dave wyman

<p>"Hi all, <br />I'm about to put my money down for a NEX-6 and wonder if anyone has heard any rumors about something new coming from Sony? NEX-7(II) or NEX-8 etc."<br>

Well over a year ago, people were pretty sure an NEX-8 was soon to put in an appearance. No such beast yet. <br>

Lots of people think the NEX-6 is superior to the 7. If you wait until the newest version of the camera comes out, though, you might have a long wait - and miss a lot of great photos with a great camera.</p>

<p>"Sony kinda sucks for switching up mounts and formats so often."<br>

Well, the NEX cameras have been around a few years - the NEX for at least two. Both FF and cropped sensor Sony's now use the E-mount. Isn't that good? <br>

And Sony hasn't said the NEX-style cameras are dead, just the name. We'll just have to wait to see what Sony brings to the market in the future.</p>

<p>I am conducting a photojournalism workshop with photographer Ted Soqui in early August. Full details are at iphotola.com.<br>

Ted recently won the Southern California Press Photography Association's award for best photograph of the year (published by Time magazine for its cover shot for the Person of the Year issue). </p>

<p>"The D1X only has 5.5 megapixels. To me, it seems like with that much weight, it's probably not worth keeping much longer unless you only <em >ever</em> want to print 4x6"-ish size."<br>

I don't think this is true. Even if true, post processing would allow for significant upsizing. From a normal viewing distance, I don't doubt a D1X could be successfully used to create an image the size of a billboard.</p>

<p>My iPhone. </p>

<p>After that, either a D60 or D300 and a 35mm f/2.8 lens. </p><div></div>

<p><a>Michael S wrote</a>: "I rarely see a photo taken with this lens that wows me based on image quality."</p>

<p>I would modify this slightly, to say I rarely see a photo taken with <strong>any</strong> lens that wows me based on image quality. </p>

<p>"I love my D300 despites it's not in professional level."</p>

<p>Why isn't it? If it's because it doesn't have what the D3s or D700 have, then logically you'd be shooting MF. </p>

<p>Remember: It isn't the camera, it's the photographer that's most important. </p>

<p>On the other hand, since you shoot indoor events, FF wouldn't be a bad choice, and the D700 would get my vote.</p>

<p>"Nikon<strong > 70-300mm </strong>VR ... tele, for far away stuff"<br>

Don't assume its primary use is for photographing "far away stuff." It can work just as well for stuff that's up close and personal.</p>

<p>"I'm considering at the moment the 18-200mm VRII"<br>

This is the only lens you really need, but what fun would that be? </p>

<p>"Nikon <strong >35mm </strong>F1.8 Prime ... for lower light conditions, currently on my D300s"<br>

For me, the attraction of this lens is its ability to blur out the background as much as for photographing in low light. Not to mention that most of the time, no matter what the light, 35mm is the wrong focal length.</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>Lots of non-Nikon wireless remotes - some with wireless/wired options - are available. </p>

<p>You shouldn't have to stand in front of your camera. If it's "hit or miss" anyway, something is wrong with the remote or your camera.</p>

<p>"By itself, reversing does not permit you to focus close."</p>

<p>I don't think this is true. Stick a 24mm lens on a camera in reverse and see what happens. ;-)</p>

<p>"Is this the kind of quality to be associated with Nikon, I have not really read too much about the quality of their products?"</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>" but I was under the impression that a greater focal length (300 vs 200) would mean more magnification even reverse mounted.</p>

<p>It's the opposite. Use the 18-200mm (and it's got 62mm threads, not 52) at the shorter end. I'm not sure the results will be very good, but give it a try. Insects/flowers - probably OK. Edge to edge sharpness for postage stamps? Probably not.</p>

<p>You might also consider purchasing a set of plus lenses - the number 2 diopter works well with medium-sized flowers; in this case, zooming out magnifies the image.</p>

