cheap can be and there are heaps of services for travel within the country. A great place to travel to, and if you work in a foreign environment, a fun place to work. But it is a hell of lies and exploitation otherwise.


----------



## hyogen

have a big decision to make (will have to stick with it for a long time). 
   
  35 + 85mm or 
   
  50 + 105mm or
   
  50 + 135mm
   
  And I'll have an ultrawide angle like a 14mm.  I'm going to be doing engagements and weddings.
   
  Which combo should I pick? 
   
   
   
  I like using 85mm for somewhat tight indoor stuff..  I feel like it could be a little too short for weddings, though.  Can't be far back enough to not be distracting..  Also, the problem with 105mm lenses are that perhaps they're too sharp because they're macro lenses (will show too much facial blemishes, etc)...and possibly aren't as fast in focusing in the non-macro range. 
   
  For outdoor portraits, I feel that 85mm is sometimes a little too short again, because I can usually always back up farther (and I have a loud voice that carries   )


----------



## Mattimis

the 105mm is not a good choice at all. Having used it the focus ring is so fine for macro that you will be spinning it WAY more than a normal lens to pull focus, and this also makes AF slower.
  85mm is a fantastic portrait length, so is 50.
  35 on a full frame can end up giving distortion because you will need to be so close to fill the frame if it is 1 subject.
   
  I think there is still kind a debate because most consider 35mm to be human field of view (on a FF sensor) and on the other hand there is the nifty 50 which most think is the most versatile portrait prime.
  That being said my favorite lens for dslr is the 85 1.2 ( its like a glass softball when you hold it, super heavy for a 85)
   
  It depends for standing portrait 85 and 50mm are king, but if youre not controlling the shoot it really depends. I've used 70-200 countless times at weddings because it gives you the range you need when you cant get close during a ceremony etc..
   
  Personally I think 135 is too long for most uses (in a portrait sense) its a great lens when you already have a strong kit, but if youre only able to get a 3 lens kit I am not sure its the best choice.
   
  With a 14mm already I would get the 35/50 and the 85 (if I am forced to stay within the choices given)
  because they will serve a good range of uses 
   
  Again I still think 70-200 is great for wedding where you want to be in the shadows and less intrusive, but to get a decent zoom its quite a bit more money


----------



## Mattimis

On a small side note longer lenses may be more suited toward your style if you really enjoy compressing the background.


----------



## shigzeo

If that 105 isn't a modern AF, it takes only a few small turns to get it from close focus of 0,9m to infinity. I use the 105/2,5 AiS religiously outside of work and have used it from time to time on the few portraits I do. I'm just not a people person.


----------



## hyogen

Thank you.  The new Sigma 35mm 1.4 has no distortion but it's super expensive.  I think for that money I'd rather go with something like an 85mm 1.4 or 135 f2 DC.  It pains me how good the Canon 135 f2L is and how cheap it is...like $720 like new. 
   
  Also, I think the 85mm 1.8 AF (non-D) which I'm using is fine and the 1.4 won't really add much more bokeh. 
   
  The 105mm 2.8 micro VR (pretty new lens) would give me greater DOF than 85mm 1.8, right?  I think the calculator says that it's almost 2x more DOF meaning less bokeh (but with more compression maybe it'd look about the same)..
   
  I guess I might as well get the 70-200 2.8 and hope that it's as sharp as a prime.  Which 70-200 is the one to get?  I really don't want to spend more than $1000 on this one lens..  The 70-200 to get on Canon's side was the 70-200 2.8 II with IS (VR).


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> I guess I might as well get the 70-200 2.8 and hope that it's as sharp as a prime.  Which 70-200 is the one to get?  I really don't want to spend more than $1000 on this one lens..  The 70-200 to get on Canon's side was the 70-200 2.8 II with IS (VR).


 
   
  If your budget is $1000, than there is only one single lens you can buy - Tamron 70-200. Optically it is a great lens. LAcks IS/ OS/ VR, but that can be overcome with technique to some extent. 
   
  another one is Sigma 70-200, and if you get lucky, you might find a used one for around $1000. It is not as good optically as the Tamron, but adds IS and better build quality, even though the Tamron is not so bad in that department either. 
   
  Going up in Price you have the new version of Tamron 70-200 with VC (Tamron's IS that is really good) and USD. This one goes new for $1499. 
   
  Canon and Nikon 70-200s are way above the price range you mentioned.


----------



## shigzeo

Nikon's 80-200/2,8D can be had for less than 1000$ and is built like a tank and has wonderful optics. It also has an aperture ring and so can easily be used on any Nikon SLR.


----------



## Mattimis

Dont get too caught up on bokeh, most lenses are not nearly as sharp wide open. I love fast glass too but I rarely ever use 1.2 on my 85 because its simply not needed.  f/2 is the lowest I tend to use because if I open up any more the Dof is too small to get both eyes in focus.
   
  if you go for a 70-200 I would shoot for some form of IS or VR as its pretty helpful if you happen to shoot hand held with less than 1/200 SS
  Look at lens weights too, because hand holding a 3lb lens on a 2lb body for 3 hours is going to start to make your images suffer from shake.
  if you plan on only ever shooting outside in bde you'll be fine without VR because I cant see you stopping down more than f/10 anyways ( depending on your camera most hit DLA at around f/10 anyways )
   
  That being said off brands tend to always be a better value, but like most things you get what you pay for.
   
  If you are like me you're favorite zoom is your feet, and so if you really want long glass the 135mm might be a better fit. The if you shoot a wedding and want a zoom just grab one from a rental house for 40ish dollars a day depending on the area.


----------



## bigshot

Shooting a wedding with primes is crazy!


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Shooting a wedding with primes is crazy!


 
  My instructor at the college  shot 3000 weddings and w=is a master photographer and he would disagree with you. he said you need two identical cameras and can shoot weeding with the 35MM and 50MM prime lenses. he shot 30000 himself and had 12 photographers also shooting the same way. I nev er did pro work and am just a beginner but that what he told us in classes and has hooked up a couple of students with a pro and also had one pro he taught have his daughter and wife in our classes and he uses only two primes. I wouldnt know like i said. Just saying


----------



## bigshot

no tele! wow. He must have been acting as best man to get close enough!


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> no tele! wow. He must have been acting as best man to get close enough!


 
  i dont know but became a millionaire with12 photographers and he shot 3000 himself. I guess in 40 years he did something right. He a master photographer and now does landscapes and he sell lot of his stuff at art shows.


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Shooting a wedding with primes is crazy!


 
  It is only until relatively recently that weddings have been taken with zooms and I note that many people are using primes instead of zooms at weddings. They are cheaper, smaller, lighter, faster, and less obtrusive. Many, however, don't have auto focus. I think that the wedding photographer has become somewhat of a movie maker nowadays. Rather than photo-esque photographs, they make movie-esque photos. I'm not sure which is better but looking over my parent's wedding shots, and the ones taken at my wedding, I note less intimacy in the 35mm film days, but generally more cohesion between images. The trend today seems to be photojournalist style weddings. Interesting.


----------



## bigshot

Maybe he sneaks a zoom in under his shirt and doesn't tell anyone.
   
  Honestly though, primes are good for bokeh and low light. They aren't any sharper than good zooms. I see no reason why anyone shooting a once in a lifetime event would limit themselves like that, especially since they're using a flash and low light isn't an issue.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Maybe he sneaks a zoom in under his shirt and doesn't tell anyone.
> 
> Honestly though, primes are good for bokeh and low light. They aren't any sharper than good zooms. I see no reason why anyone shooting a once in a lifetime event would limit themselves like that, especially since they're using a flash and low light isn't an issue.


 
  Primel lenses are also sharper than zoom lens all the time form my short experience. Every website i research pretty much concurs with primes being the sharpest. I also see photographers using 600MM Prime lens for sports and wildlife. So not sure  who is right but I think primes give me the best pictures and I do use my zoom lens to shoot track meets I will tell if I could afford a 600MM prime to shoot track meets I would jump at it but its way out of my league. I seen the work that one of the dad on my daughters Cornell team does with the 600MM prime and its breathtaking and sharp to the extreme.. The lens is a 14K canon lens


----------



## bigshot

Stopped down to f/8 *every* lens made today is sharp. Fast primes often are softer at the edges than zooms, and zooms often have more distortion. But distortion is easily correctable in photoshop and the edges don't matter much.
   
  20 years ago zooms were soft and full of distortion. It's not true any more.
   
  A 600mm lens is a very specialized tool. I doubt any wedding photographers would need one. I'm talking about the range from 10mm to 200mm. A perfect wedding kit would include a 200mm 2.8 for shooting the ceremony from the back of the church, a short tele 2.8  zoom for shooting portraits of the bride and groom, and a midrange zoom that goes down to 18mm at 2.8 for the reception. I shot a wedding once. I used medium format for the formal portraits and a 35mm with a midrange zoom for the reception (pre digital days). It was chaotic and it was all I could do to cover it all. I really needed a second cameraman. If I had to stop and change lenses, I would have missed half of it.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Stopped down to f/8 *every* lens made today is sharp. Fast primes often are softer at the edges than zooms, and zooms often have more distortion. But distortion is easily correctable in photoshop and the edges don't matter much.
> 
> 20 years ago zooms were soft and full of distortion. It's not true any more.
> 
> A 600mm lens is a very specialized tool. I doubt any wedding photographers would need one. I'm talking about the range from 10mm to 200mm. A perfect wedding kit would include a 200mm 2.8 for shooting the ceremony from the back of the church, a short tele 2.8  zoom for shooting portraits of the bride and groom, and a midrange zoom that goes down to 18mm at 2.8 for the reception. I shot a wedding once. I used medium format for the formal portraits and a 35mm with a midrange zoom for the reception (pre digital days). It was chaotic and it was all I could do to cover it all. I really needed a second cameraman. If I had to stop and change lenses, I would have missed half of it.


 
  Thas is why every pro I know uses two camera with two lenses. Jack trained thousands of photographers.  in 40 years and all used the same method. 2 camera with 2 lenses both primes and did exactly the same thing. His business lasted 40 years because he was considered the best in Southern New Jersey and Philadelphia. Most guys I seen work weeding are in the front of the church not the rear. If you had two camera would be easy to shoot without swapping lenses.  If ther eare any pro in the forum i would like to hear how they shoot the weddings not that  I would ever want to do one,


----------



## bigshot

In a Catholic wedding, the photographer usually gets stashed in the choir loft!


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> In a Catholic wedding, the photographer usually gets stashed in the choir loft!


 
  depends on te church


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Stopped down to f/8 *every* lens made today is sharp. Fast primes often are softer at the edges than zooms, and zooms often have more distortion. But distortion is easily correctable in photoshop and the edges don't matter much.
> 
> 20 years ago zooms were soft and full of distortion. It's not true any more.
> 
> A 600mm lens is a very specialized tool. I doubt any wedding photographers would need one. I'm talking about the range from 10mm to 200mm. A perfect wedding kit would include a 200mm 2.8 for shooting the ceremony from the back of the church, a short tele 2.8  zoom for shooting portraits of the bride and groom, and a midrange zoom that goes down to 18mm at 2.8 for the reception. I shot a wedding once. I used medium format for the formal portraits and a 35mm with a midrange zoom for the reception (pre digital days). It was chaotic and it was all I could do to cover it all. I really needed a second cameraman. If I had to stop and change lenses, I would have missed half of it.


 
  Primes as was said be for produce better image quality at value. It is true however that very high end zooms produce good images quality wise, but were talking two to three times the price. I worked as a manager of a rental house to pay my way through my bfa and I spent allot of time testing simple things like that, and its been proven by man others that zooms produce lower quality images than primes of the same cost. go rent a 50mm 1.2 and a 24-70 2.8 and you can test it yourself by shooting them both at 50mm f/5.6.  If it makes you all feel better I will go out tomorrow and do this, the same shot on a 5d MK.III with a 50 1.2 and a 24-70. Ill post 100% crops tomorrow or Saturday. Maybe ill been throw in one from the 200mp hassie just for fun.


----------



## shigzeo

On the D800, the only prime I've used that doesn't outperform a high end zoom at 2,8 is the 85/1,8 K lens. All other lenses I have outperform the 24-70 in its focal length, the same with the 70-200. At 2,8, however, 2,8 primes (older ones) can be glowy wide open in strange light. Of course, none of those primes have auto focus, so the zoom is much faster at catching a look or subject. Also, the 24-70 weighs about a kilogram. My 28/2,8 weighs less than 300g, same with my extremely sharp 50/2 Ai; my 105/2,5 weighs about 400g. The 85/1,8K and 105/2,5 AiS are heavy, but then it is in the focal length of the 70-200 and competing against a MUCH heavier lens.


----------



## bigshot

how big are you printing?
   
  I have a normal range 1.2 prime. I rarely use it because it's so foggy open wide. My Sigma 50 1.4 is better. But for sharpness, all my lenses are sharp as a tack in good light. Even the 18-55 kit lens.
   
  I remember back in my F2 days. I had a 43-86. If you want soft, that was it. But I still managed to get great pictures with it. Lenses today are all good.


----------



## shigzeo

Oh, I have no problems with lenses NOT being sharp. If that is how they capture, that is how they capture, and I really like what they do and use them to capture images their way. I've never printed larger than A2 with a 10mp camera (D200). With the D800, I am frequently viewing and editing images at 100 and 200%. I notice that the 24-70, a fine lens, simply isn't up to snuff in terms of the sharpness of the 28/2,8Ai. That said, the 24-70 should probably look damn good on any camera up to high megapixel levels we don't have today.


----------



## Mattimis

Like I previously said almost all fast glass is soft wide open and frankly there is almost never a need to go wider than f/2
   
  Also, as I stated before primes are better optically than zooms in the same price point. saying an old prime doesnt out preform a brand new zoom that is 5 times the price is a pretty obvious conclusion. 
   
  Obviously there are going to be exceptions but show me a 2000$ zoom and a 2000$ prime and odds are the prime will be better optically.


----------



## shigzeo

My 55$ 50/2 is far sharper than the 24-70 2,8 (2000$) at 50/2,8. Far shaper. Less smearing until the 24-70 reaches its best aperture settings. Of course, the 50/2 is always a 50, and has no automatic controls apart from working with aperture priority in FE and FM model cameras.


----------



## bigshot

How big are you printing?


----------



## shigzeo

Bigshot, are you asking me? I no longer print larger than A2. Most of my prints are A3 from 10mp cameras and with a 36 megapixel camera, I've never gone larger than A2 - yet.
   
  EDIT: I presume you are going to prove that A2 is too small to show the differences between the 24-70 or 18-55 and a sharp/cheap prime you are probably right. But it doesn't stop the prime from being sharper at equivalent apertures. I frequently get requests for 15 megapixel images from my clients. At a sensor crop to APS-C resolution, the same goes true: the prime is sharper. At full resolution, the same hold true at 36 megapixels. The 24-70 is an excellent lens, but it is still less sharp. I've never had a client reject anything because it was slightly less sharp than another lens, but the fact remains that it is less sharp. Again, I don't personally care. If a client does, then that matters to me. I doubt they will as most resolutions they print at are A4 or smaller. They'd never be able to detect the differences.
   
  But, the differences still do exist. If a person is after the absolute best, they should invest in prime lenses. Fortunately, lenses like the 50/2 and 28/2,8 exist, which are absurdly cheap even next to the 18-55 lens (on the used market). Long story short, I have no problem you proving that at viewing distances and at certain print sizes, it won't matter. That isn't what I'm saying. I honestly don't care. I shoot with the 85/1,8K with no worries at all and it is a soft lens. It's just that 24-70 is not as sharp as the lenses I mention, lenses which together cost less than 300$.


----------



## Szadzik

What a funny discussion you guys are having. Everyone is 100% sure only his opinion is right. I would not agree with any of you. Both primes and zooms have their advantages and disadvantages and if anyone prefers one or the other it is just a matter of preference, nothing else. Some people prefer to use their feet for zoom (may be a bit hard in churches) and others prefer to do it with zoom lenses.


----------



## shigzeo

I will agree with the above. Primes cannot replace zooms as they have not only one field of view, but only one compression angle. Zooms change the latter to a great degree, which is a huge advantage. I prefer to use small, light primes (not today's monsters that cost a fortune), but I understand completely why zooms are not only preferred, but also necessary in many types of photography. That said, it is very hard to debate with sharpness benchmarks achieved by prime lenses. Again, sharpness isn't everything, and again, I have two lenses that aren't that sharp, but that shoot very well.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> no tele! wow. He must have been acting as best man to get close enough!


 
   
   
  85mm isn't going to be close enough for weddings in a lot of situations is it.....  
   
  Do you guys think cropping a high MP shot produces the same result?  (i understand the compression difference)
   
  I've heard 35mm and 85mm are pretty ideal for weddings.  For now I'm going to be using 50mm + 85mm....perhaps I need to rethink getting an ultrawide......
   
  maybe I need a 35, 85, and a 70-200 for long shots.  I was very close to pulling the trigger on the new Sigma 35 1.4.  I feel like 50mm is wide enough, though..


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> 85mm isn't going to be close enough for weddings in a lot of situations is it.....
> 
> Do you guys think cropping a high MP shot produces the same result?  (i understand the compression difference)
> 
> ...


 
  50MM is not really wide at all. I use my 50MM only for protraits and small group shots. My 35MM is better but when I want wide angle I use my 10-24MM lens for my d7000. You need a 12-24 or the  Tokina wide angle is a nice lens


----------



## shigzeo

85mm IS long enough - remember that photographers for many years shot with nothing but 35 and 85 at weddings. Prior to digital age, all wedding photographers I knew were using 28 or 35 and 85 or 100. Recently, extreme close ups are common, but before, photos were closer to what you see on television at royal weddings. You don't NEED a long lens unless you just want to shoot like every other wedding photographer out there.


----------



## Redcarmoose

I really ended up liking the used 55mm primes I purchased on Ebay. Here is a shot.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> I really ended up liking the used 55mm primes I purchased on Ebay. Here is a shot.


 
  nice picture


----------



## shigzeo

Yes, beautiful light.


----------



## Redcarmoose

THX !!


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> EDIT: I presume you are going to prove that A2 is too small to show the differences between the 24-70 or 18-55 and a sharp/cheap prime you are probably right. But it doesn't stop the prime from being sharper at equivalent apertures.


 
  OK. You're talking about pixel peeping and I'm talking about shooting pictures. I shot a portrait of a musician friend on a 3 MP Olympus pocket camera that ended up being used on 18x24 posters, and it was razor sharp. Theoretical sharpness doesn't add up to a hill of beans unless you're cropping way in on bigfoot in the bushes.
   
  People worry way too much about theoretical specifications than they do the ones they actually need. Having a zoom range is a huge benefit to a photographer. Being able to read candy wrappers from 100 yards is great for armchair theorists.
   
  Me? I shoot pictures. And I want my equipment to be as versitile as possible.


----------



## Frank I

50mm prime lens was always sharper than the 50MM setting I used on the 18-55 when I had that lens and not by a little my 50MM 1.8G smoked it in resolution and vivid color and sharpness. I shoot pictures too and does sgigzeo and all the photography sites I read also think that primes also are sharper but I do need the zoom for my sports shpts and the wide angle for my landscape and the primes for all my everyday shots and the best picture sI end up taking are with my prime lens. If I get close to the track tomorrow for my daughter 3K race maybe I will shoot with the 35MM i could used it last week I was  on the track almost.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





frank i said:


> 50mm prime lens was always sharper than the 50MM setting I used on the 18-55 when I had that lens and not by a little my 50MM 1.8G smoked it in resolution and vivid color and sharpness.


 
   
  At what F/stop? The 18-55 is a remarkably sharp lens stopped down a stop or two. It's one of Nikon's sharpest. Its only limitation is that it is slow. In good light at f/8 it's doubtful you would notice any difference between the two at any focal length in the zoom range. The 18-55 might have a tiny bit more distortion, but it isn't much and it is easily corrected in PP.
   
  Photozone sharpness tests... It's comparing DX to FX, so the resolution numbers don't apply, but you can get an idea from the chart. The irony is that the 18-55 is Nikon's cheapest kit lens!
   
   

   
   

   
  If you can't get super sharp results with the 18-55 in good light, odds are it's your technique, not your lens. Perhaps the difference in sharpness you noticed was due to motion blur from having to shoot at too slow a shutter speed in low light. Upping the ISO a bit would fix that. With current camera bodies that can shoot in the dark, fast apertures are becoming only necessary for bokeh effects, not for speed as much.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> At what F/stop? The 18-55 is a remarkably sharp lens stopped down a stop or two. It's one of Nikon's sharpest. Its only limitation is that it is slow. In good light at f/8 it's doubtful you would notice any difference between the two at any focal length in the zoom range. The 18-55 might have a tiny bit more distortion, but it isn't much and it is easily corrected in PP.
> 
> Photozone sharpness tests... It's comparing DX to FX, so the resolution numbers don't apply, but you can get an idea from the chart. The irony is that the 18-55 is Nikon's cheapest kit lens!
> 
> ...


 
  LMAO OK its my technique


----------



## Mr.Sneis

I'll just flat out admit it, my technique sucks and I don't shoot enough, but I prefer primes and especially ones that autofocus and have instant mf override.  They say that with certain lenses like the 24-70 2.8 that it autofocuses noticeably faster than comparable primes; which I would believe.  My favorite time to shoot is when the sun is setting so the lighting is generally not that great but you get some great colors if you make the shots count; I like the look of the primes over the zooms in these situations but you can always make them both work. 
   
  I believe bigshot is a huge proponent of having proper lighting and he's right; but I greatly appreciate it when I can get away with less "setup" when I can.  I think that we're all different in how we learn and utilize this stuff so I don't think there's going to be a right or wrong answer here any way we slice it.


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> 85mm isn't going to be close enough for weddings in a lot of situations is it.....
> 
> Do you guys think cropping a high MP shot produces the same result?  (i understand the compression difference)
> 
> ...


 
  think about the size you'll be printing, you can crop massively if the internet is your source since its only 72ppi, but when printing you want to be about 240-300 (most go 300) dpi.
  That means you should try not to crop beyond that point as you will start to have photoshop extrapolate data to fill in the blanks and this degrades an image.
   
  Think about it like this, with a 24megapixel camera the resolution of an image is 6000x4000 which equates at 300 dpi to 13.33x20 inch print, so if you're only making a 5x7 you can crop the image down to under 40% of the original file and still produce a perfect print.
   
  Judging a lens based off a print makes no sense at all, as printers have their own systems of dpi to make a print aswell as the paper,Print profile,etc.. so the printer is simply interfering (not to mention print is an art that almost no one does right), the way real professionals judge is with a 100% crop of an image...
   
  As for everyone else it seems this thread has turned into most threads on Head-fi with people talking about things they know nothing about, and judging the difference between gear they have never used or even seen, so im just going to let everyone teach themselves since everyone has google and thus knows everything.
   
  if anyone has any actual questions and isnt simply looking to flex their ego over the internet ill try and me helpful.
   
  Happy imaging everyone!


----------



## bigshot

I have a Nikon 18-55 VR and a Nikon 55mm 1.2. I also have a Sigma 30 and 50 1.4, Tamron 17-50 2.8, Nikon 18-200 VR, Tokina 100 2.8 macro, 11-16 2.8 and a 7mm Vivitar fish. (This isn't even mentioning the lenses in my medium format rig or retired with my film kit.) I've shot a lot with all of these, and I'm perfectly able to get razor sharp images out of all of these, printable as large as digital printing can go.
   
  Sharpness is really not an issue. With the ability to shoot at super high ISO speed of lenses isn't even an issue. Chromatic aberration isn't a problem any more with my D7000, and distortion is correctable in Photoshop. *Usability of equipment is number one.* Can you control everything you need to without lowering the camera from your eye? Is the lens able to frame the shots I need it to in the lighting situations I'm going to be working with?
   
  I've been shooting since I was a kid. I had an F2 and a bag full of glass and I got great shots, even with slower than sludge apertures and ASA ratings that make even the cheapest digital camera seem fast. I figured out how to properly expose in the camera, so I wouldn't have to push the latitude to its limit in the darkroom, and I learned how to deal with low light and grain. Compared to all of that, my iPhone is a walk in the park. Really, it isn't hard to make well exposed, in focus, sharp, clear, vibrant pictures. If you aren't, it isn't your lens or your camera body that is causing the problem. It's your technique.


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I have a Nikon 18-55 VR and a Nikon 55mm 1.2. I also have a Sigma 30 and 50 1.4, Tamron 17-50 2.8, Nikon 18-200 VR, Tokina 100 2.8 macro, 11-16 2.8 and a 7mm Vivitar fish. (This isn't even mentioning the lenses in my medium format rig or retired with my film kit.) I've shot a lot with all of these, and I'm perfectly able to get razor sharp images out of all of these, printable as large as digital printing can go.
> 
> Sharpness is really not an issue. With the ability to shoot at super high ISO speed of lenses isn't even an issue. Chromatic aberration isn't a problem any more with my D7000, and distortion is correctable in Photoshop. *Usability of equipment is number one.* Can you control everything you need to without lowering the camera from your eye? Is the lens able to frame the shots I need it to in the lighting situations I'm going to be working with?
> 
> I've been shooting since I was a kid. I had an F2 and a bag full of glass and I got great shots, even with slower than sludge apertures and ASA ratings that make even the cheapest digital camera seem fast. I figured out how to properly expose in the camera, so I wouldn't have to push the latitude to its limit in the darkroom, and I learned how to deal with low light and grain. Compared to all of that, my iPhone is a walk in the park. Really, it isn't hard to make well exposed, in focus, sharp, clear, vibrant pictures. If you aren't, it isn't your lens or your camera body that is causing the problem. It's your technique.


 
  The lenses you listed may be fun and great for you, but this was a discussion about optimal lens quality. Comparing your mixed assortment of consumer lenses isnt nearly the same as say the top end glass out there. When I said I compared lenses I meant I compared all of canons main production line of L glass and nearly all the main line of Nikkor lenses. Speak in terms of quality of primes vs zoom, there is a difference however obviously they all are capable of professional results. Which is what I meant by saying people are talking about things they dont understand. I would never compare a low end schiit amp with a low in burson and then talk about what is the best amp available... because I have no experience with top tier amps.
   
   
  Im not talking about you looking at a a print and thinking its nice, understand that when people say they hate "pixel peepers" they are say this is a hobby. I am sure your images are beautiful to you, but talking about which lens is best goes into details beyond what you presume to be sharp prints. Thats like saying my headphones sound good on all the amps I have used, so discussing better amps is pointless because mine already sounds good... Sure you may think so, but not everyone else does and even if they did they would still debate which amp is best at what.
   
  Sharpness will always be ALWAYS an issue when comparing lenses
  Iso speed has nothing to do with the lens you are using, aperture isnt meant to be used for exposure anymore.
  chromatic aberrations is caused by the lens not the camera so saying your d7000 stops is is kinda silly.
  and controlling everything without lowering it from your eye really makes no sense in a professional world, no one is timing you haha its about sculpting pictures with light, and you cant move your lights with your camera on your eye.
   
  sorry to be harsh but you shouldnt tell people that they are wrong when you clearly are not in a place to say.


----------



## bigshot

Do you shoot pictures? Or is it a gear thing?
   
  Because I listen to music and I make photographs. The content is what matters, and anything beyond properly presenting the content is overkill to me. I don't need to blow a picture up to the size of a mac truck on my monitor and look at one leaf on a tree a mile away. And I don't need to worry about inaudible levels of distortion in my music. I don't think anyone really does, unless the pursuit of the gear is all that's important.
   
  By the way, 200 dpi is plenty for most printing applications- including a lot of publishing, exposure is all about balancing shutter speed and aperture against ISO, recent Nikon bodies correct for chromatic aberration automatically, and one of the main differences between pro bodies and low end consumer bodies is that you have to go through nested menus to adjust things manually with a low end consumer body.
   
  Sorry to disagree with you, but you seem more focused on owning expensive chunks of glass and metal than actually going out in the street and using your camera to make images that look incredible. If it's really all about equipment fetish, that is perfectly fine. There are a lot of collectors of camera equipment that don't shoot much... particularly in the Leica camp. But I'm talking about photography here.
   
  If you're a pro, you need equipment that is built rugged. If you're doing studio work, you probably need medium format. That makes total sense. But worrying about how sharp a modern lens is at 100% on a 24 MP camera is absurd for the applications discussed in this forum. You could cut that image in half and still be able to print it clearly at any normal size you want. A 24 MP image full frame could fill the wall of a small room and not exceed the resolution of the digital printer printing it. I've actually done this. One wall of my living room is a mural that I had digitally printed. They asked for a file that was 175 dpi. It looks good and sharp. You can walk right up to it, and not notice any problem with the image.
   
  Sharpness is not the problem. Incorrect application of technique and lack of compositional skills are the most common ones.


----------



## Mattimis

Ill just go ahead and addres this statement in pieces
   


> Because I listen to music and I make photographs. The content is what matters, and anything beyond properly presenting the content is overkill to me.


 
  Properly to you and me is clearly different. I prefer the best and you are clearly content with the average.


> I don't need to blow a picture up to the size of a mac truck on my monitor and look at one leaf on a tree a mile away. And I don't need to worry about inaudible levels of distortion in my music. I don't think anyone really does, unless the pursuit of the gear is all that's important.


 
  Sharpness of a lens as well as quality of music has not reached an immeasurable limit.. which is why EVERYONE is making better and better cameras, lenses, amps, headphones, dacs.... The pursuit of perfection is ongoing for those not too ignorant or close minded to search for it. This as you must know is a forum of audiophile, people who strive for the best quality audio and listening experience possible so your statement has no place here.
   


> By the way, 200 dpi is plenty for most printing


 
  no national magazine today uses anything lower than 240, most use 300dpi (maybe dont spread incorrect information)


> exposure is all about balancing shutter speed and aperture against ISO


 
  This seems like a silly thing to point out but shutter speed and aperture do not work in cohesion against ISO for exposure. They all carry the same weight and work independent to adjust exposure. Frankly if you are adjusting your aperture to obtain a correct exposure you really dont know your way around light.
   


> recent Nikon bodies correct for chromatic aberration automatically


 
   
   
   
   
   
  haha do you seriously do this? common you cant really think this is the best method.
   
   


> and one of the main differences between pro bodies and low end consumer bodies is that you have to go through nested menus to adjust things manually with a low end consumer body.


 
  This is complete **** haha pro bodies and consumer bodies differ in components and features (all the features need to be turned on the same) and honestly the only settings you should have setup on your camera like color space file size etc.. need to be done in all modern DSLR's
   


> Sorry to disagree with you, but you seem more focused on owning expensive chunks of glass and metal than actually going out in the street and using your camera to make images that look incredible. If it's really all about equipment fetish, that is perfectly fine. There are a lot of collectors of camera equipment that don't shoot much... particularly in the Leica camp. But I'm talking about photography here.


 
  Not sure if you missed it but not only am I only months away from my MFA, I actually make a living as a photographer.. I have a degree for it, I pay my bills with it, and honestly make a great living. im not a hobbyist who thinks they know what they are talking about even though I have no real experience in the professional world. I understand that you think your gear is good enough, and it may be for you.. but being a professional means I have the funds to afford high quality gear that produce BETTER quality images. They are not simply designed for vanity although it seems you think that. I think calling it a gear fetish simply because you're gear is poor quality compared to mine is a sad attack to make yourself feel adequate. Professionals use professional gear because they make money using it, and hobbyist use hobbyist gear which is fine, but dont presume that your gear is on the same par as professional gear when it is not.
   
   


> A 24 MP image full frame could fill the wall of a small room and not exceed the resolution of the digital printer printing it. I've actually done this. One wall of my living room is a mural that I had digitally printed. They asked for a file that was 175 dpi. It looks good and sharp. You can walk right up to it, and not notice any problem with the image


 
  This seems silly to point out, but as I stated before print has NOTHING to do with image capture... next time you see a billboard go look at it.. often times they are less than 70 dpi, so please stop comparing image quality to prints because it make no sense.
   


> worrying about how sharp a modern lens is at 100% on a 24 MP camera is absurd for the applications discussed in this forum.


 
  Clearly.. as people like you are so unwilling to be given knowledge from a working professional. I think you could have simply not joined the conversation if you didnt see the need, rather than trolling and disagreeing with information you dont have in-depth knowledge on.
   
   
  Either way I got a good laugh out of all this. Makes me value my education so much more to see how people fair with only the internet to teach them.


----------



## bigshot

I'm not going to bother plowing through a line by line post. You have to actually say something, not just contradict. I won't be trolled.
   
  For the benefit of the rest of the people reading, I'll point out that just about every DSLR body is capable of making great photographs. The newest ones have a higher megapixel count than anyone would ever require unless they plan to create murals or billboards. The resolution of most modern lenses stopped down a bit out resolve the sensor. The reason to buy primes is for size/weight considerations, exotic focal lengths (fisheyes and very long telephotos in particular), and for speed (zooms are generally f/2.8 at the fastest, while primes go up to f/1.2. However the latest camera bodies have sensors capable of shooting as high as ISO 3200 without excessive noise, which makes even f/4 lenses as fast as the fastest lenses on a D200 or D50 just a few years ago.
   
  The most important aspect in choosing equipment is to look for the least expensive camera body that does what you want to do, so you can afford to get a range of lenses that cover all the kinds of shooting you plan on doing. A variety of lenses is much more useful than a high end camera body. For most non professional photographers, the lower end Nikon DX bodies paired with two kit lenses that span 18mm to 200mm and a 35mm f/1.8 prime will do everything most advanced amateurs would ever need to do.
   
  The exceptions are specialized applications... low light sports or concert photography, formal studio portraits or product shots, photographing birds in flight and landscape or architectural photography that needs to be printed larger than the standard print sizes. All of these require specialized tools that are different than the average photographer would need.
   
  Just like with audiophile overkill, it is way too easy to spend more than you need to on camera equipment. There are always people happy to give you expensive advice. It's not their money! The truth is that reasonably priced equipment, intelligently chosen will perform just as well for the average photographer as someone who throws money indiscriminately at the most expensive camera bodies and glass. It's stupid to chase specifications that you can't see without pulling out a microscope.
   
  A camera is a tool, not an extension of one's ego.


----------



## chrislangley4253

You guys just have different methods.. I would like to see some pics from you both!

 I bet you both take some great pictures given how passionately you feel for your respective methods 


 Just wanted to throw some positive energy at the thread.. Apologies if this is seen as off topic.


----------



## Mattimis

haha its not worth beating a dead horse anymore.
The facts are out there for those who strive to improve in every way possible, and just like with most things you get what you pay for.
  A magni will never out preform  a mjolnir if you get what im saying.
   
  I guess ill have to start shooting with a d200 instead of the H5D-50


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





chrislangley4253 said:


> You guys just have different methods.. I would like to see some pics from you both!
> 
> I bet you both take some great pictures given how passionately you feel for your respective methods
> 
> ...


 
  ill stop haha
   
  Ill take some fun stuff just for the forums on here at some point. Not going to put any portfolio work, because I dont want someone to find my website and then be known for  bashing people about photo nonsense on an audio forum haha
   
  speaking of which someone should make a photo contest thread and do a monthly contest that people can vote on for fun 
  it would be a good way for everyone to get some positive feedback


----------



## Frank I

Gotta Love it Big Shot fighting with a pro. Thats why I tend to believe my teacher the 40 year Pro also. Enough said I am still learning and happy to be doing so.


----------



## bigshot

A good way to learn is to question and find out for yourself, not just take someone's word for it. I studied to become a photographer in college, but I ended up in the film business The one thing I've learned in my 40 years of amateur photography is that the quality of a photographer is not determined by the price of the camera hanging around his neck. When someone tries to convince me that they know what they're talking about because they happen to have (rented) a very expensive camera, I'm not surprised when they're afraid to show their work.
   
  Here are a couple of my photos. These were particular shots were taken with the camera in my iPhone.


----------



## musubi1000

the 





bigshot said:


> how big are you printing?
> 
> I have a normal range 1.2 prime. I rarely use it because it's so foggy open wide. My Sigma 50 1.4 is better. But for sharpness, all my lenses are sharp as a tack in good light. Even the 18-55 kit lens.
> 
> I remember back in my F2 days. I had a 43-86. If you want soft, that was it. But I still managed to get great pictures with it. Lenses today are all good.


 the 43-86 was Nikons first zoom. We used to joke that the only way to make it sharp was to break the glass out of the lens and now you had sharp glass. lol


----------



## musubi1000

Hey B





bigshot said:


> A good way to learn is to question and find out for yourself, not just take someone's word for it. I studied to become a photographer in college, but I ended up in the film business The one thing I've learned in my 40 years of amateur photography is that the quality of a photographer is not determined by the price of the camera hanging around his neck. When someone tries to convince me that they know what they're talking about because they happen to have (rented) a very expensive camera, I'm not surprised when they're afraid to show their work.
> 
> Here are a couple of my photos. These were particular shots were taken with the camera in my iPhone.


Hey Bigshot. I can tell by everything you've been saying that you shoot from experience and first hand knowledge. I hate reading digital photography forums because of all the hacks that "think" they've learned whats important about photography. But it all comes down to whos driving the car. the camera and lenses today exhibit a degree of optical quality we rarely saw back in the film days. more than enough for just about anyone. except that photography for some is about the performance of the gear and not how it applies to what is was originally designed for. taking pictures. there is no true perfect anything. what may work for one may not work for another. ie shooting a wedding with primes. I can do it. I'd want 3 bodies but life would be so much easier with zooms. I actually feel the people who are overly concerned with " Bokeh, Cromatic Abberation,MTF ect ect will have bigger heavier gear and lighter wallets. In my humble opinion its all about what you can do with the image. the equipment is secondary. I'd rather have a very experienced photographer shoot my wedding with average gear than a noob with the best digital camera and lenses money can buy.


----------



## bigshot

Thanks for checking in, Musubi1000.


----------



## hyogen

seeing how great the sigma 35mm 1.4 is, it makes me want to sell my 50mm and forgo getting an ultrawide.  Stitching several shots into one image is pretty simple enough using software.  When I was looking at my engagement shooters RAW files, i was very surprised he was using mostly 35mm and 50mm.  Very rarely he used the 24mm and 135mm.  I will probably not get the Sigma 35 yet since it's still quite expensive.. I'll wait a couple years until it inevitably drops by a couple hundred or more dollars.
   
  Anyway, I guess I have just one more question of advice:  Would a manual focus 14mm f/2.8 lens be usable at a wedding?  I was first under the impression that it'd be hard to get anything OUT of focus, but I could be wrong.
   


   

  full size here:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyogen82/8455416534/  I actually stitched a few shots in JPEG mode and then processed it... I probably should have processed the RAW file first. 
   
  A few I took with the 50mm 1.8D.  I recently upgraded to the G version for the faster AF and circular bokeh highlights   Loving the D600


----------



## bigshot

A 14mm lens would not be particularly flattering for people shots, although it would make the church look nice.
   
  Edit: I forgot to mention why... distortion.


----------



## shigzeo

bigshot won this thread. I'm out. Have a nice photography life!


----------



## musubi1000

mattimis said:


> haha its not worth beating a dead horse anymore.
> The facts are out there for those who strive to improve in every way possible, and just like with most things you get what you pay for.
> 
> A magni will never out preform  a mjolnir if you get what im saying.
> ...


Hey Mattimis can you show us a pic of your H5 and set up in your studio?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Haven't been by in a while, but it's nice to see the flames still burn with passion on this thread.
   
