Sycamoe

<p>I was always a fan of FP4+ in my closing days of black and white film use. Although I suppose I wouldn't go back, I often look back fondly on my days of obsessing over film/developer combinations and printing technique. There's something about the tactile experience of agitating reels of black and white in a tank and anxiously awaiting the results. In color, I loved Velvia and Fuji print films in general for their latitude. Strange how I love the ease of digital but miss film so much.</p>

<p>I love my 100 mm Tokina macro. One thing about them is their solid build quality and it wasn't a fortune. It's easy to push/pull from auto to manual focus, which is something you will learn that you will have to do often in macro work. I would agree that anything that is a true macro lens will serve you well--Sigma, Tamron, Nikon or Tokina. Once you have an actual dedicated macro lens and see how superior it is, you won't know how you ever did without it.</p>

<p>I love all the Nik plug-ins, especially Silver Efex and heartily recommend them. In my opinion it is one of the best bargains out there in PS plug ins. The Topaz stuff is terrific, too. One other to check out is Perfect Effects which I got for free. I'm sorry I don't have a link for the offer and I'm not sure whether it's still available but a search should produce some results for it.</p>

<p>Defective. Ask for an exchange. As far as others commenting on exchange/service issues I can only repeat what has been said many times--whether online or brick and mortar, deal with an established reputable company and you'll have no problem within the policy return/warranty periods. Personally I payed full bleeding-edge-of-technology price for my D7100 at Best Buy but only because of the financing. As far as their service, they seem ok. I had an extended warranty on my ipod when it bit the dust and they took care of it after some finagling. I would definitely not go to any of the lesser reputation online retailers--that's where people get burned. P.S. I love my D7100. It's a terrific camera.</p>

 

<p>I have an FE and the 105, too and it's really fun stuff to shoot if you don't mind using film. Great great camera and built like a tank compared to the new stuff. You will especially enjoy that lens.</p>

<p>Let me get this straight--some of you are saying that the photographer swaying slightly while shooting at 1/8000 of a second can cause motion blur? That certainly doesn't sound right. At 1/8000 there's very little motion of any kind that is going to have any effect at all--maybe a speeding bullet. Am I misunderstanding?</p>

<p>Steve, what amazes me is that people are so crazy about low noise and--though I think it's fine to think in terms of modern results competing with other modern cameras--the 12,800 shot looks to me probably better than a lot of 400 or 800 speed film would have been not so long ago. That's like 4 stops better and good enough for me. My personal experience with my d7100 has been excellent and using LR noise reduction for minor tweaking I find the resulting images outstanding to 2000 or better.</p><div></div>

<p>I know you said you have no desire to learn photoshop but it's not all that hard unless you want to go deep with it. I don't like the new cloud-based subscription service, though, so in the meantime Photoshop Elements seems to be a good alternative anyway--and it's actually priced reasonably.  That said, I agree with Jeff that I now do maybe 90% of my basic editing in lightroom and it's a great way to organize.</p>

<p>Just wanted to drop two cents in here about lenses: When you hear people denigrating the kit lenses or the "slow" zooms, it's primarily one of three criticisms--1)the slow max aperture requires a higher ISO or addition of flash, 2) the slow max aperture doesn't allow for extremely shallow depth of field to give a certain professional portrait look, 3) the overall quality is somewhat inferior, especially the bokeh (smoothness of out-of-focus backgrounds, especially for portraits) and sharpness wide open. IMHO, all of these factors are important but way overrated.<br>

1)Shooting the newer cameras at high ISO isn't that big a deal--not to say you want to be at ISO 1600 or 3200 but even if the camera does moderately well at, say, ISO 800 you can solve a lot of your exposure problem created by losing that stop or two using a less-than-professional zoom like the 18-105 that can't go to f 2.8. Once you learn to do a little post processing magic, you'll find out that moderate noise from shooting high ISO is very easy to tame anyway. 2)It's true nothing will substitute for the quality and look of a fast lens wide open. But if people tell you that you can't make a nice portrait with that 18-105 wide open I personally think they're being elitist about it. Your overall technique, lighting, posing, and timing are far, far more important. 3) Scott Bourne says something like 90% of the lenses made today are better than 95% of the photographers that use them and I truly believe that. In contrast to the very cheapest kit lenses, any of the mid-price moderate zooms are really quite good. Just read the technical reviews, then look at the results when used by skilled photographers. My real go-to lens is a 16-85 Nikon, although I don't disagree with any of the recommendations for fast zooms by third party manufacturers--I'm sure they are outstanding. For my work, the 16-85 handles just about everything very nicely. And finally, when I need shallow depth of field or low light performance, I grab for my $100 Nikon 50 mm f1.8 and, though it's not a professional lens, I get just about everything I could ever need from it. </p>

