alvinyap

<p>Hi Jim,<br>

The D7000 is really expensive at the moment, in jessops UK, the D7000 actually costs more than the D300s (!!!). I also don't really need the performance of the d7k for my purposes.</p>

<p>I really wish there was a D3.1k sized dslr with the AF motor, I am looking for a smaller sized dslr for just walking around, travels. The d300 I've got is very good when I need performance, but its really big, heavy, stands out, and I don't feel safe lugging it around when exploring unknown territory. The main reason for wanting the AF motor is of course, lenses - my main walkaround lens, the 24/2.8D nikkor is perfect, if slow in terms of aperture.</p>

<p>Am considering a D90 atm, for the top lcd + af motor, but the weight gain of the entry level cameras would be really good. Ah well. Maybe I'll just bite the bullet and get one of the small cameras with the 35/1.8DX :-/</p>

<p>What about laser scanning everything? :D</p>

<p>I just got some 160NC from Kingsley Photographic yesterday (http://www.kingsleyphoto.co.uk/), I think I saw some used MF gear, but not necessarily the Mamiya you mention. For older Nikon gear, apart from Aperture mentioned above, also check out http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/</p>

<p>There is another store frequented by my mostly film shooting friends in south london, but the name escapes me :-/</p>

<p>I don't think I've ever had much luck getting well focused shots of critters running straight at me with continuous AF on my d300. Usually I get the shot with the plane of focus behind the head. I'm think the focus just can't keep up with. The only time this is reasonably successful was shooting with a 300/4 + 1.4X of puffins coming straight on, and that's with them quite far off in the distance as well with assistance from dof.</p>

<p>Have you considered pre-focusing? When I was out shooting flyball, I'd pre-focus on the boards the dogs jump across, and let the shutter rip when the dogs get near. I think I got more keepers just shooting one frame vs letting the shutter rip though.</p>

 

<p>I shoot regularly with a canon user with the 100-400, he's never got a dust complaint yet and he is out shooting several times a month. He is thinking of getting a 70-200 as well though - f2.8 is f2.8.</p>

<p>The OP is already making some $$$ with her D50. She wants an upgrade.</p>

<p>@OP: Have you considered stepping up to the D90 or D7k? Either of those would be very similar to your D50. All the bodies you mention have the full auto P mode, so no worries there. They will also allow you to learn manual modes, and switch over to P at a turn of a dial (or in the D300's case, press down a button and turn a dial :P) D700 would rule the roost for what you are doing, though do be prepared for a substantial investment in lenses.</p>

<p>Tom, that's a marvellous idea! *looks at my Argus C3 hehehehe*</p>

<p>I would like to add that my D300 shots come out warmer with the SB600. Looks more appealing on the lcd but gets annoying when going through the raws.</p>

<p>I can attest that the 300/4 AF-S wide open is stupid sharp, assuming proper exposure/technique. If only nikon would bring out a stabilized 300/4, I would not have any lust for the 300/2.8VR *sigh* Lemme know if you'd like some samples.</p>

<p>So long as it is a sigma lens for Nikon's F mount you will be fine. Note that the prices you are told are really, really good. Heck, if it was new I'd buy it and sell it for a profit :P Check <a href="http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat12.html">out some prices here</a>.</p>

<p>Instead of the sigma 70-200, have you considered the 70-300VR if you are shooting in relatively good light instead? Whereabouts are you racing in the UK, if I may ask. Am a fan of rally cars, but can't drive so can only see them at the goodwood festival of speed.</p>

<p>@carl watson: You might want to read this thread about CCD blooming and shutter speeds above sync speed: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SuYs</p>

<p>Again. I wish for a higher sync speed :D 1/500 on DX will be a good start :D Just compare scans of Press 800 (or, Delta 3200) vs 3200 on a modern dslr, I am very, very satisfied.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: I'm an amateur photographer :)</p>

<p>I only use a monopod with long lenses with tripod collars. Otherwise no. And mainly it's for supporting the weight, not stability. That said, I've lashed my monopods to railings to act as a psuedo stable platform. Works pretty well :)</p>

<p>Santosh,<br>

Sadly I do not use the same camera you do, but my P&S (A panasonic FS-7) allows multiple aspect ratios, so I can switch over to 3:2 or 4:3 through the menus. See if your camera has that function. Can't help about the history, sorry. Perhaps a quick solution would be a to put some grid lines on your LCD screen using tape and marker pens? That was you still get the full view, but at the same time have something to judge your view by.</p>

<p>Also, it could be your print shop you are using. I do remember some shops offering 4:3 aspect printing.</p>

<p>So, Ken Rockwell is actually Lord Voldemort?!</p>

<p><strong>Basically I have a D700 and I'm looking for a pretty much default lens, mostly used for portraits. My budget is only really £400, at a stretch.</strong></p>

<p>If I owned a D700 (no thanks) I'd probably look at a 24-85/2.8-4 as my main go-to lens. It is not generally accepted as a portrait range or dof control, but that is what I would use for my "portrait" photography (I actually use a 16-85 on a d300 - I actually want the perspective distortion at 16mm).</p>