  Here's a few recent shots from my D800:


----------



## Redcarmoose

"Flying Home"
   
   
   
   
   
  NIKKOR*ED   300mm 1:4.5 Serial # 226203
  I also own Serial # 229493


----------



## bigshot

Great work! Especially the second one


----------



## Redcarmoose

Tanganan Village Princess 
   
NIKKOR*ED   300mm 1:4.5 Serial # 226203


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





iron_dreamer said:


> Haven't been by in a while, but it's nice to see the flames still burn with passion on this thread.
> 
> Here's a few recent shots from my D800:


 
  Those are great shots and I enjoyed your website. Very talented


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> Tanganan Village Princess
> 
> NIKKOR*ED   300mm 1:4.5 Serial # 226203


 
  Excellent shot great detail.


----------



## Szadzik

Finally.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Quote: 





iron_dreamer said:


> Haven't been by in a while, but it's nice to see the flames still burn with passion on this thread.
> 
> Here's a few recent shots from my D800:


 
  Beautiful!  Mind if I ask how you got those shots or any tips?  In AZ we have a lot of views like this but I'm never in the right places at the right times.


----------



## Frank I

I am curious what lens and f stop were used. Did you shoot manual? What were the settings? Some pro like Tony Sweet shoots Aperture Priority.  I shoot most of my sports events like track and Field on AP at the lowest setting with an iso of 1000 to give me the higher shutter speeds and its working out well for me. landscape I use all manual settings and msot of my shots are with my 10-24MM lens.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

I keep getting told to only use M but I really see the value of Aperture and Shutter priority; feel like those who say to only shoot M are M mode elitists


----------



## Frank I

My courses classes were all with manual training but I met a great photographer at a track meet and picked his brain and he showed me quite a bit and learned more than I did in the detailed classes from him shooting. I also learned  from leeshure by taking trips to his studio and Lee also shoots AP for sports. He is a professional also and does all the Schiit product shoots and has done Red Wine and others so Lee is very accessible for me. I also learn looking at flickr shots and see what settings were used on the shots. Jamato also has some outstanding pictures and his advice was to shott lots of shots and keep shooting . it all takes time and watching Youtube  also helps me.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> I keep getting told to only use M but I really see the value of Aperture and Shutter priority; feel like those who say to only shoot M are M mode elitists


 
   
  I've never understood why people buy 21st century cameras and use them as if they were back in the 1960s.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Seems there are those who say shoot a lot, shoot everything.  Versus those who say shoot when you get the shot setup right and the lighting, everything else is a waste.
   
  I admit I try my best to stay in M mode as much as possible but I dislike having to fiddle with Aperture and Shutter speed in M mode when shooting candidly aka when you don't want to be caught with your pants down.  I do like auto-ISO a lot actually, manually setting the ISO seems best when the shots are more important but auto ISO also helps me to dial in the sweet spot of exposure ie when auto iso is as low as possible.  I'm probably doing it all wrong!


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> Seems there are those who say shoot a lot, shoot everything.  Versus those who say shoot when you get the shot setup right and the lighting, everything else is a waste.
> 
> I admit I try my best to stay in M mode as much as possible but I dislike having to fiddle with Aperture and Shutter speed in M mode when shooting candidly aka when you don't want to be caught with your pants down.  I do like auto-ISO a lot actually, manually setting the ISO seems best when the shots are more important but auto ISO also helps me to dial in the sweet spot of exposure ie when auto iso is as low as possible.  I'm probably doing it all wrong!


 
  I use the lowest iso setting and use auto iso for most of my shooting but when I shoot indoor track meets If I shoot AP which I do I have to set the min to 1000 to get the fast shutter speeds. This works well for me and I get good exposure. If I shoot landscape or walk around shots I set my ISO outdoors rot 100 and shoot manual.  I had good success with those type of shots. I use the auto iso feature on the d7000 as well as auto white balance.  I think for me I have only been at it for less than a year and still getting to know my camera and what I can and cannot do.  So far I have my track meets down pat now and when the weather starts warming a bit I will get down to the NJ shore and start shooting landscape again. Usually at a track meet I shoot 500 pictures.  I need to start doing the same for landscape shots. Next meet I am going to use a monopod with the 55-300MM lens for the NCAA Eastern States Championship race in Boston on 3/2. There will be two Olympian hopefuls in the womens 5K. I  have shot from the 15:44 the Providence Junior ran at the the BU Invitational three weeks ago.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> Beautiful!  Mind if I ask how you got those shots or any tips?  In AZ we have a lot of views like this but I'm never in the right places at the right times.


 
   
  The Horseshoe Bend shot was just minutes after sunrise.  Often shooting just before/after sunrise/sunset can be the key to getting a shot with beautiful light that doesn't look the same during the rest of the day.  Now granted, the other shots in that post weren't taken during the so-called "golden hours," but I was able to find pleasant lighting nonethless.  The two B&W photos were a question of finding interesting details in shadowed areas, receiving soft, diffuse light reflected off other rock formations.   Time of day, time of year, and weather conditions all play a large role in getting good light for outdoor scenes.  Sometimes you work with what you've got, but other times, it's best to just turn back, knowing that you wouldn't get the shot, because the light isn't right.
  Quote: 





frank i said:


> I am curious what lens and f stop were used. Did you shoot manual? What were the settings? Some pro like Tony Sweet shoots Aperture Priority.  I shoot most of my sports events like track and Field on AP at the lowest setting with an iso of 1000 to give me the higher shutter speeds and its working out well for me. landscape I use all manual settings and msot of my shots are with my 10-24MM lens.


 
   
  Three of the four were shot using the Nikon 14-24/2.8, the other the 24-120/4, I use f/5.6-f/8 the most for these kinds of shots on the D800, depending on the focal length, lens' max. aperture, and DOF requirements for the scene.  F/5.6 is better if it can be used, as diffraction starts to rob a small bit of acuity at f/8 on the D800.  What a change from the D700, where f/11 was where diffraction started to be slightly noticeable.
   
  I'm a manual mode shooter these days, as I have a good grasp of the lighting and what I'd like to do with it, so I find it easier to just dial in what I want, rather than tango with an automatic mode on the camera to get what I want.  Also, I enjoy that when I recompose, my exposure doesn't change, unless I change it.  ISO at base for this type of shooting, use a tripod, and let the shutter speed fall where it may.  Of course, astrophotography scenes, and those involving moving water or leaves are a whole different ball o' wax.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Wow I didn't realize that the body has such a big effect on when diffraction sets in.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Yeah, it does. it's a matter of megapixels per sensor size.  Check out the calculator about halfway down the following link.  Diffraction starts to become visible in the image before the sensor is completely diffraction-limited.  Usually the diffraction-limited aperture is still useful (but softer), and the next aperture stop is quite soft.  As such, I used f/16 when I had to on the D700, but avoided f/22 : http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm


----------



## Frank I

What the best advice you can give to someone starting in the hobby? I am still learning  and need to ramp up some more. I have been to classes and now I read extensively and thanks for that site its pretty interesting and a good resource.


----------



## jude

I was playing with photographing the Woo Audio WA7 Fireflies, as the thick glass top is an interesting challenge to shoot (challenging for my novice skills anyway).
   
  I shot this one using long exposure (five seconds) to capture the glow of the "fireflies," and used the modeling lights on two monolights for the light (set at or near their lowest settings). One of the lights was gridded for the spot, and the other was softboxed front-left (with a reflector at right to light the right side of the WA7).
   
  The color is still too warm (the modeling lights have a warmer cast than the actual flashes), but there's nobody else in the building right now to help me get it right. (I have some color blindness, and I'm apt to go too far in the other direction without someone else to say "stop.")
   
  It's framed this way to accommodate some text in the dark area.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





jude said:


> I was playing with photographing the Woo Audio WA7 Fireflies, as the thick glass top is an interesting challenge to shoot (challenging for my novice skills anyway).
> 
> I shot this one using long exposure (five seconds) to capture the glow of the "fireflies," and used the modeling lights on two monolights for the light (set at or near their lowest settings). One of the lights was gridded for the spot, and the other was softboxed front-left (with a reflector at right to light the right side of the WA7).
> 
> ...


 
  Nice shot. i will experiment when the Taboo MK111 get here that I will be reviewing int he next couple of weeks. I may ask Leesure to help me with the pictures as I am still a novice too.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> Seems there are those who say shoot a lot, shoot everything.  Versus those who say shoot when you get the shot setup right and the lighting, everything else is a waste.


 
   
  Different types of photography require different approaches. Everyone shoots different. I do mostly street photography and informal shots of people. This means I have to keep out of the way and grab moments quickly when they pop up. I don't shoot a lot of photos because I don't want to call attention to the fact that I am photographing. My camera stays hidden in a bag turned on with no lens cap until I see what I want. Then I quickly take it out, compose and shoot as fast as I can. I keep a lot of things automated because I am MUCH more interested in the creative aspects of composition and capturing personality than I am worrying about apertures and white balances. I may only shoot a dozen shots in an outing, but most of them end up being good. I learned back in the film days to be frugal with film and generous with creativity.


----------



## Frank I

When you shoot a track meet there are many events and races. I also shoot continuos so there are many shots. i then sort through the best shots for the portfolio I am creating for my daughters track meets. Because the events and the races are fast It could end up being many shots. When I go out for landscapes I shoot way less pictures . I may spend three hours shooting different landscapes and have many less shots as I am also using a tripod and setting up the shots more than when I shoot the Track meets. My daughter 5K races sometimes i shoot 50-60 pictures in a 5K race less for just the 3K she runs for cross count 6K I am all over the course and can take 100 shots in a race. There is not time to set up the shots at track meets its very fast paced and there is not much room to set yup anything more than a monopod.
  Quote: 





mr.sneis said:


> Seems there are those who say shoot a lot, shoot everything.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





frank i said:


> What the best advice you can give to someone starting in the hobby? I am still learning  and need to ramp up some more. I have been to classes and now I read extensively and thanks for that site its pretty interesting and a good resource.


 
   
  what is your budget?      What do you currently have?


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> what is your budget?      What do you currently have?


 
  not for my gear I hav eall my stuff listed. i want the pros to give advice on the best way to shoot not gear. I am fine with my gear


----------



## bigshot

My best advice is to read books written for painters and artists on how to create images. Photography books on this subject are often way to basic. Here is a good example of the sort of thing I mean...
   
  Composition: How To Make Pictures
  http://animationresources.org/?p=2033
   
  Art is art. Study from artists, not just photographers.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I've never understood why people buy 21st century cameras and use them as if they were back in the 1960s.


 
   
  I bugs me to no end when someone says "shoot only in M mode!" as an answer to the question "I just got a new DSLR, can I have some tips?"
   
  The person who is asking for tips isn't likely to be advanced enough to have the experience to be able to estimate exposure so he/she is just going to spin the dials until the camera tells them exposure is correct or get into the habit of chimping every shot to check the histogram and neither of these is a good practice.
   
  I'd much rather see someone shoot in Av (yes, I'm a Canon shooter) and learn to dial in exposure compensation.  At lease their starting point will be in the right ballpark.  With my current body, I can dial in 3-stops of EC very easily and another 2-stops by counting clicks.  Unless I'm shooting silhouettes against a sunset, chances are 5-stops is plenty.
   
  As above, why would I buy a $1K+ camera with matrix metering and not use it?  And before someone jumps on me, yes, I know how to shoot manually.  I still keep fresh batteries in my light meters and I still venture out with an M4 from time to time.
   
  Shooting with flashes/strobes, though, that's a different deal.  M mode all the way!


----------



## Redcarmoose

I taught myself how to take pictures 35 years ago when I was 15. Most folks, I feel can learn the basics out of a book. When I went to photography school I leaned more. The most fun though, I think was first learning to take photographs. Amazingly my father let me borrow a camera( a Nikromat) and paid for Tri-X Pan developing and printing.


----------



## Frank I

I learned  from my photography classes this fall quite a bit an dI learn more form the pro's I have been associated with. leesure does all the schist photo shoots and woo website is Lee work and he has a studio about a hour form me so Lee shown me quite a bit. i also learned from a professional who has a daughter on my daughter track team. The photos Iron dreamer ran and your pictures  posted were the best I seen posted here. Iron share t he setting and lens he used. I still shoot DX  and I look at lot of photos and see what setting they used to compose hose great shots so i can learn more. I am comfortable shooting manual for landscape and work with a tripod and work the expose. I usually shoot AP for my track shots which has worked well for me.  It been trial and error but I am getting better and really cant wait for the spring weather rot get outdoors more often to shoot down the shore. I wan to also get ot the areas in NJ hit hard by the hurricane and see what was done and shoot some of that.


----------



## hyogen

Good to see you in here, leftnose! 
   
  I mainly shoot in manual now, since I'm trying to get better with flash/off-camera flash.  Also, for non-flash shots I try to use manual.  Since I do quite a bit of processing in Lightroom (and enjoy it), I find it easier to batch edit my photos with the same exposure for most every shot.  I'm also practicing for when I'll be faced with odd lighting situations for shoots I have scheduled this year..!  A couple baby, a few engagement, and possibly 2 weddings so far.  I am stoked, but trying to improve as much as I can so my customers can get their money's worth.  I want to build a REALLY strong portfolio this year.  This is what I have mostly from my old Rebel and I'm working on a new site.  Feel free to critique and tell me which ones of these I should toss out (it's hard for me to toss photos because of the emotional attachment leftnose has talked about before)      http://hyofoto.smugmug.com I'm hoping to blow most of these out of the water and not have to include any of these in my new website portfolio.
   
  My apologies for the cats overload


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> Hey Mattimis can you show us a pic of your H5 and set up in your studio?


 
  Been crazy busy with work lately, ill get you some set shots from that if you'd like


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> Good to see you in here, leftnose!
> 
> I mainly shoot in manual now, since I'm trying to get better with flash/off-camera flash.  Also, for non-flash shots I try to use manual.  Since I do quite a bit of processing in Lightroom (and enjoy it), I find it easier to batch edit my photos with the same exposure for most every shot.  I'm also practicing for when I'll be faced with odd lighting situations for shoots I have scheduled this year..!  A couple baby, a few engagement, and possibly 2 weddings so far.  I am stoked, but trying to improve as much as I can so my customers can get their money's worth.  I want to build a REALLY strong portfolio this year.  This is what I have mostly from my old Rebel and I'm working on a new site.  Feel free to critique and tell me which ones of these I should toss out (it's hard for me to toss photos because of the emotional attachment leftnose has talked about before)      http://hyofoto.smugmug.com I'm hoping to blow most of these out of the water and not have to include any of these in my new website portfolio.
> 
> My apologies for the cats overload


 
  OMG KITTIES <3, love the seattle shots too, I was just up there to shoot. such a beautiful city.


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> A good way to learn is to question and find out for yourself, not just take someone's word for it. I studied to become a photographer in college, but I ended up in the film business The one thing I've learned in my 40 years of amateur photography is that the quality of a photographer is not determined by the price of the camera hanging around his neck. When someone tries to convince me that they know what they're talking about because they happen to have (rented) a very expensive camera, I'm not surprised when they're afraid to show their work.
> 
> Here are a couple of my photos. These were particular shots were taken with the camera in my iPhone.


 
  Gotta watch those backgrounds!
  thats a bigol fishy! seems to be making the building cave in!


----------



## Mattimis

Everyone learn good photoshop techniques! I make more money lately fixing peoples work than anything else.
  I just fixed about 50 engagement pictures for 600$ dollars
   
  This is what 5 minutes of photoshop can do. (not my image)


----------



## Mattimis

Also make sure you are correcting convergence when shooting architecture. I shot a picture at work yesterday just to show how it can really mess up an image.
   
  Not Fixed
   

  Fixed
   

   
   
  No one wants to see a house collapsing in on itself.


----------



## Mattimis

Ooo also please put meta data on any images you upload online!
   
  A good friend of mine works in the magazine business, and he is always bitching about finding cool images that work well for a story they are running but the image has no metadata and no contact information! He says 9/10 images have no contact info and so he cant find the artist to pay them in order to use the image. Free money


----------



## Mattimis

Gosh so much to respond to! Manual or AV are really all I hear people using. Av for outdoors where the light is changing constantly and the moment is whats important not the light (basically only sports) M mode runs the show other than that.
   
  Here is a cool tip, if you're shooting outside in open daylight (aka not cloudy) 
  BDE (basic daylight exposure) is always 1/iso at f/16
  So if you are shooting with iso 200, accurate exposure for daylight is 1/200th @f/16
  knowing this helps so so much when you dont trust your cameras lcd or meter because you can bracket from there easily!
   
  so say you want to use this but shoot at f/2.8. Simply bracket your shutter speed  F/16 to F/2.8 is 5 stops of light meaning the lens is allowing 32xmore light in! so compensate with your shutter making it 1/6400s! MAGIC light meters in cameras continue to use reflected light and thus are BAD when not shooting neutral shots. Things with mostly white will underexposure while things with mostly black will over exposure.
   
  Btw pros laugh inside at people checking for exposure on their cameras lcd.. we call it chimping ,because you look like a monkey looking at the camera. (watch someone next time they do this, Hilarious!)


----------



## Mattimis

OOO I have a fun test for everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
   
  Tell me what time of day this image was taken (guess)
   

   
  Have fun! free lessons follow haha


----------



## Mattimis

oh also upon request I can show everyone how to make archival mounted prints!
  This means the image is mounted like in a museum. (designed to keep the image from degrading)
  it also looks great and its amazingly cheap if you want to make an image look professional as a gift or simply to hang.
   
  I'd say (asside from the paper) making a drop mount frame for an image thats about 11x17 or so would only cost you 2.50$ and it looks beautiful.
   
  Really helpful if you like to hang work but like to change it constantly


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





mattimis said:


> Everyone learn good photoshop techniques! I make more money lately fixing peoples work than anything else.
> I just fixed about 50 engagement pictures for 600$ dollars
> 
> This is what 5 minutes of photoshop can do. (not my image)


 
   
  OMG...how do you market yourself for this?  Time absolutely FLIES when I am in photoshop or lightroom because I enjoy it so much......I can't sit still and read textbooks, but I can do this for hours upon hours while robbing myself of sleep.  I tend to use Lightroom way more since my computer lags more with photoshop.  I also have way more to learn about PS.  Sounds like the perfect side-job for me...  Here's an example of a photo I spent quite a bit of time on taking away like 10 years of age from this couple's face. I especially like the look of the black and white version.  The added catch-lights in the eyes might have been a little excessively done   
   
  So the photographer who took those pictures for the couple paid you $600 because that was more cost-time effective for him? 
   


   
  Before (Straight from camera)


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> OMG...how do you market yourself for this?  Time absolutely FLIES when I am in photoshop or lightroom because I enjoy it so much......I can't sit still and read textbooks, but I can do this for hours upon hours while robbing myself of sleep.  I tend to use Lightroom way more since my computer lags more with photoshop.  I also have way more to learn about PS.  Sounds like the perfect side-job for me...  Here's an example of a photo I spent quite a bit of time on taking away like 10 years of age from this couple's face. I especially like the look of the black and white version.  The added catch-lights in the eyes might have been a little excessively done
> 
> So the photographer who took those pictures for the couple paid you $600 because that was more cost-time effective for him?
> 
> ...


 
  It really depends. Most of my marketing is word of mouth because generally I dont advertise myself as a retouch.
  As for photographers paying for retouching I get 3 types of client.
  1. Make enough profit and have enough business that they dont want to bother learning to retouch. (very rare)
  2. Have no idea how to true perfect an image and would rather not have doo doo images
  3. Photographers that want portfolio images perfected beyond their knowledge.
   
  As for pricing it really depends on your relationship and the work that needs to be done, those particular images were for an engagement photoshop and the reason it was 600 is because it was such a large number of files (46) if I remember right. After speaking with her she really wanted them as nice as she could afford which ended up being about 14 dollars an image (which isnt a bad price for something from a professional) I hear allot of so so retouchers I know charging 70 dollars an hour and they are terribly slow so it would be nearly an hour an image to get the same results.
   
  That being said I had photographer hire me for some work he got in vogue last month and to my knowledge he wasnt even being paid for the images he just wanted to make sure they were perfect since its more for his personal advertising than anything, but for the 3 images I spent about 15 hours total, and these are images with proper color and exposure (just to give an idea of how long it truly takes to retouch an image to be high caliber.)
   
  I wish I had better advice for marketing yourself, but it was never something I advertised. Before I got my mfa I got my bs in computer engineering so when I started my bfa I already had a better grasp on computers than most of the other students and thus learned ps much quicker, and once people noticed the phone started ringing. When you help someone out and they love it, they tell their friends .


----------



## hyogen

Wow 5 hours for one of those properly exposed/color pics??? I'm guessing you do stuff like airbrushing or digital makeup...etc. I'd definitely like to see one of your before and afters. 

On the previous page, I added a before picture for the images I retouched in PS and LR4. Feedback would be great! I realize the white balance for the colored retouch isn't correct, but I liked the peachy tones.


----------



## bigshot

Uh... OK. I'll take your word for it.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote: 





mattimis said:


> OOO I have a fun test for everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Tell me what time of day this image was taken (guess)
> 
> ...


 
  11:00 am


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> Good to see you in here, leftnose!


 
   
  I lurk here just to see what's going on with "the dark side!"


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> 11:00 am


 
  So glad to see someone actually saw my post! I will hold out until tonight to see if anyone else wants to take a shot at it.


----------



## Frank I

High Noon 12:OO


----------



## Mattimis

haha dont think anyone else wants to guess, the image was taken at about midnight. I was showing a friend of mine how to create his very own window light.
  This may seem silly but honestly its incredibly helpful when you want to shoot something that involves a window because you can create any time of day you want and it will stay that way!
  I would never shoot a product and rely on the actual sun unless I absolutely had to, because its much less controland you cant do multiple setups 
   
  -Matt


----------



## Mattimis

I circled the window in the picture 
  dont mind the quality, I just yanked out my phone to take a quick set shot.


----------



## hyogen

haha, nice deception


----------



## Szadzik

So I see you guys have not paid much attention to the new kid on the block. Since I have had my D90 for over 4 years now and was itching to upgrade to get even better high ISO performance and faster continuous shooting mode as well as a few other things, I pulled the trigger and pre-ordered a D7100. I hope to get it when I get back from leave on April 5th. I also added a Nikon 35mm f1.8 just for kicks as I have not hada prime in ages.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





szadzik said:


> So I see you guys have not paid much attention to the new kid on the block. Since I have had my D90 for over 4 years now and was itching to upgrade to get even better high ISO performance and faster continuous shooting mode as well as a few other things, I pulled the trigger and pre-ordered a D7100. I hope to get it when I get back from leave on April 5th. I also added a Nikon 35mm f1.8 just for kicks as I have not hada prime in ages.


 
  The 35MM prime is excellent and takes fantastic pictures. The new 7100 looks exciting. my intention is to learn the D7000 real well and then go full frame at some point


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





frank i said:


> The 35MM prime is excellent and takes fantastic pictures. The new 7100 looks exciting. my intention is to learn the D7000 real well and then go full frame at some point


 
   
  Before deciding to buy D7100 i did think about FX and D600. Looking at a lot of the low-end features of it I was not happy with it enough. It does output great image quality, but things like AF at f8, 51 point AF, continuous shooting mode speed, flash sync speeds discouraged me from getting it. Not to mention the fact that I would have to replace 2 out of 3 of my lenses and that I see no real reason right now to go FX as a hobbyist photographer.


----------



## bigshot

The main advantage of FX is a larger viewfinder, which is good if you plan to use manual focus lenses. But I don't know why someone would spend that much on a camera body and not take advantage of its autofocus ability. Some people enjoy it though.


----------



## Mattimis

Well FX is a lens designed for a full frame body and has nothing to do with the view finder 
  If you plan on switching to full frame cameras eventually get FX lens so that way when you switch you dont have to replace all your glass as well.
   
  While using a DX lens is possible on a FX camera you are degrading every image essential down to the crop factor of DX.
  As you can see below this is a 10.5mm dx on a fx camera, Almost all nikon cameras will automatically crop out the black so you wont see it, but you still loose those pixels

    
  Honestly DX lenses are only designed to get you wider angles on DX sensors because  they dont need to cover as large of an imaging surface.
  Remember when using a crop sensor you are forced to apply the crop factor to the lens focal lenth to determine the actual focal lenth because all lens focal lengths are based on 35mm
*Example: *50mm lens on a 35mm camera is 50mm // 50mm lens on a 1.3x camera is 65mm  // 50mm lens on a 1.5x camera is 75mm  // 50mm lens on a 1.6x camera is 80mm
  So making a 10.5mm dx allows you to get the equivalent of 15.75mm on a full frame camera on a 1.5x sensor camera.
   
  Make sure you know before you buy!


----------



## bigshot

Pixels aren't the issue any more. Most current cameras, even DX, have more than enough pixels to print an image four to five feet across. Functionally in terms of where the rubber meets the road, the biggest difference between FX and DX is that FX has a bigger, brighter viewfinder.
   
  There is an advantage of DX in longer reach because of the crop factor. A 300mm lens on DX will reach farther than the same focal length on FX, which can be important for folks who shoot birds in flight. But there are lenses for both formats that do what one might need... they're just significantly more expensive for FX.
   
  For most amateur photographers, getting a DX camera allows them to afford a wider array of lenses, which has MUCH more of a positive impact on their photography than any theoretical spec advantage that FX might have.


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Pixels aren't the issue any more. Most current cameras, even DX, have more than enough pixels to print an image four to five feet across. Functionally in terms of where the rubber meets the road, the biggest difference between FX and DX is that FX has a bigger, brighter viewfinder.
> 
> There is an advantage of DX in longer reach because of the crop factor. A 300mm lens on DX will reach farther than the same focal length on FX, which can be important for folks who shoot birds in flight. But there are lenses for both formats that do what one might need... they're just significantly more expensive for FX.
> 
> For most amateur photographers, getting a DX camera allows them to afford a wider array of lenses, which has MUCH more of a positive impact on their photography than any theoretical spec advantage that FX might have.


 
  completely miss guided.
   
  A viewfinder if generated based off of the mirror and prism which matches the size of the sensor meaning having a bigger view finder would not give an accurate representation of the image.. which is why it wont change in size and if it does thats a crappy camera. 
   
  Also the brightness of a view finder is dictate by the speed of the lens (aka widest F stop) and the camera not the fx vs dx
   
  The only time the size of the view finder or brightness would actually change is when you are using an improper lens like a dx on a fx body and then switch to a compatible fx lens, and that is simply because like I said dx is not designed for FX and thus crops off part of the image.
   
  As for debating pixels I will just say you're being very obtuse and you should keep your silly opinions to yourself.
   
  Loosing half of your image quality because you are using incompatible gear is very foolish, not only that but with a proper lens you can potentially get a wider angle with less distortion, aswell as having a larger viewfinder because the lens can actually illuminate the entire plane.


----------



## Mattimis

Not only that but Fx lenses give a better dof at the same view angle. Shooting at f2.8 on a full frame and then shooting f/2.8 on a DX with the same angle of view the FX will be shallower.


----------



## Mattimis

The great thing about image science is that it is true whether you believe in it or not.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





mattimis said:


> completely miss guided.
> 
> As for debating pixels I will just say you're being very obtuse and you should keep your silly opinions to yourself.


 
   
  Spelling counts, kid.


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Spelling counts, kid.


 
  yes, and that is spelled correctly.
  Maybe you should debate how the dictionary is silly and words should be spelled your way too.
  it would make about as much sense as saying pixels dont matter haha


----------



## Mattimis

but thank you for basically admitting you were wrong and thus attempting to attack spelling. 
   
  I suppose grammar is next!
   
  All things that are much more important to photography than pixels... because as you have pointed out those dont matter at all haha


----------



## bigshot

I'm going to be honest here. You strike me as a college student who thinks he knows everything. That's fine. I was one of those once myself. But it's important to maintain a certain level of respect for the person you're talking with. You can strut around and act like a big man, but sometimes the respect you get yourself is the respect you give to others. Just a friendly suggestion.


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Spelling counts, kid.


 
  Just had to jump back in here. big shot, you and Mattimis basically run this forum, but before mattimis jumped in, you were elbowing your way around too much. If you just HAVE to be 'right' about pixels or anything else, you can do it nicely. Now you are reacting to someone who is obviously ticked off by your grandiose statements. If you feel that strongly about pixels, then feel strongly about it. There is no reason to argue someone into the ground. And spelling: you were wrong in that instance. But spelling - the pox on it. We all come from different countries. If you really looked at the English language, you'd find that much of it is incongruous. Americans use American grammar and spelling, obey American trends, and think like Americans. Ditto the Brits. Ditto the Canadians and the Aussies. But if you're going to take the approach of the pedant, make sure you are right.
   
  Now, go back to waving your penis around. I just hope yours is as big as Mattimis'.


----------



## bigshot

I always try to talk about the subject. I don't comment on the character of the people I'm talking with unless they step over the line first.
   
  I'm happy to talk about pixels. An 8 x 10 image at 200 dpi is 1600 x 2000 pixels. I've printed images that size and resolution on a nice digital photo printer and looking as closely as the human eye can see, they look perfect. Compared to the same image printed at 300dpi, there is no difference. 200 dpi is the recommended resolution for things being printed on 1200 dpi imagesetters for offset printing in magazines. How many megapixels is a 200 dpi 8 x 10? It's 2 megapixels...
   
  2 megapixels prints 8x10
  12 megapixels prints 14x22
  24 megapixels prints 30x20
   
  By the time you get up over 10 megapixels, you're well into the range of overkill for printing at normal sizes. By the time you get to 24 megapixels, you're into overkill even for printing super large, because the viewing distance goes back as the size goes up. You could effectively print at 75 pixels per inch or less for a huge 7 x 5 foot image because you're not viewing it from six inches away from your face, you're standing 10 to 15 feet back.
   
  Digital photo printers even don't print wider than 30 inches without stitching multiple prints together. I have a mural in my house that I had printed off a roll fed digital printer. It's about 8 feet tall and over 14 feet wide in three spliced sections. The largest image size the company would print from was 75 dpi because larger locks up the printer and outputs too slow. You can stand with your nose right up to the mural and not see pixels. Sharp lines are crisp and clean with no stairstepping. I know this because I've done it.
   
  How many pixels is enough for you? When was the last time you printed larger than 11x14? How many is enough for the average amateur photographer that reads these forums?


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





> ake the approach of the pedant, make sure you are right.
> 
> Now, go back to waving your penis around. I just hope yours is as big as Mattimis'.


 
  LMAO Too funny


----------



## shigzeo

Bigshot, like I said, I've never printed larger than A2 with a 10 megapixel camera, the D200. It looks okay, but I had to shoot at 800 ISO at f/2,5 because Sweden is dark in the winter and I didn't have a tripod. I don't know inches very well, so I had to look up 14*22. A2 can be found here. It is 23*16 inches. It might be easier to mention paper size in an international forum as paper size is standardised across the world. I know that in north America, there is a tendency to say things by inches, but overall, that is an anomaly. 
   
  But it doesn't matter that a print can look good at 200 dpi at 10 megapixels or whatever dpi it is for A2. What matters in my case is if the magazine will BUY the image. In my case, they want a minimum of 15 megapixels. I don't argue. For web viewing, who cares? For personal prints, who cares? Sharpness is never ever something I gun for in personal images, and even if it was, I'd be happy with the results I got at 10 megapixels on A2. I'd go larger. But to pretend that more isn't better, or in some cases, even necessary, is ingenuous. Personal vendettas are one thing, professional dictates are another. I only really work for magazines and for the odd manufacturer or jewellery designer. I never have to give higher than 15 megapixels. But if I was asked for more, I'd not argue with the magazine that they could print just as well at x megapixels. No, I'd give them what they want.
   
  I don't know if Mattimis really shoots professionally, and honestly, I don't care. He could - and probably does - represent another aspect of 'average' reader of these forums, who not only are gear heads, but also manufacturers, and professionals in many areas. He seems to disagree with you. I agree with you - when shooting for myself. But that isn't to say that I'd not be happier with more megapixels. Telling someone to be happy with a 6 megapixel camera when what they really want and have the dosh for is a better camera, is strange, especially here at Headfi, where constantly we are spending more money on earphones and amps and cables. I use a D800, which despite horrible ergonomics compared to the already crappy D200, is better in every other single way: much better light performance, easier to focus, better battery life, live view, etc. and so on. If all I were concerned with was iso 100 shooting and tripods and shooting on post cards or stamps, the D200 would get away with being my last camera (until it breaks, and Nikon's cameras get worse every year). But, technology moves on. The D800 is not a camera I like at all, but its imaging is second to no other 35mm camera at the moment. Amazing. And no, I don't use it for fun. It is only for work and will likely remain that, as there is nothing fun or convenient about it. 
   
  Fun for me is something light, with a great viewfinder, something that has external controls that don't necessitate the camera to be 'on' in order to suss. The likes of a Nikon FE or better yet, FM3. Those days are gone, though. Now, we have cameras that get bigger every generation, with worse ergonomics, poor viewfinders, and poor manual focus screens. It's the way of the world as dictated by Japanese camera makers.


----------



## bigshot

The magazine asks for larger than it needs so it has room to crop or use it as a two page spread. Your 15 megapixels (4752 x 3168) is enough to more than cover a two page spread at 200 dpi. When they actually go to print it on film using an imagesetter, it's 200 dpi image / 1200 dpi dot screen. Text is usually bitmap at 1200 dpi. I believe that imagesetters can go to 2400 dpi, but that is VERY costly because it makes the output time much longer and requires bromide paper. I've done work for output. The figures I'm giving you are pretty standard, at least they were about six or seven years ago when I last did prepress preparation. As for super large format printing, the figures I gave you were standard as of about three years ago when I made the mural in my living room.


----------



## shigzeo

So, are you completely happy with your 1970 Audio Technica headphones? 
   
  There is no point being RIGHT here, bigshot. Just be reasonable. Manufacturers are supplying cameras with great performance at insane ISO settings for good prices. You can Rockwell around as much as you want, but that won't change the fact that the technology exists and is good. If you want to argue that everyone should carry around a point and shoot, go ahead. PAS cameras are fully automatic in every way, go up to 12 megapixels (way more than you or anyone will ever need) and often don't have that stupid and unnecessary function: RAW. 
   
  I wonder if you are as objective about headphones/amps/cables.
   
  The problem with bromide is that it doesn't spread well across life. We laugh at Bose users here, but ride Trek bicycles, or drink Heineken beer, or drive Toyota cars. There is NO way to satisfy the holier-than-thou in every niche. Shoot and enjoy. If you just happen to have a camera or lens or headphone or car that is too good for you because you'll never drive it well or wear it well or shoot it well or print it well or hear it well, then so be it. But don't destroy someone else's enjoyment of the hobby in order to be right. 
   
  By the way: what steamer do you use for your veggies?


----------



## bigshot

I don't understand your point. It's flying off in different directions.
   
  A good modern pocket camera is easier to use and is capable of capturing images that are just as good as with my old Nikon F2. Lenses are better, low light capability is better, noise is better, color is better. Technology has advanced to the point where even cheap is good. If you can't make a great image with an iPhone or Canon Elph, you never would have been able to back in the film days! That's a fact.
   
  At some point, the specs and technical measurements dissolve away and photography becomes more about composition, lighting and color than it does ISO, focus points and megapixels. But some photographers never get past shooting focus tests of their feet or boxes of cereal on their kitchen table to see if they have a minute "back focus issue". It's perfectly fine to be a gear head and not shoot a single image aside from brick walls and resolution charts. But if you're all about numbers on a page, you really aren't the best one to tell folks how to make great pictures to hang on their walls and share with friends.


----------



## Frank I

spoken like a true ken rockwell groupie


----------



## shigzeo

Well, the most numbers I've seen in this thread has been from your posts. I've never shot a resolution chart and don't intend to. I also have never used the AF on my D800 and haven't on the D200 since about 2010. I may well have a camera that suffers back or front focus. I don't know. But if my camera did focus incorrectly and I used AF, I'd be upset. You should get what you pay for. If Nikon put an AF engine in their cameras, it had better work. If it doesn't, it is faulty, no matter what the camera is being used for. If your fork flopped down every time food was loaded onto it, what use would it be in anchoring an uncut steak for cutting? Everything has a purpose. If for the majority of users, good/perfect AF is the main purpose of a camera, it had better well perform to that purpose. 
   
  If the purpose is to make sharp lenses, the lenses better be sharp. Though, lens sharpness doesn't yet matter: every prime aside from the 85/1,8K is sharp as a tack on every camera I've used. The lenses Nikon put out in the F2 age are amazing. I use several myself, Ai modded. They are super sharp, make amazing colours, but glow a bit here and there. They'll last far into the next hundred years. There's a limit to technology: when it becomes all electrons, it is cheapened. Current lenses lose symmetrical aperture shape when stopped down a bit, making sunstars a bit wild. They are also much much larger, heavier, and more prone to break than older lenses are. 
   
  I don't do numbers as I don't care about them - unless asked to make images to a specific size. But I do care that what I use works as advertised. I think that is the bar none clause for most users out there, professional or amateur. Probably, professionals demand (in some ways) less of their stuff as they don't have time to bother with slight inconsistencies. Of course, I'm speaking generally. The professionals in my field just shoot a job and get paid. Most of their work is done after the fact - unless it is something like 360 degree product photography - that is mostly done by hand, then automated later. 
   
  In some ways, you and I are arguing the same thing. It's just that I don't care what camera a person uses and if they think or know they need lots of megapixels or just a few. Whatever suits them. As long as they enjoy it. I'd not have a problem with your arguments if you took the high road and let people get the cheap or expensive camera they think they need. There's no need to police a camera forum telling people they only need this or only need that like you know what they 'need' or want or have the money for, or or or. You said it yourself: FX has better viewfinders. To a point, it does. The viewfinders are much smaller than any similar level film camera, but they are much brighter and larger than DX viewfinders (as Mattimis said) thanks to toting a larger mirror over a larger sensor. For me, that is enough to make a difference. The D200, be it 36 megapixels or 2 megapixels, has a poor viewfinder. Eventually, it would have driven me batty. 
   
  Both bodies are too large/heavy for my tastes. Ditto the D600. Ditto the D80. Ditto the D5000. But there isn't a digital option for 35mm photography that is as small or well made as the FE/FM series. Even the F/F2/F3 were smaller than the D7000 class camera. I think that needs are not taken into account by manufacturers any more. Rather, it's possibilities and production output that weighs hardest. Otherwise, why make so many PAS cameras when the market really is falling out? Note that neither Mattimis nor I have told you what we think you need but you have told us what you think we (at large) need (and in not very benevolent terms). If your prerogative is to be right or to be the best arguer, go ahead. It's your role. But please, don't try to preach right and wrong here. That no longer makes sense.


----------



## hyogen

while I agree that megapixels really don't matter up to a point, it's nice for cropping purposes.  I'd prefer if the D600 were only 12MP like the D700 was...the large file sizes is a pain to deal with when batch processing with my 3 year old computer... 
   
  Aside from that........I came from a "DX" format (Rebel) and had up to 6 lenses before I sold them........and realized after 2-3 years of shooting with a crop sensor that I was only happy with the color depth I could get at around ISO 100 or 200.. 
   
  I'm down to 2 lenses (one of them really old)....both are f/1.8 and a full frame D600...........I could not be happier.  
   
  With my Rebel, I had 2 f/1.4 lenses, an ultrawide, a fisheye, a zoom/macro, and a pancake..  While it was kinda fun to have all that versatility, I realized for my needs I only really needed 2-3 lenses. 
   
