heimbrandt

<p>Exif Pilot is free and easy to use:<br> http://download.cnet.com/Exif-Pilot/3000-2192_4-10779393.html</p>

<p>It is not the F2.8 itself that makes it sharper. Perhaps you would like the Nikkor 10-24 or 12-24 more than your current Sigma?</p> <p>A 20-35/2.8 on DX corresponds to a 30 mm, which is not much of a wide angle. To me, that would be more important than it not beeing a 2x zoom. Why not have a look at Nikon's wide angle DX zooms and perhaps consider replacing the Tamron you barely use with a Nikkor 85/1.8 for those photos that need slightly more reach than your 50 gives?</p>

<p>Might I ask what you do with your greatest photos? Do you sell them, print them wall sized or post them online and print reasonably sized prints to hang on your walls at home? I would ask myself, is it the camera that is lacking or the lenses?</p> <p>I ask because unless you sell or print them in really large sizes, I am not convinced you are better off spending that much on the newest used FX you can get. Perhaps even an "old" D700 with good glass could be more than adequate for your needs? A D700 in excellent condition would leave you with more money for lenses than the D800 route would. Have a look at this recent thread where the general opinion is that the D700 is still very capable:<br> http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dFLO</p> <p>Are you shooting at base ISO with a sturdy tripod, it should get you a long way. Geometric distorsion exists in all formats and can be compensated for, both in camera and/or post process.</p> <p>Considering DX, Nikon have produced some good lenses after the 17-55/2.8, if you have not yet ruled out DX. The 10-24, 35/1.8, Micro 40/2.8 and Micro 85/3.5 are all good lenses and the 70-200/4 would also produce excellent results on DX. </p>

<p>While I have never had any buffer problems with my D7000 shooting show jumping (RAW+JPEG), I would go for the D7200 - looking at the options available today.</p> <p>Considering that both your 50/1.8 and 70-300 VR are DX lenses, FX is worth considering before you part with your money. You could sell the D90 and its 18-105 and get an FX zoom covering part of that range.</p>

<p>Glad you got it sorted!</p> <p>There are many freeware software that can rewrite end of file type info, so anyone in the same situation that is not as lucky and lacks more advanced video editing software might want to look into this.</p>

<p>I agree that superzooms are optically inferior to primes, I never claimed they were not. However, since the OP has primes to cover 95 % of his pictures there is "quality backup" for those special occasions. And, the OP is considering bringing just a superzoom on his next trip even though he is well aware that he cannot expect "prime lens" quality. It was him who I asked why any of the two Nikon 18-300s were not on his list...</p> <p>How noticeable is "better", does he shoot raw or is he happy with compressed jpegs, how demanding is he ie what is good enough for him?</p> <p>Since we have not Heard more from him on this matter it is difficult to know what he makes of the advice given, right?</p> <p>On a somewhat related side note:<br> Some people here often give the impression that what is best for them is also best for, nearly, everbody else. Some could call that lack of empathy...</p>

<p> Not only do I fail to see how this thread is gender specific, I also fail to see how it is Nikon specific. :-) Nonetheless, it is an interesting and relevant question you ask.</p> <p>I would also stay away from getting a gun to feel safe. But what about an baseball cap with a big NRA logo on it?</p> <p>I think you have gotten excellent advice on where to find people to take with you. Since you mentioned that your husband is retired, it made me think about retired people in general. Why not find a local pensioner club? I believe you can find several individuals that would love to take up photography now that time allows for it. Perhaps you could teach if there are beginners?</p> <p>So, Sweden is part of this years itinerary - welcome!</p>

<p>May I ask why the 18-300 is not on your list? The 18-140 is certainly interesting, but perhaps the original poster needs/wants more tele than the 18-140 offers?</p> <p>I could understand the reasoning behing such a choice, especially when he has primes that he uses for 95 % of his photos. Then an all-in-one such as the 18-300 could be a usefull adition.</p>

<p>I am sorry to hear about your problems and hope everything works out for you. Could it be that you were sold a grey market camera?</p> <p>Did you send the camera directly to Nikon USA or did you bring it back to your dealer?</p>

<p>As a side note, a defect DOF button might cause the shutter to fire. When a friend tested his FM2N throroughly and pressed the DOF button quickly about 30 times, the shutter actually fired!</p> <p>He took it back and got it serviced under warranty and it has since not showed the same behaviour. They were quite surprised when he described the fault and how he discovered it but took it in imediately.</p> <p>Perhaps the F3 has similiar DOF mechanics (I know its shutter speeds are electronically controlled), if so it might be an indication of an upcoming need for service.</p>

<p>Why not consider adding a 20/1.8 Nikkor to your lineup if you like to go wider and feel comfortable with primes? It would save weight and some money. Another, much cheaper, option could be the 20/2.8 AF-D. Perhaps money saved could be used for a second body, that may be of more use to you than a zoom?</p> <p>Other zooms that might be worth looking into are the 16-35/4, 17-35/2.8, 14-24/2.8 Nikkors or the discontinued 20-35/2.8D.</p>