<p>I love the 16-85. I bought it based on reviews and just thought it would be a walkaround lens and 2nd choice to some others I have like a 50 mm 1.8 and my 12-24. I was quite surprised that, as far as sharpness and contrast, it is outstanding. It turns out I have it on my camera 80 or 90% of the time. I won't argue that some of that is laziness--who wants to change lenses when you don't have to? But with the 16-85, every image I look at later seems to confirm that I made little sacrifice. I highly recommend it.</p>

<p>Just to add my 2 cents: the first thing I noticed when I fired off my new 7100 was how quiet the shutter was compared to the D200 I was using. I love the camera so far.</p>

<p>Just a word for what is essentially the DX version of that--the 16-85 VR. It does a fabulous job on my D200.</p>

<p>I would say buy fast glass first of all. If you have a fast 50 mm or 35 mm and a f 2.8 "standard" zoom such as 17-50 you have a great start. I wouldn't be able to live without a wide zoom for DX and for my budget that was a 12-24 f4 Tokina. If you can do better than that, great. They have great f 2.8 wide zooms now. Then on the telephoto end of things you can skimp just a bit if you stick with the D7000 or some other DX. I'm limited in budget and do very little on the long end so a 55-300 was as good as I could do. If you go FX and you like to do birds or sports you are going to need to drop a bunch of money for your long lens.<br>

I would definitely echo what everyone said about technique. Your friend with the FX camera producing such nice work is probably meticulous with selection of f stop and shutter speed and camera support. He is probably also extremely aware of good light. There's nothing more important. I have seen the difference good light makes and how crummy a picture can be if everything is right and the light is wrong. It's simple really--good photographers produce good work. The tools enhance things but in the right hands an ipod becomes a "great camera".</p>

 

<p>I am often amazed at the quality of the pics from my 16-85. Dollar for dollar it might be the best lens I have.</p>

<p>I've ordered many photography items including lenses from Amazon and have yet to encounter any problems. I've also ordered from both B&H and Adorama with no major issues. I try to stick with those three as I'm a little hesitant about ventures with retailers I don't hear much about. When someone beats the price at those three, I sort of ask myself why and hear a little voice inside saying it's too good to be true.</p>

<p>Tom, thanks for your thoughtful and very helpful response. I'm sorry to hear about the bracketing because I do 5 shots for my HDR but I guess 3 is good enough.</p>

<p>To clarify my original post, I'm shooting with a D200 right now. I love it but I would certainly feel good about an upgrade after 7 years. I'm not addicted to the latest and greatest, I just know that there have been considerable USEFUL improvements since my camera came out. And the next step forward should be more than enough advancement to justify an update. If it's not, I would go all in for the D7000 and I'm sure I'd be happy.</p>

 

<p>Is anyone else going crazy with anticipation now that the D7000 has dropped in price? I just KNOW my new Nikon is just around the corner, whether it's a "D400" or a "D8000"!</p>

<p>Just curious--do you think the great photographers before the digital revolution obsessed over and bitched as much about their tools as we do today? For having all these crummy cameras and lenses, people sure are making some great images, even now in these times of equipment deprivation ; )</p>

<p>IMHO, there's nothing to fear with the 3rd party lenses. I have two Tokinas (including the 12-24 F4) and love them both. They are particularly known for their build quality and I have no complaints at all about IQ.</p>

<p>NOT a statement on any of the posting individuals on this topic specifically (so don't flame me), but have you noticed how many times the people that gripe about their equipment turn out to be lousy artists with a camera? They go into meticulous detail gleaned from pixel-peeping about their supposed problem and then you see their work and you think for goodness sake learn how to use photography to create competent looking pictures before you criticize the tools.</p>

<p>I select daylight white balance when shooting in daylight with my camera. Then when I open the NEF files in LR, the photo color looks different when I switch back and forth between "as shot" and "daylight" in LR white balance selection drop down box. Shouldn't they look the same?</p>

<p>So if a know-nothing might interject a question related, I'm thinking of upgrading a d200 to a d7000. Obviously those are a lot bigger files and greater bit depth if I understand correctly is one of the advantages. But is my measly 3 GB ram 5 year old vista computer running CS5 going to choke on those big files?</p>

<p>Is there such a beast? I mean if cost is not a factor, can a person even get a head that, even though the weight of the camera/lens is at a right angle while shooting a macro, will lock down positively exactly where you adjust it and not move a millimeter?</p>

<p>Glad to hear DR brought up. That is my biggest gripe about the D200. I STILL think it's inferior to color negative film, which had a forgiving shoulder in the highlights. I swear there was always more detail to be had in the highlights before they went completely blown out. With Black and White film, I was always thrilled. Digital? Not so much. If the D7000 has improved this issue, I think it would really be a sensible upgrade and the benefits, along with enhanced detail and better low noise and video as a bonus...well, I guess I answered my question. Thanks, everyone.</p>