<p>"I guess my problem is that my images lack sharpness due to my own unsteady hands (primarily) as well as the somewhat difficult shooting conditions [jeeps, boats, canoes] which do not allow for a whole lot of time to keep the subject in the viewfinder."</p>

<p>OP, you've set up an impossible task. However, I'd go with the earlier suggestion of a 400mm f/5.6 prime lens. Light weight and you can easily shoot at ISO 800 and probably get away with 1250-1600 with your D90. Unless you are photographing in bright, mid-day light - which isn't the best kind of light - the odds of coming back with sharp images made with a telephoto, even one with a large aperture, are almost nil. </p>

<p>While you're at it, why not purchase a 70-300VR, and sell your old one or keep it as an emergency spare? The VR version and the 400mm lens should set you back no more than a grand. </p><div></div>

<p>"your need to be snarky aside, i'm trying to answer the OP's question"</p>

<p>Snarky I was not. I equated the thought that more in photography (wider aperture, wider angle, longer lens, etc.) is better than less, with the concept that, in sex, "size does matter." And in both cases, neither assertion is necessarily true, which you've restated in your own post. </p>

<p>And technically, the OP didn't ask a question. He asked for opinions.</p>

<p>"I know this is a personal choice"</p>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>"I would appreciate it if you could help me choose"</p>

<p>Kind of contradicts the earlier statement.</p>

<p>"I need someone to attest to each of them in a few different aspects"</p>

<p>I thought you got a great range of responses, both to your request for opinions about lenses, and what people thought about your own selection process. And just because your thread is similar to another doesn't mean it's the same. You did a good job of specifically identifying what you want, something lacking in the other thread.</p>

<p>But if you didn't get what you're looking for in responses so far, be specific: what, for example, are those "few different aspects" you want to know about?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This reminds me of the current "What's limiting your photography?" thread, where the OP contends his photography is seriously crippled by his collection of slower-than-molasses lenses.</p>

<p>Unless someone's getting paid to make a particular kind of photograph, which requires a particular kind of lens, then the choice of owning a lens comes down to personal preference and how much money we can afford to spend, opinions of others not withstanding. Yet we want to believe our photographic efforts would be so much more potent, even we only had a couple of extra millimeters. ;-)</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, C.P.M,</p>

<p>I missed that. I have discovered the problem is worse with the D300 than it is with my D60. Noise reduction, despite the suggestion from Nikon, doesn't help much. I thin the secret is to stop using my slower optics for night sky photographs, at least with my digital cameras.</p>

<p>Peter - I have noticed, on rare occasion, distortion at the wide end of one of my zooms. Specifically, what in reality were straight lines near the top of a scene were curved in the photograph. Easy to repair, but not necessary. And depending how the lens is pointed, distortion caused by a wide angle lens is often considered a plus. </p>

<p>"Any of these consumer zooms are great for anybody who's not printing huge or doing pro work."</p>

<p>I agree. However, I think a talented photographer, pro or otherwise, can also make excellent photographs with these optics. Printing huge? I think that's possible, too, but it depends on the subject. With a billboard size print of a postage stamp, edge to edge sharpness might suffer. A 16x20 of a lion in the veldt? No problem (except for making the photograph).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Eric - and Arnold - my apologies for going overboard. I like to see constructive advice and sometimes, when I think I see the opposite, I act like the curmudgeon I probably am. </p>

<p>Ken Rockwell - he probably enjoys getting bashed online as much as he probably enjoys any praise. I know him, and whatever he is online, in person he's both pleasant and self-effacing. </p>

<p>However, I wasn't reacting to comments about KR. I was annoyed with the casually unflattering comments about the 18-200mm lens, comments that are, in my opinion, an unnecessary put-down of people who have - and enjoy - that lens.</p>

<p>The OP wasn't asking for what would make the sharpest, most distortion free fine-art print. He was looking to add a general purpose lens. The 18-200 and lots of other zoom lenses meet that criterion.</p>

<p>However, I over-reacted, so again, I apologize.</p>