  Anyway, the full frame difference is incredible to me.  Like Ken Rockwell said in his comparison...he'd choose his crappiest lens + full frame over his most expensive lens + crop sensor.  I tend to agree


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> while I agree that megapixels really don't matter up to a point, it's nice for cropping purposes.  I'd prefer if the D600 were only 12MP like the D700 was...the large file sizes is a pain to deal with when batch processing with my 3 year old computer...
> 
> Aside from that........I came from a "DX" format (Rebel) and had up to 6 lenses before I sold them........and realized after 2-3 years of shooting with a crop sensor that I was only happy with the color depth I could get at around ISO 100 or 200..
> 
> ...


 
  Rockwell opinons are like the wind. it depends which way it is blowing and I would take little of what he says with a grain of salt.  Last month he become a canon fan as that the way the winds blowing now. He is more concerned about how much money he can beg for. Some months he preaches to shoot all automatic or P settings some he shoots other ways. Get my drift


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> Anyway, the full frame difference is incredible to me.  Like Ken Rockwell said in his comparison...he'd choose his crappiest lens + full frame over his most expensive lens + crop sensor.  I tend to agree


 
   
  That it the most stupid generalization one could ever think of. Try taking a crappy lens with BF/ FF and other optical issues and shoot great photos with it as compared to something like Nikon 200 VR II on a DX like D7000 or better and conclusions can be drawn then.


----------



## hyogen

Thanks for the heads-up.. i don't take what he says as definitive truth and I'll take what anyone says with a grain of salt.  A lot of the stuff I've read by him has seemed quite practical.  The full frame difference is like night and day, though.  Anyone who says otherwise is on a high horse...or high


----------



## hyogen

I had just gotten my camera and first lens and severely underexposed these - turned out okay after some editing


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





frank i said:


> spoken like a true ken rockwell groupie


 
   
  No, it's spoken like someone who has his roots in film, not digital.
   
  Anyone who has been doing this since film, remembers the horrid results of pushing Neopan 1600 to 3200 to try to shoot indoor sports and that was as good as it got.  They might also remember having to shoot ISO 25 film to be able to keep grain smaller than poppy seeds when printing 35mm larger than 11x14. Any digital camera released in, say, the last 4 years is capable of producing results, especially at high-ISO, which are beyond just about anything possible with a 35mm camera.  To continue to fret about technical capabilities and count megapixels is missing the point.
   
  Don't get me wrong, I'm a big FF fan (mostly because I prefer wide angle perspective and I have more confidence in wide FF glass) and I own lots of "L" glass (again, I'm a Canon shooter).  I take the time to microfocus adjust my lenses but I only do this so that I have confidence that my gear will capture a scene correctly.  But none of this is really necessary to take a great photo.  I don't care if you use an iPhone, a 5D Classic, a D800 or a Phase, it's not the camera that makes a great photo.
   
  For example, one of these was taken with my 5D3 and one with my SGSII.
   


  I'm not claiming that either of these is a great pic, but they're two I had handy of the same subject under similar conditions.  And, at a glance, the easiest way to tell them apart is color balance and exposure  But the 5D3 image comes out of Lightroom where it was adjusted slightly.  The other is literally straight out of my phone.  I just uploaded it to an image host a few minutes ago.  It's a JPG, obviously, but it would still benefit from a few adjustments and could look much better.
   
  And yes, I know, these are just small web images but again, what are you really trying to do?  Do you want to take a great pic that you want to share with people or do you want to argue about high ISO performance, dynamic range, megapixels and all sorts of other information which is peripheral to the content/quality of an image?


----------



## bigshot

Can you post a link to where Ken Rockwell says that he would take a FF with a crappy lens over the best DX? I'd like to see for what purpose he's talking about.
   
  I had a darkroom in high school and developed and printed color. The color balances I get out of my D200 and D7000 are infinitely better than the best I could achieve by refining and tweaking my color in the darkroom. Just about everything about photography is easier and better now. The cameras are fantastic (if a bit too complicated) and the lenses totally beat any of my old Nikkor film lenses when it comes to chromatic aberration, coma and edge sharpness. (But of course, I'm shooting DX, so my edge sharpness is going to be better than shooting film or FX.) I have an old Nikkor 50mm 1.2 and a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and the Sigma is considerably better at 1.4. Even third party lenses are great.
   
  It makes me chuckle when I see armchair experts online arguing over minute differences between cameras and lenses. Every time a new camera with more megapixels and less ISO noise comes out, suddenly "enough megapixels" and "plenty of low light ability" becomes "totally unacceptable". In forty years of shooting, I've owned four camera bodies... a Nikkormat FTN, a Nikon F2, a D200 and a D7000. I have to admit, I feel a bit guilty to have traded the D200 for the D7000. The D200 is a remarkably capable camera. I really didn't need to upgrade that much. Plus, I have to learn a new camera and get to the point where it's an extension of me again.


----------



## shigzeo

^^ Agreed. Modern digital cameras outperform equivalent sized film every time. As long as ISO values stay true to film values (despite performance increases) I'm okay. I often shoot with a Canon P over one shoulder and another camera over another, both using the same ISO values. Of course, film can be pushed a lot more than say, my D200 can. Overexpose, underexpose, it can still look pretty good.


----------



## bigshot

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by pushing film. When you push the ASA on film, it generally gets very grainy... even worse than high ISO noise. If you mean latitude, digital is still better. I can squeeze three stops out of my D200. With film, the contrast would go completely flat with three stops under or over exposure.


----------



## Mattimis

Yes I also agree, I dont have to go into the dark room at 8pm and come out in the morning to get one print I am happy with.
   
  Also nice to not be breathing an chemicals 
   
  I like FF because most high end glass is made for it and because you get better noise response due to the fact that the pixels can have more space to get the same resolution on a crop sensor.
  (20mp on a FF vs 20mp on a 1.5x senor) meaning it has access to more light for each pixel and more flexibility with the photosites.
   
  much like EVERYTHING else in the world your cameras output will only be as good as its weakest link, that being said lenses have 5x the shelf life of a dslr haha


----------



## bigshot

I dug around and found the article on Ken Rockwell's site that was being referred to. It's pretty old, comparing a D200 to a Canon 5D, which is not really an apples to apples comparison, but was what he had to work with back then. We will soon have the D7100 which is basically the same camera as the D600, just with a different size sensor.
   
  As I see it, the "Fx Advantage" is going to involve:
   
  A stop better high ISO performance, which is pretty much unnecessary because the D7100 will be perfectly able to shoot indoors without a flash.
  The ability to stop down to f/11, while the D7000 will begin to hit diffraction at f/8... again not a huge deal.
  A stop better shallow depth of field ability for the D600, which is also not a big deal with the excellent inexpensive third party DX fast 1.4 primes like the Sigma 30.
  The FX sharpness advantage, which will be partially offset by the lack of a low pass filter on the D7100 and the fact that DX uses the center of the lens (the sharpest part).
   
  The only time when any of these might become real issues is when you would be printing over 40 inches across, or in extreme low light situations. Size and weight aside, the major day in day out difference is the size and brightness of the viewfinder of the D600.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by pushing film. When you push the ASA on film, it generally gets very grainy... even worse than high ISO noise. If you mean latitude, digital is still better. I can squeeze three stops out of my D200. With film, the contrast would go completely flat with three stops under or over exposure.


 
  Nope, you're understanding what I said regarding push film.  I laugh when people complain about high ISO noise with current DSLRs.  With my 5D3, I'm now happy to shoot ISO 3200 as if it were ISO 800 film.  ISO 400 digital is the equivalent to ISO 25 film.  I mention pushing film (underexposing and adjusting development chemicals/times/temps/techniques to compensate) as that is what I had to do not all that long ago to be able to shoot indoor sports and now I can do it without a second thought.
   
  Current digital cameras are so capable that it's a just about a waste of time to argue about the technical aspects of photography anymore.  The same effort would be much spent discussing techniques.


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by pushing film. When you push the ASA on film, it generally gets very grainy... even worse than high ISO noise. If you mean latitude, digital is still better. I can squeeze three stops out of my D200. With film, the contrast would go completely flat with three stops under or over exposure.


 
  Sorry, I should have said: film (I use neopan 400 most often) can be over or under exposed and still look good. My D200 not so much. The D800 is another story. In some ways, it is not that necessary to get a perfect exposure. Same with D7000.


----------



## bigshot

Are you sure about that? I have a D200 and it has tremendous latitude for squeezing out exposure in Aperture. I can get three stops generally without a real hit in image quality. Three stops off in film would result in impossibly dense or thin negatives. Maybe film today has a wider latitude than it used to.


----------



## shigzeo

It is possible that Neopan has a lot of latitude. I can really miss exposure and have the shots still look quite good. The D200 can be pushed quite a bit and eventually I got to the point where I didn't care (outside of work), but the D800/D7000 class is a world of difference. Obviously, if I were shooting film professionally (which I will never do), I'd work on nailing exposure, but I just shoot and make sunny 16 calculations.


----------



## bigshot

When I was being trained in photography, I was made to feel guilty if I wasn't exposing properly in camera. I still have that guilt if I shoot sloppy! I still have my LunaPro and my handouts on the zone system.


----------



## shigzeo

That I understand well. I was really really keen on proper everything till I got into shooting on the street and found that it didn't matter what I shot: it's not like my stuff is going into a gallery anyway. I wanted more to play with shadows and found that perfect exposure ruined that - for that purpose. Most of my personal stuff is just playing around for good or bad.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Can you post a link to where Ken Rockwell says that he would take a FF with a crappy lens over the best DX? I'd like to see for what purpose he's talking about.
> 
> I had a darkroom in high school and developed and printed color. The color balances I get out of my D200 and D7000 are infinitely better than the best I could achieve by refining and tweaking my color in the darkroom. Just about everything about photography is easier and better now. The cameras are fantastic (if a bit too complicated) and the lenses totally beat any of my old Nikkor film lenses when it comes to chromatic aberration, coma and edge sharpness. (But of course, I'm shooting DX, so my edge sharpness is going to be better than shooting film or FX.) I have an old Nikkor 50mm 1.2 and a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and the Sigma is considerably better at 1.4. Even third party lenses are great.
> 
> It makes me chuckle when I see armchair experts online arguing over minute differences between cameras and lenses. Every time a new camera with more megapixels and less ISO noise comes out, suddenly "enough megapixels" and "plenty of low light ability" becomes "totally unacceptable". In forty years of shooting, I've owned four camera bodies... a Nikkormat FTN, a Nikon F2, a D200 and a D7000. I have to admit, I feel a bit guilty to have traded the D200 for the D7000. The D200 is a remarkably capable camera. I really didn't need to upgrade that much. Plus, I have to learn a new camera and get to the point where it's an extension of me again.


 
   
  Yes, it's all over this article.  He also shows example pics.  Here is just one of the lines:  "I get better results on full-frame with crummy lenses than I do with my very best lenses on DX."
   
  http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm


----------



## hyogen

back to photos   Full frame pics are responding so much better to post processing.  I am spending way less time in post and also liking the results wayyy more. 
   
  Toro about to get spayed at the vet...


----------



## aqsw

Rockwell is hyping the fuji now. He's claiming it's better than the ff leica.
  I have a Fuji x pro 1 and absolutely love it, but if anybody wants to trade me A Leica M9, You got a deal.
   
  And by the way , I sold all my Canon stuff to get the Fuji.


----------



## bigshot

There is a definite advantage to those small cameras. I'd like to have one, but I suspect I'd still use my iPhone the most.


----------



## shigzeo

I agr





aqsw said:


> Rockwell is hyping the fuji now. He's claiming it's better than the ff leica.
> I have a Fuji x pro 1 and absolutely love it, but if anybody wants to trade me A Leica M9, You got a deal.
> 
> And by the way , I sold all my Canon stuff to get the Fuji.




I agree. I picked up an x pro last week. It is nice but I'd much rather have a leica. I'd really rather just have a digital F mount camera the same size as a Nikon FE with the same high quality viewfinder and ergonomic controls. 

The x-pro 1 is t that small. It's about the same size as an FE. IT'S JUST THAT TODAY's DSLR cameras are so huge.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





aqsw said:


> Rockwell is hyping the fuji now. He's claiming it's better than the ff leica.
> I have a Fuji x pro 1 and absolutely love it, but if anybody wants to trade me A Leica M9, You got a deal.
> 
> And by the way , I sold all my Canon stuff to get the Fuji.


 
   
  He is generally a guy who goes from one extreme into the other into seeing anything in-between. I like reading him, and consider him a great photographer, but he needs to be take with a pinch of salt, if not mroe.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> When I was being trained in photography, I was made to feel guilty if I wasn't exposing properly in camera. I still have that guilt if I shoot sloppy! I still have my LunaPro and my handouts on the zone system.


 
   
  I used to love playing with my Luna Pro. Just the fact that it would read the exact same F-stop off a gray card or facing the reverse direction with the diffuser globe over the sensor would always amaze the heck out of me.
   
  That is just the way it's suppose to be though.
  http://www.amazon.com/Gossen-Luna-Ambient-Lightmeter-Flashmeter/dp/B000Z3BG1Y
   
  The fact that it could also get you close to correct exposures in low light for 30 minute moon light shots didn't really matter due to film's inherent law of reciprocity failure. And the fact that every brand of film had a different reciprocity failure curve didn't help until you really knew your film. Not to mention the reality of reciprocity failure color casts.


----------



## Frank I

Does anyone own the 24-85MM lens I an contemplating getting one either the 2.8 or the new 3.5 . Any suggestions
  This is my Daughter number 2 running for Cornell University. She  won her first D1 race and is running in the NCAA EAC Championship this Saturday in Boston. Not bad for a freshman. One win One 2nd and rnning with the best runners on the Easter States championship


----------



## Frank I




----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> Yes, it's all over this article.  He also shows example pics.  Here is just one of the lines:  "I get better results on full-frame with crummy lenses than I do with my very best lenses on DX."
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm


 
  Then he order a D7000 in 2010 and now he orders a D7100. So like I said the wind for him is blowing again to the DX cameras again. He also makes a living selling flavors of the month so I dont take anything he writes too serious a he links whatever he wants to sell in those articles he writes.


----------



## bigshot

Nice Corgi!
   
  Yeah, I saw that article. It's comparing a Canon 5D to a D200. It will be MUCH more interesting when we can compare the D7100 to the D600. That will show exactly what the advantage of full frame is. I'm betting it will be even smaller than Ken Rockwell's old test.


----------



## shigzeo

I dig a ~35mm frame precisely because it lets the glass show all its qualities and warts. I love flare, love vignetting, love fall off. My 50/2 is a very sharp lens, but has some typically older glass appeal that is lost when using on my D200. Reach of course is where DX is by far better. I think especially for birding (something my boss does often) DX is king. If only today's FX cameras were small like their pre-AF 35mm film counterparts were, the camera wouldn't be daunting or heavy.


----------



## gkanai

The new Sigma 35/1.4 HSM A is looking to be excellent. Better than the equivalent Canon, Nikon and the Zeiss too.
   
  "This is the sharpest 35mm made. It costs a lot less than the Canon 35 f/1.4mm or the Zeiss 35mm lenses."
   
  "If you're after a top quality fast prime at this focal length it should be right at the top of your short list, and it easily earns our top award."
  
  "There's a lot to like here: great results for sharpness, low chromatic aberration, and low distortion."


----------



## bigshot

The Sigma 50 and 30 DX are excellent lenses too. I have both of those and love them to bits. Another sleeper third party lens is the manual focus 85 1.4 by Samyang. I have their 7mm fisheye and it's much better than the Nikon 10mm fish.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





frank i said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  He's worth a few million dollars....he can easily afford to try out new cameras and probably doesn't even take the effort to sell stuff off........


----------



## bigshot

I wish I was worth a few million dollars! I'll work on being a better photographer. Who knows?!


----------



## shigzeo

I've pretty much given up on Nikon DSLRs for now. I may eventually pick up a Nikon 1 for sports photography (and reach), but I find even my wife's D5000 too large for my tastes. Still shoot Nikkor lenses, though, like this 10,5/2,5 LTM model that I used for a while on my Canon P.


----------



## bigshot

What's wrong with Canon lenses?


----------



## shigzeo

Nothing at all. I also use Canon 50/1,4 LTM and 35/2 LTM. I don't use any of Canon's SLR lenses though.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> He's worth a few million dollars....he can easily afford to try out new cameras and probably doesn't even take the effort to sell stuff off........


 
  and all his money comes from selling product with those links and him begging people for donations so there is motivation to like products and then link them and  dont think he paying list for anything. He been doing it a long time and he made that money from many gullible people.


----------



## shigzeo

I've used his site as a reference for:
   
  - how many aperture blades a lens has (I prefer 6,8,10; he prefers 7,9,11, or more)
  - how many grams a lens weighs
  - how tall a lens is and how wide it is
   
  While I don't think anyone agrees with him 100%, he does have some good stuff to say (namely what I wrote above) as few others ever mention those things specifically. His headphone reviews, actually, are much better than his camera/lens reviews - probably because he does them as a hobby.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> I've used his site as a reference for:
> 
> - how many aperture blades a lens has (I prefer 6,8,10; he prefers 7,9,11, or more)
> - how many grams a lens weighs
> ...


 
  I read his stuff also but before I buy anything I read several more on other photography sites and then I decide what I am buying which s what most people should do. I use him sometimes as a starting point then move to others.  Tom Hogan also has some great reviews on Nokongear and is a very reputable source also as is DG Review


----------



## shigzeo

I tend to not read reviews on lenses. I'm lucky to be in Japan where I can just order any lens I want, check it out at the store, and if I don't like it, let them handle it. The used market is huge here and stores send things all over the country for free just so you can check it out. But, I wouldn't even check out a lens that didn't have an even number of straight aperture blades unless I have to buy it for work or something. So, Ken, thank you for always mentioning what I am personally interested in when buying lenses. Apart from that though, he's not that helpful.
   
  If you lived in Japan, you'd find getting used lenses terribly simple, if more expensive than abroad.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> I tend to not read reviews on lenses. I'm lucky to be in Japan where I can just order any lens I want, check it out at the store, and if I don't like it, let them handle it. The used market is huge here and stores send things all over the country for free just so you can check it out. But, I wouldn't even check out a lens that didn't have an even number of straight aperture blades unless I have to buy it for work or something. So, Ken, thank you for always mentioning what I am personally interested in when buying lenses. Apart from that though, he's not that helpful.
> 
> If you lived in Japan, you'd find getting used lenses terribly simple, if more expensive than abroad.


 
  We have a couple dealers who sell used like BH Photo in NY but that is a two hour drive and anything you buy on ebay or craigs list is a crap shoot although you can find deals sometimes on Craig list and drive to locally to check out the lens. I am interest  in the 24-85MM  2.8 Nikkor lens and am looking used if I can get one reasonably priced.


----------



## shigzeo

Here, primes are quite expensive but zooms can be had for cheap. I don't know why, but that's the way it goes. Sometimes, primes like the 85mm/2,8D PC Micro are over 1000$ more expensive than USA.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> Here, primes are quite expensive but zooms can be had for cheap. I don't know why, but that's the way it goes. Sometimes, primes like the 85mm/2,8D PC Micro are over 1000$ more expensive than USA.


 
  what would a 24-85mm zoom 2,8 sell for used in Japan in US dollars


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Hyogen, how are you getting the dull (?) look in your photos?


----------



## hyogen

mainly lowering the intensity of blacks.  So that they are closer to gray.  Like or dislike?  I don't want for my pictures to look too Instagrammy


----------



## hyogen

the look of a madman solo shooting a wedding near you   At least for the first couple weddings/receptions until I can afford an assistant!
   
  I'll probably put a small umbrella on the monopod for a bigger source of light (when I can't bounce flash off ceiling).  The ring flash is for on-axis fill light.   I've been reading up on the Strobist blog.    Nikon, what have you done to me?


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> mainly lowering the intensity of blacks.  So that they are closer to gray.  Like or dislike?  I don't want for my pictures to look too Instagrammy


 
   
  I could see where it is sometimes overdone - just depends on what you shoot I guess.
   
  I screw up quite often and end up having to go b + w to make a shot look somewhat decent.
   
  My wife would kill me if she knew I posted this on the intrawebsnet   The blown background in the shot looks terrible in color IMO.


----------



## hyogen

looks pretty good in b/w.  Did you do any skin softening?  Or did you lose some contrast b/c of the harsh backlight?  I'm JUST starting to play around with off-camera flash.  I did a bunch of research.  This is fun!
   
   
  testing out some different processing styles
   

   

   

  ^ no flash.  Until now I had to blow out the background also to properly expose the subject. 
   


   

  how I love this D600......  I took this while driving home from school through the windshield


----------



## Redcarmoose

A little bit of rain and a little bit of scotch at the beach today, always better than a lot of rain and a lot of scotch.


----------



## musubi1000

bigshot said:


> When I was being trained in photography, I was made to feel guilty if I wasn't exposing properly in camera. I still have that guilt if I shoot sloppy! I still have my LunaPro and my handouts on the zone system.


yo B we both know meter and zone system are for film. meter isn't necessary but still useful for flash/ strobe. All the tools any digital photographer needs are built in camera. Chimping is one of the advantages digital affords digital photographers. I would like to see how many of todays so called " photographers" could take a photo with a film camera.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





iron_dreamer said:


> Three of the four were shot using the *Nikon 14-24/2.8, the other the 24-120/4, *I use f/5.6-f/8 the most for these kinds of shots on the D800, depending on the focal length, lens' max. aperture, and DOF requirements for the scene.  F/5.6 is better if it can be used, as diffraction starts to rob a small bit of acuity at f/8 on the D800.  What a change from the D700, where f/11 was where diffraction started to be slightly noticeable.


 
   
  Did you have a chance to try 16-35/4?  I used 14-24 and love it but a lot of people recommend the 16-35/4 for D800.  With the current rebate, I'm also thinking to get the 24-120/4 for traveling and daily use.


----------



## musubi1000

aqsw said:


> Rockwell is hyping the fuji now. He's claiming it's better than the ff leica.
> I have a Fuji x pro 1 and absolutely love it, but if anybody wants to trade me A Leica M9, You got a deal.
> 
> And by the way , I sold all my Canon stuff to get the Fuji.


The Fuji is a modern rangefinder with live EVF that shows the exact image. or een a hybrid optical view with digital info overlay. kinda cool but not really necessary. the Leica handles and operates just like it was made 50 years ago. with parallax error and framing variances. but its 18mp images hold so much more detail and truer sharpness than say an equivalent mp image


----------



## musubi1000

mattimis said:


> completely miss guided.
> 
> A viewfinder if generated based off of the mirror and prism which matches the size of the sensor meaning having a bigger view finder would not give an accurate representation of the image.. which is why it wont change in size and if it does thats a crappy camera.
> 
> ...


1: didn't understand explanation of viewfinder differences " having a bigger viewfinder would not give an accurate image" ??? say again?
Why didn't you mention variables like the type of prism(mirror or porro) and viewfinder magnifications? these also have an impact on viewfinder brightness
I think what Bigshot meant concerning the viewfinders was the apparent image SIZE to the eye. a FF viewfinder is much easier to manually focus. but Canons 7d viewfinder is almost as large to the eye. so there are always exceptions to every conception. 

2: You don't lose any quality by using a DX on FX just FOV. oh and did you know that a lens with a smaller circle of confussion (DX) will be capable of higher resolutions? 

Nikon still holds true for the most system compatible SLR . Look at the canon 5D guys. they cant even mount an EF-S. While going to a DX on a FF wouldn't be my 1st choice I'm so glad I have the option
Even on D700 crop it can still take a photo better than most photographers abilities. 

M when you first rolled up on this thread you wanted to help anyone and everyone. how many years you been shooting? Experience is everything in photography. not MTF curves, aperture blades, Bokeh,FF, DX, or whatever. Did you ever think maybe someone else out there knows more and you might be able to LEARN something? I may sound a bit harsh but I don't appreciate photo bullies


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> The Fuji is a modern rangefinder with live EVF that shows the exact image. or een a hybrid optical view with digital info overlay. kinda cool but not really necessary. the Leica handles and operates just like it was made 50 years ago. with parallax error and framing variances. but its 18mp images hold so much more detail and truer sharpness than say an equivalent mp image


 
  I wish that it was a rangefinder. It is impossible to focus manual lenses through the OVF because specifically there is no 'rangefinder' focusing system or coupling mechanism in the body. It is just a window with an AF system. The lenses are 100% SLR style with coupled apertures and lens-driven AF. They are fat and large like SLR lenses. The camera merely looks like a RF, which is a shame. If it had some method of image overlay in the OVF to focus both X and other lenses, it would be a rangefinder replacement. It's not though. The OVF is 100% a gimmick unless you use the Fuji glass, and even then, it is only good for approximate focusing. You can't really focus exactly on what you want to focus like you can with any SLR or rangefinder. For that you need the EVF, and the OVF becomes nothing more than a gimmick. I love the camera otherwise, though.


----------



## gkanai

Quote: 





frank i said:


> what would a 24-85mm zoom 2,8 sell for used in Japan in US dollars


 


 Depends on if you mean the AF-D, the AF-S (old) or AF-S (new)
   
  http://auctions.search.yahoo.co.jp/search?auccat=0&p=24-85+nikon&tab_ex=commerce&ei=euc-jp


----------



## shigzeo

Gen, thank you. I find them used at stores for anywhere between 300-600$ (AFD) and I've not followed the AFS much. I've found great deals however on 2,8 zooms.


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> yo B we both know meter and zone system are for film. meter isn't necessary but still useful for flash/ strobe. All the tools any digital photographer needs are built in camera. Chimping is one of the advantages digital affords digital photographers. I would like to see how many of todays so called " photographers" could take a photo with a film camera.


 
  every single photographer I know can shoot film... its not hard at all I am not sure why people assume it is or things its some special equip skill
   
  people who chimp are people who arent confidant in their abilities because those screens are not an accurate representation of the image anyways
  Honestly the only reason to chip is to take advantage of viewing how the image will fit into a magazine layout using an acetate over the screen.
  If you are checking your exposure or color on your lcd you are doing it wrong.
   
  And knowing exposure and using a light meter is definitely something every one who wants to be serious about photography should know and have.
  The meters in dslrs are reflective meters which are corrupted by the color of a scene.
   
  One of the most difficult film cameras to shoot is a 4x5 or 8x10 bellows camera and digital backs on 4x5 are much harder to use. I have used the exact same camera and switched between film and digital and focus is much easier to pull with film.


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> 1: didn't understand explanation of viewfinder differences " having a bigger viewfinder would not give an accurate image" ??? say again?
> Why didn't you mention variables like the type of prism(mirror or porro) and viewfinder magnifications? these also have an impact on viewfinder brightness
> I think what Bigshot meant concerning the viewfinders was the apparent image SIZE to the eye. a FF viewfinder is much easier to manually focus. but Canons 7d viewfinder is almost as large to the eye. so there are always exceptions to every conception.
> 
> ...


 
   
  1. using FX lenses does not produce better viewfinder presentation which was the discussion please actually read and understand what you are talking about if you want to join the discussion.
   
  2. This is COMPLETELY un true using DX on a FF camera crops down on the amount of sensor space used... which removes image quality through pixels. Shooting a crop lens on an full frame will drop half the resolution from the sensor.
  2a. its called circle of illumination, atleast where I live, and the dx is not capable of higher resolution because the optics arent anywhere near low enough quality to limit resolution. 500% crop an image and you will see pixel no matter what lens you use, so the resolution isnt being altered other than the fact that dx has a smaller circle of illumination and thus causes you to loose pixels on a full frame. Which is the opposite of your statement.
   
  Use compatible equip.. thats why they make it.
   
  OH and btw Im not going to post my CV on here simply because I dont feel like linking my professional career with a hobby I was simply offering to help people, who I realize photography is a hobby full of people who know everything. Also experience in a professional setting is everything.. I think that is what you meant to say, my mother has been taking pictures since the 50's and I dont think I would consider her capable of teaching photography haha.
   
  and please teach me something and I will gladly accept the knowledge but frankly I would rather pick the brains of my old professors who have been professionals for 30 years and not random internet trained photographers. Having read the incorrect data you've already posted I will go ahead and keep with my sources.
   
   
   
  On a side note you should actually use cameras your going to compare. I have used the M-8 M-9 and fuji xpro-1 and the difference is indistinguishable in quality. If you looked at an image from both I seriously doubt you would have any idea which is which.


----------



## musubi1000

mattimis said:


> 1. using FX lenses does not produce better viewfinder presentation which was the discussion please actually read and understand what you are talking about if you want to join the discussion.
> 
> 2. This is COMPLETELY un true using DX on a FF camera crops down on the amount of sensor space used... which removes image quality through pixels. Shooting a crop lens on an full frame will drop half the resolution from the sensor.
> 2a. its called circle of illumination, atleast where I live, and the dx is not capable of higher resolution because the optics arent anywhere near low enough quality to limit resolution. 500% crop an image and you will see pixel no matter what lens you use, so the resolution isnt being altered other than the fact that dx has a smaller circle of illumination and thus causes you to loose pixels on a full frame. Which is the opposite of your statement.
> ...


you still didn't explain yourself on the first part
A DX will perform the same whether on FX or DX body just as the FF sensor will. FOV will change and yes you will lose pixels but the quality of both cam and lens remains the same( not at full resolution os course). If you're posting to FB or makining a 4x6 can you see the difference. Is there an apparent quality loss? Semantics. On D800 you still have almost 16 MP. How many do you need? I can still create whether on a DX or FX. 
I get the feeling you're under the thought that a better camera makes a better photo. One old timer gave me the advice years ago that the best camera is the one you have with you.

Did you know that everything a digital photographer need to obtain perfect exposure is his or her camera? It has everything you need to get perfectly exposed digital files with no overexposure. But you have to use the LCD of the camera. From what you imply you don't even use the LCD to check exposure and comp? anyone using digital would be crazy not to take advantage of it.
Talk to your instructors about the Circle of Confusion. There's more to it than illumination. 
I have used the Leicas and the Fujis. I shot both of them side by side and looked at each file. The Leica has few rivals. It will edge the Fuji out with its detail and sharpness. Much like real sharpness from film. The Fuji is close but displays what I will refer to as digital sharpness. For someone soo concerned with the quality of their camera and optics I'm surprised you haven't recognized the differences the two camera systems exhibit. I think it's cool you want to help peeps but I think you go about it all wrong. You assume too much and your ego does all the talking.


----------



## Mr.Sneis

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> looks pretty good in b/w.  Did you do any skin softening?  Or did you lose some contrast b/c of the harsh backlight?  I'm JUST starting to play around with off-camera flash.  I did a bunch of research.  This is fun!
> 
> 
> testing out some different processing styles
> ...


 

 In that shot the background was completely blown .  I am still trying to get used to having to expose for background and correcting in PP - the histogram is finally making sense to me which helps the most.  In Lightroom I usually look at exposure and contrast first, there is a setting for clarity which I really like the effect on pictures, and luminance I like for background adjustment
   
  Your off camera flash shots are great.  Did you do any diffusing for the flash?  I also completely forgot HOW to use the flash separate of the hotshoe - care to walk me through?


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> Chimping is one of the advantages digital affords digital photographers. I would like to see how many of todays so called " photographers" could take a photo with a film camera.


 
   
  Parallel parking exposure doesn't work at all for photographing candids of people and street shooting. If you say, "Wait a second while I diddle with this a bit..." the moment is lost. The worst thing to me is having my subject be aware of the camera. That's why I NEVER wear my camera around my neck. I keep it hidden in a side bag until I need it. Whenever the camera is in view of the subject too long, you start getting too much of what I call "say CHEEZE".
   
  I started photography around 1974. I've done everything there is to do with film... shooting, developing, printing, both B&W and color. Film is MUCH more difficult than digital because you have a much narrower latitude and the film is MUCH less capable in low light. When you shoot with film, you have to nail your exposure within a half stop to a stop or you start blowing out whites or losing detail in the shadows. I still shoot carefully like that, even though I don't necessarily have to with digital. But I always make a few meter readings in an area before I start shooting to insure that I expose properly in camera. That allows me to pack the maximum detail and dynamic range into my shots.
   
  The difference in image quality between DX and FX is considerably less than the difference between exposing properly in camera vs fixing the exposure in post processing.
   
  You should go to a major art school like I did, Mattimis. It would humble you and knock a lot of the bluster out. You'd find out that there are a lot of people who know things you don't, and it would show you how to learn from them.


----------



## musubi1000

Yes back in the days of film there was a product called Polaroid. We used to use this instant film to check comp and exposure for every important shot. Anyone who tells me that they don't ever chimp their digital camera ever is full of it. Each and every pro and art director I know loves the fact that they can basically shoot a digital shot to check comp and exposure instantly and it doesn't cost a thing. If any pro told me they never chimp their camera I'd say they were a fool not to take advantage of it. Granted chimping isn't gonna work with all subjects but its very useful for static stuff. If one weren't to chimp they'd have no idea for certain until they got then files into a computer. Why do you think the manufacturers install features like histogram, highlight, shadow(Olympus) and focus point checking? I'll admit I chimp every important shot to make sure the comp and exposure are dialed in perfectly before I start my shooting. Everyone is different. But to sit there and tell everyone what's right and wrong about how they work or what they use is wrong. 

As for the loss of print quality most commercial printers max out at 300 ppi (prints at 150 ppi still look great) So say the average consumer wants to print a 4x6. The max rez the file needs is 1200x 1800. Everything else gets resampled out. So at a 4x6 or even 8x10 (2400x3600) there is a negligible loss of apparent quality. The differences grow the larger you get but there is an excessive degree of quality to begin with. An 18-55 DX on a D700 is about 5mp. 

Talk to your instructors. They will verify And probably agree with both Bigshot and myself. There is a difference between a photographer and a camera operator in my book. My equipment isn't my limit. But it is for new photographers. Err camera operators.

If you were to compare a single capture of film vs digital I would know which image had more dynamic range and which would be capable of more resolution. Do you really know the differences? Talk to your instructors about edge sharpness and how digital images are sharpened as well. Film has bit depth? Since when?

Oh yeah on a side note you should actually own the cameras you claim to have.


----------



## Mattimis

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> You say using LCD is stupid to check exposure. I never said I would use the image review for exp. have you heard of a highlight review? It's all any digital photographer needs to check exposure. That's why every SLR and mirror less camera has this feature. you mention focus being more important than exposure. How do you check it without using the LCD and chimping it? You mention red channel blowing out skin when WB is set improperly. How do you check the red channel for blow out? On the computer? Why not check it out on the LCD by chimping it? The Nikon pro cameras have rgb histograms and can check individual channel blow out. Red channel blow out in skin(prolly cause wb was set to sun or cloudy and shot under tungsten) is a possible issue with JPEGs. If you actually do use the color checker by x-rite you use it in RAW format so this is usually a non issue as you can correct in post. By using the x-rite color is assured so a photographer shouldn't be concerned with the color balance. Checking to make sure exposure is good, focus is good, comp is good are all benefits available to the digital photographer when they review the LCD (chimp). I never said anything conceited like" I never chimp" cause that's all bull.


 
  wrong again, you can still blow out a channel in raw... raw means you can use non destructive editing methods.
   
  Me and everyone I work worth never chimp to check exposure or color.


----------



## Mattimis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZnX_h498E
   
  This how I picture myself explaining resolution on here


----------



## musubi1000

These are the shots I took with a friends Leica M9 with a 24 1.4 summilux.

  a happy family

  Redondo beach marina

  the ol arcade
  I know these are Leica images in the Nikon forum but I needed my images to speak for me
  The next images will be Nikon stuff. mostly


----------



## gkanai

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> Just because you have the latest and greatest doesn't mean a thing. In most cases it just allow the operator to take bad images faster. Like I keep saying the quality of gear isn't important. It's what you put in the frame. FX or DX


 
   
  Absolutely agreed.
   
  All of the current photographers who are using the "latest and greatest" with the highest resolution sensors stand in the shadows of Adams, Cartier-Bresson, Evans, Weston, Ray, Stieglitz, Steichen, etc. Those photographers did not have digital cameras with FX sensors and "highest resolution" sensors.


----------



## musubi1000

Nikon D800 with a Tamron 70-300 VC
   

  24-70 2.8 Nikkor

  17-35 2.8 Nikkor

  17-35


----------



## gkanai

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> Gen, thank you. I find them used at stores for anywhere between 300-600$ (AFD) and I've not followed the AFS much. I've found great deals however on 2,8 zooms.


 
   
  I have the AF-S v1 and it's convenient. That Nikon put out a revised one speaks to the consumer demand. You're welcome to borrow mine any time as I don't use it very often these days.


----------



## RAZRr1275

How high are D5100 users able to push up the ISO before getting distracting levels of noise?


----------



## musubi1000

Domo


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





razrr1275 said:


> How high are D5100 users able to push up the ISO before getting distracting levels of noise?


 
   
  It's good to 6400.
   
  re: the rest of this...
   
  To paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt a bit... Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss technicalities; small minds discuss people.


----------



## bigshot

Kodak's thermal imaging is for more careful resolution of half tone dots. The half tone dots are rendered at 10,000 dpi, not the image itself. It increases the ability for the halftone to render more colors or shades... It isn't for higher resolution images. Most printers, both photo printers and prepress ones, are 1200 dpi and the images going in are required to be no more than 1/4 that resolution. 300 dpi tops for high end photo printing. 200 dpi for more typical stuff like normal magazines and newspapers.
   
  You see, you may know the photography end enough to get along, but prepress is something entirely different.


----------



## musubi1000

Well lets just post images from archives. Any Nikon images out there? hows about from an H5D?


----------



## musubi1000

Quote: 





mattimis said:


> wrong again, you can still blow out a channel in raw... raw means you can use non destructive editing methods.
> 
> Me and everyone I work worth never chimp to check exposure or color.


 
  This has to answered again for everyone new to the thread. 
  yes you can blow a channel out regardless of format. Especially the red channel. That's why you use the LCD or tethered view. without the review you'd be guessing. The infos right there at the press of a button or two and it would show you what channel blew. 
   
  RAW is a format. It holds everything the sensor captured.  If WB was set incorrectly it should have been apparent on the review whether LCD or tethered while checking exposure and comp. Part of checking exposure means identifying problems revealed to a photographer via review.like channel blow out. The LCD or tether would tell the photographer of any underlying problems like aforementioned. but if it were exposed correctly and shot in RAW you could simply reset WB and presto.  The RAW format has all the data to pull from to render a perfectly white balanced photo. Todays LR 4 has amazing highlight recovery but it can only fix so much. This should detail why checking LCD info is so important. a tether isn't at all necessary but can be very useful in a studio. It's just a more sophisticated form of chimping.
   
  But if for example a jpeg is shot with  Daylight WB in Tungsten (exaggerating the orange/red) and the red blows the image is wasted.  the blown red data is non existent. The camera would have processed it out. This would never happen in any of the studios I've worked for because I know how to check exposure by simply using the LCD of the cam.
   
    If you have PS or LR you can watch the blowout occur with red subjects easily as you slide the WB slider. Turn the highlight alert feature on in the RAW converter at the right corner of the histogram. then simply slide the WB slider.


----------



## gkanai




----------



## musubi1000

14-24?


----------



## musubi1000

Nikon D3200. Zeiss 100mm macro cropped into about 25% of the frame. prolly about 6 mp from the 24.


----------



## gkanai

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> 14-24?


 
   
  Yes.


----------



## hyogen

my first 'official' shoot.. first engagement coming up in a few weeks... stoked and nervous.