<p>For portraits why not just get a 85/1.8? That seems to be the recommended focal length for portraits for 35mm/FX. As David Carroll points out above, lens choices are <strong>about you</strong>, <em>how you want to portray your photograph</em>, not about what's "best". (Personally I'd love to shoot certain portraits with a 200/2VR or 400/2.8VR.... mrr)</p>

<p><strong>I dont mind buying third party lenses either, tho I would much appreciate what the difference between them and nikkor is in your opinion!</strong></p>

<p>For me? Mainly - quality control. Every. Single. Sigma I've owned has been repaired or had issues. Nikkors aren't perfect either - just look at repair stats from say, lensrentals.com. Just that those I've owned so far have been generally pretty good. That said, I will not rule out 3rd party lenses for speciality lenses, or lenses that kick arse.</p>

<p>For example, Sigma's 50/1.4 produces the sweetest bokeh I've seen, it makes the nikkor offerings look bad. Sigma's upcoming 100-300/2.8 OS is also very, very interesting for me. So is the Sigma 30/1.4 for us DX ppl. Tamron's 90mm macro is also super highly regarded, and I have seen some really good output from their 70-300 consumer zoom, and that zoom goes down to 1:2 life size.</p>

<p>What I'm saying is I look to 3rd party options when Nikkors are not available (or generally, too damned expensive) - just bearing in mind the possibilities of shoddy QC and incompatibility.</p>

<p>Apart from IQ, there are other factors to consider such as<br>

- Camera system as a whole? Do the lens choices and accessories fit you?<br>

- Handling/Ergonomcis?<br>

- Cost?<br>

I shoot Nikon not because I like Nikon (I actually would rather shoot minolta) but they are the best for me in terms of camera handling (speed of setting dials etc, ergonomics). Nikon sadly lacks certain lenses I lust for on the Canon camp (300/4IS for example) but as with almost everything, it is a compromise.<br>

I think for my amateur needs the D300 is already really, really amazing. I won't mind upgrading to a sensor with less noise/more mp/etc in the future, but I'd be more more concerned with<br>

- AF speed/accurancy. More cross sensors at the edge will be good :)<br>

- Higher sync speed.<br>

- Improved weather sealing.<br>

The rest of it is already near perfect for my needs. Buying a camera based on a number is.... probably not that good an idea.</p>

 

<p>Regardless of speed, make sure you buy a card that you trust to hold your photos. Worth to spend a bit more to get a good piece of storage.</p>

<p>Perhaps she prefers low key lighting to high key? Ask her for samples :)</p>

<p>I bought a "Woca" because it looks like a Holga, but at a very affordable price!<br>

http://www.shutterbug.net/features/0103sb_whatswoca/</p>

<p>But be warned, the woca is actually a fully working camera, there are no light leaks and the lens itself produces reasonably sharp prints.</p>

<p>Needless to say, I don't use it anymore. No light leaks?! Sharp photos? Blasphemy!</p>

<p>Saoirse: Going a bit OT but being a serious photographer doesn't always mean using "serious" gear. For me it's about trying to achieve my vision (questionable as it is), with whatever gear I have at the moment, be it P&S or DSLR. End of the day, it's about trying to deliver my message, be it through web or print.</p>

<p>Personally, after checking out the AF point layout on a D700, uh no thanks. I use the outer AF points very often, and the D700's just too centralized. DX for me :)</p>

<p>Also, the <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/micronikkor/55mmmicro.htm">55/2.8 I refer to</a> only focuses down to 1:2, I think only the <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/1stafnikkor/AF55mmmicro.htm">55/2.8AF goes down to 1:1</a>.</p>

<p>Hmmm back in the film days the Dynax 9 has a 1/12000 shutter speed, and a quick google indicates the EOS 1D has 1/16000. Probably not many photographers need the high shutter speed? I rarely see anything faster than 1/1250 on my viewfinder. I'd rather wonder why the x-sync speed for focal plane shutters hasn't improved significantly :-/</p>

<p>Well said. I just went through only a year's worth of digital shots this weekend, so much memories. That's why I shoot really, for the memories.</p>

<p>I have both these lenses and they are for very different purposes. For one, I would think having the 50/1.8 is a boon for portraiture due to its AF; I've had quite bad luck with the green dot focusing on my 55/2.8 micro for people photography.</p>

<p>I'd take the 55/2.8 though - it allows one to explore perspectives not allowed by the 50/1.8 - and I don't do much portraiture with a short tele :)</p>

<p>Also, the 55/2.8 is really good from up close to infinity. Other macro lenses I've tried (and sold) fail in this aspect for infinity focus.</p>

<p>Finally, do consider the sigma 50/1.4 - the bokeh of that lens is drool worthy.</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

<p>Hmmm so basically the camera isn't really limiting you, it's just time to upgrade yes?</p>

<p>Maybe a D90 would be a good jump, D7k may be overkill, but only you can decide that. Personally, unless you really need the performance of a d7k or better, d90 + additional lenses would be imo a better option.</p>