steve_dawson1

<p>That conclusion re Nikon software may be premature: it works fine for me! Maybe give it a few more minutes?</p>

<p>If you are comparing your Canon with your previous Fuji, I think this is unlikely to turn out to be a lens quality issue. The lenses you have may not be the best, but they are all capable of sharp images when stopped down. I think this is more likely to be connected with the learning curve involved when you start with a DSLR. As others have said, it would be useful to see examples of what is is that is failing to impress you, or at least a description.</p>

<p>You have a spelling error in the first paragraph!</p>

<p>I had a 150-500mm for a while. It went back to the store because the OS didn't work, the AF didn't work and it wasn't sharp. If you got lucky and got a better one it might be good for bird photography. The OS is useful, and the HSM focusing is fast and quiet.</p>

<p>Also I believe there is a new 50-500mm which has OS/HSM. It may be worth looking for a review of that.</p>

<p>I have to say, though, that my overall experience of Sigma lenses has been quite disappointing. I know a lot of people say that, and we're all talking about very small sample sizes - but I think I would be happier with a used Canon lens if you could find a nice one and the price difference wasn't too horrendous - for example, Canon's 100-400 zoom seems to have a good reputation.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree. A Canon 5dii will not fix your reluctance to take your camera out of its bag. Since it will be heavier it may even increase the likelihood of your leaving it at home.<br>

Maybe a trip to the library, or a short course, or giving yourself a project might stimulate your creativity. A new camera really is a solution to being constrained by the one you already have not to a lack of inspiration.</p>

 

<p>I use that Tokina lens with a D200. On the whole it's a very nice lens. I certainly have no issues with CA or 'excessive softness'. I do notice some softness in one corner when it's used wide open and at the extremes of the zoom range - but for the most part it's very sharp. And, as had already been mentioned, the build quality is very high. I would recommend it, but if you have doubts maybe get one from someplace that will accept returns.</p>

<p>I believe the D90 allows you to set ISO 100 as one of it's extended 'boost' settings, although its native base ISO is 200. So far as lenses are concerned, I think you can safely mount AI and later lenses, although I don't know if you would have any metering.</p>

<p>Ray, I don't mean to be pedantic - I genuinely mean this to be constructive - but it needs a bl***dy good edit and proof-read. You have spelling mistakes, punctuation errors, and meaningless sentences. They weaken the language and make it look like you're unsure of your message. Also some of the text 'tries too hard' to be dramatic or original and that is weakening as well.<br>

I like the photos and it could be a nice website. I don't want to appear critical for the sake of it, but the words do need a bit of work.<br>

Good luck with it!</p>

 

<p>The Nikon 70-300VR is small and light and the VR is very effective - you can easily hand hold it. The Sigma is much heavier - walking around with it is an altogether more serious thing. Also my Sigma arrived faulty, sat on my shelf for two years and then had to be sent back to japan to be reconstructed. So if you get a Sigma make sure it works before you're out in the field!</p>

<p>Those Kodak DSLRs are very old technology now, and they were not universally highly regarded when they were current. IMO, if you want full frame, a used Canon 5d would be better. More expensive, yes, but very much more capable.</p>

What's that thing about how do you make God laugh?.....Tell him your plans! I wouldn't base your decisions too heavily on how you you think your world will be in ten years time. As one of the other posters said there will be many more FX lens choices by that time. Or you may decide to get a different brand of camera, or take up fishing.

 

I'd be more inclined to get lenses which met my requirements now, and make it future proof by getting the best quality I could afford.

 

That said, you have picked out some very good lenses. They will still be good lenses in ten years time, and they may well suit your style perfectly on a DX camera. I just think the photography that's most important is the stuff you're doing today, not the stuff you plan to do at some point in the future.

<p>Just on Wai Leong's post: if you're using the 250mm lens at f5.6 and focusing on something 5m away, the DoF (with a Circle of confusion of 0.045mm) is about 0.1m.</p>

<p>Depends what you want to with it. If you like the challenge of very narrow DOF the extra two thirds of a stop could give you some fun. For most work I would say the answer is 'no'. </p>

As others have said: falling pound, random but incomprehensibly large amounts of VAT, duty and whatnot added by the state, shipping, and lack of warranty make this nothing like as attractive as it can appear at first sight. Picking things up on a trip to the US sorts out the duty and shipping issues. You're stuck with the level of the pound and the warranty.