----------



## Frank I

I picked up a mint 16-85MM for my walk around lens today locally for 350.00 I love it already and will use this for mostly walk around hand held shots. Nice lens for the d7000


----------



## musubi1000

One 





frank i said:


> I picked up a mint 16-85MM for my walk around lens today locally for 350.00 I love it already and will use this for mostly walk around hand held shots. Nice lens for the d7000


one of my favorite DX lenses. Great close focusing and sharp. versatile performer. Good price.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> One
> one of my favorite DX lenses. Great close focusing and sharp. versatile performer. Good price.


 
  I took some great shots last night in the house with it and it as you say very sharp and I couldn't be more happy with the purchase so far and the price was right,


----------



## hyogen

I'm looking at picking up a 24mm 2.8D.  Is there any reason I should go with the 35mm 2.0 instead?  For another $2-300 I could get the 28mm 1.8G
   
  The Sigma 35mm 1.4 is out of my reach for now.


----------



## Frank I




----------



## gkanai

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> I'm looking at picking up a 24mm 2.8D.  Is there any reason I should go with the 35mm 2.0 instead?  For another $2-300 I could get the 28mm 1.8G
> 
> The Sigma 35mm 1.4 is out of my reach for now.


 
   
  I think the 28/1.8G is the best of those that you are considering. It is fast, sharp and relatively inexpensive. The other two are much older designs and you'd need to have a body that supports screw-drive AF (if you care about AF.)


----------



## musubi1000

hyogen said:


> I'm looking at picking up a 24mm 2.8D.  Is there any reason I should go with the 35mm 2.0 instead?  For another $2-300 I could get the 28mm 1.8G
> 
> The Sigma 35mm 1.4 is out of my reach for now.


the 28 is very nice and super sharp but focal length is devoid of the converging distortion that makes wide angle photography wide angle photography. the 24 is an outstanding performer. the 35 f2 is another old optic that performs well. more of a wide normal lens. if you dont have any wides I'd rec the 24. thats where wide angle photography begins. the 28 and 35 although considered wide doesn't exhibit the distortion that draws the viewer


----------



## howzitboy

fun topic, i came here to just see what you guys are talking about since i shoot Nikons and wow, its like a mini war in here! I laugh at more then a few comments ive read tho, do u guys really shoot professionally? Film is harder to shoot then digital? fx is better then dx? chimping is for beginners only? even sunny 16 rule? with i had more time so I could start from page 1 tho...
   
  oh and im not trying to flame, its just i really found it fun in here. And yes, I do shoot professionally a lot longer then I should lol


----------



## bigshot

Would an usher please show this nice gentleman to the seating section reserved for professional experts? Thank you.


----------



## musubi1000

haha





bigshot said:


> Would an usher please show this nice gentleman to the seating section reserved for professional experts? Thank you.


. haha. you can see all the " fun" on every photo forum.


----------



## musubi1000

Just came back from lunch to find a brand new D7100 with an AF-S 80-400 VR waiting for me.
  The increased rez and the lack of an AA filter do make a marked improvement on the 7100. More testing needed.
  the new 80-400 is amazingly sharp for such a zoom range. You can't see on this low rez post but it's there


----------



## chrislangley4253

Alright guys, I don't want to start a flame war, and I'm genuinely curious.. What do you think would be the best truly beginner camera for someone who _just_ wants to take _nice_ photos. As in, what will make it the easiest to go, "oh, I think this would make for a nice picture. I think I will try to capture it". I don't need to be able to print on billboards, I don't need the satisfaction of spending large amounts of money and carrying around large lenses and cameras. I'm thinking a dslr might not be for me, after all.

 I had my heart set on a D5100, but now I'm thinking I might just like some sort of a point and shoot. Are there any particularly good used ones that I should keep an eye out for? I'm on a strict budget of nothing, but I'd like to save up and get _something_ asap.

 Thanks for any advice, and please keep it nice. No need to argue, everyone can state their opinions. I do have a dumbphone that can take -decent- shots but it's a real pain to work with. I want something dedicated to taking photos. But, to be honest the quality I get out of my cheap phone would probably be decent enough for most pictures.


----------



## leftnose

Depending on how long you want to save, a Canon S100 http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-S100-Wide-Angle-Stabilized/dp/B005MTME3U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363303927&sr=8-1&keywords=s100
   
  or a Sony RX100 http://www.amazon.com/Sony-DSC-RX100-Sensor-Digital-Camera/dp/B00889ST2G/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1363303960&sr=1-1&keywords=rx100


----------



## chrislangley4253

The other thing is.. even if I progress to a nice DSLR lately, it won't suddenly render my point and shoot irrelevant. I think I'm finally on the right track. We will see.. Thanks for the suggestions leftnose.


----------



## musubi1000

Nikon ONE series is dope. The new V2 hits 15 fps full Rez with AF. It can AF during video has a high speed slow mo video feature at 400 fps or 1200 fps. The lens line up is growing as well. Great small flexible little system that shouldn't be dismissed


----------



## howzitboy

camera i really like is the D200, takes great pictures, easy to use and u can pick them up used pretty cheap. U can also pick up a nice used lens for pretty cheap too.i get like a nice 50mm f1.8 lens. If you can afford a bit more, a nice used D300 rocks too. Fun part about Nikon cameras is you can use the lenses on other bodies as u upgrade.


----------



## nikongod

Quote: 





howzitboy said:


> camera i really like is the D200, takes great pictures, easy to use and u can pick them up used pretty cheap. U can also pick up a nice used lens for pretty cheap too.i get like a nice 50mm f1.8 lens. If you can afford a bit more, a nice used D300 rocks too. Fun part about Nikon cameras is you can use the lenses on other bodies as u upgrade.


 
   
  I liek moar mi D200 @ lo eye-sew to my Dee seven ooh ooh @ low eye-sew. 
   
  @ hi eye-sew its no contest and the d7hundred is the pwner.


----------



## howzitboy

i like my D300 better then my D800! hate that camera lol


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





howzitboy said:


> i like my D300 better then my D800! hate that camera lol


 
   
  you are the first person that i read said "hate" the D800...


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> you are the first person that i read said "hate" the D800...


 
  Rockwell went canon and said the new canon are better than the hd800 I guess he was saying the5D all the Canon full frames are better than the Nikon but thats what he trying to sell these days for his commission


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





frank i said:


> Rockwell went canon and said the new canon are better than the hd800 I guess he was saying the5D all the Canon full frames are better than the Nikon but thats what he trying to sell these days for his commission


 
  i never even goes to his web site anymore.  yes, i do agree the new 5d mkiii is an excellent camera but it is better than d800?  i don't know...it depends on what type of photo you are taking.  the lens also has a lot to do with it too.
   
  rockwell even recommend the 28-300 for d800/e too. really???


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> i never even goes to his web site anymore.  yes, i do agree the new 5d mkiii is an excellent camera but it is better than d800?  i don't know...it depends on what type of photo you are taking.  the lens also has a lot to do with it too.
> 
> rockwell even recommend the 28-300 for d800/e too. really???


 
  I  agree with you. LOL He just in the new kick with  grubbing his commission and he likes adorama which I think as a dealer they suck I use BH all the time and dont link Rockwell to the site.. If anyone deserves to be like to. Tom Hogan. The 5D is a nice camera as a Doc I know use one and I took some shots with it. I am pretty satisfied with my Nikon D7000 and committed myself to DX for  now at least


----------



## jc9394

My first macro shot on FX...


----------



## hyogen




----------



## gkanai

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> rockwell even recommend the 28-300 for d800/e too. really???


 
   
  I was watching a Scott Kelby video presentation he did at one of the Google+ Photography conferences and basically when he travels he has one wide-coverage zoom and that's it.
   
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpHMuK7Htic


----------



## aqsw

I really like the canon s100 or s110 for size and they do have fairly good iq. The fuji x20 is a bit bigger but has better iq and shoots more like a real camera. Both zooms which I think you want.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





gkanai said:


> I was watching a Scott Kelby video presentation he did at one of the Google+ Photography conferences and basically when he travels he has one wide-coverage zoom and that's it.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpHMuK7Htic


 
  28-300 is great travel lens but it is not the sharpest nikon lens, I prefer the 24-120 for traveling, with the sensor size of d800 I digital crop it.


----------



## jc9394

Shameless plug, selling my mint Nikon 60mm f/2.8D for $320 shipped CONUS.   Funding the Zeiss 100mm Makro.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





howzitboy said:


> camera i really like is the D200, takes great pictures, easy to use and u can pick them up used pretty cheap. U can also pick up a nice used lens for pretty cheap too.


 
   
  I have a super clean low mileage D200 with an 18-55 VR kit lens, a card and two batteries for sale for $300 if anyone is interested.


----------



## Frank I




----------



## Frank I

Nothing like my mini meet today to stir  up the juices. All shots taken with my Nikon d7000 and the 16-85MM lens


----------



## hyogen

testing out my new watermark and logo
   
  this following pic has both my new and old one on the lower right for reference


----------



## hyogen

a poster trumpeting my website's soon arrival


----------



## jc9394

Incoming on Thursday.  Will be my only lens on business trip.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> Incoming on Thursday.  Will be my only lens on business trip.


 
  Very nice Congratulations and use it well


----------



## shigzeo

I will be trading a bunch of favourites (28/2,8 Ai; 85/1,8K; Zeiss 35/2) for a 28-70 2,8D as the studio is demanding that I use fast AF glass. Not happy about it, especially as the new Nikkor is known to break down a lot, but the 24-70 can't be used properly with real film cameras (the small ones with great finders and no grips).


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> you are the first person that i read said "hate" the D800...


 
  I don't really like the D800. It has a great sensor, but apart from that, its ergonomics and button layout has changed too much from the D700 to be really 'Nikon', and it has so many problems that have nothing to do with the touted AF issues.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> I don't really like the D800. It has a great sensor, but apart from that, its ergonomics and button layout has changed too much from the D700 to be really 'Nikon', and it has so many problems that have nothing to do with the touted AF issues.


 
   
  I heard a lot of dislike on ergonomics, for me coming from D200 I have no issues on ergonomics and button layout.  The 28-70 is a great lens, always love it but never really get a chance to own one.  When I received the D800E I need a better zoom lens than my 35-70 f/2.8, the natural decision goes to the 24-70 f/2.8.


----------



## hyogen

These are loud and in your face--intentionally


----------



## musubi1000

hyogen said:


> a poster trumpeting my website's soon arrival


Hyogen I liked everyone of those


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> I heard a lot of dislike on ergonomics, for me coming from D200 I have no issues on ergonomics and button layout.  The 28-70 is a great lens, always love it but never really get a chance to own one.  When I received the D800E I need a better zoom lens than my 35-70 f/2.8, the natural decision goes to the 24-70 f/2.8.


 
  If by better you mean faster focusing or wider, then, yeah, the 24-70 is a better lens. It isn't however, going to last as long as it is made with more electronics, which Nikon have proved at some point, to be inept in creating. The 24-70 is also much heavier and lacks an aperture ring. If you intend to use it 100% digital, or to never go older than FE AF style cameras, you will love it. It is fun, but honestly, I feel that Nikon took several steps backwards with it versus the 28-70. BTW, I know a number of product photographers who use it in lieu of a proper macro: the close focusing at 70mm is great!


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> If by better you mean faster focusing or wider, then, yeah, the 24-70 is a better lens. It isn't however, going to last as long as it is made with more electronics, which Nikon have proved at some point, to be inept in creating. The 24-70 is also much heavier and lacks an aperture ring. If you intend to use it 100% digital, or to never go older than FE AF style cameras, you will love it. It is fun, but honestly, I feel that Nikon took several steps backwards with it versus the 28-70. BTW, I know a number of product photographers who use it in lieu of a proper macro: the close focusing at 70mm is great!


 
   
  I agreed on lack of aperture ring is a pain and I still do have F3HP and F5, that is why I still have my 35 f/2.0 and 50  f/1.2 AIS lens.  For product shots, I still use my 60 f/2.8D Micro but planning to sell it to get the Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro.
   
  The focusing is much faster on the 24-70 compare to 35-70 and that extra 24 and 28 mm is much needed for traveling.


----------



## leftnose

F5 will work fully with a "G" lens, I think.


----------



## hyogen

thanks, musubi


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> F5 will work fully with a "G" lens, I think.


 
  Yes as will many digital film bodies. I purchases lenses that work 100% on real film bodies, though, even ones that have no electronics in them at all, like the FM. These lenses work really well on all camera systems.


----------



## howzitboy

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> I don't really like the D800. It has a great sensor, but apart from that, its ergonomics and button layout has changed too much from the D700 to be really 'Nikon', and it has so many problems that have nothing to do with the touted AF issues.


 

 i hate my D800 also. buttons moved so I keep hitting wrong ones, focus problems (focus jumps to infinity all time) and fps sucks (for weddings)... rather use the d300 or d700


----------



## musubi1000

I love the D800
  It is by far the best digital camera I have ever used to date. I don't mind the weight and size especially when you see what this camera can do in extreme situations!


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *musubi1000* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> (snip) amazing sunset and flowers (/snip)
> 
> I love the D800
> It is by far the best digital camera I have ever used to date. I don't mind the weight and size especially when you see what this camera can do in extreme situations!


 
  Beautifully shot.
   
  The D800 is a great digital camera, but it really acts completely like a digital camera. An FE from the 1970's essentially is its historic analogue and is much smaller, much more sturdy, and much more ergonomic for the lenses it was built to use than the D800 is for its own lenses. Image quality is one thing, but it's unfortunately not a Nikon-only thing. The sensor can be popped into another camera. I'd be very happy if it could be plopped into an FE-sized camera, or better yet, a mirror less camera. I'd love an x-pro 1 with the D800 sensor. As digital cameras go, it is great, but digital cameras are awful unless you just kachakachakachakacha a million times a second. Maybe a digital back for an FE with the D800 sensor. 
   
  I'm amazed by image quality, too. I recently shot at 3200 and 6400 for A4 sized prints in a year book and they all looked fine even prior to noise reduction.


----------



## musubi1000

shigzeo said:


> If by better you mean faster focusing or wider, then, yeah, the 24-70 is a better lens. It isn't however, going to last as long as it is made with more electronics, which Nikon have proved at some point, to be inept in creating. The 24-70 is also much heavier and lacks an aperture ring. If you intend to use it 100% digital, or to never go older than FE AF style cameras, you will love it. It is fun, but honestly, I feel that Nikon took several steps backwards with it versus the 28-70. BTW, I know a number of product photographers who use it in lieu of a proper macro: the close focusing at 70mm is great!


Thanks Shig but where do you hear Nikon can't make anything electronic as well? The 24-70 has been a very reliable lens for me and everyone I know that has one. I dumped my 28-70 after side by side comparisons proved to me how much better the 24-70 was. True you can't use it on an old film camera but You'd be better off using a film era lens anyway as the newer lenses are being optimised for digital anyway. the older film lenses will exhibit higher contrast.


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> Thanks Shig but where do you hear Nikon can't make anything electronic as well? The 24-70 has been a very reliable lens for me and everyone I know that has one. I dumped my 28-70 after side by side comparisons proved to me how much better the 24-70 was. True you can't use it on an old film camera but You'd be better off using a film era lens anyway as the newer lenses are being optimised for digital anyway. the older film lenses will exhibit higher contrast.


 
  In all direct comparisons with their biggest competitor, Nikon have proved inept in creating trustworthy electronics. I'm not a canon or nikon fanboy, but I have lenses I like. The lenses I've used and I've borrowed in the last 6 or 7 years have been pretty good but overall, Canon EF lenses last longer and comparable AFS lenses. The Nikon lenses may be made more sturdily, but electronically, they break down faster. Body wise, I'm not sure. Canon seem to retain button placement better than Nikon do, but as we know, nothing can touch the D800 sensor for now. That, and being somewhat invested in Nikon glass, I will likely not change camps soon. However, that may change. My lenses are all Ai/S lenses (and as sharp and colourful as their newer G counterparts) that can be adapted to Canon bodies, or a real digital F body (what I'm hoping for) from Cosina or someone.


----------



## bigshot

I have lenses by Nikon, Tokina, Tamron and Samyang. I also have a full bag of film era Nikkors. I MUCH prefer the new lenses to the old Nikkors, and I find the third party lenses can be just as good as the equivalent Nikon lenses. Lots of lenses are well made now.
   
  I imagine you'd be able to come up with preferences for one over the other if you drop it on the sidewalk, but I don't plan to do that. I take good care of my toys.


----------



## shigzeo

I tend to prefer cheap over expensive for every day life. Ai lenses are cheap as chips but I understand the lure of big AFS lenses.


----------



## bigshot

It's weird but I really like my screw drive lenses better than the ones with focus motors. For some reason they seem to focus faster and lock in better. Especially my Tokina 17-50 2.8. That lens is peppy.


----------



## shigzeo

The Nikon 80-200 AFD is also a great lens and can be had for 300-500 bones. Focus is nearly instantaneous.


----------



## musubi1000

Hey Bigshot, did you know Tokina was started by former Nikon lens engineers? That's why their lenses zoom and focus the same direction. I used to think that all other cameras were backwards when growing up until I realized that it was just Nikons


----------



## Tsujigiri

I just got my first DSLR this past summer. I was trained on Canons, but after comparing the features of the entry models I decided that Nikon would be the better route (really liked the 50% longer battery runtime in particular) and got a D5100. I really like the camera! I do miss the depth of field preview button and the sensor that turns off the screen when you look through the viewfinder and turns it on again when you move your face away, but those are minor tradeoffs. My friend boasts about his mirrorless Sony camera, and it seems like many are going in the pseudo-DSLR direction, but I appreciate the traditional viewfinder system and don't mind the extra bulk.


----------



## jc9394

I still like the GF1 when I want to travel light and don't feel carrying 10+#.


----------



## shigzeo

Hell, even Nikon's FE/FM series and associated lenses was light - way light in comparison. Most 28-85 lenses weigh less than 400 grams, some far less. You can have three lenses and a camera that weigh less than a single D3X with battery. It's amazing how digital technology has shrunk everything: microprocessors, transistors, circuits, but with cameras that have the same size sensor/film, digital cameras are bigger 100% of the time.


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> Hell, even Nikon's FE/FM series and associated lenses was light - way light in comparison. Most 28-85 lenses weigh less than 400 grams, some far less. You can have three lenses and a camera that weigh less than a single D3X with battery. It's amazing how digital technology has shrunk everything: microprocessors, transistors, circuits, but with cameras that have the same size sensor/film, digital cameras are bigger 100% of the time.


 
   
  As much as I still like taking pics with F3HP with 50 f/1.2, it is not efficient using it during business trip.  The GF1 with 20 f/1.7 is perfect walk around in unknown territory...


----------



## musubi1000

tsujigiri said:


> I just got my first DSLR this past summer. I was trained on Canons, but after comparing the features of the entry models I decided that Nikon would be the better route (really liked the 50% longer battery runtime in particular) and got a D5100. I really like the camera! I do miss the depth of field preview button and the sensor that turns off the screen when you look through the viewfinder and turns it on again when you move your face away, but those are minor tradeoffs. My friend boasts about his mirrorless Sony camera, and it seems like many are going in the pseudo-DSLR direction, but I appreciate the traditional viewfinder system and don't mind the extra bulk.


Mirror less systems are already outselling DSLRs in Asia by about 3:1. Smaller and lighter are always key factors for consumers. Still not a true match for the performance of a DSLR though. Congrats on your new Nikon. The D5100 is dope. 


jc9394 said:


> I still like the GF1 when I want to travel light and don't feel carrying 10+#.



The GF 1 rocks. I still use mine.


----------



## jc9394

A used GF1 is crazy low price.  I like it much better than the new GF2/3 version.


----------



## jc9394

I think I'm finally done on upgrade to FX, placed an order on the final zoom tele zoom lens earlier.   switching format is much more expensive than I initial thought.


----------



## musubi1000

shigzeo said:


> In all direct comparisons with their biggest competitor, Nikon have proved inept in creating trustworthy electronics. I'm not a canon or nikon fanboy, but I have lenses I like. The lenses I've used and I've borrowed in the last 6 or 7 years have been pretty good but overall, Canon EF lenses last longer and comparable AFS lenses. The Nikon lenses may be made more sturdily, but electronically, they break down faster. Body wise, I'm not sure. Canon seem to retain button placement better than Nikon do, but as we know, nothing can touch the D800 sensor for now. That, and being somewhat invested in Nikon glass, I will likely not change camps soon. However, that may change. My lenses are all Ai/S lenses (and as sharp and colourful as their newer G counterparts) that can be adapted to Canon bodies, or a real digital F body (what I'm hoping for) from Cosina or someone.


All the manufacturers play with the button layouts here and there. Nikon used to have a two-button two step process to zoom in on the image. But thankfully have since adopted Canons one button zoom in feature. Canon has now gone to a two-button two-step zoom in on the 5D mk III just like the old Nikons. Why change a good thing?

Canon has moved buttons from the camera back left side on the 10-30D to the bottom on the 40-50D and back to the left side on the 7D and all over on the 60D. Even the power switch has moved.


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> As much as I still like taking pics with F3HP with 50 f/1.2, it is not efficient using it during business trip.  The GF1 with 20 f/1.7 is perfect walk around in unknown territory...


 
  Oh yes, of course! The F3HP is a great camera, but a professional one with semi-grip and massive viewfinder. It is still smaller than a D700/300/800 and better made. A better comparison would be an FE, which was closer to a 'consumer' camera, though still larger than Nikon's smallest SLRs and much larger than Pentax or Olympus' SLR cameras. Today's m43 and other systems use tiny amazing sensors and are small. But no SLR today is made as small and user-friendly as SLRs from years ago. I really wish a D800 sensor would be put in the likes of an FE body. I'm not alone either.


----------



## kever910

To me this is where cameras are eventually going to be heading towards. I mean for instance look at the Sony RX-1, its a full frame point and shoot for gosh sakes. This alone proves that it is possible. also I believe that they were better made back in the day too. I have an old minolta 35mm camera that I inherited from my father. Its made of metal and looks as good as new. Camera companies are just figuring this out with fujifilms line of mirror less cameras. Now they just need to make DSLR's like that. I believe they would sell like hotcakes.


----------



## gkanai

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *shigzeo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I really wish a D800 sensor would be put in the likes of an FE body. I'm not alone either.


 
   
  Sony RX-1, basically.


----------



## kever910

Quote: 





gkanai said:


> Sony RX-1, basically.


 
  The Sony RX-1 with interchangable lenses is really what we need. But then theres the new Leica M camera. Full Frame, 24 MP CMOS Sensor. But then again it will cost an arm and leg. Not to mention that the Sony is not cheap by any means.


----------



## Hutnicks

Quote: 





kever910 said:


> The Sony RX-1 with interchangable lenses is really what we need. But then theres the new Leica M camera. Full Frame, 24 MP CMOS Sensor. But then again it will cost an arm and leg. Not to mention that the Sony is not cheap by any means.


 

 Well Leica isn't really Leica anymore so the days of them being the pinnacle of photographic hardware are gone. They really missed the boat in digital. Shot Leica's and Nikons for years. What I really want is an F3T with a digital sensor conversion kit. That's never going to happen when Nikon insists on trying to squeeze 10K plus out of you for a pro digital solution.
   
  Oh yeah, and it's bigger than a friggin buick now. I realize batteries are the limiting factor in downsizing DSLR's but by god no way am I ever going down that road again. For the size of a DSLR kit I might as well carry the ELM into the field and scan to digital.
   
  I'll lug around the P5000 and 6000 with the TC3 Ed convertor and the EC 63 and have a fairly good solution for most cases.
   
  When it came down to it for a main Digital Camera it was the GF series (largely due to the availability of adapters for Leitz M glass) an entry level DSLR and the final winner the Fuji HS20. The Fuji won out with lens performance envelope and AA battery operation. Thus far I have not regretted that purchase.


----------



## kever910

Quote: 





hutnicks said:


> Well Leica isn't really Leica anymore so the days of them being the pinnacle of photographic hardware are gone. They really missed the boat in digital. Shot Leica's and Nikons for years. What I really want is an F3T with a digital sensor conversion kit. That's never going to happen when Nikon insists on trying to squeeze 10K plus out of you for a pro digital solution.
> 
> Oh yeah, and it's bigger than a friggin buick now. I realize batteries are the limiting factor in downsizing DSLR's but by god no way am I ever going down that road again. For the size of a DSLR kit I might as well carry the ELM into the field and scan to digital.
> 
> ...


 
  Well I have always cringed at bridge/superzooms. However, Fuji is probably the one exception because I have read good things about that camera. IMO I believe that if your going to get something like a bridge camera then you might as well go up to a DSLR or Mirrorless because of the features, image quality, amount of lenses, and everything minus the price. However now cameras have gotten so good that even the iPhone is being compared to DSLR quality. Although after owning a DSLR I don't think I can go back to not having one. But I'm glad that you don't regret your purchase and found something that works for you, because that is really the most important thing; something that you enjoy to take pictures with and something that wont sit in a desk drawer for years without being touched. 
   
  Nice Pic BTW
   
  Here's a recent pic that I took while in Arizona


----------



## Hutnicks

Quote: 





kever910 said:


> Well I have always cringed at bridge/superzooms. However, Fuji is probably the one exception because I have read good things about that camera. IMO I believe that if your going to get something like a bridge camera then you might as well go up to a DSLR or Mirrorless because of the features, image quality, amount of lenses, and everything minus the price. However now cameras have gotten so good that even the iPhone is being compared to DSLR quality. Although after owning a DSLR I don't think I can go back to not having one. But I'm glad that you don't regret your purchase and found something that works for you, because that is really the most important thing; something that you enjoy to take pictures with and something that wont sit in a desk drawer for years without being touched.
> 
> Nice Pic BTW
> 
> Here's a recent pic that I took while in Arizona


 

 Excellent shot. What time of day was it to get that colour sky?
   
  Well the old saying that the best camera is the one that you will carry is more than true for digital. I'm at the point where the glam has long gone so the Red Ball is just another box. With the Fuji when all was said and done I could not find a reason NOT to buy it while I could come up with hundreds of reasons for just about every other box. And of course by the time I'd procrastinated enough it was out of production so I had to order one in from across the country Bridge and Prosumer are two terms that really irk me. Bridge to what exactly? It sure isn't a trainer for a DSLR, perhaps a mirrorless, but then again if you are not looking for an interchangeable lens solution it is a bridge to nowhere. I just think of it as a box that does a job. Sort of like the guys who bought FE2's and only one or two zoom lenses. (A Leica CL with a Tele Elmarit 90 was my go to for years. Some hated the CL. I had several and loved every one. Compact Featured Light as a feather, and if you knew what you were doing just about any M lens could be made to work.) Usability rather than lugability became my criterion.


----------



## kever910

Quote: 





hutnicks said:


> Excellent shot. What time of day was it to get that colour sky?
> 
> Well the old saying that the best camera is the one that you will carry is more than true for digital. I'm at the point where the glam has long gone so the Red Ball is just another box. With the Fuji when all was said and done I could not find a reason NOT to buy it while I could come up with hundreds of reasons for just about every other box. And of course by the time I'd procrastinated enough it was out of production so I had to order one in from across the country Bridge and Prosumer are two terms that really irk me. Bridge to what exactly? It sure isn't a trainer for a DSLR, perhaps a mirrorless, but then again if you are not looking for an interchangeable lens solution it is a bridge to nowhere. I just think of it as a box that does a job. Sort of like the guys who bought FE2's and only one or two zoom lenses. (A Leica CL with a Tele Elmarit 90 was my go to for years. Some hated the CL. I had several and loved every one. Compact Featured Light as a feather, and if you knew what you were doing just about any M lens could be made to work.) Usability rather than lugability became my criterion.


 
  Ya thats understandable and as the saying goes "to each his own". That the same way with DSLR's , for instance if I were to give it to anyone of my friends they would just stare at it in confusion. And also me with film, I was born during the ages of film but been with been with digital cameras more years than not. So if given a film camera I would uncomfortable. So my point I guess that I realized is that I guess not every camera is for everyone. For me its my DSLR, I love the image quality and I love the features on it so I can fiddle around with it every so often. I just for some reason I can not explain would not want to buy a Superzoom ( you're right bridge camera is not a good name for it, so I'll stick with super zoom from now on). Maybe it's just a bias of mine. Either way I am not a person of practicality so I make compromises with my camera in order to obtain image quality and control (not that the fuji doesn't have that) but it is just right for me. And my iPhone for everything else...
   
  Anyway back to your first question. It was a clear mid afternoon day. I just did a bit of editing in Aperture 3 with it. Heres the original:
   

   
  Anyways wayy past my bedtime so it was good talking to you Mr. Hutnicks so good night and we can pick this up in the morning if you like.


----------



## Hutnicks

Quote: 





kever910 said:


> Ya thats understandable and as the saying goes "to each his own". That the same way with DSLR's , for instance if I were to give it to anyone of my friends they would just stare at it in confusion. And also me with film, I was born during the ages of film but been with been with digital cameras more years than not. So if given a film camera I would uncomfortable. So my point I guess that I realized is that I guess not every camera is for everyone. For me its my DSLR, I love the image quality and I love the features on it so I can fiddle around with it every so often. I just for some reason I can not explain would not want to buy a Superzoom ( you're right bridge camera is not a good name for it, so I'll stick with super zoom from now on). Maybe it's just a bias of mine. Either way I am not a person of practicality so I make compromises with my camera in order to obtain image quality and control (not that the fuji doesn't have that) but it is just right for me. And my iPhone for everything else...
> 
> Anyway back to your first question. It was a clear mid afternoon day. I just did a bit of editing in Aperture 3 with it. Heres the original:
> 
> ...


 

 It was a pleasure talking with you as well Mr Kever.
   
  Long weekend and good weather here for a change so out and about. Have a P6000 which has decided to drain batteries at an alarming rate to figure out.
   
  Don't get me wrong I have nothing against the DSLR.  I can simply get the results I want with the uberZoom and a couple of filters. There is still a lot of stigma among us old filmoids that a zoom cannot ever be as good as a prime lens. So we carried about a billion prime lenses around for every occasion The technology has changed so much that an uberZoom can give terrific results. Jpeg quality that it is that rose shot blows up quite well without retouching (took out two small dirt spots on the bottom and thats it). It was shot through a century optics .55x flip flop wide angle macro filter. Thats pushing glass to the limit.
   
  The thing that I still need film for is long exposures. I have never been happy with digitals results to date on that. It was one of the determining factors on the Fuji purchase as once I eliminated long exposure ability from the selection criteria, new horizons opened up.


----------



## kever910

Quote: 





hutnicks said:


> The thing that I still need film for is long exposures. I have never been happy with digitals results to date on that. It was one of the determining factors on the Fuji purchase as once I eliminated long exposure ability from the selection criteria, new horizons opened up.


 
  Hmm never thought about that... I have always liked doing long exposures because I really like landscape photography but I dislike using my DSLR for that because I feel like I'm somehow damaging my sensor form keeping it on for too long. It's probably just me being paranoid but I just don't want to find that my sensor has a million hot pixels or something terrible like that. I actually did some research on this but I could not find anything conclusive. Like I said it's probably just me being paranoid. But film's a good idea, unfortunately I need a nikon film camera and a good wide angle lens.


----------



## Hutnicks

Quote: 





kever910 said:


> Hmm never thought about that... I have always liked doing long exposures because I really like landscape photography but I dislike using my DSLR for that because I feel like I'm somehow damaging my sensor form keeping it on for too long. It's probably just me being paranoid but I just don't want to find that my sensor has a million hot pixels or something terrible like that. I actually did some research on this but I could not find anything conclusive. Like I said it's probably just me being paranoid. But film's a good idea, unfortunately I need a nikon film camera and a good wide angle lens.


 

 You can pick up a decent film camera from a Nikkormat on up to the F3 (last of the great SLR's) fairly cheap now. Unless you need a fisheye a wide angle is easily had as well.


----------



## shigzeo

F3's go pretty cheap now. 
   
  I just had to pick up a 28-70/2,8 AFS lens as the studio won't abide Ai/S lenses on the job. Japanese studios shoot VERY differently from Canadian ones. It's like going back in time, way back. Getting the shot means only: focus and a semblance of subject. The artistry that has shown up in recent weddings abroad is absent. Oh well. The entire affair is plasticised: in hotels on cinderella seats with fake preachers and you have to invite your entire office... not a nice happy event.


----------



## Hutnicks

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> F3's go pretty cheap now.
> 
> I just had to pick up a 28-70/2,8 AFS lens as the studio won't abide Ai/S lenses on the job. Japanese studios shoot VERY differently from Canadian ones. It's like going back in time, way back. Getting the shot means only: focus and a semblance of subject. The artistry that has shown up in recent weddings abroad is absent. Oh well. The entire affair is plasticised: in hotels on cinderella seats with fake preachers and you have to invite your entire office... not a nice happy event.


 

 I keep my eye open for an F3T, they still seem to fetch a good price though. I traded my F3 for an M6 and it is the only camera I have ever owned which I regret getting rid of.
   
   Your description of the shoot has me thinking of Miami in the 70's for some reason, polyester hell


----------



## Frank I

Ithaca  NY on Cornell University campus shot with the Nikon 16-85 lens


----------



## Frank I

These are all on Cornell's Campus and


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





frank i said:


> These are all on Cornell's Campus and


 
  How I miss green, water, skies, and anything but farting, sneaky, money-grubbing person people who duck to each other politely but inside think: 'you person'. I've got to get out of Asia. I want to experience something other than humanity again.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> How I miss green, water, skies, and anything but farting, sneaky, money-grubbing person people who duck to each other politely but inside think: 'you person'. I've got to get out of Asia. I want to experience something other than humanity again.


 
  you need professional help


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





frank i said:


> you need professional help


 
  Very possibly. BTW, D800 update brings the biggest feature: TTL for stopped-down liveview in A and M modes. Previously (for a bloody year now), D800 users had to switch ISO up or shutter speed way way down to focus and compose in live view as the screen would reflect the lens setting, not the SLR (lens free setting). Great for work now!


----------



## gkanai

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> How I miss green, water, skies, and anything but farting, sneaky, money-grubbing person people who duck to each other politely but inside think: 'you person'. I've got to get out of Asia. I want to experience something other than humanity again.


 
   
  Dude, you just need to get out of Kanto.


----------



## kever910

Hey I have a question to all that are following this thread: What is your opinion on the whole Megapixel Race? 
   
  I have been contemplating this for a while and do not have anyone where I live to discuss it about. My personal opinion is that it is good to have and it eventually leads into technological advancements but other than that I do not find tons of megapixels to be extremely helpful other than clogging up my hard drive. My D5100 has plenty of MP and anything more would be really unnecessary. Heck, I would go with 10 MP in a heart beat. If I were the head of the R&D department of Nikon or even Canon, I would be focusing my time on noise performance, dynamic range, and so on. It almost gets to the point where it is too much. I mean as good as the D800/D800E are, is it really that much better than the old D700? Anyways post your thoughts.


----------



## bigshot

I've printed a medium sized poster from a 3 mp camera and gotten great results. Resolution is generally overrated. Anything over 10 megapixels is overkill for normal use, so we're well into the range of overkill. But there are always number hounds on the internet who say that a three year old camera is "hopelessly obsolete" because it doesn't have as many pixels as the newest model.
   
  The same is true of high ISO performance. Back in the film days, you shot with ASAs that even cameraphones can exceed. My new D7000 can shoot in a dim room without a flash. But does it look good? No, because low light like that generally is no substitute for good lighting. Noise and dynamic range are very good in current models. Nothing broken there.
   
  DSLRs aren't perfect though. At this point, the area that I think needs improvement is video capabilities and smooth continuous focus that video requires. Shooting video with my D7000 is a complete joke. Not even close to being useful.


----------



## bigshot

There's something I've been thinking about lately too... When I look at people's photos on the internet, most of them fall into two categories... static shots of nature (both wide and close) and cute pictures of babies and dogs. Now I like nature, babies and dogs as much as anyone else, but what's wrong with photos of grown up people? I find the photos that interest me the most are the ones that tell me a story... those ALWAYS involve people doing things... activity... going about their lives.
   
  If an alien life form analyzed our photos to determine what the earth was like, they would think Earth consists of empty expanses of woodlands and water populated by a handful of babies and dogs.


----------



## Hutnicks

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I've printed a medium sized poster from a 3 mp camera and gotten great results. Resolution is generally overrated. Anything over 10 megapixels is overkill for normal use, so we're well into the range of overkill. But there are always number hounds on the internet who say that a three year old camera is "hopelessly obsolete" because it doesn't have as many pixels as the newest model.
> 
> The same is true of high ISO performance. Back in the film days, you shot with ASAs that even cameraphones can exceed. My new D7000 can shoot in a dim room without a flash. But does it look good? No, because low light like that generally is no substitute for good lighting. Noise and dynamic range are very good in current models. Nothing broken there.
> 
> DSLRs aren't perfect though. At this point, the area that I think needs improvement is video capabilities and smooth continuous focus that video requires. Shooting video with my D7000 is a complete joke. Not even close to being useful.


 

 Coolpix 990, Lumix lc40, Canon G2, Pentax 550 X 3 . I'm no mp hound by any means. The 990 and LC40 in particular make stunning images As we are not all Peter Lik's or Gursky's we can do fine with fewer pixels.


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





gkanai said:


> Dude, you just need to get out of Kanto.


 
  I do. I really don't like this place.


----------



## nikongod

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> There's something I've been thinking about lately too... When I look at people's photos on the internet, most of them fall into two categories... static shots of nature (both wide and close) and cute pictures of babies and dogs. Now I like nature, babies and dogs as much as anyone else, but what's wrong with photos of grown up people? I find the photos that interest me the most are the ones that tell me a story... those ALWAYS involve people doing things... activity... going about their lives.
> 
> If an alien life form analyzed our photos to determine what the earth was like, they would think Earth consists of empty expanses of woodlands and water populated by a handful of babies and dogs.


 
   
  There is a pretty big street scene...
   
  Have you ever tried it?


----------



## bigshot

I love street shooting, especially at night. Almost all of my pictures have people in them doing things.


----------



## Hutnicks

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> There's something I've been thinking about lately too... When I look at people's photos on the internet, most of them fall into two categories... static shots of nature (both wide and close) and cute pictures of babies and dogs. Now I like nature, babies and dogs as much as anyone else, but what's wrong with photos of grown up people? I find the photos that interest me the most are the ones that tell me a story... those ALWAYS involve people doing things... activity... going about their lives.
> 
> If an alien life form analyzed our photos to determine what the earth was like, they would think Earth consists of empty expanses of woodlands and water populated by a handful of babies and dogs.


 
   
  Thats funny. I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by a fairly well reknowned people shooter last spring. As I sat there looking at endless family shots et al what really got to me was how static they all were. They lack verbiage. I vowed never to shoot that type of thing as I think people should have memories of "Families in action" A skiing trip, Rock Climbing, Sailing....whatever. I believe sterile portraits belong in museums.


----------



## hyogen




----------



## hyogen

just shot my first engagement session a couple weekends ago and they just confirmed me for their wedding in september!  My first engagement and wedding   2nd engagement coming up this week.  Here are a few from the engagement session:
   
  havent' finished processing all of them, and the last one I should have stopped down more (I used f/5.6 and the girl came out not as sharp)..so I enhanced the eyes to make it more in focus -_-


----------



## jpelg

^ Nice! You have captured a number of the couple's personalities in those samples alone (classy, casual, cheeky, romantic, posed, relaxed, etc). I would be very happy with your work if I were part of that couple. Congrats on the booking!