<p>My my, this is looking more and more like a rumour site...</p> <p>It is interesting to see how some people consider Nikon incompetent since they have not met their exact wishes. The same would go for any producer in any given market. Neither Nikon nor Canon are ignorant of customers wishes nor incompetent to meet them. Perhaps the improvement from the 7D to 7DII is not the greatest step in camera evolution Canon has ever made, but it was still a step large enough to justify development, marketing and production cost - as well as the badwill generated by dissapointed Canon fan boys with an Internet Connection who wanted more.</p> <p>The fact that you do not understand or like the rationale behind any given company's business model does not mean there is no logic behind it.</p> <p>Perhaps Nikon are evil/naive enough to actually think sports/wildlife photographers know their subjects enough and have a sufficient sense of timing to actually get great shots from mediocre 5-6 fps? It worked for the 5.7 fps F4 and I dare say that it was more the improved AF that made the F5 so much better than its 8 fps. Four pages into this thread, I have only seen one comment on this, that you need not spray away (and hope you get rewarded). I dare say most sponsored sports/wildlife professionals would take equally great shots even if their cameras were limited to 5-6 fps. Do not forget the camera is a tool, a tool that stil requires talent and luck - not just luck.</p> <p>Perhaps some photographers should sell their DSLR and get a 4K 120 fps video camera? :-)</p>

<p>The advantages you list that the D7100 has over the D90 also holds true for the D7000. I dare say that the largest step is from the D90 to the D7000 rather than fron the D7000 to the D7100.</p> <p>If you can get a new D7000 for a bargain price, it may well be your best buy. Perhaps the lower price would allow for a flash to fit your budget- if you need one?</p> <p>It is true that the D7100 has even better AF, better movie capabilities and even better low light capability than the D7000, but either would be a welcome upgrade from your D90 in all aspects. Both would make the AF on your 16-86 appear less sluggish, both would allow you to raise the ISO slightly when you use the long end on your 70-300VR and both would improve your movies.</p> <p>You have not mentioned what you usually shoot, but since you are happy with your lenses, I presume Indoor sports or birds are not your main interest. If I am correct, I would say you could let price decide which to get.</p>

<p ><a name="00d8xK"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=991480">Mag Miksch</a>, Feb 23, 2015; 03:23 a.m.</p> <blockquote> <p>..now they have no competitor to the 7D II.<br /> And just switch to Canon isnt an option for e.g. me, I have about 10 Lenses for F mount, from 17 to 300 mm, none of them with F more than 2.8 and to rebuy them in Canon costs an arm and a leg.</p> </blockquote> <p>Do Nikon really need to have an exact match for each of Canons DSLR and vice versa? I Think not. What you choose is a system and having so many lenses mean you have done just so. If you just get a kit, fine, but a complete system would (to me at least) imply that you are confident that the manufacturer at least meet your needs. If they do so now, they would also be likely to do so in the foreseable future. If you are just in it for the toys - the need of always having the latest gear then you need to change every time a new body comes out.</p> <p>As regarding the cost to replace the lenses, others have already pointed out that the replacement cost is Nikon's rationale for hoping you will not switch. Perhaps they weigh development cost vs actual improvement vs excpeted sales and arrive at the conclusion not now. If your current DX camera is lacking, why not go FX, since all the lenses you are fortunate to have are FX lenses?</p>

<p>I think it would help quite a lot if you explained what you do not like about your existing lenses. Are your photos not as sharp as you would like, are your lenses not as fast as you would like (are you unhappy with your low light photos/minimum depth of field), AF speed or zoom range? Only you know what your most used focal lenghts are.</p> <p>Generally speaking, as wide as you can afford is good for scenery and city architecure, but then again perhaps you prefer using telephoto lens for that very same picture to focus on the details.</p> <p>Some mention budget, F2.8 zooms are not only heavier, they also cost quite a lot more. I would dare assume that most photographers who buy a D3200 would not consider spending several thousands of dollars on F2.8 zooms (albeit some do). Portability is often underestimated.</p> <p>While I have no defintive answer to your question, I will try to point out some things to consider. <br> How much can you ramp up the ISO setting without noise disturbing your pictures too much? How much time and effort are you willing to spend post process before you print and how large prints do you do?<br> Others have suggested the Nikon AF-S VR 18-140mm DX lens, which is an interesting alternative. Adequately sharp, light and reasonably priced. If you neither need wider than 18mm nor longer reach than 140mm (where you sometimes might need to crop the image) it could be what you should look further into.<br> When I migrated from 35mm to DX, I started with the 18-55VR and later got the 55-300. Both where light and easy to lug around. I wanted a wider end and got the 10-24 and thought I could leave the 18-55 at home. (The smaller gap is also why I got the 55-300 over the 75-300VR.) I sold the 18-55 with the D80 when I got the D7000, which came with a 18-105. To fill the gap between the 10-24 and the 55-300 I got the 40 macro. While it is a very good lens, it is by far my least used one. It turns out, I either crop from 24mm or try to step further back with 55mm.</p> <p>The 18-105 was something I thought I would never use, but I was wrong. It is the lens I use the most for video. I have also used it as the only lens more often than the 10-24 when I want to carry as little as possible.<br> Personally, I do not find it disturbing when the front lens rotates when I use a polarizer. I know that your mileage varies, but I seldom need to refocus that much between shots to find it disturbing or slowing me down.</p>

<p>Shun asked:</p> <blockquote> <p>How wide do you need when you travel, for landscape and architecture?</p> </blockquote> <p>That is when my 10-24 Nikkor sees most use. Admittedly, I do not use it that much as an everyday lens, but its use for travel, landscape and architecture makes it a favourite to me.</p> <p>Shun wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>To me, the front element is too vulnerable for a rough trip like that, and 14mm is too wide for me.</p> </blockquote> <p>While I perfectly understand and respect the latter, I have Little understanding of the former (but then there are lots of things in Life I do not understand). If you would have been in the mosh pit of a Metallica concert or perhaps gone rock climbing, I would have understood. But what would you fear might ding its bulging, filterless front lens on a boat cruise? Stains from water spray could be carefully wiped every now and then and I, in my ignorance, do not see how you could not control the surroundings enough to dare use it without risking its protruding front lens.</p>