It depends on your photography. If you use that 18-70 in good light, at f8, in the middle of its zoom range, and you

print at 10 x 8, you probably don't need the 17-55, then again you probably don't need a new camera either. If you

want to control depth of field through a wide(ish) aperture then you've got to go for the lens. As others have said you'll

probably still be happy with the 17-55 many years after D90s have ended up on ebay.

However, since your D300 is of a generation of Nikons for which this lens is specifically intended it is unlikely that a general 'compatibility' problem is the issue. Further compatibility issues don't cause intermittent failures. The issue here is a fault - either with your lens or with your camera. Have you established that other lenses (especially Nikon lenses) work correctly with your camera?

I have photographed polar bears at Churchill and was surprised at how short a lens I used for most of my photos. I agree with Shun about the 300mm plus converters for bears which are quite a distance away, but those shots are very difficult to get sharp. You're on a platform which moves because people are moving back and forth and sometimes there is engine vibration. On one of my trips the light was dreadful adding to the problems. Most of my photos were of bears very close to the buggy. Even a 70-200mm was often uncomfortably long. Based on my (limited) experience I would expect to use a mid range like a 70-200mm most and have a longer and a shorter lens available. If you're lucky you get to see bears interacting with each other, sorting out the dominant males and stuff, in which case they're moving and a wide aperture is more use than IS.

I went with tundrabuggytours a few years ago. Views were excellent, the tundra buggy not too crowded, and we had sightings of many bears. The driver was very knowledgeable and we were stopped with the engine turned off for long periods which is obviously good for photography. I don't know how they compare with other operators but I would be happy to go with them. Mind you, my trip was in 2001 (I think) so I don't know whether anything has changed (apart from global warming!).

Microdrives are considered notoriously unreliable because as minature hard disks they contain moving parts. Have

you tried an ordinary compact flash card in the camera? It will read them OK, and they are now cheap - much

cheaper than when you got the camera four years ago. They have no moving parts and are extremely reliable. IMO

you should buy a decent brand (eg Lexar or Sandisk) compact flash card rather than a new microdrive.

If your 50mm lens is a f1.8 or a f1.4 then it lets in much more light than your new 28mm f2.8 lens and so the image you see through the viewfinder will be darker with the 28mm. Smaller aperture lenses are therefore more difficult to focus. Have you checked that the iris of your 28mm lens is fully open so that the lens is allowing in as much light as possible? Numerous screens are available for (most) OM cameras, some of which may suit you better. It's worth searching photo.net to see what's available.

An APS sensor would still have a 1.5 multiplier. I think the only practical way of getting the benefit of your Minolta lenses is to use then with a Canon DSLR (for which glassless adaptors are also available) - a 5D would give you the benefit of full frame, so no multiplier.

 

Replacing a camera's sensor is just not a practical proposition. Even if you could cram a larger one in you would also need to transplant all the associated electronics. And the camera body would physically need to be large enough to accommodate the bigger image. Impossible or close; certainly much more expensive than obtaining a different camera.

I am disqualified from answering because I haven't used it, but the answer is: yes an SDHC 16GB card will work. Some people like to exercise caution and use several smaller cards.

So far this thread does not contain any advice, just general comments. Of course you should obtain professional advice first. One piece of free advice is: employers are not stupid - the reason they are making this offer is more to do with controlling their costs than making you rich.

 

But that does not mean it's a bad offer.

And so does Neat Image, here: http://www.neatimage.com/mac/download.html

If you are working in the UK you will be subject to tax in the UK. Subcontracting whereby the contractor operates as the sole employee of their own limited company and has a single customer is very popular. In this model the employer transfers the administrative costs of employment and some of the statutory obligations of employment to the employee in return for a somewhat higher rate of pay. Doing this gets you some tax advantages because of things that can be offset against tax. There is a limit to the purchases of photographic equipment you can offset in this way if they are really to support your hobby. As a limited company you are required to keep accounts - your auditors will ask questions and they need to be friends with the revenue people more than they need you. And what you really don't want is for HM Revenue and Customs to come poking through all those vague invoices and purchases.

 

And sadly you can't dump the tax liability by establishing an offshore company. It may nominally be based in the Isle of Man or wherever, but the test as far as tax is concerned is where the company ACTUALLY operates. If you are clearly operating in the UK you're stuck with a tax bill here. All you can do is keep it to a minimum.