----------



## hyogen

thank you!  my second engagement couple really wanted cherry blossoms too, but unfortunately we both were out of town and now they're pretty much all gone    I had no idea they came and went so fast...


----------



## musubi1000

Hyogen the eng shots are great but can I ask why do you photoshop additions? 6th image I keep getting distracted by the masked arm, Bench coming out of stomach,  floating inverted couple above, and black corner in lower right. Everything is distracting around the couple. Not focusing the attention to the couple.


----------



## hyogen

thanks.  actually none of the effects were done in photoshop, but in-camera using mirrors   I'll keep the distractions thing in mind when I do my next shoot.  I have way more pics that I didn't use the mirrors for and just used them for cool effects.


----------



## musubi1000

hyogen said:


> thanks.  actually none of the effects were done in photoshop, but in-camera using mirrors   I'll keep the distractions thing in mind when I do my next shoot.  I have way more pics that I didn't use the mirrors for and just used them for cool effects.



Mirrors! I've never seen this before. interesting. but maybe in a different way for this shot. keep exploring it!


----------



## Redcarmoose

Playing around last night with the NIKKOR 18mm 1:3.5    serial number 191283


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> There's something I've been thinking about lately too... When I look at people's photos on the internet, most of them fall into two categories... static shots of nature (both wide and close) and cute pictures of babies and dogs. Now I like nature, babies and dogs as much as anyone else, but what's wrong with photos of grown up people? I find the photos that interest me the most are the ones that tell me a story... those ALWAYS involve people doing things... activity... going about their lives.
> 
> _*If an alien life form analyzed our photos to determine what the earth was like, they would think Earth consists of empty expanses of woodlands and water populated by a handful of babies and dogs.*_


 

   
   
  Last evening with humans doing activities near by.


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> thanks.  actually none of the effects were done in photoshop, but in-camera using mirrors   I'll keep the distractions thing in mind when I do my next shoot.  I have way more pics that I didn't use the mirrors for and just used them for cool effects.


 
  Agree with these being great images. Have you tried printing them out yet? They may be a touch contrasty for great looking prints, but I suppose it depends on a number of things. On my monitor, they jump out into Tokyo. They look great. I've seen some prints based on such images that didn't turn out as well as on screen though.


----------



## jc9394

Finally arrived this morning...


----------



## shigzeo

Great tripod. I used to own that lens. It is very sharp and has little vignetting compared to its predecessors. Ultimately, I find it too heavy for how I shoot. The 80-200D is the one I'll be picking up. Enjoy!


----------



## gkanai

I've had an 80-200D (the one with the tripod clamp) since the 90s and its still as sharp as the day I got it. Best price/performance in that segment, imo. I can afford the newer ones but theyre not worth the upgrade price to me.


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





gkanai said:


> I've had an 80-200D (the one with the tripod clamp) since the 90s and its still as sharp as the day I got it. Best price/performance in that segment, imo. I can afford the newer ones but theyre not worth the upgrade price to me.


 
  That is an excellent lens: light, sharp, fast focusing, and fast aperture. Currently, I borrow one from work mates when I have to use a fast telephoto. Typically, I get by with my 180/2,8 Ai/S ED for events. That lens is better than any of the 70-200 range lenses at 180 and 2,8, though it flares a bit more than the current VRII lens. The tradeoffs are worth it though, and the price: 350-500$ is excellent.


----------



## hyogen

I'm proud to announce that I launched my website and facebook page today!  Thank you for all the feedback so far.  I'm still very driven to improve always.  I remember when I had 6 lenses at one point...!    Right now I only have a 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 and am happy with these.  I had to take a few pictures already on paid assignments that required a much wider lens-- a condo and dental office.  I've gotten by with stitching a bunch of images (50mm stitched looks a little fisheye unfortunately), but they turned out satisfactory for now.  
   
  Although I am using a full frame, I have found i can use the cheap aps-c 18-55 VR lens on DX mode of my camera and get good quality.  I am limited to 3 lenses total by the wife, so I'm still deciding what to do.  
   
  The 50mm 1.8G lens is a superb versatile lens and I used it more than 90% of the time during my first engagement shoot.  It would have been nice to have a little more wider perspective in some shots, however.  The 85mm 1.8 is great, but I can great very nice portraits with the 50/1.8 close-up with no distortion as well... so maybe I should get a longer lens to replace the 85?  I would enjoy the extra compression and longer reach of either 105mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8, or 135mm 2.0, but all of these are significantly more expensive.  For my wide end, I imagine the 28mm 1.8G lens or older 35mm 2.0 / 24mm 2.8 lenses would be okay--with 35mm being just not wide enough in certain circumstances.  Ideally, I'll get the Sigma 35 1.4 when it drops in price and I won't miss the cheap but superb 50mm 1.8.  
   
  3 lenses is all I can have -_-  Perhaps I should just rent a 70-200 2.8 for weddings for now.  
   
   
   
  My site:  www.hyofoto.com  - any suggestions welcome.  The mobile site is very different and I may get rid of it.  
   
  My main portfolio can be seen here:  http://hyofoto.smugmug.com   
   
facebook


----------



## bigshot

The music made me bail. You shouldn't put audio on a professional site. People in offices will be looking at it.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The music made me bail. You shouldn't put audio on a professional site. People in offices will be looking at it.


 
   
  hmm, good point and I'll carefully consider this..   Did you notice that there is a mute button at the top right?


----------



## bigshot

The mute button didn't work. Java error. May not play nice with Macs.


----------



## hyogen

I turned the music off   You can hit play if you want now.
   
  Thanks for the advice again


----------



## mechgamer123

Hi all, I'm looking to buy my first DSLR with a bit of early graduation money and get into photography in general. I've asked a few people I trust and they led me to the Nikon D3200, which looks quite nice. If there's a better camera out there for the money, do let me know. Otherwise I think I'd like to buy it. I am now wondering where I should actually purchase it; I live in a small town where the only place selling the camera is Wal-Mart (nearest Best Buy, Target, Costco, etc is an hour's drive away). Plus, WA happens to be one of those glorious states that charges tax for any online purchase made with an establishment in Washington. This means the state would collect an additional 8.9% tax if I purchased it from Amazon.
 So far though I've looked around at a few different websites and it seems that Costco has the best deal: http://www.costco.com/Nikon-D3200-DSLR-Camera-2-Lens-Bundle.product.100007777.html?catalogId=10701&keyword=d3200&langId=-1&storeId=10301 but I would have to pay about $70 sales tax. Are there any other deals I'm overlooking that would be better than this? And that combo is already at the top of my budget, for what it's worth.
 Thanks!


----------



## Hutnicks

Quote: 





mechgamer123 said:


> Hi all, I'm looking to buy my first DSLR with a bit of early graduation money and get into photography in general. I've asked a few people I trust and they led me to the Nikon D3200, which looks quite nice. If there's a better camera out there for the money, do let me know. Otherwise I think I'd like to buy it. I am now wondering where I should actually purchase it; I live in a small town where the only place selling the camera is Wal-Mart (nearest Best Buy, Target, Costco, etc is an hour's drive away). Plus, WA happens to be one of those glorious states that charges tax for any online purchase made with an establishment in Washington. This means the state would collect an additional 8.9% tax if I purchased it from Amazon.
> So far though I've looked around at a few different websites and it seems that Costco has the best deal: http://www.costco.com/Nikon-D3200-DSLR-Camera-2-Lens-Bundle.product.100007777.html?catalogId=10701&keyword=d3200&langId=-1&storeId=10301 but I would have to pay about $70 sales tax. Are there any other deals I'm overlooking that would be better than this? And that combo is already at the top of my budget, for what it's worth.
> Thanks!


 

  I do not know how they operate in the USA , however I was fortunate to work down the road from the Canadian Nikon Offices for a while and bought their factory refurbs with no problems. I recommended it to many a new Photographer and they always came away satisfied.
   
  The US link is below.
   
http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/list/ThemeID.27720500/categoryID.43896500


----------



## choka

Did you look at B&H, adorama, buydig, etc?
   
  Do you want everything included in that bundle? IMO the WiFi adapter is useless. You might be better off buying what you need individually instead of buying them as a bundle?
   
  If I were you, I'd get a D3200 with the kit lens and a fast prime, e.g., 35mm, and that's it. What do you intend to shoot?
   
  Quote: 





mechgamer123 said:


> Hi all, I'm looking to buy my first DSLR with a bit of early graduation money and get into photography in general. I've asked a few people I trust and they led me to the Nikon D3200, which looks quite nice. If there's a better camera out there for the money, do let me know. Otherwise I think I'd like to buy it. I am now wondering where I should actually purchase it; I live in a small town where the only place selling the camera is Wal-Mart (nearest Best Buy, Target, Costco, etc is an hour's drive away). Plus, WA happens to be one of those glorious states that charges tax for any online purchase made with an establishment in Washington. This means the state would collect an additional 8.9% tax if I purchased it from Amazon.
> So far though I've looked around at a few different websites and it seems that Costco has the best deal: http://www.costco.com/Nikon-D3200-DSLR-Camera-2-Lens-Bundle.product.100007777.html?catalogId=10701&keyword=d3200&langId=-1&storeId=10301 but I would have to pay about $70 sales tax. Are there any other deals I'm overlooking that would be better than this? And that combo is already at the top of my budget, for what it's worth.
> Thanks!


----------



## mechgamer123

Quote: 





hutnicks said:


> I do not know how they operate in the USA , however I was fortunate to work down the road from the Canadian Nikon Offices for a while and bought their factory refurbs with no problems. I recommended it to many a new Photographer and they always came away satisfied.
> 
> The US link is below.
> 
> http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/list/ThemeID.27720500/categoryID.43896500


 
  Thanks for the link! Although I opted to not buy refurbished, as my overall experience with refurbs has been less than stellar.
  Quote: 





choka said:


> Did you look at B&H, adorama, buydig, etc?
> 
> Do you want everything included in that bundle? IMO the WiFi adapter is useless. You might be better off buying what you need individually instead of buying them as a bundle?
> 
> If I were you, I'd get a D3200 with the kit lens and a fast prime, e.g., 35mm, and that's it. What do you intend to shoot?


 
  I just checked B&H and they had this bundle (that I just ordered) here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/875186-REG/Nikon_D3200_Digital_SLR_Camera.html
  As to what I intend to shoot, probably a bit of everything. From scenery to family gatherings to dark streets. Whatever catches my eye really. I will also probably use the video feature a lot as well, so I thought my money would be better spent on a different lens. And I agree that the wifi adapter looks pretty useless.
  I was also thinking about getting this lens a little later on to use at night: http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/pd/productID.213466700


----------



## choka

I really wonder if you want to buy a bundle because I still see a lot of junk in that b&h bundle. The only useful stuff there is the SD card and the filter, and (arguably) the spare battery. (for me, personally, i would only use the nikon battery) How much is it cheaper than buying them separately?
   
  I like the 35/1.8 lens. It's lightweight, fast and sharp. Can't go wrong with that one.


----------



## hyogen

some recent ones

   

  should have stopped down more here.  I was walking next to them and took this snapshot.  Probably needed to be at around f/3.5 with my 50mm 1.8 lens.
   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  on of my first times trying out the multiple exposure feature on my camera.


----------



## jc9394




----------



## anoobis

I'm a bit short on time, so I'm going to have to throw in an annoying request for advice without properly searching the thread, sorry about that.
   
  The Nikon 55-200mm VR seems to be a pretty good price at Amazon UK right now. Do you guys and gals think it would be worth getting as a small, light lens for hiking around, given I already have a Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6? The latter is supposed to be capable of some decent results.
   
  The extra range would be nice but it's not something I'm too bothered about. The VR is more enticing but I do have a 70-300mm VR for that; I just don't always want to carry it.
   
  I did try the Nikon 55-300mm VR at one point but didn't get on with it. I found the AF a bit slow and prone to hunting. The VR didn't always settle satisfactorily at lower light levels. At the 300mm end I found the lack of permanent manual focus override to be limiting. This may be less of an issue at 200mm.
   
  The 55-200 is supposed to focus better but it will be a slower lens (as in f/5.6 at 200mm; that said, ISTR there wasn't a lot in it).
   
  So, any advice? Is there any real benefit over the 80-200mm other than VR? Is the 55-200 too good a price to pass up?
   
  Of course, my budget for this may get wiped out in the next week!


----------



## bigshot

I don't see the point having two lenses in the same range like that. If your camera body is fairly recent, speed shouldn't be an issue. Just up the ISO a tad.


----------



## mechgamer123

Quote: 





hyogen said:


>


 
  Ooh, I recognize where that's from! I walked through there a little bit when I went down to Portland over spring break...
  And as to not derail the thread:

   

  No impressive pictures _with_ the camera so far, I'm still trying to figure out all this photography jazz, but I'm excited to learn!


----------



## anoobis

Thanks for the reply. I agree, no point in covering the same range. If I got the 55-200 VR I wouldn't keep the 80-200. Just wondering, whether the image quality and usability improvements (?) make it worth changing. Must check size and weight, since that's the point of the 80-200 for me at the moment.


----------



## hyogen




----------



## musubi1000

Quote: 





anoobis said:


> I'm a bit short on time, so I'm going to have to throw in an annoying request for advice without properly searching the thread, sorry about that.
> 
> The Nikon 55-200mm VR seems to be a pretty good price at Amazon UK right now. Do you guys and gals think it would be worth getting as a small, light lens for hiking around, given I already have a Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6? The latter is supposed to be capable of some decent results.
> 
> ...


 
  I'm sure you know all the prices for said lenses. The 55-300 is what you already described for $400. Have you looked at the newish Tamron 70-300 VC? $450 then minus $100 mail in= $350.

   

   

   
  Capable of 1:2 Macro and the BEST stabilizer in the industry! Good optics and snappy focus once it decides to go. I think one of the best value lenses right now.


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


>


 
  Great shots. Where were they taken? What did you use for the shots? Thanks


----------



## jc9394

frank i said:


> Great shots. Where were they taken? What did you use for the shots? Thanks




John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, taking with D800E with 24-70 on a tripod.


----------



## hyogen

inside The Alamo in San Antonio
   

   

   

  capitol building in Austin, TX


----------



## anoobis

musubi1000, thanks for the reply and the photos. I'm not sure that rebate applies in the UK but in any case I was after smaller and lighter. I did try the Tamron in a shop at one point. It seemed quite nice but I didn't even get chance to go outside with it so didn't get a proper impression.


----------



## Redcarmoose

I had a friend over with a Nikon d200 and an 18mm to 200 mm zoom lens. I had an old film Nikon body and an old prime 18mm lens.

What was amazing is through the viewfinder the film Nikon 18mm had about a 1/3 frame more wide perspective. Obviously taking a 35mm photograph then comparing just what was on the D200 digital frame side by side would be a better example of the difference. View finders don't always show excactly what is falling on the sensor. 

I know the view is just slightly cropped with my d3000. Just a slight more info is hitting the sensor than what it shows threw the viewfinder.



The amazing thing here is I truly don't think an 18 to 200mm lens on a d200 is really giving you a full 18mm focal length. At first I thought it may be that the lens could be used maybe with dx and non dx cameras, so that is where the descrpeticy was. But no it's only a dx lens and the d200 is a dx Nikon.


You would think all 18mm lens systems would put the same image on the sensor. Now I'm going to have to compare the 18mm to 55mm kit lens perspective with the 18mm to 200mm perspective at the full 18mm mark and look for variations.



Wow, just started to research this. It does turn out that many cameras and especially Nikon Dx line don't always show in the viewfinder what goes on the sensor.

Now I'm also trying to figure out if they still put the focal length for a full frame body on Dx lens specs?


----------



## bigshot

Film cameras are full frame. A D200 is a DX crop sensor. There is a 1.5x difference between the two. A 50mm on DX would be the same as 75mm on full frame. A full frame sensor is bigger than a DX sensor, but the image created by the lens is the same. So the DX lens crops it a bit.


----------



## Redcarmoose

bigshot said:


> Film cameras are full frame. A D200 is a DX crop sensor. There is a 1.5x difference between the two. A 50mm on DX would be the same as 75mm on full frame. A full frame sensor is bigger than a DX sensor, but the image created by the lens is the same. So the DX lens crops it a bit.





Thx that is what I thought.


----------



## jc9394

Pick this up lately, it is sharper than I expected.  No back or front focus issue with my camera.


----------



## hyogen

​a few from my latest shoot. It's my first year and I've booked 4 weddings so far! If you would, please help me out and like my facebook page www.facebook.com/hyofoto


----------



## musubi1000

@ jc 28 1.8? If so very nice lens. Widest w/o distortion. Good close focus and super sharp. 

Hyogen: nice shots. Like all of them. Re: the first shot with the couple on the stairs. The lower portion of frame is kinda dark and scary for eng shots? . I love most of the design as a whole but maybe what if you showed more "above" them. Less of the scary more of the bright and sunny?


----------



## jc9394

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> @ jc 28 1.8? If so very nice lens. Widest w/o distortion. Good close focus and super sharp.


 
   
  35 f1.4, the sharpest wide primes I ever used including the Siggy 35 f1.4.


----------



## musubi1000

Nice


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





jewman said:


> I just wish Nikon would have produced an f90x with built-in exposure bracketing and maybe a built-in flash, but alas, they've stopped producing film SLR's altogether.


 
  You can buy a new FM10 or F6.  They've stopped developing new film SLRs but they still make them.


----------



## OmarCCX

Really thinking about selling my Canon 40D + Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 + Flash and getting a D7000 with the 50mm 1.8G in a few months. September can't come soon enough!


----------



## bigshot

I recently went from a D200 to a D7000 and it was a nice step up. The D7000 is a little less ergonomic, but that may just be me getting used to it.


----------



## Szadzik

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I recently went from a D200 to a D7000 and it was a nice step up. The D7000 is a little less ergonomic, but that may just be me getting used to it.


 
  I got myself a D7100 after owning D90 for over 4 years and am vvery happy with its ergonomy so far.


----------



## nk77

Why on earth did this take me so long to find on head-fi?!! About to convert to FX. Thinking D600. And starting with lenses: Is the general consensus still that people like the 16-35mm over the 14-24mm? Just that extra 2mm of difference...
   
  BTW any 14-24mm users have issues with dust and cleaning their lenses?


----------



## jc9394

nk77 said:


> Why on earth did this take me so long to find on head-fi?!! About to convert to FX. Thinking D600. And starting with lenses: Is the general consensus still that people like the 16-35mm over the 14-24mm? Just that extra 2mm of difference...
> 
> BTW any 14-24mm users have issues with dust and cleaning their lenses?




The 14-24 is much sharper but I chose the 16-35 mainly for the filter thread size and more useful zoom range. I have use the 14-24 before, one recommendation is get an extra cap. You will loose it.


----------



## nk77

Quote: 





jc9394 said:


> The 14-24 is much sharper but I chose the 16-35 mainly for the filter thread size and more useful zoom range. I have use the 14-24 before, one recommendation is get an extra cap. You will loose it.


 
   
  Any issues with taking care of the lens (I mean the 14-24)?


----------



## jc9394

nk77 said:


> Any issues with taking care of the lens (I mean the 14-24)?




I used it for few months and don't have much issues, it is hard to clean the front element with a fixed hood.


----------



## nk77

I see. I was hoping someone here would talk me toward the 14-24mm haha.


----------



## jc9394

If money is no object and don't mind getting super expensive Lee filter system, the 14-24 definitely a better choice.


----------



## nk77

Haha yeh right. Could you see yourself putting that massive filter on your 14-24mm?


----------



## jc9394

Nope, that is why I sold the 14-24 for 16-35, I have no regret, I don't shoot professional and does not need the pixel peeking sharpest.


----------



## bigshot

You can rest assured that you are well into the range of overkill already.


----------



## nk77

Yes indeed: 
   

   
  There are seemingly better alternatives though (and half the retail price apparently of the LEE):
http://fotodioxpro.com/index.php/fotodiox-pro-filter-adapter-145mm-for-af-s-nikkor-14-24mm-f-2-8g-ed-nikon-lens-filter-adapter-lens-cap-only.html
   
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/881982-REG/Hitech_HTLWAH_165mm_Lucroit_Wide_Angle.html


----------



## musubi1000

Both 14-24 and 16-35 are great lenses. The 16-35 is a more useful range. The extra 2mms is not a big deal. The weight of the 14-24 alone is kinda heavy but that's what you will have to burden if you want the 2.8. One that you didnt mention is the 17-35. It is still a great lens and one of my all time favorites. I never really felt the need to go any wider but ymmv


----------



## hyogen

All taken with the old 85mm 1.8 AF lens.  Most of these are cropped quite a bit


----------



## jc9394

I wet cleaned my sensor over the weekend, completely dust free (for now).


----------



## hyogen

A few same day edits of the wedding I shot this past weekend.  I have 3 weddings under my belt now with a 4th in a couple months.  Couldn't have asked for a better first summer of shooting 'professionally'.  Hopefully I'll be busier next year!


----------



## jc9394

I never shoot at high ISO before and it turns out pretty good at 6400.


----------



## bigshot

Recent cameras can shoot in the bottom of a coal mine at midnight.


----------



## jc9394

I'm impressed, the only light is on is about 20' away and about 30watts.


----------



## Currawong

I'm another person who should have found this thread much earlier.



musubi1000 said:


> Both 14-24 and 16-35 are great lenses. The 16-35 is a more useful range. The extra 2mms is not a big deal. The weight of the 14-24 alone is kinda heavy but that's what you will have to burden if you want the 2.8. One that you didnt mention is the 17-35. It is still a great lens and one of my all time favorites. I never really felt the need to go any wider but ymmv


 
  
 Anakchan kindly lent me his 14-24 for a few months. It is a very fun lens. I was borrowing it before that to shoot pictures at the Tokyo shows. To be able to walk up to a table and shoot the entire thing standing right in front of it was very handy. Ken Rockwell approved this was not. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I ended up buying the 16-35 for those very reasons though: I had been shooting at 35mm (f1:2D prime) for so long it made sense, especially in FX (I have a D800 now). Also the 14-24 starts to visibly distort objects below 16mm but doesn't really add anything for me. I use a flash indoors as well (SB-700) and wont be shooting more open than f4 -- very often much more closed and I usually shoot in Manual mode with auto-ISO.
  
 I did have a lot of fun with the 14-24 though. My first experiments with it outside of the shows are in the "Fukuoka, Tenjin" set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/currawong1/sets/


----------



## bigshot

Actually, you ended up agreeing with Ken Rockwell there.
  
 I've gone with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 for the midrange and the Tokina 11-16 2.8 for ultrawide. For fish, I have the Vivitar 7mm 3.5- a fantastic lens for pennies. I like the lighter weight of DX because I do a lot of street shooting.


----------



## Currawong

bigshot said:


> Actually, you ended up agreeing with Ken Rockwell there.
> 
> I've gone with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 for the midrange and the Tokina 11-16 2.8 for ultrawide. For fish, I have the Vivitar 7mm 3.5- a fantastic lens for pennies. I like the lighter weight of DX because I do a lot of street shooting.


 
  
 Yes, ultimately I did read Ken Rockwell's ultra wide page both before, during and after I'd started paying attention to the lens properly and I get what he is saying. It encouraged me to get all the unnecessary crap out of my pictures.  
  
 I also shoot RAW + JPEG basic and end up using the latter most often, which surprised me, but saves me a lot of time if I set the camera up right to begin with.  I bought the D800 as a kit with the 28-300, which covers most stuff outdoors.  What I'd like to get for my wife and daughter to use is the most basic Nikon DSLR (D40?), a 24mm prime for indoors (roughly equivalent to my 35mm on the D800) and the 55-300 for, say, sports carnivals and other outdoor events. They don't have to figure out the camera then beyond selecting a default program.


----------



## nk77

currawong said:


> Anakchan kindly lent me his 14-24 for a few months.


 
  
 Where do I sign up? It's been a while since I held one in my hands...
  


currawong said:


> I ended up buying the 16-35 for those very reasons though: I had been shooting at 35mm (f1:2D prime) for so long it made sense, especially in FX (I have a D800 now). *Also the 14-24 starts to visibly distort objects below 16mm* but doesn't really add anything for me. I use a flash indoors as well (SB-700) and wont be shooting more open than f4 -- very often much more closed and I usually shoot in Manual mode with auto-ISO.


 
  
 One of the reasons why I think the 14-24 is something I would enjoy....
  



currawong said:


> What I'd like to get for my wife and daughter to use is the most basic Nikon DSLR (D40?), a 24mm prime for indoors (roughly equivalent to my 35mm on the D800) and the 55-300 for, say, sports carnivals and other outdoor events. They don't have to figure out the camera then beyond selecting a default program.


 
  
 Funnily enough with the 700, I still have the D40 and a 35mm DX lens. I didn't realise there was a 24mm DX version, but I think it may be the FX prime lens you are talking about - the D40 would see an equivalent of a 36mm lens...I would buy a 35mm DX for the D40 for the wife/kids... Unless you already have a 24mm FX and you want to use it on the D800 also from time to time....


----------



## Currawong

The 35mm was too narrow for DX, but perfect for FX for me. That's why I was thinking the 24mm would be good. It is small and light.  I used to hand my D7000 to my daughter with the 35mm on it and tell her to take photos of her brother. The results were very good. I've let her play with cameras since she was about 3 years old though. A kid with a pocket camera can be quite amusing. Lots of laughs when you go later and look what is on the card.
  
 There was a second-hand 14-24 in the camera store the other week. VERY tempting. It is such a mad lens. I enjoy how it makes everything you stick it right up to look more interesting by overblowing the depth and size of objects, but with tons of detail. 
  
 I can assure you that this stone creature was not at all interesting at a distance.
  

  
 I have a ton of pictures of my kids and friends' kids taken with it shoved in their face more or less.  Way more fun than the usual flat, generic shots of them doing stuff. The downside is: Portrait shots do _not_ work. It is landscape or nothing.  It gets tiring after a while though, as everything is crazy, all the time. That's another reason for the 16-35 choice: I can have normal or crazy without having to change lenses.


----------



## jc9394

How is the sharpest between the 14-24 and 16-35 around f/5.6?  When I tested the 14-24, I have the D700 and I do not see much difference.  Now, I have the D800E and wonder if there are any difference.  The 16-35 has more usable range for me and the VR function is really nice.


----------



## Currawong

That's a good question. I don't have the 14-24 here any longer to test. I think you need to check -- I forgot the site name -- that does comprehensive measurements, or DP Review maybe. Ken Rockwell has good comparisons as well.
  
 I don't stress over sharpness excessively, as I mostly shoot my kids, so getting them actually in focus in the first place is trouble enough! 3D focus mode is a godsend for that!
  
 I'll try and find some shots later from both lenses that were taken at f5.6 and post them up at full resolution or some 100% crops so you can take a look.


----------



## musubi1000

Both the 16-35 and the 14-24 are later generation lenses. Both are on the Nikon approved list of lenses for the D800. Both are ridiculously sharp. There may be slight variances between them but at this level it's of little consequence. Get the best one that fits your criteria and budget. You can't go wrong. The extra stop the 14-24 affords you isn't that big a deal on an 800 as the 800 can run up to ISO 3200 with no COLOR noise.


----------



## musubi1000

Nikons 1st built in meter. It wasn't even TTL!
For all the digital only shooters notice the lens is designated in cm.


----------



## Frank I

Just got the 80-200MM lens today and also have the 70-200MM on order to compare both. Like what I see on the 80-200MM so far


----------



## Frank I




----------



## Mr.Sneis

This thread seems dead!
  
 Nikon last week announced D610.  The web went crazy (mostly in a bad way).  It's the same as the d600 with a different shutter; .5 fps faster with a new quiet mode, same everything else.
  
 Retailers discounting on hand d600's and refurbs -- $1600ish at the moment.  May be a great time to scoop one up (or second hand)!  Just be prepared to have to clean your own sensor regularly for the first 10k or so clicks.
  
 I don't have a d600 anymore but it is a really great camera and IMO you definitely see/feel/know the difference when you step up to full frame.  People complain about smaller buffer and less autofocus points, older AF system, and dust/oil on the mirror.  None of which render the camera useless if you are a reasonable individual.


----------



## pookeyhead

skyline889 said:


> For those of you that shoot digital, since the Nikon wb setting for incandescent light is pretty bad, what do you guys do about it? I adjust wb manually through Photoshop but it would be a lot less hassle if there was a trick to do it through the camera. I had this problem on both the D70 and the D50 and it's plagued on the D40 as well, is it like this on the higher end D80/D200 as well?


 
 I do nothing at the taking stage.  I shoot RAW.   No white balance settings are applied to RAW files, just as there is no sharpening, or colour profiling....   it's a RAW file.
  
 As I don't wander around taking random photos, and everything I do is on a professional basis, I ensure the first shot of every studio session contains a grey card to act as a reference for colour balancing the whole batch.  It takes one click.
  
 If on location, I so the same thing, but before each image shoot (as light is changing more dynamically outdoors).
  
 This is the only totally accurate and easy way of colour balancing.
  
 As an amateur you may not want to do that, but shooting RAW is still my recommendation, as you don't have to worry about this at the time of shooting.  Do it later in Lightroom or Adobe Camera RAW.


----------



## pookeyhead

jc9394 said:


> How is the sharpest between the 14-24 and 16-35 around f/5.6?  When I tested the 14-24, I have the D700 and I do not see much difference.  Now, I have the D800E and wonder if there are any difference.  The 16-35 has more usable range for me and the VR function is really nice.


 

 The D800E (I own both E and non E) shows a difference, as does the non E version (not much to choose between both cameras), with the 14-24 being sharper in the edges.  It's minimal at 5.6 though.   Wide open the 16-35 is pretty poor in the corners at the best of times, but the D800 really hammers it home...  if you print big of course.
  
 If all you are doing is viewing the images on screen, or at A3 or less in print, then there's not much in it.  To be honest, if all you do is look at your images on a screen or only print sub A3, then you don't really need a D800 though, do you?


----------



## Frank I




----------



## jc9394

Nice Frank, I'm a little late so only a pic of full moon.


----------



## Frank I

I did not see any but you got a good shot too lunar eclipse


----------



## mechgamer123

Some lightning photos I took a month or two ago:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/98391529@N03/sets/72157635552820145/
  
 And my photostream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/98391529@N03/
  
 I'm still pretty new to photography, and I don't have any of the fancy lenses you all have, but I'm trying to get the hang of it!


----------



## Frank I

<img class="size-large wp-image-11026" title="Nikon FM2" alt="Nikon FM2" src="http://www.cameraegg.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nikon-FM2-1024x768.jpg" width="620" height="465" />
  
 Nikon releasing a retro full frame hybrid. No price listed


----------



## bigshot

You have a good eye Travis.


----------



## mechgamer123

Thank you good sir!


----------



## Frank I

300MM Nikon Pr


  
 ime in the House


----------



## hyogen

frank i said:


> 300MM Nikon Pr
> 
> 
> 
> ime in the House


 
  
 Quote:


frank i said:


> Just got the 80-200MM lens today and also have the 70-200MM on order to compare both. Like what I see on the 80-200MM so far


 
  
 Just wanted to let you know that I'm noticing about half of your photos in the last two pages are not very sharp.  You might want to use a faster shutter speed or make sure your autofocus is working properly.


----------



## hyogen

Beware of the Poison Dart Ladybug.  This is my first real macro shot.  Used an 85mm lens with Raynox DCR-250 adapter.  Now I know why most macro is done with a tripod.. It took me a while to get a sharp shot -- I had to tippy toe because this little guy was in a lamp trying to get away from my 2 cats!  used F11, but I think I could have stopped down even more.


----------



## hyogen

musubi1000 said:


> @ jc 28 1.8? If so very nice lens. Widest w/o distortion. Good close focus and super sharp.
> 
> Hyogen: nice shots. Like all of them. Re: the first shot with the couple on the stairs. The lower portion of frame is kinda dark and scary for eng shots? . I love most of the design as a whole but maybe what if you showed more "above" them. Less of the scary more of the bright and sunny?


 
  
 I didn't see your comment till now!  I appreciate the feedback.  I actually darkened the shadows on this for the contrast, but I'll keep the scariness in mind!


----------



## musubi1000

Nikon 500 f4 w/ D800


----------



## musubi1000

Look what just came in! Almost same diameter as 85 1.4 but just about an inch shorter. Close focusing is about 2 feet.


----------



## jc9394

OMG, you brought that. I'm coming by your place soon.


----------



## SkyBleu

Who wants to give me the low down on the Coolpix L820?


----------



## musubi1000

Hmm gotta have a shootout with the new Nikkor 58mm and this new Zeiss Otus 55 1.4. 
The new Zeiss is sharp corner to corner wide open with a touch of fall off. It is absolutely ridiculously sharp stopped down to f4. Even on a D800 I feel it out performs the 36 mp sensor.


----------



## Jon L

musubi1000 said:


> Hmm gotta have a shootout with the new Nikkor 58mm and this new Zeiss Otus 55 1.4.
> The new Zeiss is sharp corner to corner wide open with a touch of fall off. It is absolutely ridiculously sharp stopped down to f4. Even on a D800 I feel it out performs the 36 mp sensor.


 
 You bought this $4000 Zeiss??!  
 How fast and accurate are you able to manually focus this lens wide open with modern DSLR focus screen?


----------



## Redcarmoose




----------



## musubi1000

jon l said:


> You bought this $4000 Zeiss??!
> How fast and accurate are you able to manually focus this lens wide open with modern DSLR focus screen?



Any fast aperture lens is easier to focus than a slower lens as depth of field is visible through viewfinder. That being said my eyes are starting to get a bit older and I'm not as fast as I used to be. I have to use the viewfinder focus confirmation to check in difficult situations. The lens is huge. Like bigger than a nikkor 24-70. But I have never seen a lens this good before. Never. The color rendition is accurate with good contrast. But it's sharpness is something to witness.


----------



## leshishipin

just do it,The D3 will essentially relieve the user from having to have such an exacting, tiny, dense DX imager that could be quite susceptible to motion, lens issues, etc. I have found the D200 to be more forgiving in that way, but then again, I was fortunate to get a couple of really great lenses.thanks


----------



## musubi1000

Oh Yeah! It's a lot lighter than I thought it was gonna be. It's light but balances well. EN-EL14 battery and SD card behind the battery door. The shutter dial is perfect. Mounted high like a F3P. It does have 1/3 stop increments but only when you set dial to the 1/3 stop notch. Otherwise full stop shutter speeds. Not real fond of the mode selector but that's a minor gripe. Nice viewfinder. Snappy focus. It should be a winner. Now if Nikon will just put the 36 MP sensor from the Sony A7R in it.


----------



## jc9394

Nice, I thought shipping is on Black Friday.


----------



## musubi1000

jc9394 said:


> Nice, I thought shipping is on Black Friday.



Shipping was today. No one can demo or sell until Black Friday.


----------



## jc9394

musubi1000 said:


> Shipping was today. No one can demo or sell until Black Friday.




You work for Nikon?


----------



## snapple10

looking to get my first real camera  and looking at Nikon 3200 with lenses up to 200mm . I know very little and was hoping I can get some pointers from here
  
 find that enjoy taking pics . want to spend $500-750 which seem reasonable 
  
 thanks


----------



## bigshot

The 3200 is a great camera. When you say lenses to 200mm, do you mean from 18mm up to 200mm? The 18-200 VR or a pair of kit lenses that cover that range, and the 35mm f/1.8 would be all you would ever really need.


----------



## snapple10

Yes, description
  
  Nikon D3200 DSLR Camera w/ 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm Lenses
  
  
 what does f/1.8 mean in terms of pics? I remember reading up on d3100.3200, 7000 and few terms came up but for my use, figure this i will work, at least to start with


----------



## bigshot

The 35mm f/1.8 is a fast lens- good for shooting indoors without a flash. It also is a great portrait lens. You can open up wide and get those nice creamy soft focus backgrounds behind your subject. Glamorous!


----------



## musubi1000

No Jc I do not. But I do work in the industry. 

The Nikon D3200 with 18-55 and 55-200 are bundled for $500 

The Sony Alpha 58 w 18-55 is going for $500 as well.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Finally can put my D3000 to rest, Christmas upgrade to the Nikon D5100 kit. Happy to have some low light quality.


----------



## magiccabbage

Hi guys
  
 I just bought a nikon d5200. New to the DSLR thing - its my first camera. 
  
 Anyway I am planning on getting a 50mm lens for portraits. I was looking at this
 50mm 1.4 but its 1977-1981 and im not sure if it is compatible with the D5200. 
 Its a Nikon 50mm f1.4 ais here is the link ¬
  
  
http://www.adverts.ie/lenses/nikon-50mm-f1-4-ais/4497698
  
 Does anyone know if it will work?
  
 Thanks
  
  Paddy


----------



## jc9394

yes it will.  you probably be better get the 50 f1.8G


----------



## magiccabbage

jc9394 said:


> yes it will.  you probably be better get the 50 f1.8G


 
 Why because its auto?


----------



## jc9394

no the 50 f1.8 are very sharp and yes it is also easier to use auto focus and cpu enabled lens.


----------



## magiccabbage

jc9394 said:


> no the 50 f1.8 are very sharp and yes it is also easier to use auto focus and cpu enabled lens.


 
 my d5200 does not have an internal motor so will the lens work at all? 
  
 you are saying the the 1.8g will have a sharper image than the 1.4 ais?
 I am going for the most detail possible so if the G gives me that ill buy the G.


----------



## jc9394

magiccabbage said:


> my d5200 does not have an internal motor so will the lens work at all?
> 
> you are saying the the 1.8g will have a sharper image than the 1.4 ais?
> I am going for the most detail possible so if the G gives me that ill buy the G.


 
  
  
 I prefer 50 f/1.4G over 50 f/1.2AIS, never tried the 1.8G version but I heard very good things.  As for portraits, you better off by getting the 85 f/1.8G, it gives you more working distance from the model.
  
 The 85 f/1.8G is so sharp it is recommended to use with D800E instead of the f/1.4G version.


----------



## magiccabbage

jc9394 said:


> I prefer 50 f/1.4G over 50 f/1.2AIS, never tried the 1.8G version but I heard very good things.  As for portraits, you better off by getting the 85 f/1.8G, it gives you more working distance from the model.
> 
> The 85 f/1.8G is so sharp it is recommended to use with D800E instead of the f/1.4G version.


 
 I might start with the 50mm f1.8g and then get the 85mm f1.8g later on. 
  
 I will be making drawings and paintings from the images, just faces so i
 dont need to get back that far. I will be controlling the light as well. 
 Eventually i will do full body portraits and i assume thats where the 85mm
 will come in handy 
  
 Just on other thing, I was wondering about the difference in image quality 
 between the D5200 and higher models like the 600's/800's and 3's. 
 If the light is controlled and the lenses are right is there a noticeable 
 difference between sharpness and detail? Sorry if these questions
 are regurgitated.  
  
 Thanks for helping me out.


----------



## bigshot

Sharpness probably isn't going to be an issue for your purposes. All of those cameras have oodles of resolution. For head and shoulders photography, the 85mm is ideal. It allows you to be tight in on the subject without hovering too close to them and invading their space.


----------



## screwdriver

I find for full frame I like the 135mm for head and shoulder shots , I use the zeiss 135 f2  but its manual focus .
 for crop camera the 85 or 105mm lenses work well .


----------



## vipervick

Hi all,
  
 Photo noob here! I got the Nikon D7100 bundle from Costco. I was looking for an upgrade to our little Sony Cybershot. I have 2 young children, so my wife and I wanted to take "quality" pictures of them growing up. After reading review after review, I was down to the upper scale models of Nikon and Canon. (No photography experience) I was sold at Costco. Great price, customer service and return policy goes miles for me.
  
