j_w13

<p>My tripod is compact and lightweight. I'm going a multi-month travel excursion overseas. I think I may try the hanging loop.</p>

<p>Does anybody make a tripod holder that hangs from your belt? If I have three hands it wouldn't be a problem, but placing the tripod down every time I take a hand-held shot is getting old. I don't like attaching to a backpack, because I want to have quick access to the tripod when I need it.</p>

<p>I'd like to send it off, but the cost to do this would be prohibitive. I am at least the second owner of the camera.<br>

I like the film days too. Focusing was never an issue with any film SLRs that I've owned.</p>

<p>If you look at these pictures from a distance, the differences become more noticeable though.</p>

<p>These from my 35mm AIS manual lens. Again all images taken on a tripod. Focus set at infinity. The EXIF data says 24mm for the D300, but I accidentally forgot to change the settings on the camera.<br>

<strong>D90</strong>, 1/40s f/8:</p>

<p><img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/DSC_0011.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>D300:<br>

<img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/DB1_8239.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>This time both cameras had the same setting. All were taken on a tripod. Small images are clickable.<br /> <br /> <strong>D90</strong>, with the 100-300 lens, f/8 1/30s, JPEG small:<br>

<br /> <a href="http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/?action=view&current=DSC_0004.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/th_DSC_0004.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a></p>

<p><img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/DSC_0004-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><strong>D300</strong> with the same setup:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/?action=view&current=DB1_8233.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/th_DB1_8233.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a><br /> <img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/DB1_8233-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>These were cropped from RAW images. <strong>D90</strong> with 100-300 lens, 100mm 1/30s f/8:<br /> <br /> <img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/DSC_0005.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <strong> </strong></p>

<p><strong>D300</strong> 1/40s f/8:<br /> <img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/DB1_8240.jpg" alt="" width="470" height="353" /></p>

<p>The D90 has 16k actuations. Should not be anywhere close to worn out.</p>

<p>Both the D90 and D300 were shot in their standard picture mode (not vivid). I have shot both Raw and Jpeg and it doesn't seem to make a difference in picture quality. I have used Capture NX, Micrografx (an old program), and Lightroom to view the pictures. They all looked the same to me. I will test out the D90 with higher sharpening and see what happens. I took thousands of pictures with the D90 on a trip a couple months ago. The softness is similar to what camera shake or misfocus would look like. But I know that is not the case.</p>

<p>To tell you the truth, I didn't think much about the sharpening. I always leaves it on default. The default is fairly low (3rd bar from the left). I am going have to reshoot some of those images tomorrow at a higher sharpening.<br>

I on purposely darkened the picture post processing. I think I overdid it. Will get some more images tomorrow.</p>

<p>I have been having problems getting sharp images from my Nikon D90. Image after image comes out soft no matter what, whether I stop down or use a tripod does not make a difference. I reseted the custom settings. But didn't solve the problem. For the longest time I was blaming the lens. But after testing a variety of lens, it's definitely the camera.<br>

I on purposely darkened the rest of the image, while highlighting the blown up area. This image was shot with a D90 with a <strong>24mm AIS </strong>manual focus lens. Lens set at infinity. Shutter speed 1/1000 s.<br>

<img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/zDSC_3964c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>This image shot with a D300 with the same 24mm AIS lens:<br>

<img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/zDB1_8223c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> Another example. This with a <strong>70-300 mm</strong> autofocus lens on the D90:<br>

<img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/zDSC_3959b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>And on the D300:<br>

<img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/zDB1_8222b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>You know, it took me the longest time to figure it out and I feel dumb. But it was my D90 that was defective. After doing tests with different cameras and different lens, sure enough it was the camera. I purchased it off eBay last October used and thought I got a deal.</p>

<p>I'll always have my camera with me, as I don't want a missed opportunity. I think a good strategy would be to carry a point and shoot in your pocket for the first day, as you may need to document a place that you want to return to later.<br>

<br /> I found myself making better photographs back in the film days because I was forced to slow down and think. These days, it's all too easy to shoot first and think later.</p>

<p>I've come back to the hobby after being dorment for the last several, so I am a little rusty. I've been getting more serious at it during the last several months. I spent seven days in Havana (my first time to Cuba). The first day of my shoot was subpar as I was drawn more to the fascination with the city. After that excitement worn off, I paid more attention to making better photographs.</p>

 

when you travel to a large exciting city (NYC, Paris, Rome) and in the attempt to take it all in, you end up taking thousands of mediocre shots? You feel you need to see every monument, museum, and historic building. You end up not thinking and start firing away at every little opportunity. I guess the key is discipline and trying to focus only on a few scenes and shooting that to the best of your ability. I've noticed that some of my best pictures were taken in the familiarity of my local area.

 

 

<p>The 50 1.8 is a very sharp lens. You won't be disappointed. I shot many candid people and portrait shots with this lens on my vacation. It was much sharper than the 18-200 that I had. I shot with the 50 whenever I could.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun</a> , thanks for your test sample. The 18-200 certainly is a little soft.<br>

<br /> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=777485">A. Dirk</a> , I simply forgot to put that info in my original post. There was no physical damage on the lens itself. In fact, I couldn't figure out if the lens was giving me soft image issues until well after I started shooting with it. I thought it was me, but the more I shot, the more I realized that something didn't seem right. I figured it's either the nature of the lens itself or perhaps a result of some accident.</p>

<p>This was my mom's lens. I believe this lens along with her camera fell off the car when backing out of the driveway. Maybe this has something to do with the sub-par performance.<br>

Yes the second picture was taken with the 18-200.</p>

<p>It was soooo frustrating using my Nikon 18-200 lens on my recent trip to Havana. I would say that over 90% of my shots has some softness. And nearly every image above 100mm and below 35mm comes out soft. Granted, I just acquired the lens a couple of weeks before the vacation. My Lumix P&S with a 16x zoom puts my 18-200 to shame. Maybe I had a bad copy. The reviews were glowing and it made Ken Rockwell's Top 10 list. I feel so upset that I feel I have to go back and redo some of the shots with a better lens. Below, one shot was made with a Lumix (1/60, f/4, 4.1mm) and the other a D90 with the 18-200 (ISO 200, 1/320, f/8, 31mm). These were unedited. Guess which one was made with which:</p>

<p><a href="http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/?action=view&current=P1030590.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/th_P1030590.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </a></p>

<p><a href="http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/?action=view&current=DSC_3602.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/th_DSC_3602.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </a></p>

<p>Just got back from a seven day trek in Havana. This 18-200 lens was the worst thing that happened to me on the trip. Nearly every image shot above 100mm was soft, soft, soft! It would make you scream. It didn't matter if you used a tripod, shot at a fast shutter speed, or used a middle aperture. This lens utterly ruined my images. Luckily I brought my Lumix P&S as well. Images were much better at the longer length.</p>

<p>Thanks for all your responses. I think I am simply going to stop down and not have to worry about focusing issues. Because I'm going out on a week long vacation, I wanted the versatility of a large range zoom and not having to carry much equipment. Also I'd rather sacrifice a little in picture quality than miss a shot changing lens.</p>

<p>Also, http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html tells me DOF is not an issue when the background is far away.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/1st2nd2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>VR was off.</p>

<p>No, there were shot outdoors on my balcony on a tripod.</p>

<p>I focused on the bright building near the center. The buildings are all a few hundred feet away and shot wide angle, so depth of field should be infinite. I wanted to shoot close to wide open in order to tune my lens.</p>