 First of all, we LOVE the amazing pictures we have taken so far! Albeit, on auto... What are some good tips for a beginner? Is there a good, down to earth website or forum?


----------



## bigshot

I have a D7000, and I keep a copy of Ken Rockwell's D7000 Guide App on my iPhone for reference. He has a good set of recommended settings for using the auto functions well and he explains when you might want to use a different setting.


----------



## Frank I

For anyone interested. I am upgrading to the D610 and need to sell my Nikon D7000 and 16-85 Nikon DX lens. if anyone is interested I'm selling them in mint condition for 850.00 together. Shutter count is 3835 so its lightly used.  D7000 550.00 and the DX 16-85 Lens for 385.00. Priced to sell quickly.   I will be posting these on ebay shortly so if anyone knows someone looking for an excellent deal. i need to recover some of the money for my D610/24-70 purchase and I have a D7100 also that I am keeping.
  
  
  
 D7000 and lens SOLD SOLD SOLD


----------



## Redcarmoose

I was surprised to find new Nikon film cameras for sale still. This FE10 is $319.00 with a 35mm to 70mm zoom.


----------



## Redcarmoose

If anyone in this thread can name what the heck this is, you get 10 points? Hint........it's Nikon.


----------



## jude

redcarmoose said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Nikon F-series shutter. Not sure which model. FA or FE2?


----------



## bigshot

That's a shutter. Doesn't look like the one in my F3 though.


----------



## Redcarmoose

jude said:


> Nikon F-series shutter. Not sure which model. FA or FE2?





Yep! FE 2!

10 points


----------



## jc9394

Anyone interest is a mint Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR?  Have everything comes with it and even include a B&W UV filter.  Looking for $975 shipped CONUS.


----------



## magiccabbage

Some pics I took today on the D5200. I might bring a tripod tomorrow and try leaving the shutter open longer and have everything in focus.


----------



## Frank I

My wife bundled up for the deep freeze outside today Shot with the D610 24-70


----------



## magiccabbage

frank i said:


> My wife bundled up for the deep freeze outside today Shot with the D610 24-70


 
 Very nice. the scarf looks great.


----------



## Frank I

thanks buddy


----------



## Frank I

Nikon D610 24-70MM Nikon pro lens


----------



## bigshot

Watch out for those tangents! (pot on the head like a hat)


----------



## jc9394

Love the bokeh on this, need to retake it at night.


----------



## Frank I

JC what kens did you use for that shot.  The setting too. Nice


----------



## jc9394

Zeiss 100 Makro, aperture priority at f/2.0


----------



## jc9394

Going to replace my 16-35 with this... Finally complete the *Nikon Holy Trinity*


----------



## Frank I

The 14-24  is a nice lens.


----------



## jude

jc9394 said:


> Going to replace my 16-35 with this...


 
  
 As far as I'm concerned, that 14-24 is an absolute wonder of optics--simply amazing. Because I'm so _not_ used to shooting so wide, I've not done that lens any justice; but you've reminded me to put it back on the camera and shoot with it. (I need to get a smaller body, though, as the one I've got is just too big and heavy for daily carry, especially with something like a 14-24 on it.)


----------



## Frank I

jude said:


> As far as I'm concerned, that 14-24 is an absolute wonder of optics--simply amazing. Because I'm so _not_ used to shooting so wide, I've not done that lens any justice; but you've reminded me to put it back on the camera and shoot with it. (I need to get a smaller body, though, as the one I've got is just too big and heavy for daily carry, especially with something like a 14-24 on it.)


 
 I jus got the D610 and love the light body and easy to use qualities of the camera


----------



## jc9394

jude said:


> As far as I'm concerned, that 14-24 is an absolute wonder of optics--simply amazing. Because I'm so _not_ used to shooting so wide, I've not done that lens any justice; but you've reminded me to put it back on the camera and shoot with it. (I need to get a smaller body, though, as the one I've got is just too big and heavy for daily carry, especially with something like a 14-24 on it.)


 
  
 It is huge when mounted with gripped D800, your D4 is not any smaller too.  Maybe get a D800E for higher pixels?  I have done a shoot with D4 and D800E, they are absolutely complement each other.


----------



## jude

jc9394, thanks for the recommendation (and you, too, Frank I, for the other recommendation).
  
 Admittedly, the camera I've been using more than any other lately is the Sony RX10. It's no substitute for my Nikons and all the lenses, but it has been really fun for an all-in-one. And for someone who was used to carrying a D4 as an everyday camera for well over a year, the RX10 is comparatively a featherweight.
  
 But this a Nikon thread, so I digressed...sorry.
  
 Back on topic: I think I remember from some time back, jc9394, that you also use the Nikon 35mm f/1.4. Of all the lenses I have, that's the one that's on my camera the most. (I haven't tried the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 everyone was talking about last year, as I'd already had the Nikon one when that newer Sigma was released.) Anyway, I love my 35mm f/1.4.


----------



## Frank I

Maybe you amy want to try the new smaller Nikon also since you have the lenses *Nikon* Df Is A *Small*, Retro, *Full*-*Frame DSLR* - First Look from *...*


----------



## jc9394

jude said:


> jc9394, thanks for the recommendation (and you, too, Frank I, for the other recommendation).
> 
> Admittedly, the camera I've been using more than any other lately is the Sony RX10. It's no substitute for my Nikons and all the lenses, but it has been really fun for an all-in-one. And for someone who was used to carrying a D4 as an everyday camera for well over a year, the RX10 is comparatively a featherweight.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Yes, I use the 35 f/1.4 a lot.  Much more than any other lens I own, I absolutely love it.  I tried the Sigma version before but it just does not feel the same as Nikon's version.  
  
 Off topic, I use the Sony RX100 when I trip for business with upper managements.  Not a good idea to look like a tourist while travel with big wigs.  I had looked at the RX10 too but lack of zoom is a no no for the wife, she use it to take pics of my girls.


----------



## jc9394

frank i said:


> Maybe you amy want to try the new smaller Nikon also since you have the lenses *Nikon* Df Is A *Small*, Retro, *Full*-*Frame DSLR* - First Look from *...*


 
  
  
 The Df just don't do it for me, too light and feels like a cheap camera.  It is fine when you have all prime lens, as sson as you mount a zoom lens it is off balance.  I admittedly love the look of it.


----------



## jude

jc9394 said:


> ...Off topic, I use the Sony RX100 when I trip for business with upper managements.  Not a good idea to look like a tourist while travel with big wigs.  I had looked at the RX10 too but lack of zoom is a no no for the wife, she use it to take pics of my girls.




I think that's the RX1--the full frame with fixed 35mm--you're thinking of. I have the RX10, which has a 1" sensor (same as RX100 II) with (equivalent) 24-200mm and f/2.8 throughout its entire range. It's not small, so it might not work for you, but it's amazingly thorough. I also have the RX100 II, and agree that it's very nice for when I just want to carry a really small camera.


----------



## Frank I

I have not actually seen one yet but if he wants a light body from Nikon there are only two choices in full frame the D610 or the  Df which is retro. I thought Nikon priced the Df high when they introduced it and reminds me of my Fuji X100S with the retro style which I use for lots of casual shooting when I dont want to carry the gear.  I need to try the DF but I cant see my self buying t as I have 4 cameras now and the d7000 still here because I wont give it away rather just keep it or give it to my daughter.
  
 JC surprised they made it cheap for 2700 though.


----------



## jc9394

jude said:


> I think that's the RX1--the full frame with fixed 35mm--you're thinking of. I have the RX10, which has a 1" sensor (same as RX100 II) with (equivalent) 24-200mm and f/2.8 throughout its entire range. It's not small, so it might not work for you, but it's amazingly thorough. I also have the RX100 II, and agree that it's very nice for when I just want to carry a really small camera.


 
  
  
 You are correct, Sony's model number are very confusing.  I carry it in my jacket pocket all the time when I travel to a foreign country.
  
 SOOC shot with RX100
  

  
 Since we are audio geeks, tube p0rn...


----------



## Currawong

jc9394 said:


> Going to replace my 16-35 with this... Finally complete the *Nikon Holy Trinity*


 
  
 I ended up buying the Tamron 24-70mm, since it as sharp, but a lot cheaper and more compact than the Nikon. I have been using the 16-35mm which I got to cover the times when I'd want to use the 14-24mm and a 28 or 35mm. I found though that as switching from wide to ultra-wide requires a change in mentality when shooting that is too easy to zoom out and forget this. Given the rate at which the 14-24mm keeps turning up s/h around here it has been tempting me to do the same switch.


----------



## magiccabbage

jc9394 said:


> Going to replace my 16-35 with this... Finally complete the *Nikon Holy Trinity*


 
 used a straight 14 myself over the weekend  - shooting video though


----------



## jc9394

currawong said:


> I ended up buying the Tamron 24-70mm, since it as sharp, but a lot cheaper and more compact than the Nikon. I have been using the 16-35mm which I got to cover the times when I'd want to use the 14-24mm and a 28 or 35mm. I found though that as switching from wide to ultra-wide requires a change in mentality when shooting that is too easy to zoom out and forget this. Given the rate at which the 14-24mm keeps turning up s/h around here it has been tempting me to do the same switch.




If you can find one mint/excellent condition, you really should upgrade. It is much sharper than the 16-35, especially at the edges and corners at the widest. The 16-35 is kind of mushy. I never noticed that until I received the 14-24.


----------



## bigshot

Or just stop it down to f/5.6 and all lenses are basically the same.


----------



## Currawong

jc9394 said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > I ended up buying the Tamron 24-70mm, since it as sharp, but a lot cheaper and more compact than the Nikon. I have been using the 16-35mm which I got to cover the times when I'd want to use the 14-24mm and a 28 or 35mm. I found though that as switching from wide to ultra-wide requires a change in mentality when shooting that is too easy to zoom out and forget this. Given the rate at which the 14-24mm keeps turning up s/h around here it has been tempting me to do the same switch.
> ...


  

 I'm in two minds about it still. I didn't find the 16-35mm mushy at all. It isn't as sharp as the Tamron 24-70mm but I wasn't disappointed with the sharpness I did get from it.  Some of that might have come from it simply being wide all the time and that I end up cropping a lot as a result, especially when trying to capture my kids and their friends doing funny things.
  
 Quote:


bigshot said:


> Or just stop it down to f/5.6 and all lenses are basically the same.


 
  
 I took identical shots with half a dozen lenses at 35mm-1/60-f11 of an identical view with identical light and it was very easy to see the difference in sharpness on the D800. So I can say, from actual testing, no they are not "basically the same", but then I have a D800. I can only wish that I could have just used the $80 second-hand old 24-70mm f3.5-5.6 instead of the Tamron to get just as clear shots.


----------



## jc9394

Totally agree with Currawong, it is a big difference with D800 sensor. I even stop down to f/8 and f/11, the edge is still mushy compare to 14-24.


----------



## bigshot

Would you call slight softness in the corners you can only see blown up to 100% a big difference? Because in everyday shooting, I'd never notice that at all.


----------



## jc9394

Well depends is paid gig or not. If it is a paid one, I want the absolutely the sharpest if possible.


----------



## bigshot

How many weddings require sharpness in the extreme corners when printed eight feet tall?


----------



## jc9394

Not wedding and I don't do wedding, the 14-24 is not good for wedding anyway. They may not need extreme sharpest but if I get paid I do give them the sharpest I can produce, you may feel different way but I personal prefer to deliver the best.


----------



## Frank I




----------



## Currawong

bigshot said:


> Would you call slight softness in the corners you can only see blown up to 100% a big difference? Because in everyday shooting, I'd never notice that at all.


 
  
 I'd call a significant loss of detail in the middle of the photo something I regularly notice on my 27" iMac or a retina MacBook Pro. If I didn't care about it, I wouldn't have bought the D800 and the lenses I have.
  
 One place I DO care about it especially is when I have to grab a shot of someone or something FAST and don't have time to zoom or get closer. Having the lens able to resolve a full 24 MP decides whether the crop of that shot is going to be useless or not. While my father took photos of me occasionally as I grew up, he never captured anything like what I have been able to of my children, which I can do every day, in amazing detail, and share immediately with my extended family and close friends far away. Recently while playing at the park, I was able, from about 50 yards away, to capture some amazing moments as my daughter and her friends were playing naturally, completely unaware of the camera. I could even see the detail in my daughter's smile, which made it all the more special.
  
 When I've compared older photos taken on cheaper cameras, the feeling from the photo is that it is of sometime distant and far away. With the D800 and the best lenses available, the sharpness (all else being good) _to me_ seems to bring the experience in closer as if it were right now. Then there's the enjoyment of having taken an awesome photo I, or my family (and friends when I take picture of _their_ family) can enjoy looking at for a long time in the future.


----------



## paulchiu

For guys with the D800 or D800E, the 85 1.4G lens as well as the older 85 1.4D lens are amazing with it.  Even at 1.4, the eyes are sharp with the most pleasing colors and contrast without photoshop.  The bokeh is creamy, who needs Leica.
  
 I have read that the upcoming Zeiss Otus 55 1.4 maybe even sharper with the Zeiss/Hassy look.  But that lens is about 3 times more expensive than the Nikons.


----------



## screwdriver

i have not used the otus but i have used the ziess 135mm f2 apo and it is so sharp , better than the 85 1.4G nikon but of course its MF


----------



## paulchiu

I used that 135 zeiss 1.8 in an AF mount version on the Sony A99.  Yes, it is sharp.  I wish Nikon had something comparable.


----------



## screwdriver

im laso excited about the new sigma 50mm 1.4 art lens coming soon - if its like the sigma 35mm 1.4 art  id be really pleased .


----------



## paulchiu

i use that 35 1.4 art lens over the last year with a Canon 1DX and it best any Canon L glass I use.  I wish they make that 18-35 1.8 for nikon full frame.


----------



## jc9394

Finally got some time to test out the new lens... not the best shot, just testing it to make sure it works.


----------



## jc9394

just noticed something very funny, see the orange thing on the bottom center of the picture?  it is a dead fish, i never thought 14mm is this wide.


----------



## erikfreedom

I own 2 Nikon binoculars. one pair is made in china and is 16x50. the other pair is Nikon astroluxe 18x70 made in japan and is insanely expensive. I use them to stargaze  in new mexico, Arizona and California during my breaks when I am trucking in the usa.


----------



## Redcarmoose

erikfreedom said:


> I own 2 Nikon binoculars. one pair is made in china and is 16x50. the other pair is Nikon astroluxe 18x70 made in japan and is insanely expensive. I use them to stargaze  in new mexico, Arizona and California during my breaks when I am trucking in the usa.


 






Cheers...wow.


----------



## Yazen

I recently found a Nikon J1 for $100 off Craigs (Gift/New Condition), and tried out some vintage lenses I have.  Looks pretty funky with a 135mm attached haha, but its actually really sharp at 100-200 ISO.  Tried the Takumar 135mm f2.5 (version 1), Aashi f2.8 50mm, and Gemini MC f2 35mm (All from my Pentax Aashi K1000, using a lens adapter without any elements).
  
 Would sell my D5100 if the J1 had an optical viewfinder...  When I get the chance I'll go photo hunting!


----------



## musubi1000

Just tested out the newest Nikon family member the D3300. The new collapsible 18-55 is just a pinch smaller but can deliver incredible resolution to the AA-less 24mp sensor. With a 24-70 or other great lens this camera can go toe to toe with a canon 5d mk3 in terms of resolution and best it.


----------



## liamstrain

musubi1000 said:


> Just tested out the newest Nikon family member the D3300. The new collapsible 18-55 is just a pinch smaller but can deliver incredible resolution to the AA-less 24mp sensor. With a 24-70 or other great lens this camera can go toe to toe with a canon 5d mk3 in terms of resolution and best it.


 
  
 I would be curious to see such a resolution test. The DxO mark sensor test certainly gave it favorable color and dynamic range marks, but didn't say much about overall resolution, or noise... (and of course, it is not full frame). So it's not really apples to apples. I'd be hesitant before calling it a giant killer.


----------



## Yazen

liamstrain said:


> I would be curious to see such a resolution test. The DxO mark sensor test certainly gave it favorable color and dynamic range marks, but didn't say much about overall resolution, or noise... (and of course, it is not full frame). So it's not really apples to apples. I'd be hesitant before calling it a giant killer.


 
 In the Nikon thread, budget Nikon DSLRs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5D Mark III


----------



## musubi1000

Now let's be clear I never stated anything about the D3300 being a giant killer. but you can get resolution like a 5d for under $650 right now.


----------



## musubi1000

I tried to match FOV as best I could but as you can see from the equivalent crop that I was off a bit. I know it is difficult to see the differences here as they are hard to see. The Canon has apparent sharpness with more obvious contrast sharpening. The Nikon has a bit finer detail but it is difficult to make out on these crops. I will need to do more testing.


----------



## musubi1000

Both cameras are producing excellent files. There still is the big price difference


----------



## Yazen

musubi1000 said:


> Now let's be clear I never stated anything about the D3300 being a giant killer. but you can get resolution like a 5d for under $650 right now.


 
 I was only kidding 
 How is the noise on the D3300?
  
 Still have not had time to go photo hunting with my J1, so muffins it is!

  
 Not the best photo on earth, but the J1 fares pretty well under low light conditions.  Using my Takumar lens+Adapter opened wide at f2.5
 For $100 total this is a pretty good combination!


----------



## musubi1000

The files look like noise is handled very well up to about 1600-3200. It is subjective and open to interpretation. I would say maybe about a stop better than your cool J1. I really like the one series. HAve you played with the slo-mo video?


----------



## Frank I

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=661798313845504&set=a.661274910564511.1073741863.100000460244471&type=1


----------



## jc9394




----------



## jc9394

First shot with Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm F/2.8 ZF.2


----------



## jc9394

Dessert...


----------



## Yazen

musubi1000 said:


> The files look like noise is handled very well up to about 1600-3200. It is subjective and open to interpretation. I would say maybe about a stop better than your cool J1. I really like the one series. HAve you played with the slo-mo video?


 
 Not yet, did not even look at the video features yet!  Not the best camera, especially with the kit lens attached.  But it is good, and very handy!
 Still haven't got to test daylight performance, so my impressions may change XD


----------



## Barry S

Girlfriend takes one look and says, "That lens does not belong on the Nikon!" Lomography 85mm f/2.2 Petzval lens.


----------



## liamstrain

barry s said:


> Girlfriend takes one look and says, "That lens does not belong on the Nikon!" Lomography 85mm f/2.2 Petzval lens.


 
  
 She's right.


----------



## Yazen

liamstrain said:


> She's right.


 
 That's what she said 
  
 Damn looks sexy, but I wonder if it gets hot to touch in the summer.


----------



## Currawong

Got $4k burning a hole in your pocket and want to resolve a full 29MP from your D800?
  
 http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428155,00.asp
  
 It scored 45 on DSOMark with the D800, the highest rated so far.
  
 Edit: Found a photoset made using it and the D800: http://www.flickr.com/photos/silver2silicon/sets/72157636266307353/with/12260663863/


----------



## Jon L

currawong said:


> Got $4k burning a hole in your pocket and want to resolve a full 29MP from your D800?
> 
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428155,00.asp
> 
> ...


 
  
 Or, if one cannot spend ~ $7K on D800+Otus, instead of spending $4K on the Otus, which does not autofocus, one could get very close with 4 times cheaper Sony Zeiss FE55mm f/1.8, which scored just a hair lower than Otus per DXO testing, second best score for any lens and even has AF.  In the end, both lenses were tested via the Sony/Nikon 36 MP sensor.
  
 http://petapixel.com/2014/01/30/dxomark-rates-zeiss-55mm-fe-sony-a7a7r-best-autofocus-lens-ever/


----------



## bigshot

Or just get a Mamiya medium format film camera and get even better resolution at a tiny fraction of the price. I got an RB67 kit on ebay for the price of one Nikon lens and it outshoots any DSLR.


----------



## Barry S

bigshot said:


> Or just get a Mamiya medium format film camera and get even better resolution at a tiny fraction of the price. I got an RB67 kit on ebay for the price of one Nikon lens and it outshoots any DSLR.


 
  
 Nice!  I just picked up a RB67 kit locally--body, 2 lenses, 3 backs, screens, prism, compendium shade--all for $150. All I gave to do is replace the foam seals and I'm good to go.


----------



## paulchiu

maybe some DSLR but not any.
  
 Quote:


bigshot said:


> Or just get a Mamiya medium format film camera and get even better resolution at a tiny fraction of the price. I got an RB67 kit on ebay for the price of one Nikon lens and it outshoots any DSLR.


----------



## bigshot

Isn't 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 equivalent to something like 80-100 megapixels? Medium format digital cameras only do 50 megapixels I think.


----------



## paulchiu

That is the theoretical range of what medium format film can have in terms of pixels.  In use, there are more factors into play.  There is the lens and camera combination.  Then there is what kind of film.  For instance, Fuji posted in their specs that Velvia 120mm film can range from 90 to 150mp densities. Other existing films varies and are now tough to get.
 Finally after the shot, you need to scan and unless there is a drum scanner involved, you have limitations in resolution from pro/consumer scanners.
 Take the popular Nikon scanners with 4000PPI optical specs.  Your 6x6 centimeters converts about to a 2.4 inches with 78mp resolution.
  
 Next, there is the issue of dynamic range of the scanned image.  Some of the top DSLR like the D800E, the 1DX, 5DM3, etc can give you nearly 12 f stops.  Negatives only about 3/4 that and slides even less.
  
 So even if you had access to a Heidelberg floor scanner, you may not be able to go analog to digital without dropping that gorgeous film captured image.
  
  
 Of course, if you do your own prints. Then all this is not your problem.
  
 Quote:


bigshot said:


>


----------



## bigshot

Most people who digitize medium format film have it done at the lab. I think most labs will do 80 megapixels. Some might do as much as 150. And with film, you usually use a light meter and work out your exposure to stay in the sweet spot of the latitude.


----------



## jc9394




----------



## jc9394

Love the Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21 ZF.2


----------



## Currawong

A medium format camera would be useless to me, unfortunately. If anything, I'm pondering a better telephoto zoom than the 28-300mm which I use to capture the kids at the park. At 300mm it is rather poor (though not too bad). I'm scratching my head between just getting a 70-200mm and cropping where required or that Tamron 150-600mm and hoping that it isn't too bad at 600mm.


----------



## Yazen

paulchiu said:


>


 
 If I find one cheap I will definitely give it a go!
 How much does good film go for these days?


----------



## paulchiu

i love the size and flexibility of that nikon 28-300 but you're right.  it is not sharp at 300 even with D800E.  It is good enough for 1080p video though. DXOmark tested that Tamron, can you rent it before purchase?
  
  
 Quote:


currawong said:


> A medium format camera would be useless to me, unfortunately. If anything, I'm pondering a better telephoto zoom than the 28-300mm which I use to capture the kids at the park. At 300mm it is rather poor (though not too bad). I'm scratching my head between just getting a 70-200mm and cropping where required or that Tamron 150-600mm and hoping that it isn't too bad at 600mm.


----------



## paulchiu

Pretty much the same as price was 10 years ago.
 Here's Adorama's pricing on Amazon.
  
http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-Fujichrome-Velvia-Color-Slide/dp/B000VXSGL6/ref=as_li_wdgt_ex?&linkCode=wsw&tag=billyccom-20
  
  
  
 Quote:


yazen said:


> If I find one cheap I will definitely give it a go!
> How much does good film go for these days?


----------



## jc9394

I use the 70-200 f/2.8 with TC17 for reach to 300mm, the result is acceptable but there are noticeable IQ degradation with D800E and none with D700.


----------



## bigshot

currawong said:


> A medium format camera would be useless to me, unfortunately. If anything, I'm pondering a better telephoto zoom than the 28-300mm which I use to capture the kids at the park.


 
  
 No, it sure wouldn't help for that. Way too slow and deliberate of a process. But when resolution is important, like landscapes, copy work or formal portrait, you can't beat medium format film. The RB67 is a mechanical marvel too.


----------



## Currawong

paulchiu said:


> i love the size and flexibility of that nikon 28-300 but you're right.  it is not sharp at 300 even with D800E.  It is good enough for 1080p video though. DXOmark tested that Tamron, can you rent it before purchase?


 
  
 I haven't checked if I can rent lenses locally.  I probably should! The 28-300 is fine from about -- I forgot what it was, probably 35-200mm. That's the question in my mind though: How much zoom would be worth sacrificing versus losing pixels from cropping.
  


bigshot said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > A medium format camera would be useless to me, unfortunately. If anything, I'm pondering a better telephoto zoom than the 28-300mm which I use to capture the kids at the park.
> ...


 
  
 You've reminded me of the Ansel Adams exhibition I went to years ago and stories of him waiting days for the perfect shot.


----------



## bigshot

currawong said:


> You've reminded me of the Ansel Adams exhibition I went to years ago and stories of him waiting days for the perfect shot.


 
  
 That's what larger format photography is all about... planning. Since I was raised shooting film both small and medium format, I find myself shooting entirely different than younger people who have always known digital. My camera is in the bag most of the time while I size up the composition in my head. Once I've decided what I'm going to do, then I grab the camera and focus on the technical issues of achieving what I want. I shoot, then the camera goes back into the bag. I don't get a lot of shots, but they're almost all "keepers". When I'm shooting, you rarely see me looking through my camera, but even when the camera is tucked away, I'm still actively shooting. This technique is ingrained in me. I could never walk around with the camera on my face snapping hundreds of shots like an event photographer. But there are definite advantages for planning out the shot in the street photography I enjoy doing. My subjects don't realize there is a camera, so they don't perform for it. Better spontaneity.
  
 Now shooting with the Mamiya is different. It's usually on sticks, so there is no hiding it. When I shoot with it, I try to stand between the camera and the subject blocking their view of it as much as possible. More of a challenge with spontaneity there.


----------



## paulchiu

Next to the 85mm 1.4G, I think the 35 1.4 (here with D800E) is pretty special.


----------



## jc9394

Very nice, I love the 35 f/1.4


----------



## paulchiu

a night out at the rehearsals.
  
 D800E with 70-200 VR2

  
 D800E with 85 1.4G

  
 1DX with Sigma 35 1.4

  
 Leica M with noctilux 0.95

  
 D800E with 70-200 VR2

  
 all taken at 3000K JPEGs and sharpened slightly at 100%


----------



## liamstrain

bigshot said:


> That's what larger format photography is all about... planning. Since I was raised shooting film both small and medium format, I find myself shooting entirely different than younger people who have always known digital. My camera is in the bag most of the time while I size up the composition in my head. Once I've decided what I'm going to do, then I grab the camera and focus on the technical issues of achieving what I want. I shoot, then the camera goes back into the bag. I don't get a lot of shots, but they're almost all "keepers". When I'm shooting, you rarely see me looking through my camera, but even when the camera is tucked away, I'm still actively shooting. This technique is ingrained in me. I could never walk around with the camera on my face snapping hundreds of shots like an event photographer. But there are definite advantages for planning out the shot in the street photography I enjoy doing. My subjects don't realize there is a camera, so they don't perform for it. Better spontaneity.
> 
> Now shooting with the Mamiya is different. It's usually on sticks, so there is no hiding it. When I shoot with it, I try to stand between the camera and the subject blocking their view of it as much as possible. More of a challenge with spontaneity there.


 
  
 Nice breakdown. As someone who regularly shoots 4x5 film (and grew up shooting medium format), this all sounds very familiar.


----------



## Frank I

Cowboy Junkies tonight


----------



## mechgamer123

I thought I'd drop by and say I purchased the 35mm f/1.8G for my D3200. I haven't taken any good photos with it yet though.


----------



## kotk

Do you guys think it is a good idea to buy the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G, if i currently have the kit lens (18-55) which already has the 50mm focal length?


----------



## jc9394

Yes, the DOF of the prime lens are razor thin and not to mention much better isolation of objects.


----------



## paulchiu

The 50 1.8G will be sharper and render the backgrounds smoother than the 18-55 3.5/5.6 wide open.
 That said, if you shoot under great light and at f5.6 to f8 most of the time, then there really maybe little difference.
 The versatilities of having a zoom should outweight the speed advantage, sharpness and bokeh under most situations, especially during vacations, parties, etc.
  
 Quote:


kotk said:


> Do you guys think it is a good idea to buy the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G, if i currently have the kit lens (18-55) which already has the 50mm focal length?


----------



## bigshot

If all you have is the 18-55, I would recommend getting a focal length you don't have first... either an ultra wide (10-20) for landscape photography or a long zoom (55-200) for sports or portraits.


----------



## musubi1000

bigshot said:


> If all you have is the 18-55, I would recommend getting a focal length you don't have first... either an ultra wide (10-20) for landscape photography or a long zoom (55-200) for sports or portraits.


+1

Another criteria that could change my answer is what do you shoot? What is it's intended output for? Newer bodies can up the ISO so the speed may not be as critical as it was. If you have PS skills then a blurry background is only a selection away.


----------



## Frank I

Sigma 150-500 on Nikon D7100


----------



## musubi1000

D800 24-70 2.8. ISO 3200 1/125th @f4. Just finished detailing my buddies Z06. This is the oldest operating Mc Donald's. It was the 3rd one to open. It's in Downey, CA


----------



## jc9394

I think I'm done purchasing Nikon lens, this is my last one (that was what I said last time too)


----------



## magiccabbage

jc9394 said:


> I think I'm done purchasing Nikon lens, this is my last one (that was what I said last time too)


 
 how many do you have? 
  
 I really wanna get an 85mm f1.4 - have you ever used one? Or a 1.2 even, i would love to give one of them a go.


----------



## jc9394

magiccabbage said:


> how many do you have?
> 
> I really wanna get an 85mm f1.4 - have you ever used one? Or a 1.2 even, i would love to give one of them a go.




Have the 85 f/1.4 as well, two totally different usage on these lens. Don't think Nikon have a 1.2 version.


----------



## magiccabbage

jc9394 said:


> Have the 85 f/1.4 as well, two totally different usage on these lens. Don't think Nikon have a 1.2 version.


 
 Id say its amazing for portrait close ups. Have you posted any shots of closeups with people using the 85mm f1.4?
  
 Its hard to find good images online


----------



## jc9394

Nikon Cafe, Lens lust have plenty


----------



## jc9394

Spring is finally here...


----------



## PinoyPogiman

I was somewhat familiar with using a Nikon D3000 so i decided on buying my very first DSLR: Nikon D3200.

I will admit i was kind of new with the terminology like ISO, F-stop, exposure time, metering, etc.
dedicated myself to study up and so far i have taken a few photos i feel are worthy.

decided on taking a walk out on the cloudy, post-moist Coastal Virginian weather


(taken with a D3000, just showing the D3200)


F/7.1
1/8 sec
ISO 800


F/6.3
1/640 sec
ISO 400


I think the stratus clouds are fantastic
F/7.1
1/800 sec
ISO 200


F/7.1
1/160 sec
ISO 800

Tips, advice, constructive criticism, and suggestions are very appreciated.
I am quite new to the hobby, but i am very aspiring to get better at various styles of photography.

Camera: Nikon D3200
Lens: Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm (essentially the included kit lens)


I do have some ideas for recording/ shooting some Airsoft sports action.
And i am thinking of saving for a telephoto lens for sports and insect/bird photography.

D-SLR photography has made a slight change to how i see the world around me now.
I may look at a tree, building, or even a sign and ponder the idea if i may take a photo of it.


----------



## bigshot

That new way of seeing is exciting, isn't it! My only advice is to think about *making* pictures instead of *taking* them. HOW you photograph something can be more important than WHAT you photograph.


----------



## PinoyPogiman

just toying around with settings on a dark-outside
April 9, 2014 7:45pm

wanted to see the effect i could make if i made the illusion that the outside was lighter
F-stop: f/5
Exposure Time: 1/5 sec
ISO 3200 (i probably should have gone 1600 due to noise)

and i've grown to using Manual focus alot more.


----------



## jc9394

Was walking around this morning but can't find anything interesting to shoot. Found this bird to practice focusing with a manual lens.


----------



## Jon L

A friend just bought the D4s


----------



## jc9394

wow, i need this.


----------



## Frank I




----------



## PinoyPogiman

I apologize if this makes anyone hungry for fresh off-the-assembly Krispy Kreme Doughnuts
Just toying with Shallow DOF, which is slightly intricate to achieve with the DX AF-S 18-55mm kit lens



Today was my sister's birthday and she really wanted some Krispy Kreme doughnuts; truly, it was our first time to ever eat fresh krispy kreme doughnuts so the experience was great.



f/5.6
1/40 sec exposure
ISO-400
Nikon D3200
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm kit lens



f/5.6
1/20 sec exposure
ISO-400
Nikon D3200
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm kit lens


I'll have LOTS of fun once i buy myself a nice 50mm Prime lens.


----------



## bigshot

Are you using auto white balance? Those could be a bit better color wise.


----------



## PinoyPogiman

bigshot said:


> Are you using auto white balance? Those could be a bit better color wise.




as it seems, i had it set to auto. i'll remember to think about that.

as unfortunately, the subjects have not lasted long in the presence of other family members including myself.


----------



## bigshot

Ha! I bet Matisse ate his still lifes too!


----------



## jc9394

Finally spring is here...


----------



## screwdriver

sigma 50mm 1.4 art coming soon this may for Nikon .....


----------



## Frank I

If anyone is interested I am selling a near mint  Nikon 10-24 lens that was bought new and is a US lens.I have the pouch and box and warranty cards. I am letting it go for 575.00 shipped CONUS. n I bought a 14-24 for my D610 so no need to keep this one as it will just sit in the bag. PM me if interested- 
  
  
 LENS SOLD ON AMAZON


----------



## PinoyPogiman

my "Nifty Fifty" came in! and i am very pleased with how my test shots came up

Nikon Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D lens

They all say the autofocusing does not function on Nikon's current lower end DSLR bodies

Not much of a problem to me since i use Manual focus all the time. i just prefer manually focusing than AF. makes me feel more involved with my equipment.

anyways heres some photos
(secondary camera: my sister's Nikon D3000)







I think the quality is just fantastic at the price of just around 120$

I probably should have also ordered the HR2 hood to go with it..


----------



## Frank I

Nikon D7100 300MM Prime F4 AP4.5 ISO 125


----------



## Currawong

I traded my 28-300mm for a Sigma 50-500mm beast. It is purely for shooting outdoors, but the first event I used it for was inside, which meant the high minimum f-stop hurt, so I had to shoot at 1/500th when I really would have wished to go faster. With a monopod it was still good from up on the balcony despite the 5000-6400 ISO required. Next time I think I'll see if I can't rent a 300mm Nikon.


----------



## Frank I

I like this 300MM F4 Amos. It is super sharp and new they are 1345.00 this one I got on ebay auction for 910.00 and it looks hardly used. i got real lucky with this one. I using it on the D7100 so its getting to 450MM without the 1.3 which will take it to almost 600MM. Plus its a prime so its sharp. I may try a tleeconverter too but mostly for the 80-200  which is 2.8 I am thinking either  the 1.7 or 2X TC 20


----------



## Frank I

Amos did you buy the 50-500


----------



## Currawong

frank i said:


> Amos did you buy the 50-500


 
  
 Yes. There are only two events a year I would want an f2.8 300mm or similar, so I'd rent it in those cases.


----------



## Frank I

currawong said:


> Yes. There are only two events a year I would want an f2.8 300mm or similar, so I'd rent it in those cases


 
 You could try the F4 300MM may surprise you.- It can handle high ISO for shutter speed and is easy to hand hold


----------



## bigshot

In my shooting, I'm always wanting to go wider, especially without distortion, to get a feeling of place. When I was first starting out in photography, I felt like I had to choose a small window for my image. I wanted longer and longer telephotos. As I go along, I find that I am more interested in narrower windows of time and wide expanses of environments. I think the wonderful resolution digital provides encourages that. The only time I use a longer lens is to not intrude on an individual's space for portraits. But 80 or 105mm is plenty for that.


----------



## OddE

pinoypogiman said:


> Nikon Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D lens
> 
> They all say the autofocusing does not function on Nikon's current lower end DSLR bodies
> 
> Not much of a problem to me since i use Manual focus all the time. i just prefer manually focusing than AF. makes me feel more involved with my equipment.


 
  
 -If you prefer manual focusing (which I can totally relate to, seeing as I find my FM2/FM3a pair being the cameras of choice whenever I go shooting nowadays), I'd suggest you consider trying out one of the older, manual-focus 50mm designs - while the current focus rings gets the job done, the older kit IMHO feels a lot more tactile and comfortable to use - wider focus ring, just the right amount of resistance, firm end stops...
  
 I believe the 50mm f/1.8 design has been the same (optically) since AIS days - so it should provide similar performance (probably a bit more flare-prone, seeing as coatings have improved quite a bit.) to your new lens.
  
 Oh, and chances are it will not meter on the D3200 - unless there's an aperture feeler gauge in the lens mount, you're stuck with having to use an external meter or just wing it.
  
 Maybe this wasn't such a brilliant idea after all. Oh well. I still think anybody who appreciates manual focus should have the opportunity to try an all-MF Nikkor lens at some point. 
  
 Most important of all, enjoy your photography!


----------



## Frank I




----------



## Frank I




----------



## bigshot

rule of thirds


----------



## Frank I




----------



## natrixx

D5100 with 18-105 kit lens. That thing is definitely sharper than much more common 18-55 kit 
 Somewhere in the future I'm gonna get a 50 mm fix, but for now 18-105 is good enough.


----------



## sub50hz

bigshot said:


> rule of thirds


 
  
 "Rules" in photography are meant to be broken.


----------



## bigshot

sub50hz said:


> "Rules" in photography are meant to be broken.


 
  
 You have to be a master of following the rules before you can break them properly.
  
 This article isn't about photography, but there is a lot in it that photographers can learn from. Particularly the lessons at the bottom.
  
 http://animationresources.org/?p=2033


----------



## sub50hz

bigshot said:


> You have to be a master of following the rules before you can break them properly.
> 
> This article isn't about photography, but there is a lot in it that photographers can learn from. Particularly the lessons at the bottom.
> 
> http://animationresources.org/?p=2033


 
  
 While I agree, I still hate that people suggest the "rule" of thirds as the end-all to framing guidelines. If we all stuck to that, photography would be pretty boring.


----------



## bigshot

It's better than smack dab in the middle!


----------



## sub50hz

Central framing is often useful in creating symmetry, but the best thing about photography (and all art forms in general) is that you can do whatever you want.


----------



## bigshot

Symmetry is usually not a very good idea. It makes for static images.


----------



## sub50hz

bigshot said:


> Symmetry is usually not a very good idea.


 
  
 Unless the artist wants to convey something by utilizing it. Art is not black and white (pun not intended), and there are no rules that say you can/cannot do something or portray something using a certain method.


----------



## bigshot

Check out the link above if you're interested about learning how to compose images well.


----------



## sub50hz

I've been shooting for 22 years, I think my framing technique is just fine.


----------



## bigshot

Nothing left to learn! Lucky man!


----------



## sub50hz

bigshot said:


> Nothing left to learn! Lucky man!


 
  
 Do not confuse my experience with an unwillingness to learn. That being said, the link you posted has more with creating imagery from nothing rather than creating *images* from *environment*. While it may approach some parallel with studio/product photography, its content is less applicable in landscape/urban photography, where you simply work with what you are given (whether it be the stillness of a mountainside or the activity of a city alive). If you think there is only a set of guidelines that defines how to create, you are sorely mistaken.


----------



## bigshot

Photography is a lot more than pointing your camera at things that already exist. That link directly applies to any kind of picture making (as opposed to picture taking). It's a guide to composition created by some of the greatest artists of the 20th century. But feel free to ignore whatever you want to.


----------



## sub50hz

bigshot said:


> But feel free to ignore whatever you want to.


 
  
 If I didn't believe that making art was a craft, why would I still do it after so many years? You're obviously more interested in extrapolating my comments to support your "side" than having a constructive discussion on photography, so I'll just abstain from commenting any further.


----------



## musubi1000

Nikon J1 with 10-30mm. Pros and tech savy photographers turn their noses up at these little cams but they are no joke. I love the one series because they are so easy to use and hella fast. Raw capabilities, manual exposure, focus during video, and 10 fps full res stills. The new cams can do 20 fps while focusing. While these cams are no replacement for a good DSLR they do have a place in my bags.


----------



## musubi1000

Rule of thirds are a photographers training wheels. Important for a beginner possibly restrictive to advanced skill sets.


----------



## PinoyPogiman

So i started out in publicly posting my stuff on Flickr.

I should make my own website sometime.

All the photos i have been taking there so far currently are all on my Nikkor 50mm 1.8D.

I am REALLY liking the versatility of the 50. no need in worrying in positioning. I just have to move myself to frame the shot.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124699262@N05/

My 50 is pretty much the only thing i use. Until i invest in a telephoto.. then i will try on timelapse photography that i have been interested in doing for some time.


----------



## mechgamer123




----------



## Currawong

I finally got to take the Sigma 50-150mm beast out for some fun at the park with my daughter's kinder. Her school hires a professional crew on a regular basis who make their money by selling the photos to the parents via a web site. The largest kit they had was a D3X with a Nikon 70-200mm and I outdid that with my D800 (with what I call the "kid tracker" 3D focus mode) and battery grip. It was as much fun to carry around as it sounds. It is pretty reasonably sharp though, even if the vignetting is quite severe at 500mm.


----------



## Frank I

They are neat conversation lenses for sure Amos.  I still will wait for that new Tamron 150-600 when it hits the street. I liked the 150-500 Sigma but the 300MM prime is serving me well now but maybe a Tamron to try when they hit the street. Your 50-500 looks cool.


----------



## jc9394




----------



## vipervick

Ok, my wife is taking a photography class and wants a different lens for our D7100. What would you recommend? I believe the stock lens is 18-200.


----------



## Frank I

what do you want to take pictures of? What is the budget? Lot determines what type of photography your shooting. The lens she is using is good since it covers a wide variety of focal range. Actually iut is a very decent lens for someone still learning. Some the primes you may want to look t r ethe 35MM 1.8G and 50MM 1.8G two nice lenses for close up shooting


----------



## vipervick

frank i said:


> what do you want to take pictures of? What is the budget? Lot determines what type of photography your shooting. The lens she is using is good since it covers a wide variety of focal range. Actually iut is a very decent lens for someone still learning. Some the primes you may want to look t r ethe 35MM 1.8G and 50MM 1.8G two nice lenses for close up shooting


 
 Thanks! That's exactly what I asked her!


----------



## bigshot

I have a D7000 and an 18-200. The additional lenses I would suggest would be the 35mm 1.4 or 1.8 for low light shooting and a 10-20ish ultra-wide for nature and architecture.
  
 But my gut tells me that if your wife is like most wives with a camera, she will end up just using the 18-200 because she won't like changing lenses. If that's the case, a flash would be a better investment.


----------



## musubi1000

Nikon 85 3.5 macro or 105 2.8 macro. Perfect for portraits and close focusing on flowers/bugs. 

Tokina 12-24 f4 or 11-16 f2.8 if she likes landscapes or architecture. 

Tamron 70-300 VC or 150-600 VC for birding or sports. 

Nikon 70-200 vr if you got big pockets. Great all around lens. But you already have 200 covered.


----------



## screwdriver

i received a sigma 50mm 1.4 art lesn for my nikon . this lens is amazing  even wide open @1.4 .


----------



## Kiwikat

Bump!  I've got a D7100 coming tomorrow with the "kit" 18-140mm.  My ultimate goal is to acquire the 80-400 around tax return season next year, and perhaps a Sigma 8-16 (by far my favorite lens on Canon) sometime between now and then.
  
 I came from a Canon setup (5D Mark II, previously 50D and XSi) and felt I was a bit too deep into the hobby.  Nikon has been taking photography (vs videography) more seriously than Canon the last few years so I thought I'd make the switch and see what the dark side is like.  I'm going to keep with more practical lenses this time vs. obsessing about sharpness and niche stuff like I did with the Canon.  I eventually stopped using my camera because it was too tedious switching prime lenses all the time and hauling around 4 heavy lenses in a backpack.  I enjoy the technical aspects of photography perhaps even more than the artistic ones, but at some point I crossed a line and it wasn't "fun" anymore.  Going to try to do it differently this time!


----------



## bigshot

Those three lenses should serve you well. You might want to consider the Tokina 11-16 2.8 though. It's a wonderful lens. There are a lot of good ultrawides for DX.


----------



## Kiwikat

I got my box this morning and I'm really surprised by the build quality of the "kit" 18-140mm.  It is what I would have expected out of a high end Canon consumer lens or even one of the more modern plastic L lenses, not a lowly kit lens.  Hopefully the image quality surprises me just as much!
  
 The D7100 body feels good in my (relatively large) hands, though I'll probably end up with a battery grip anyways for vertical shooting convenience.  It feels at least as nice as my 50D was, and about as nice as the 7D, though maybe slightly plastickier.  The controls are a bit foreign to me, but that's to be expected.
  
 Color this Canon shooter impressed so far!  I won't actually get to try her out until this evening.


----------



## jc9394

Picked up my first Sigma lens.


----------



## jc9394

Got 10 minutes to play with the Sigma, I'm impressed.  It is much sharper than my 50 f/1.4D.


----------



## jc9394

Pretty bokeh but not as good as the Nikon 85...


----------



## musubi1000

The D800 has been one of my favorite cameras for the last 2 1/2 years. But the new 810 is just blows my mind. Detail for days. ISO 6400 with no color noise. It is so much cleaner at all ISOs. It's also quieter. The shutter sound is much softer than before. These improvements alone make an already great camera spectacular. If you can afford one buy it. This camera can deliver the goods.


----------



## Frank I




----------



## PaperMacWriter

So I shoot with an F100... it used to be my dad's, and he gave it to me with some pretty nice lenses — shooting with film (sparingly) is still more affordable than picking up a used D600. Once the price of a used full frame drops enough to a college-student budget I'll add one to my arsenal, but in the meantime I love my F100. Picked up a used 50mm 1.4D on Craigslist, loving that lens. I also have an 24-120mm 3.5-5.6 telephoto and 16mm 2.6 fisheye  Here's a photo of star trails I took in northern Arizona:

 Shot on Ektar 100 for an hour. Pretty pleased with the result. Used the fisheye for this.
  
 May not be as cutting edge as the D810, but it's a great learning opportunity! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 EDIT: added lens information


----------



## Currawong

I finally got around to getting the Sigma 35mm f1.4 for my D800. I wish I'd bought it sooner now. It feels almost like I bought a whole new camera.
  
 I don't want to know about the D810, though I'd love no-noise ISO6400 shooting...


----------



## jc9394

currawong said:


> I finally got around to getting the Sigma 35mm f1.4 for my D800. I wish I'd bought it sooner now. It feels almost like I bought a whole new camera.
> 
> *I don't want to know about the D810*, though I'd love no-noise ISO6400 shooting...


 
  
 With you on this, I'm trying very hard to live under a rock since Nikon release the D810.  I just brought the Sigma 50mm ART last week, it is crazy sharp but only meh with bokeh.  I will try to bring it with me on my trip to Osaka in couple weeks.


----------



## Currawong

jc9394 said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > I finally got around to getting the Sigma 35mm f1.4 for my D800. I wish I'd bought it sooner now. It feels almost like I bought a whole new camera.
> ...


 
  
 If you're getting a train pass, feel free to drop by Fukuoka. I should have some free time. Maybe you can experiment with that Sigma shooting me getting beaten up in Aikido class.


----------



## jc9394

Shooting Aikido will be really fun but unfortunately I have a full schedule during my 4 days stay in Osaka.  I will plan more time next time when I visit Japan.


----------



## musubi1000

I'm still getting used to the new D810! It blows me away every time I use it. While I won't say its noise free at 6400 it is color noise free at 6400. And the detail it holds at 6400 is hard for me to believe. It has to be seen to be believable. And even then...


----------



## Fuzziekiwi

Hesitating to buy a lens for my Nikon because I have this inner feeling that I want to switch to Canon.


----------



## Kiwikat

fuzziekiwi said:


> Hesitating to buy a lens for my Nikon because I have this inner feeling that I want to switch to Canon.


 

 I just switched to Nikon from Canon.  You really aren't missing anything.  The image quality of my D7100 surpasses the Canon 5D Mark II I had, and that was widely regarded as the best full frame camera on the market for quite a while.
  
 Unless you're an avid videographer, Canon doesn't offer anything that's better than Nikon, well maybe except for an ISO button that isn't in a completely STUPID place.


----------



## bigshot

All cameras are good nowadays. Even the iPhone has a remarkably good camera.


----------



## Fuzziekiwi

bigshot said:


> All cameras are good nowadays. Even the iPhone has a remarkably good camera.


 
 Lacks settings though. It could never take pictures like this: 
 http://ivanandreevich.deviantart.com/art/Blue-Love-475422771


----------



## bigshot

I took this with my iPhone 4. The new iPhone has an even better camera.


----------



## Kiwikat

bigshot said:


> I took this with my iPhone 4. The new iPhone has an even better camera.


 
  
 That's nice... let me know when it can get detailed shots of jets flying hundreds of miles per hour.
  

  
 ... or have the reaction time and speed to capture exactly the moment you wanted


----------



## bigshot

I like to take pictures of people better than jets.


----------



## Kiwikat

bigshot said:


> I like to take pictures of people better than jets.


 
  
 That's fine, but there are definitely reasons for needing a DSLR, even today when we have cameras in toasters, wrist watches, and phones.


----------



## Fuzziekiwi

I just bought a Prime lens :>


----------



## bigshot

kiwikat said:


> That's fine, but there are definitely reasons for needing a DSLR, even today when we have cameras in toasters, wrist watches, and phones.


 
  
 And there are definite advantages to having a really good camera that fits in your shirt pocket and has enough resolution to print 8x10 with no problem.
  
 By the way, there are apps for the iPhone that allow you to adjust the settings on the camera.


----------



## Fuzziekiwi

bigshot said:


> kiwikat said:
> 
> 
> > That's fine, but there are definitely reasons for needing a DSLR, even today when we have cameras in toasters, wrist watches, and phones.
> ...


 
 Pretty sure they don't have settings for aperture, shutter speed though. Cameras are pretty damn good nowadays but they certainly aren't at the level of the good DSLRS.


----------



## bigshot

The little camera in your pocket is a lot better to you than the big one back home in the bag when the opportunity for a photo arises. Steiglitz did pretty well with a "miniature" camera. The art of photography is visualizing, not the mechanics of taking photographs. People get way to wrapped up in the technical aspects of photography and forget what it's really about.
  
 An artist can make art with a lump of charcoal. The camera doesn't make the photographer.


----------



## Fuzziekiwi

bigshot said:


> The little camera in your pocket is a lot better to you than the big one back home in the bag when the opportunity for a photo arises. Steiglitz did pretty well with a "miniature" camera. The art of photography is visualizing, not the mechanics of taking photographs. People get way to wrapped up in the technical aspects of photography and forget what it's really about.
> 
> An artist can make art with a lump of charcoal. The camera doesn't make the photographer.


 
 Yes a good photographer could make good images with a crappy camera, but sometimes it's those little details that those little cameras simply cannot take, especially fast moving things.


----------



## Frank I

kiwikat said:


> That's fine, but there are definitely reasons for needing a DSLR, even today when we have cameras in toasters, wrist watches, and phones.


 
 What lens did you use at the air show- I wanted to shoot the show in Atlantic City but did not have the time this year. I like using the d7100 with the Nikon 300 prime for air shows over it on my D610/. The 1.3 crop of the d7100 get me to 600MM- fu shooting planes at high speed


----------



## Kiwikat

I've got the "new" Tamron 150-600mm VC lens. It is quite phenomenal for the price. It is very sharp through 500 and probably acceptable for most at 600.


----------



## musubi1000

Switching cameras is like switching golf clubs. It's only as good as the one swinging it.


----------



## musubi1000

The DSLR will be dead in less than 10 years.


----------



## Fuzziekiwi

Oh sure, the HD800 will be dead in less than 10 years because earpods will surpass it by then.


----------



## musubi1000

fuzziekiwi said:


> Oh sure, the HD800 will be dead in less than 10 years because earpods will surpass it by then.



The D800 is awesome! The D810 is even better! These cams are the current pinnacle of Nikon DSLRs. But what if you could get an equivalent or better image quality in a smaller, lighter, less expensive camera? Todays 1" sensors are outperforming the DSLRs from just a few years ago. Namely D300, D200, D90. It's coming.


----------



## Frank I

too bad they dont have a good mirroless camera yet that can compete wth some of the other brands. I am looking at two sony now the a6000 and the rx100 111 which has a 24-70 lens and a viewfinder but is not interchangeable.


----------



## musubi1000

frank i said:


> too bad they dont have a good mirroless camera yet that can compete wth some of the other brands. I am looking at two sony now the a6000 and the rx100 111 which has a 24-70 lens and a viewfinder but is not interchangeable.


Both sonys are good cams. The A7 is even better. I just got to play with the newest A7S and I was running around shooting images at over 400,000 ISO. While not perfect they were at least usable. Nikons mirrorless One system can't compete with the larger sensor Sonys on a pixel level they can outperform them with speed in AF, FPS, slow motion video, all in a smaller package.


----------



## Frank I

musubi1000 said:


> Both sonys are good cams. The A7 is even better. I just got to play with the newest A7S and I was running around shooting images at over 400,000 ISO. While not perfect they were at least usable. Nikons mirrorless One system can't compete with the larger sensor Sonys on a pixel level they can outperform them with speed in AF, FPS, slow motion video, all in a smaller package.


 
 The A7 is nice for sure but I wanted smaller than my two NoIkons to carry and in weight. The rx100 Mk111 is too small for me to handle so I went with the A6000 which is smaller than my d610 and d7100 and much lighter for show shots and meet coverage- Since I only shoot portable stuff it made more sense


----------



## musubi1000

frank i said:


> The A7 is nice for sure but I wanted smaller than my two NoIkons to carry and in weight. The rx100 Mk111 is too small for me to handle so I went with the A6000 which is smaller than my d610 and d7100 and much lighter for show shots and meet coverage- Since I only shoot portable stuff it made more sense


Nice. Sony is coming up strong. The A6000 is a good example of Sony improving their line. The NEX 6 was technically a great cam but the menu system made it a nightmare if you wanted to change settings.
Edit: the A6000 fixed all that and then some.


----------



## Frank I

I used the Nikon 50MM and 35MM 1,8G Primes with an adapter yesterday and got some nice shots on the lens. it is a good option with the a6000 for using the Nikon primes and manual focus.


----------



## hyogen

Just shared a bunch of pics in the Canon forum.  Just as I had made up my mind to switch to Canon due to skin tones, I feel like I've shot some of my best pictures yet.  What an absolute bargain the D600 is...


----------



## dichtert

I only use one filter on my Nikon. A Moose Peterson CPF. Usually CPFs renders the image color temperature a lot cooler.  The Moose Peterson has a built in 81A warming filter
 and the pics come out a lot warmer


----------



## Frank I




----------



## hyogen

I'm starting to get less inclined to jump ship to Canon now that the D810 is out.  I still feel like Canon requires less pp.  I've played around with the RAW files.  They simply seem to render skin tones better in most situations..   Here are a few from this past weekend that I'm happy with out of the D600.  I'll at very least wait to get a new replacement from Nikon to sell and switch cameras if it comes to that.


----------



## rickyleelee

Nice pictures


----------



## Frank I

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> Nice. Sony is coming up strong. The A6000 is a good example of Sony improving their line. The NEX 6 was technically a great cam but the menu system made it a nightmare if you wanted to change settings.
> Edit: the A6000 fixed all that and then some.


 
 I am going with the Fuji XT-1. The A6000 has some drawback. High noise mostly and poor with the flash or external flash. It also has no lenses as good as the fuji selections for show reports. The 18-55 Fuji is a 2.8 lens and is very sharp and fast. Little heavier but the quality and selection was worth it for me in the long run


----------



## musubi1000

frank i said:


> I am going with the Fuji XT-1. The A6000 has some drawback. High noise mostly and poor with the flash or external flash. It also has no lenses as good as the fuji selections for show reports. The 18-55 Fuji is a 2.8 lens and is very sharp and fast. Little heavier but the quality and selection was worth it for me in the long run


Yeah the Fuji XT1 is one of my favorite cameras. The APS-C X-Trans sensor will compete with the D800 on a noise level. 
You're right about the limited lens selection for sony. The fuji lenses are very very good. People don't know about fuji lenses but they've been making pro lenses for video cams forever. Oh yeah and I'm sure you know the awesome 18-55 is a variable apeture 2.8-4. In the years to come the sony system will evolve.


----------



## Frank I

musubi1000 said:


> Yeah the Fuji XT1 is one of my favorite cameras. The APS-C X-Trans sensor will compete with the D800 on a noise level.
> You're right about the limited lens selection for sony. The fuji lenses are very very good. People don't know about fuji lenses but they've been making pro lenses for video cams forever. Oh yeah and I'm sure you know the awesome 18-55 is a variable apeture 2.8-4. In the years to come the sony system will evolve.


 
 The lens  is variable but still super sharp and noise extremely low so I want this to for show  
 reports for headphpne.guru. I love this camera so far and works when well I want to go smaller.


----------



## hyogen

looks like I'm sticking with Nikon a while longer.  Looking forward to checking out the new D750 and D810.  Also, probably going to add Sigma's new 24mm 1.4 lens when it comes out.  My favorite lens right now is the Nikon 28mm 1.8......I can't believe I sold it a few months ago thinking I didn't like it and it's distortion.  I have bought it back and now I have come to realize I was using it wrong.  Apparently, Sigma is coming out with a new 135mm lens also.  At one point months ago the Canon 135 f2 lens could have almost single-handedly drawn me to Canon, but now I realize it's too long for me--even for wedding photography.  I guess I'll have to shoot in some very large wedding venues and see if I change my mind.  I highly doubt I'll ever buy a 70-200mm lens since it's so big and bulky.  Watching Tony Northrup's video on Canon vs. Nikon recently made me realize Nikon's 70-200mm actually is only 135 or so mm on the long end......


----------



## trick

Hey, what is your guy's favorite lens? If you were stuck only using that one lens for the rest of your life, could you manage with it?


----------



## Currawong

hyogen said:


> looks like I'm sticking with Nikon a while longer.  Looking forward to checking out the new D750 and D810.  Also, probably going to add Sigma's new 24mm 1.4 lens when it comes out.  My favorite lens right now is the Nikon 28mm 1.8......I can't believe I sold it a few months ago thinking I didn't like it and it's distortion.  I have bought it back and now I have come to realize I was using it wrong.  Apparently, Sigma is coming out with a new 135mm lens also.  At one point months ago the Canon 135 f2 lens could have almost single-handedly drawn me to Canon, but now I realize it's too long for me--even for wedding photography.  I guess I'll have to shoot in some very large wedding venues and see if I change my mind.  I highly doubt I'll ever buy a 70-200mm lens since it's so big and bulky.  Watching Tony Northrup's video on Canon vs. Nikon recently made me realize Nikon's 70-200mm actually is only 135 or so mm on the long end......


 
  
 I realised a while back that 200mm is really not any significantly bigger than 135mm. 
  
 Regardless, I'm a sucker for punishment. This is my rig for my daughter's school's sports festival tomorrow. Sigma 50-500mm. The professional shooters who go to the events usually carry two cameras, one with a 24-70mm and one with a 70-200mm or similar (I forgot what the Canon equivalent is). 
  

  
  


trick said:


> Hey, what is your guy's favorite lens? If you were stuck only using that one lens for the rest of your life, could you manage with it?


 
  
 Sigma 35mm 1.4. I could live with it because I have a Sony RX-10 for just about everything else. I'll take that tomorrow as well, as I can use it when I get sick of the Bigma and/or want to take video.


----------



## OddE

hyogen said:


> At one point months ago the Canon 135 f2 lens could have almost single-handedly drawn me to Canon, but now I realize it's too long for me--even for wedding photography.  I guess I'll have to shoot in some very large wedding venues and see if I change my mind.  I highly doubt I'll ever buy a 70-200mm lens since it's so big and bulky.  Watching Tony Northrup's video on Canon vs. Nikon recently made me realize Nikon's 70-200mm actually is only 135 or so mm on the long end......


 
  
 -If you want something fast in the 100mm+ range and think 135mm is too long, I'd suggest you have a look at the Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC - the AF leaves a bit to be desired speed-wise, but the focal length is ideal for portraits IMHO, it is fast, with wonderful bokeh and, as an added bonus, it is incredibly sharp and for all intents and purposes distortion-free.
  
 My only minor gripe with it is that it takes 72mm filters, and if you use a step-up ring to 77mm, it interferes with the built-in hood.


----------



## jc9394

My vote goes to Zeiss f/2 100 Makro if you don't mind the manual focus. The Zeiss micro contrast can't replicated with other brands.


----------



## Frank I

trick said:


> Hey, what is your guy's favorite lens? If you were stuck only using that one lens for the rest of your life, could you manage with it?


 
 My favorite of all my Nikon lenses is the 24-70 2.8. It is super sharp and always delivers more than I ask it too.


----------



## OddE

jc9394 said:


> My vote goes to Zeiss f/2 100 Makro if you don't mind the manual focus. The Zeiss micro contrast can't replicated with other brands.


 
  
 -Manual focus as implemented on the Carl Zeiss line is a joy to use; just the right resistance as you turn the focus ring, just the right gear ratio to enable you to focus quickly, yet precisely - and, as you say, the contrast of the Zeiss glass is terrific. (I've mostly used Carl Zeiss lenses in M- and V-mount, though - but I would imagine it is designed by the same people, using the same optical glass - at least in the former case.)


----------



## trick

jc9394 said:


> My vote goes to Zeiss f/2 100 Makro if you don't mind the manual focus. The Zeiss micro contrast can't replicated with other brands.


 
 hmmm Interesting suggestion. I hadn't heard of it. I was too afraid for my wallet to look into any of the zeiss lenses. I think I found the next purchase to save up all my money for! I doubt audio equipment cost will ever add up to my camera equipment. 
  
  


currawong said:


> Sigma 35mm 1.4. I could live with it because I have a Sony RX-10 for just about everything else. I'll take that tomorrow as well, as I can use it when I get sick of the Bigma and/or want to take video.


 
 I agree. I couldn't live without a fixed 35mm. Im obsessed with shooting micro photography, but Everyone needs a 35 or a 50mm prime.


----------



## Greyson

Had my D3100 for 3 years and i'm still more than happy with it.
  
 Recently picked up a Nikon Circular Polarizer II, not the most exciting thing in the world to talk about but wow, what a useful bit of kit.


----------



## OddE

greyson said:


> Recently picked up a Nikon Circular Polarizer II, not the most exciting thing in the world to talk about but wow, what a useful bit of kit.


 
  
 -Yup. Most other filters can be handled in post, but a polarizer belongs in every photographer's kit bag, IMHO. (My polarizer(s) are probably my 2nd most used photographic thingamajigs, second only to my trusty Sekonic light meter. )


----------



## trick

greyson said:


> Had my D3100 for 3 years and i'm still more than happy with it.
> 
> Recently picked up a Nikon Circular Polarizer II, not the most exciting thing in the world to talk about but wow, what a useful bit of kit.


 
 No judgement. Polarizers are pretty interesting. I actually miss my D3000 sometimes. I had some interesting lighting effects when doing long exposures at night. I guess the color depth wasn't high enough, so I would get beautiful red and blue lights in the sky. My d7000 just gives me a purple sky.. :/


----------



## Chris J

trick said:


> Hey, what is your guy's favorite lens? If you were stuck only using that one lens for the rest of your life, could you manage with it?




Can I pick 3?
Had a two week vacation in Europe this past summer, all I used was a 24 mm f/2.8 Nikkor, a 35 mm f/1.8 Nikkor and. 60 mm macro Nikkor.
I never felt like I was missing any other lenses.


----------



## OddE

trick said:


> Hey, what is your guy's favorite lens? If you were stuck only using that one lens for the rest of your life, could you manage with it?


 
  
 -It is quite simple, really. If I had to pick but one lens, it would be a fast 35mm lens - for my Nikons it would probably be the 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S; it is a beautifully made manual focus lens which is beyond sharp when stopped down to f/4-F/5.6 or so. Wide open, it is still very good - though a bit soft in the corners (Which doesn't really matter; I tend to try to keep the subject away from the extreme margins of the frame, anyway... 
  
 If I were to spend the rest of my life with a rangefinder, though (I can think of worse fates!) it would be a 35mm Summicron - it is small, lightweight and an exceptional performer.
  
 It would be hard, though, staying faithful. Approx. 90% of my photos are taken using a 35mm prime, but there's an awful lot of fun to be had in the remaining 10%, too.


----------



## Chris J

odde said:


> -It is quite simple, really. If I had to pick but one lens, it would be a fast 35mm lens - for my Nikons it would probably be the 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S; it is a beautifully made manual focus lens which is beyond sharp when stopped down to f/4-F/5.6 or so. Wide open, it is still very good - though a bit soft in the corners (Which doesn't really matter; I tend to try to keep the subject away from the extreme margins of the frame, anyway...
> 
> If I were to spend the rest of my life with a rangefinder, though (I can think of worse fates!) it would be a 35mm Summicron - it is small, lightweight and an exceptional performer.
> 
> It would be hard, though, staying faithful. Approx. 90% of my photos are taken using a 35mm prime, but there's an awful lot of fun to be had in the remaining 10%, too.




I can almost agree!
I could get by with a 24 mm and a 35 mm!


----------



## Currawong

Realistically I'd probably pick the 24-70mm f2.8. I could always kludge with extenders for outdoor photography. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 I saw the D750 in store today while I was out and about. It looks like a killer camera.


----------



## musubi1000

I just realized a subtle improvement on the D750.
 Nikon moved the OK button to the middle of the 4-way control.
 Thus making it even easier to execute commands. Finally!
I was wondering when Nikon would figure that out. Fujis been doing it like that for years.


----------



## hyogen

musubi1000 said:


> I just realized a subtle improvement on the D750.
> Nikon moved the OK button to the middle of the 4-way control.
> Thus making it even easier to execute commands. Finally!
> I was wondering when Nikon would figure that out. Fujis been doing it like that for years.


 
  
 they also made the OK button assignable for 1:1 preview on the focus point on the D750!  A welcome change from my D600.  So far I'm loving the D750 MUCH more for the skin tones, auto white balance, and focusing.  I have no regrets so far not switching to Canon.  This is the review that I needed to see to cement my decision:  http://shotkit.com/nikon-d750/


----------



## hyogen

odde said:


> hyogen said:
> 
> 
> > At one point months ago the Canon 135 f2 lens could have almost single-handedly drawn me to Canon, but now I realize it's too long for me--even for wedding photography.  I guess I'll have to shoot in some very large wedding venues and see if I change my mind.  I highly doubt I'll ever buy a 70-200mm lens since it's so big and bulky.  Watching Tony Northrup's video on Canon vs. Nikon recently made me realize Nikon's 70-200mm actually is only 135 or so mm on the long end......
> ...


 
  
 Yes, that's the one I should have gotten, but I do have the 105mm 2.8 VR macro lens.  It is super sharp and the bokeh is not bad.  It survived a fall into a freshwater stream (just dried it in rice for 2 weeks).  I don't use it as much as my 85mm, but it does have better compression of the background so I like to use it. 
  
 Almost 2 years ago now I sold all my humble audiophile gear and bought myself a full frame D600--  check out my website which I just completely remade www.justinleewedding.com  I really have the D600 to thank, but I did waste incredible amount of time fixing skin tones and correcting white balance.  I got better at it near the end I guess..
  
 First few shots of having my D750 since last week.  
  

  

  

  
  
  
 Below are some of my last shots with the D600 which I was very happy with, but overall I disliked skin tones and auto WB inconsistencies with the D600.  The AF was lacking a little bit to keep up with my events sometimes as well.  I have 0 complaints with the D750 so far.


----------



## Fuzziekiwi

Spoiler: Long post quoted



Quote: 





hyogen said:


> odde said:
> 
> 
> > hyogen said:
> ...








>


 
 Incredible photos!


----------



## Fuzziekiwi

Here's two pictures I took at a concert with my D5100 and 50mm f/1.8 lens.


----------



## hyogen

Thanks very much!  It's funny I had no idea people were processing their photos about 3 years ago when I started to get serious with an SLR.  For a long while my dream camera was the 7D and I thought I had to get that camera to get such vibrant colors.  I forced myself to learn manual mode with my crop sensor and learned the basics from shooting with a fast enough shutter speed and shooting at the lowest possible ISO.  Once I switched to full frame the results are like night and day.  I know lots of people dislike Ken Rockwell, but I wholeheartedly agree with his stance on preferring full frame with a cheap lens over a crop sensor with expensive glass.  Also, using manual mode with Nikon's dual wheel system is so very intuitive and fast.  One of the reasons why I was hesitant to go to Canon was the fact that there is no live exposure meter when changing ISO on the 5D mark 3........I have no idea why one has to tap the shutter each time to get a new reading on the exposure meter....


----------



## Currawong

I'm thinking of downgrading my D800 to the D750, mainly because I can't really use 36MP and a lighter camera would be better. I also want the better low-light ISO performance. I managed to find a good write-up from a landscape photographer who wrote up his experiences doing it here: http://landscape.kevin-young.com/nikon-d750-review/


----------



## Frank I

The D750 looks awesome.  I have the D610 and D7100 both excellent but the D7100 is strictly being used for sports shooting because of the long lenses. If I would lose too much money I would consider selling the two of the m for the D750 but I would lose lot of money but love the small size of those two 24Mp cameras I have .  I love the Fuji Xt-1 for it small and light size.


----------



## Fuzziekiwi

hyogen said:


> Thanks very much!  It's funny I had no idea people were processing their photos about 3 years ago when I started to get serious with an SLR.  For a long while my dream camera was the 7D and I thought I had to get that camera to get such vibrant colors.  I forced myself to learn manual mode with my crop sensor and learned the basics from shooting with a fast enough shutter speed and shooting at the lowest possible ISO.  Once I switched to full frame the results are like night and day.  I know lots of people dislike Ken Rockwell, but I wholeheartedly agree with his stance on preferring full frame with a cheap lens over a crop sensor with expensive glass.  Also, using manual mode with Nikon's dual wheel system is so very intuitive and fast.  One of the reasons why I was hesitant to go to Canon was the fact that there is no live exposure meter when changing ISO on the 5D mark 3........I have no idea why one has to tap the shutter each time to get a new reading on the exposure meter....


 
 I really like how Canon has the little screen on the top and better buttons to actually change ISO. I have to program the function button for ISO on my D5100 (which I just figured out last week, oops). I'm still learning a lot, and just started taking photography seriously the past 4 months. I knew nothing about my camera beforehand and rarely used it. 
  
 I have a question, I've read really different opinions: do you use manual focus all the time? I personally have such a hard time with it. I just pick my AF point, focus and recompose.


----------



## OddE

fuzziekiwi said:


> I really like how Canon has the little screen on the top and better buttons to actually change ISO. I have to program the function button for ISO on my D5100 (which I just figured out last week, oops). I'm still learning a lot, and just started taking photography seriously the past 4 months. I knew nothing about my camera beforehand and rarely used it.
> 
> I have a question, I've read really different opinions: do you use manual focus all the time? I personally have such a hard time with it. I just pick my AF point, focus and recompose.


 
  
 -Maybe I don't understand you, but even my old D80 set ISO from the top display? Push the ISO button on the rear, rotate the rear dial until the desired ISO value was displayed on top between the shutter release and the finder? (Or at least that's how I think it did it; I haven't used it in ages...)
  
 As for manual focus, it depends. If I am in a situation where the AF is likely to be confused - say, low light, big-time cluttered foreground or the like, I tend to switch to manual, focus on where the action is and, if possible, make sure I have chosen an aperture small enough for depth of field to be sufficient even if the object is moving rapidly or my focus is ever so slightly off.
  
 Also, when doing landscapes, still lifes and other action-challenged subjects, I tend to stick with manual, though AF too would in general provide excellent results. Probably comes down to habit - my first few SLRs were manual focus, and I still shoot several manual-focus only cameras on a weekly basis. Besides, I'd much rather focus manually and get focus where I want it, rather than having to sigh annoyedly and then override the AF when it gets my intentions wrong.
  
 How easy or hard manual focus is really comes down to several factors - among them, which focus screen you are using. Most standard focusing screens are terrible for manual focus, IMHO. Good news is, the screen on just about every Nikon is easily interchangeable with a number of more suitable focusing screens.
  
 Have a look at split-prism focusing screens if this sounds interesting enough to try out (cost for a decent one: $25 or so).


----------



## hyogen

fuzziekiwi said:


> hyogen said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks very much!  It's funny I had no idea people were processing their photos about 3 years ago when I started to get serious with an SLR.  For a long while my dream camera was the 7D and I thought I had to get that camera to get such vibrant colors.  I forced myself to learn manual mode with my crop sensor and learned the basics from shooting with a fast enough shutter speed and shooting at the lowest possible ISO.  Once I switched to full frame the results are like night and day.  I know lots of people dislike Ken Rockwell, but I wholeheartedly agree with his stance on preferring full frame with a cheap lens over a crop sensor with expensive glass.  Also, using manual mode with Nikon's dual wheel system is so very intuitive and fast.  One of the reasons why I was hesitant to go to Canon was the fact that there is no live exposure meter when changing ISO on the 5D mark 3........I have no idea why one has to tap the shutter each time to get a new reading on the exposure meter....
> ...


 
  
 Which Canon are you talking about?  I was really surprised/appalled to find out that changing ISO on the 5D mark 3 (and probably previous versions also) does not change the exposure meter in real time.  To see the change in the exposure meter, you have to re-meter by half pressing the shutter.....


----------



## Chris J

currawong said:


> I'm thinking of downgrading my D800 to the D750, mainly because I can't really use 36MP and a lighter camera would be better. I also want the better low-light ISO performance. I managed to find a good write-up from a landscape photographer who wrote up his experiences doing it here: http://landscape.kevin-young.com/nikon-d750-review/




Ouch!
The Nikon D750 is only $2500 in Canadian $!


----------



## hyogen

fuzziekiwi said:


> hyogen said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks very much!  It's funny I had no idea people were processing their photos about 3 years ago when I started to get serious with an SLR.  For a long while my dream camera was the 7D and I thought I had to get that camera to get such vibrant colors.  I forced myself to learn manual mode with my crop sensor and learned the basics from shooting with a fast enough shutter speed and shooting at the lowest possible ISO.  Once I switched to full frame the results are like night and day.  I know lots of people dislike Ken Rockwell, but I wholeheartedly agree with his stance on preferring full frame with a cheap lens over a crop sensor with expensive glass.  Also, using manual mode with Nikon's dual wheel system is so very intuitive and fast.  One of the reasons why I was hesitant to go to Canon was the fact that there is no live exposure meter when changing ISO on the 5D mark 3........I have no idea why one has to tap the shutter each time to get a new reading on the exposure meter....
> ...


 
 Sorry I missed this question... I never use manual focus.  I sometimes focus and recompose, but I usually use outside focus points which are quite dependable with the D750.  The only time I'll MF is if I'm maybe shooting stars.  
  
Just got back from 3 weeks in S. Korea and Thailand (Bangkok). Took about 4000 photos -_- Have about 1000 I need to edit before I even get to them, but here is one of my favorites: Bangkok Dangerous:


----------



## Frank I

How many are using a 105MM macro? I am considering  adding one to my lens collection.


----------



## Greyson

odde said:


> -Maybe I don't understand you, but even my old D80 set ISO from the top display? Push the ISO button on the rear, rotate the rear dial until the desired ISO value was displayed on top between the shutter release and the finder? (Or at least that's how I think it did it; I haven't used it in ages...)


 
  
 Nikon's entry-level DSLR cameras (D3xxx, D5xxx) don't have the top display.


----------



## hyogen

frank i said:


> How many are using a 105MM macro? I am considering  adding one to my lens collection.


 
  
 I have it.  Sharp and great compression.. I'm kinda about to switch over to zooms for a few of my lenses so I may not keep it, but when I was fine with just primes it was perfect and I didn't feel the need for anything longer or the faster 135 f/2.


----------



## Frank I

Thanks for the input on hthe 105. I am thinking of getting it even though not sure if I would use it much.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Check out my thoughts on the new Nikon 300mm and 20mm lenses from CES at my blog, TLDR version: very impressed: http://www.pbjames.com/blog/2015/1/ces-2015-report-a-photographers-perspective


----------



## hyogen

frank i said:


> Thanks for the input on hthe 105. I am thinking of getting it even though not sure if I would use it much.


 
  
 I tend to use the 85mm the most when I need a long lens (although 105 is my longest lens for now)
  
This was taken with the old 85mm 1.8 AF (pre-D) lens which I love for it's small size that I sometimes fit in my front pocket when I don't want to bring my bag.  It was then cropped and even full quality is only 744kb......that makes me scared to print it (not that I will), but could this be blown up to 20x30" with no pixelation?


----------



## Frank I

I have the 1.8 G and like it. I guess been using a fuji xt-1 frequently deciding on maybe a 56MM 1.2 0or use the 100 with my D610


----------



## Chris J

frank i said:


> How many are using a 105MM macro? I am considering  adding one to my lens collection.




It's a fantastic lens, I used to use mine quite a bit when I shot film.
Since I've switched to digital I've started using a 60 mm macro as I found the 105 mm was too long.....obviously the 60 mm converts to 90 mm.


----------



## hyogen




----------



## Frank I

I ended up getting a Tokina 100MM macro lens which is super sharp for what i will use it for and made well.  Now debating to keep the fuji 56MM 1.2 and 10-24. I think the 56MM is staying for sure. tokina is awesome for little money on the D610,. Decided that the 1`0-24 is not necessary for my Fuji but the 16MM 1.4 coming will better in low light and wait for that release. 56MM  1.2 too good to not keep.


----------



## hyogen

i almost regret selling it now, but on a whim i listed my 105 2.8 macro on amazon and it sold in 2 days.. Got just a little more than I originally paid for it.  
  
 I really didn't like using this lens...I got it for macro ring shots and for the longer reach over the 85, but I feel like there has to be a more usable macro lens out there.  It was pretty much impossible to take a handheld shot indoors in a kinda lower light situation without flash even with image stabilization on.  Canon's 60mm macro seems so ideal..


----------



## Frank I

The Tokina is really a nice lens and not lot of money. It work well and is very sharp. heck for the $379.00 worth having around when you need a macro. I been using my Fuji more so so I am liking the lenses with the XT-1 as well. I also may put my D7100 on Amazon soon.


----------



## hyogen

I think the problem with these long macro lenses is that in order to get a fast enough shutter speed and get the DOF that I need (not razor thin) for wedding ring shots, I need lots of light.  My 35mm 1.4 lens at 2.8 aperture did better for this ring shot than my real 105mm macro lens even with vibration reduction..  I've also found that 105 is just a little too long for most of the shots I need.  I much rather would sacrifice a little compression and use my 85mm lens.  I guess I won't' be missing the 105 and now I feel like my former lust for the Canon 135mm f/2 lens (and some other lenses) is not anywhere close to being enough reason to switching to Canon.  The two shots below are crops of the same shot.  ISO 500, f2.8, 35mm


----------



## Frank I

I wanted it for taking pictures for my reviews  of product- but if I was doing  wedding shot not what I would use. I have the 85MM 1.8G and also just bought the 56MM Fiji 1.2


----------



## hyogen

you're not using the 56mm fuji on your nikon are you?  Just wondering.


----------



## Frank I

I use the 85MM on the nikon D610 and the 56MM on the Fuji only. I have the D7100 which I use mostly for sports shooting with long prime lens.


----------



## hyogen

which edit do you guys prefer?  I was surprised that most of my friends (not photographers) liked my edit over the vsco filter one...  I did edit the vsco one also (they all require some tweaking), but the bottom edit is my edit with no filters.


----------



## OddE

hyogen said:


> which edit do you guys prefer?  I was surprised that most of my friends (not photographers) liked my edit over the vsco filter one...  I did edit the vsco one also (they all require some tweaking), but the bottom edit is my edit with no filters.


 

 -I much prefer the bottom one; the top one imho has a slightly washed-out look, as if one has tried to recover too much detail from an underexposed shot.
  
 The bottom one with the darker hue and more saturated colours (At least it looks like it - my colour vision is impaired big time) packs a lot more punch - to my eyes, anyway.


----------



## Chris J

odde said:


> -I much prefer the bottom one; the top one imho has a slightly washed-out look, as if one has tried to recover too much detail from an underexposed shot.
> 
> The bottom one with the darker hue and more saturated colours (At least it looks like it - my colour vision is impaired big time) packs a lot more punch - to my eyes, anyway.




I agree, the bottom version is superior.
Nice and punchy, better contrast, a nice saturated look and feel, aesthetically I prefer it.


----------



## hyogen

thanks guys.  wow, pretty much everyone prefers my edit over my VSCO filter edit.  Even my non-photographer friends.  This comes at a relief since all of wedding photography seems to be going in the VSCO direction.  VSCO, tiny people and huge landscapes, and centered couples.


----------



## hyogen

With as good of dynamic range that my D750 has it was tempting to push the shadows a lot more, but I'm trying to get away from doing that.


----------



## Frank I

If I were to buy another nikon that is the one I would want. If i did not lose so much on my D610 and D7100 I may have considered but both those cameras are excellent for me right now.


----------



## hyogen

don't be too disappointed at not having the D750.  It is better than the D610 in focusing but not as much as I thought.  The auto-WB is definitely better, but the detail is better on the D610 at high noise and it has just as good dynamic range as the D750.  I had two new D610's to sell and I was surprised at how low they sold for as well...such an amazing deal.  
  
 Oh, and the significantly deeper grip of the D750 is a must have for me I must say.  Using the D610 for hours at a time with heavy lenses/flash made my fingers numb and stiff.  
  
 A couple more from yesterday:


----------



## Frank I

Thats good to know and my D7100  is my sports Camera for track and field plus the camera I most like to use with long lens because of the crop . Hard to get 600MM lenses these day and the 300MM F4 Primes does that for me with the 1.3 crop . Loing that kind of money on the D610 would not make sense to me. Some great bargains around for D610m buyers.


----------



## Chris J

I admit to being the world's biggest non-technical camera guy. 
Can anyone explain to me (and this is a real question, I'm NOT trolling, honest!) why I should upgrade from my D90 to a D7100 or better?
Please pardon my ignorance....
I do enjoy the realitively low weight of the D90.


----------



## Frank I

Better  autofocus and 24 MP makes it a big improvement over the D90 also faster for sport shooting. Her eis what they said when the d7000 came out and the 7100 is better yet.
  
Here are some differences between Nikon D7000 and D90:

The first and the most important difference between the D7000 and D90 is the sensor. Nikon D7000 has a 16.2 Megapixel sensor, while the D90 has a 12.3 Megapixel sensor.
The new sensor on the D7000 also has different specifications – its ISO range is from 100 too 6400 in native mode and up to 25,600 in expanded or “boost” mode, while D90 goes from ISO 200 to 3200 with a boost to ISO 6400, a difference of one full stop in native and two full stops in expanded mode.
Base ISO on the Nikon D7000 is 100, while it is 200 for Nikon D90.
The new Expeed II processor on the Nikon D7000 is capable of full HD (1920x1080p) @ 24 fps (frames per second), while D90 can only go up to 720p (1280x720p) @ 24 fps. D7000 can also shoot 720p at 30, 25 and 24 fps and 424p at 30 and 25 fps; Nikon D90 only records video at 24 fps. In addition, the D7000 can capture movies continuously up to 20 minutes, while D90 is limited to just 5 minutes.
Nikon D7000 has a better construction with top and back covers made of magnesium alloy, while D90 is plastic.
Nikon D7000 has a 100% viewfinder coverage, while Nikon D90 has a 96% viewfinder coverage.
Nikon D7000 can take the new SDXC cards with capacities larger than 32GB, while Nikon D90 is currently only compatible with SDHC cards up to 32GB.
Nikon D7000 comes with a new TTL exposure metering with 2016-pixel RGB sensor, while D90 has the older 420-pixel RGB sensor.
Nikon D7000 can shoot up to 1/8000th of a second, while D90 is limited to 1/4000.
The Nikon D7000 employs a dual slot SD storage system for writing, while Nikon D90 can only take one SD card in a single slot.
Weight-wise, both weigh about the same, with the D7000 being slightly heavier by about 70 grams.
Nikon D7000 shoots images faster at 6 fps, while D90 shoots at 4.5 fps in continuous mode.
Size-wise, both cameras are almost exactly the same, with the Nkon D7000 measuring 132x105x77mm versus 132x103x77mm of D90.
When it comes to AF system and focus points, Nikon D7000 is superior with 39 focus points and 9 cross-type sensors, while D90 employs 11 focus points and only 1 cross-type sensor.
Nikon D7000 has a lot more White Balance options for more accurate WB control than D90.
Nikon D7000 is controlled remotely using MC-DC2 cable via the GPS socket, while D90 can be controlled with the ML-L3 wireless infrared remote control unit.
The price difference between the two cameras is significant – Nikon D7000 is priced at $1,199, while Nikon D90 price has dropped to $739.95.


----------



## Chris J

frank i said:


> Better  autofocus and 24 MP makes it a big improvement over the D90 also faster for sport shooting. Her eis what they said when the d7000 came out and the 7100 is better yet.
> 
> Here are some differences between Nikon D7000 and D90:
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply,
for me, personally, the big upgrades are:
 - the higher resolution
 - the 100% viewfinder, there are times when 96% drives me nuts
 - the exposure meering
 - the focus points and focus speed upgrades
Like I said, I'm more of an amateur photographer and less of a technical photo geek. It's a bit odd, I obsess over stereo gear and sweat the details, but use cameras without geting technical.


----------



## Frank I

Definitely for me the D7100 is excellent and I use it with my long lenses for sport shooting. Excellent  and fast. Only drawback is buffer can fill up fast so there is a delay but speed is evident and has the better 54 point Autofocus system. I sometime revert to jpeg to eliminate that. D610 indoors though because it is much better in low light


----------



## Chris J

I typically shoot with
a 24 mm f/2.8
a 35 mm f/1.8
and a Macro 60 mm f/2.8
a pretty basic set up. 

I very rarely use a zoom lens, because I find I spend too much time zooming back and forth.


----------



## Frank I

chris j said:


> I typically shoot with
> a 24 mm f/2.8
> a 35 mm f/1.8
> and a Macro 60 mm f/2.8
> ...


 
 Thos would work well with the D7100 or D610 except the 35MM DX on the D610-.


----------



## Currawong

I got a Nikon/Crumpler 7 Million Dollar Home free for buying the D750. It is probably worth about half of what I paid to trade in my D800 for the D750 so I'm not complaining! Crazy thing is, it will fit the Bigma! If I do use it for that though, I wont be carrying it far.


----------



## jc9394

currawong said:


> I got a Nikon/Crumpler 7 Million Dollar Home free for buying the D750. It is probably worth about half of what I paid to trade in my D800 for the D750 so I'm not complaining! Crazy thing is, it will fit the Bigma! If I do use it for that though, I wont be carrying it far.


 
  
  
 I love the 7 Mil, it carry my gripped D800 with 24, 35, 50, and 85 lens.  Like you said, it a not a walk around town bag but an excellent bag for short trip.


----------



## Frank I

Amos you taking the D750 out west next month. I am taking the Fuji Xt-1 and two lenses the 18-55 and also 55-200 in case I hit the sights. Maybe throw the 23MM 1.4 in the bag too


----------



## hyogen

Wapho Temple, Bangkok


----------



## rickyleelee

hyogen said:


> Wapho Temple, Bangkok


 

 Nice pic !


----------



## Currawong

frank i said:


> Amos you taking the D750 out west next month. I am taking the Fuji Xt-1 and two lenses the 18-55 and also 55-200 in case I hit the sights. Maybe throw the 23MM 1.4 in the bag too


 
  
 Yes, with the 24-70. That'll cover everything I reckon.


----------



## hyogen

rickyleelee said:


> hyogen said:
> 
> 
> > Wapho Temple, Bangkok
> ...


 
  
 Thank you  
  
 Here are a couple I took today of a local hip hop artist and producer for his upcoming album.  He's been on MTV and is one of the hardest working people I know (he's a director of sales at a multi billion dollar IT company as well)


----------



## rickyleelee

hyogen said:


> Thank you
> 
> 
> Here are a couple I took today of a local hip hop artist and producer for his upcoming album.  He's been on MTV and is one of the hardest working people I know (he's a director of sales at a multi billion dollar IT company as well)




Beautiful ones!! Can you please share what equipment you use to take those pics


----------



## OddE

rickyleelee said:


> Beautiful ones!! Can you please share what equipment you use to take those pics


 
  
 -I'd just like to paraphrase the NRA - 'Cameras don't take pictures; photographers do.'
  
 While kit is definitely part of the equation, there's no doubt that skills, practice, practice, some more practice and skills is what makes for great photos.
   
Oh, and some practice and skills, too.


----------



## rickyleelee

odde said:


> -I'd just like to paraphrase the NRA - 'Cameras don't take pictures; photographers do.'
> 
> While kit is definitely part of the equation, there's no doubt that skills, practice, practice, some more practice and skills is what makes for great photos.
> 
> Oh, and some practice and skills, too.




I knew the "golden rule" but still want to know the range of lens you took them


----------



## OddE

rickyleelee said:


> I knew the "golden rule" but still want to know the range of lens you took them


 
  
 -Oops, my apologies for the confusion - I am not the photographer; that's hyogen/ Justin Lee.
  
 I just had an idle moment after having just been asked half a dozen times by colleagues at work what camera I had used to shoot a photo we wound up using in a marketing brochure, and vented my slight frustration at you.


----------



## hyogen

rickyleelee said:


> hyogen said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you
> ...


 
  
 Hehe, I agree the photographer takes the pics not the camera, but really nice equipment certainly helps.  
  
 I believe both of these were shot with my Nikon D750 and 85mm f1.8 lens.  There's a chance the first one was shot with a 35mm f1.4 lens.  I rarely shoot wide open at the largest aperture for multiple reasons.  The first one I used two speedlights with colored gels and second one I used one speedlight in a softbox.  
  
 If you want to get better quick my best advice for you is to force yourself to shoot in manual mode and use fixed focal length lenses.  That way you learn how to control the exposure triangle and learn to frame your subject and decide on settings before you take the shot.  Also, just 3 short years ago I had no idea people did post processing.......I thought sharp, vibrant colors came from the camera and lens.  I laugh about it now   I've spent countless hours editing and correcting skin tones and white balance these past few years.  
  
 Thanks for the compliments.  Definitely has taken a lot of practice and trial/error, but I'm still not done learning yet--I've still got quite a ways to go before I get to where I want to be.


----------



## Chris J

Nikon D7200:
Thoughts anyone?


----------



## hyogen

I think I can't upload the full full res even on flickr, but much larger version here:  https://www.flickr.com/photos/hyogen82/16727926829/  This is a stitch of about 15 shots.


----------



## musubi1000

A great photo is much more than sharp, noise free, chromatic abberation free, and pretty bokeh (which by the way just means blurry in Japanese). 
A camera operator believes a better camera results in a better picture. 
A true photographer creates the image by using a camera.


----------



## Frank I

Well said  Musubi


----------



## hyogen

A week ago even I thought about switching to Canon for skin tones....after this wedding this past Sunday in my most challenging low light venue yet I am happy to stay with Nikon.  Super happy with how my lighting strategy turned out.  Haven't even gone through 20% of the pics!


----------



## Chris J

Canon?
 What's a "Canon"?


----------



## hyogen

a few more scenes


----------



## rickyleelee

Nice pics


----------



## rickyleelee

Hi there, see some images I took on my new tool with Nikon D600 + 50mm 1.4G lens. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  

  

  

  


 Will post more going forward....


----------



## hyogen

a few from my senior session yesterday...super late for senior photos I know--but she had pics taken by her sister with the family camera but her parents wanted some there were a little more professional


----------



## rickyleelee

Nice images


----------



## Music Path

rickyleelee said:


> Hi there, see some images I took on my new tool with Nikon D600 + 50mm 1.4G lens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Hey bro, nice desktop and pictures.  I have some questions:
 Could you give me a notion on how the pairing idsd»itube»ican sounds? Does it improveme the sound of idsd? And is it worth the mercury cable as noise reduction?   Answer me on the idsd thread. 
  
 Btw is it a big diference between retro 50 and idsd micro  ? just curious.
  
 Thanks 
  
 hm22music


----------



## Currawong

Lately I've been trying to work with a Fujifilm X-T1 because it is lighter and smaller yet can take great low-light photos. However picking up my D750 feels like a huge relief. No screwing around to take a single photo, it just snaps off a bunch perfectly. Now if only Nikon would make an FX mirrorless camera, or even a great DX one.


----------



## OddE

currawong said:


> Lately I've been trying to work with a Fujifilm X-T1 because it is lighter and smaller yet can take great low-light photos. However picking up my D750 feels like a huge relief. No screwing around to take a single photo, it just snaps off a bunch perfectly. Now if only Nikon would make an FX mirrorless camera, or even a great DX one.


 
  
 -If you ever happen to find yourself near a Sony a7 of some sort, I'd suggest you take it for a spin - they are lovely, compact, full-frame mirrorless cameras and somebody must have made an adapter to fit F lenses by now (With or without AF and metering).
  
 With the a7S, you can take available-light action photos of bats in a coal mine! (Seriously - I've shot one at ISO25,600 with hardly any need to worry about noise - and with some careful noise reduction applied, it produces what IMHO would be publishable results up to at least ISO102,400.)
  
 I don't own one myself, but I am seriously considering obtaining one as an ersatz digital Leica - I have a couple of Summicrons which I use on a 1967 M4 and would love to be able to use such a compact camera with stellar performance with compact, ditto optics.


----------



## bumblebeezack

Hi everyone, I'm a Nikon user. Although I'm impartial to any camera I can work with comfortably. Just wanna share a photo taken with a Nikon:



I have to say though that on holidays, I usually just use my Fuji X100T which is capable of photos like so:



Just a disclaimer. I work as a photographer and here's some of my camera gear, taken with the LG G3:


----------



## hyogen

definitely planning on getting an A7s especially for video work.  Just waiting for prices to drop just a little bit since the A7S II is on the verge of being announced
  
 Loving my D750s a fair amount more than my previous D600s.  It's autofocus system doesn't WOW me like I thought it would, but the D600's AF system wasn't too shabby either.


----------



## hyogen

full size here:  https://500px.com/photo/113155129/goalie-by-justin-lee-photography-justinleewedding-com?from=user_library


----------



## hyogen

Close to a 400 feet bridge....


----------



## hyogen

collectively over 6000 likes on this image in one day on fb/instagram...my most popular ever!


----------



## rickyleelee

Hey. I only use the USB3.0 cable supplied. I tried some other big bucks USB cables and it was questionable if it was better than the USB3.0 cable.

Retro is for those who want all in one at home. I suggest the Retro and be complete becuae it is such a good value for the coin product.

But if you go portable then you can only go micro dsd.


----------



## Currawong

hyogen said:


> collectively over 6000 likes on this image in one day on fb/instagram...my most popular ever!


 
  
 Nice!
  
 I had similar luck a few years ago when the flight path took a nice direction on a day with good weather here in Japan:


----------



## rickyleelee

Other pictures I took at the AV Show 2015 Which was took place in July 7-9 in Hong Kong! Just select some of those I like for sharing and hope you like them


----------



## Frank I




----------



## rickyleelee

Nice pictures


----------



## Frank I

Thanks


----------



## Frank I

Going to shoot the D750 this weekend in another race.


----------



## OddE

frank i said:


> Going to shoot the D750 this weekend in another race.


 
  
 -After a few weeks of not having neither time nor inspiration to pick up my positively ancient predecessor to the D750 (I own a D3), I intend to go shooting this weekend if the weather is either decent or horribly bad; we'll see. (Autumn colours have finally showed up en masse - but if the light is just flat and boring under overcast skies, I'll have to figure out something else to do...)


----------



## Frank I

I like the D750. I want to shoot some video indoor track meets this winter to se e how that works our for me.


----------



## natrixx

Lake Teletskoye, Altay mountains, about 300 kilometers from the town I live in. Traveled with friends, in one day. Crazy ride, 12 hours in a car, serpentine mountain road, almost got lost on the way back. Totally worth it  Shot on D5100 with kit 18-105 lense.


----------



## jc9394

Supermoon lunar eclipse over Boston last night.


----------



## Frank I

Nice shot JC!


----------



## Frank I

Nikon 200-500 shots


>


----------



## hyogen

I made it on this top oregon wedding photographer hotlist!!  3 years ago I was spending probably 20+ hours a week on head-fi :O  
  
 http://junebugweddings.com/best-wedding-photographers/Portland-photography/
  
 www.justinleewedding.com


----------



## Fuzziekiwi

One full year of taking photos and learning manual pretty well. I can't wait to improve more.


----------



## bolmeteus

Feels good to see a dedicated Nikon thread, will post pictures when I go home.


----------



## rickyleelee

I took these pictures using my D600 when I was visiting Seoul South Korea in Nov. I will post more next time


----------



## bolmeteus

A few shots from a wedding in Bangladesh. D3100, 50mm f1.8 G


----------



## Oscar-HiFi

Revive this thread a bit, modest setup, used for product photos and gig photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/135742064@N05/albums

Nikon D600, Nikkor 24-70 f2.8, Nikkor 80-200 f2.8, Nikkor 50mm f1.8


----------



## The Fife Flyer

The greatest band in the world   I waited 40 odd years to see them.

D5300 with the 75-300mm lens


----------



## episiarch

Very nice shots!  I'm impressed at the colour balance given concert lighting.
Also, were the Doobies here in the UK and I missed them?


----------



## The Fife Flyer

episiarch said:


> Very nice shots!  I'm impressed at the colour balance given concert lighting.
> Also, were the Doobies here in the UK and I missed them?


Thanks bud. I managed to get a few shots before the stewards told me to stop or have it confiscated  
Unfortunately you did.
They supported Steely Dan at the O2 London in Oct last year. I got tickets, then a week later they announced Glasgow on Nov 3rd. So I sold the O2 tix only for Walter Becker to pass away the next day.

They were awesome. Their harmonies were still as tight as ever, especially for their age and did all the favourites. I can die a happy man now


----------



## Ross H

A quick shot at the Palace of Fine Arts Theater in San Francisco, taken on our trip last year.  Shot with a D810 and Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 @ 17mm, ISO 100, f/8, 1/400.


----------



## anoobis

Not sure how active this thread is but I'll ask anyway! Firstly, please don't castigate me for talking old tech... 

So I've been doing a _lot_ of reading about D300(s) and D7000 lately. Don't worry, I'm not going to ask which is better or what to buy. What I found interesting was the difficulty in ascertaining good information on image quality, despite the reviews and tests.

Anecdotally, the D7000 seems to have a good advantage with significantly lower noise, despite an increase in pixel count. Should be win-win. Looking at what comparisons I could find, e.g. dpreview, it doesn't seem that clear. Perhaps it's because directly comparable examples aren't available, e.g. both 100% crop, which aren't the same size. Perhaps it's because the test examples don't reflect real-world usage enough, I don't know.

Regardless, I purchased a D7000 in case you're interested. Yes, I've bought a really old camera. I don't have the budget for newer and it's more than enough for my needs. And newer than my current really old camera   I went with the consensus of improved sensor and in-camera processing. The one niggling doubt I have is this example of lack of resolution/sharpness:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/21

Take a look at the left-hand side of the watch face for the D7000 and D300S, where the bevelling of the markers and hands is clear on the latter but not the former. My view is that actually the scene has changed and therefore it's an invalid comparison. It's also, again, one specific instance cited to show one camera is 'better' than another.

Any thoughts on this specific test? And it brings me back to the start, anyone else struggle in general to find reliable information needed to make a decision?


----------



## anoobis

So here's a really long shot. Does anyone know whether it's possible to buy replacement flash release buttons and how easy they are to fit? Specifically for D300 (long story). Or, can the flash be operated without the button?

I've attempted to contact Nikon USA but my browser won't play nicely with the Captcha verification, so I simply can't send a message! Nikon UK are of course now closed for the weekend.

Can anyone help?


----------



## ZMG885

anoobis said:


> So here's a really long shot. Does anyone know whether it's possible to buy replacement flash release buttons and how easy they are to fit? Specifically for D300 (long story). Or, can the flash be operated without the button?
> 
> I've attempted to contact Nikon USA but my browser won't play nicely with the Captcha verification, so I simply can't send a message! Nikon UK are of course now closed for the weekend.
> 
> Can anyone help?



Have you solved this yet?  Gut feeling says you'll have to send it to a Nikon service center for repair....    You could also post over at dpreview to see if anyone has a DIY fix.


----------



## jksoon (Nov 1, 2018)

I still have the old D300 and a D2x... and a D200 in a bag somewhere.  I'm Ok with them being 12mp.  These have been so reliable, solid feeling and focus so nicely that I just never got rid of them. I've purchased and sold many of my other DSLRs, but these are keepers. I've gotten used to the large size of the D2x, that it's my go to DSLR. I'm using the 18-200mm 3.5 VC lens. I have several of the kit 18-55mm lenses lying around, which is pretty good glass for the money. My next purchase will most likely be a D800 series and I have been wanting to try the Fuji X-Trans cameras. But these Nikons are staying with me.


----------



## kid vic

Nikon D3200 owner here, still pretty new to the whole photography thing TBH


----------



## KcMsterpce (Nov 1, 2018)

My first digital SLR was the Nikon D3. It lasted me for 9 years, and then the aperture pin broke, meaning that the cost to replace it would exceed its value. So last year, I purchased the D810 (right after the D850 was released). Here in Korea, the price of the body went down $800, so I got it for about $1500. Man, what a difference ten years makes in DSLR technology! Holy moly! I love this camera so much. I hope it lasts me quite a while. It's so fast, so refined. I went 9 months without an SLR, and the moment I stuck my eye into the viewfinder, it was like settling into your favorite chair after weeks on the road. I missed the advantages of SLR - how easy it is to specifically determine depth of field; aperture, off-angle focus, and so on. After almost a year of cell phone picture taking, I forgot the comfort of having a camera that I didn't need to fiddle with to get what I wanted from it.

I spent almost my whole life growing up with SLR film cameras. It took several years for me to accept digital as a viable medium (once they hit about 5.1 megapixels at an affordable rate, I started to regard it as something worth my time). Growing up with film as the only means to taking pictures, it was a lesson in how to understand the way cameras function. It would cost more to take crappy photos, so I would take copious notes to better understand ISO, lighting conditions, etc... so that I would get the most value out of each roll of film. Using high school and college photo studios to develop my own film enhanced familiarity, and taught me how to evoke different artistic expression in the developing stage. I also understood that a bad picture will still be a bad picture; but it can look a _little bit better_ when you have control and understanding of how to eke out more quality while in the red room. Or, I'd switch things up by experimenting with double exposure, solarisation, etc.... It also taught me to take pictures with the intent to capture what I desire IN THE FRAME, not to "fix it later" in Photoshop and junky photo apps.

I think photography is an art that has been oversimplified and under-appreciated these days. It's better to learn how a camera can accommodate to your needs _in the moment_, versus using post-production software as a crutch to "fix" what should not have been a mistake in the first place.


----------



## ZMG885

anoobis said:


> Not sure how active this thread is but I'll ask anyway! Firstly, please don't castigate me for talking old tech...
> 
> So I've been doing a _lot_ of reading about D300(s) and D7000 lately. Don't worry, I'm not going to ask which is better or what to buy. What I found interesting was the difficulty in ascertaining good information on image quality, despite the reviews and tests.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't worry about that test scene.  The D7000 is plenty sharp.   What happens is the RAW files look softer than the out-of-camera JPEGs.  If you go to the resolution test on the prior page you will see what I'm talking about.  The JPEGs appear sharper because the solids are brighter, but the resolution is diminished vs RAW.  In the RAW image, the edges are sharper and the resolving power is higher.  This softness is the effect of how Lightroom/Photoshop process Nikon RAW files in their default settings.

If you are concerned about your particular camera, set up your own test scene and shoot that.  I like to shoot books in a book case, with camera on a tripod, and your lens in it's sharpest aperature (typically f/4 to f/8), and take shots with increasing ISO to see sharpness and noise effects on the color as ISO increases.  If the book title font edges are sharp and the colors are good, I'd say your sensor is in good shape.   The D7000 sensor should be decently clean up to ISO 1600 in practical shooting and ISO 3200 pushed.

Aside from all that, I was in a gallery that specialized landscape photography of the dessert southwest.  I saw 24" x 36" color prints taken with a the D7000 that were simply stunning.  Helped me stop craving an upgrade to my D7100.   If there is an aspect to the D7000 that needs workaround it would be the metering system, and this is not that difficult to do with exposure compensation.   In my experience, the metering issues only slightly improved in the D7100 and D7200.  What sets the D7100/7200 apart from the D7000 is a higher-res 24mpixel sensor and a much better auto focus system so you could better shoot birds-in-flight and sports.  Nikon didn't drop it's good metering system into this line until the D7500 (and the D500 has the latest pro level auto focus).


----------



## ZMG885

KcMsterpce said:


> My first digital SLR was the Nikon D3. It lasted me for 9 years, and then the aperture pin broke, meaning that the cost to replace it would exceed its value. So last year, I purchased the D810 (right after the D850 was released). Here in Korea, the price of the body went down $800, so I got it for about $1500. Man, what a difference ten years makes in DSLR technology! Holy moly! I love this camera so much. I hope it lasts me quite a while. It's so fast, so refined. I went 9 months without an SLR, and the moment I stuck my eye into the viewfinder, it was like settling into your favorite chair after weeks on the road. I missed the advantages of SLR - how easy it is to specifically determine depth of field; aperture, off-angle focus, and so on. After almost a year of cell phone picture taking, I forgot the comfort of having a camera that I didn't need to fiddle with to get what I wanted from it.
> 
> I spent almost my whole life growing up with SLR film cameras. It took several years for me to accept digital as a viable medium (once they hit about 5.1 megapixels at an affordable rate, I started to regard it as something worth my time). Growing up with film as the only means to taking pictures, it was a lesson in how to understand the way cameras function. It would cost more to take crappy photos, so I would take copious notes to better understand ISO, lighting conditions, etc... so that I would get the most value out of each roll of film. Using high school and college photo studios to develop my own film enhanced familiarity, and taught me how to evoke different artistic expression in the developing stage. I also understood that a bad picture will still be a bad picture; but it can look a _little bit better_ when you have control and understanding of how to eke out more quality while in the red room. Or, I'd switch things up by experimenting with double exposure, solarisation, etc.... It also taught me to take pictures with the intent to capture what I desire IN THE FRAME, not to "fix it later" in Photoshop and junky photo apps.
> 
> I think photography is an art that has been oversimplified and under-appreciated these days. It's better to learn how a camera can accommodate to your needs _in the moment_, versus using post-production software as a crutch to "fix" what should not have been a mistake in the first place.



You went from one great camera to another!  The D810 is awesome, and will be a great for years to come.

And your general point on photography is well taken, but I think these issues around photography have always been the case.  To elevate it to an art form requires the photo telling a story and having the artistic elements (lighting and composition) spot on.   Those elements, if off, can't be fixed in post.   And the only way I've ever got there is to immerse myself in shooting, and if I do, I make myself available for that moment when I SEE the image and capture it.  I've gotten to the point I can execute a good image, and I've only had a few that I think are really art worthy.  I find when I focus on painting and drawing more, I tend to take better photos....


----------



## KcMsterpce

I agree with your point that having "an eye for composition" is the most important aspect to photography. The highest quality camera won't give you amazing photos if the person taking the picture doesn't have the knack for photography.
Give someone a cheap camera, and they can produce wonderful photos. Understanding how a camera works in conjunction with a good camera makes it easier for someone to evoke the tone they're going for with less effort. Generally speaking.


----------



## anoobis

ZMG885 said:


> Have you solved this yet?  Gut feeling says you'll have to send it to a Nikon service center for repair....    You could also post over at dpreview to see if anyone has a DIY fix.



Thanks for the reply. I was looking to buy and the seller was claiming an easy fix but I wasn't entirely convinced. I managed to contact three places, two of which said they'd have to see it and the third guesstimated £200! I had a hunch that it could be expensive despite being a very low-cost part. So, while I don't know definitively, I was sufficiently put off to leave it.

Even if there were a (non-inconvenient) DIY workaround I assume the weather sealing would then be ruined, so again didn't seem worth it.


----------



## anoobis

KcMsterpce said:


> I went 9 months without an SLR, and the moment I stuck my eye into the viewfinder, it was like settling into your favorite chair after weeks on the road. I missed the advantages of SLR - how easy it is to specifically determine depth of field; aperture, off-angle focus, and so on. After almost a year of cell phone picture taking, I forgot the comfort of having a camera that I didn't need to fiddle with to get what I wanted from it.
> 
> I think photography is an art that has been oversimplified and under-appreciated these days. It's better to learn how a camera can accommodate to your needs _in the moment_, versus using post-production software as a crutch to "fix" what should not have been a mistake in the first place.



I know exactly what you mean about using an SLR. I really only dabble with photography, expertise is low although I have a reasonable grasp of the technicalities. So, on a couple of occasions, I've tried alternatives, such as bridge cameras or compacts. After all, it's a pain lugging around the (relatively expensive) kit. Every time, I've found the non-SLR to be fiddly and a pain to use. EVF, no thanks, horrendous (some time ago, admittedly). No viewfinder at all? What? Also going back some way, the IQ lower than the DSLR despite higher specs.

I'm sure all the alternatives have improved but they've also increased in price to the level that I may as well stick with the system I have!


----------



## anoobis

ZMG885 said:


> I wouldn't worry about that test scene.  The D7000 is plenty sharp.   What happens is the RAW files look softer than the out-of-camera JPEGs.  If you go to the resolution test on the prior page you will see what I'm talking about.  The JPEGs appear sharper because the solids are brighter, but the resolution is diminished vs RAW.  In the RAW image, the edges are sharper and the resolving power is higher.  This softness is the effect of how Lightroom/Photoshop process Nikon RAW files in their default settings.
> 
> If you are concerned about your particular camera, set up your own test scene and shoot that.  I like to shoot books in a book case, with camera on a tripod, and your lens in it's sharpest aperature (typically f/4 to f/8), and take shots with increasing ISO to see sharpness and noise effects on the color as ISO increases.  If the book title font edges are sharp and the colors are good, I'd say your sensor is in good shape.   The D7000 sensor should be decently clean up to ISO 1600 in practical shooting and ISO 3200 pushed.
> 
> Aside from all that, I was in a gallery that specialized landscape photography of the dessert southwest.  I saw 24" x 36" color prints taken with a the D7000 that were simply stunning.  Helped me stop craving an upgrade to my D7100.   If there is an aspect to the D7000 that needs workaround it would be the metering system, and this is not that difficult to do with exposure compensation.   In my experience, the metering issues only slightly improved in the D7100 and D7200.  What sets the D7100/7200 apart from the D7000 is a higher-res 24mpixel sensor and a much better auto focus system so you could better shoot birds-in-flight and sports.  Nikon didn't drop it's good metering system into this line until the D7500 (and the D500 has the latest pro level auto focus).



Oh, I don't think I doubted the general quality but I did doubt some of the tests and comparisons. I think there's perhaps some hyperbola in the reviews/comments versus the data (images). But of course, getting good data seems to be an issue and the differences may not manifest under all circumstances.

Long story short, I think what I really want is a model that has both the ISO and AF advantages. That's not on the cards for now, so I'm probably sticking with the advantages of the D300 over the D7000. I suspect there could be an issue with the particular D7000 I received but have no way to verify and it's not worth the fuss. The D300 is cheaper and the saving can be put towards the next purchase further down the line, which will be a worthwhile improvement over both cameras.

I'll still learn a lot from the D300 and it's still a significant improvement from where I'm at. I would prefer more pixels for cropping but don't think the difference between 12MP and 16MP is that significant in practice; it's diminishing returns as the count goes up with each generation. I also got the impression that getting the best out of the D7000/16MP requires more skill/effort!


----------



## ZMG885

anoobis said:


> Oh, I don't think I doubted the general quality but I did doubt some of the tests and comparisons. I think there's perhaps some hyperbola in the reviews/comments versus the data (images). But of course, getting good data seems to be an issue and the differences may not manifest under all circumstances.
> 
> Long story short, I think what I really want is a model that has both the ISO and AF advantages. That's not on the cards for now, so I'm probably sticking with the advantages of the D300 over the D7000. I suspect there could be an issue with the particular D7000 I received but have no way to verify and it's not worth the fuss. The D300 is cheaper and the saving can be put towards the next purchase further down the line, which will be a worthwhile improvement over both cameras.
> 
> I'll still learn a lot from the D300 and it's still a significant improvement from where I'm at. I would prefer more pixels for cropping but don't think the difference between 12MP and 16MP is that significant in practice; it's diminishing returns as the count goes up with each generation. I also got the impression that getting the best out of the D7000/16MP requires more skill/effort!



OK.  I get more of where your coming from.    I can say the weak spot of the D300 is ISO and lower dynamic range compared to the newer 16mp sensor in the D7000.  What the D300 brings is slightly faster shutter and pro-level AF, and along with pro-level controls and body.  This is what kept most D300 users from upgrading until the D500 arrived.   If you want and need pro-level controls, and dislike the consumer controls (many pros do), then the only upgrade option from here is a D500 or D8X0 and they are holding their prices.   If you want better image quality, the the prosumer line got the love from Nikon until the D500.    BTW, If you get a D300, make sure it's the D300s as Nikon fixed and adjusted issues in the first gen D300.

That said, you may want to look at a used D7100, for not much more than a used D300s on ebay.  Sensor performance is dramatically better in every respect and Nikon put a pro-level AF in the camera that is a gen above the D300s. You get a pro-sports/bird-in-flight level AF, good low light AF and a 24mp sensor w/o an alias filter good for landscape. It has consumer controls vs the pro-style controls over D300s, yet many like the U1 & U2 custom settings as they can control the entire camera and stay permanent unless changed, unlike the menu banks on the pro cameras.    The jump from the D7000 to the D7100 was dramatic in all aspects.  The jump from the D7100 to the D7200, 7500 are more incremental, albeit significant.  FYI.


----------



## anoobis

Thanks for all the extra information and advice. I'll keep looking!

I was concerned that the higher MP count may mean that the camera couldn't really be used in a 'casual' way, i.e. needing better lenses, rock solid technique, but given even the entry level sports 24MP I'm guessing this isn't the case.


----------



## ZMG885

anoobis said:


> Thanks for all the extra information and advice. I'll keep looking!
> 
> I was concerned that the higher MP count may mean that the camera couldn't really be used in a 'casual' way, i.e. needing better lenses, rock solid technique, but given even the entry level sports 24MP I'm guessing this isn't the case.



The 24mp can illuminate lens flaws, and when the D7100 came out along with the D800's 36mp there was a lot of talk about better lenses, better technique, and so on.  That all died down after a while once folks got used to shooting these cameras.  One feature I find very useful that appeared on the D7100 and up is Auto ISO.  This allows you to allow the camera to adjust ISO  as needed AND set a minimum shutter speed.  For hand-held shots in low light, I would set the min. shutter at 1/125 or 1/250 and max ISO at 3200 or 6400 (on aperture priority).  This eliminated motion blur on most shots.  The improved dynamic range of the sensor allows for this.  ISO 6400 is pushing the envelope.  I also shot just fine with my older lenses.  On of my favorites was a nikkor 50mm f/1.4 D, and yes, zoomed in 100% you could see all kinds of flaws, yet the color rendition and bokeh were outstanding.   That said, Nikon has been updating their entry level lenses to increase sharpness since their using the 24mp sensor in their whole APC camera line from entry to prosumer, so lots of inexpensive options.


----------



## aerospace33

It is still true that the 36mp sensor on the D800 will expose flaws, but lenses today are so good that most of the available lenses are plenty sharp for the majority of photographers. The nikkor 50mm f/1.4D is fantastic for the money on any compatible Nikon.


----------



## Playstation

I own a Nikon coolpix 3700 that I have never used


----------



## Shaggy8675

Hey fellow photograpers.
 Just going to hike along. Long time Nikon user. Just sold my old workhorse D700, but still have the D750's. Of course with Nikkor glass.


----------



## RestlessZombi

Nikon D810 and D800
Nikon 24 - 70 2.8
Nikon 85 1.8
Nikon 50 1.4
Nikon 180 2.8

My Nikon kit, though various other Lens and Flashes but they aren't Nikon soo.. i wont put them here..


----------



## tumpux

Shaggy8675 said:


> Just sold my old workhorse D700.



W h y . . .


----------



## PatekBruguetMogul




----------



## hyogen

hyogen said:


> I made it on this top oregon wedding photographer hotlist!!  3 years ago I was spending probably 20+ hours a week on head-fi :O
> 
> http://junebugweddings.com/best-wedding-photographers/Portland-photography/
> 
> www.justinleewedding.com


here I am 4 years later just getting rid of my nikon bodies and switching to mirrorless Canon   Honestly, I wasted so much time correcting skin tones and dealing with WB using Nikon (sony sensor).  I shot RAW and constant kelvin too.  I have seen the light and will choose Canon color science above all else.  I just shut down my website for now as I have stopped doing weddings, but here's my instagram:  www.instagram.com/justinleeportland if you want to see my work for the last 6 years :O


----------



## Stevko

Not used my Nikon gear for a while.
Not since jan 20(exept christmas evening 21)Too heavy/big.
Mostly use my iphone. But the pics is grainy and not so good in low light.
Considering to buy som lighter gear from nikon.
The new nikon Z fs looks great.
Maybe this is what i need for coming back in track


----------



## Tom239

I am impressed with the build quality of manual focus Nikkor lenses from the '60s and '70s.  The ones I have are still a pleasure to use.  I had occasion to take one apart and came across the bearing shown in this pic which was part of the aperture ring mechanism.  I don't know how the bearing was assembled; the tiny balls (about 100 of them) cannot come out.


----------

