bsd230

<p>I've seen many "pros" using 3rd party lenses. I would almost always take a Sigma EX line lens over a consumer level Nikon lens. Of course I would take a top of line the Nikon lens any day, but they are usually 3 times the price of Sigmas. The 24-70 HSM is very close in image quality of the Nikon at half the price. Is the Nikon better? Yes. Is it twice as good? No. In fact you would likely never be able to tell the difference in image quality unless you were pixel peeping with two exact images side by side.</p>

<p>I can tell you that the image quality of the D700 is like nothing I have ever owned. If you don't have a lot of money invested in DX lenses I would say go for the D700. Especially if you shoot in low light. The high ISO quality is outstanding. I own the 50mm 1.4 and it rarely leaves my camera. The shallow DOF of a full frame makes excellent portrait photography.</p>

<p>I don't think it is a dog. It would probably be a decent mid priced zoom. Of course the 50mm has a way of making every other lens seem soft. I have the 1.4D on my D700 and it rarely leaves my camera.</p>

<p>The 900 is nice, but if you already have the 800 I would spend the money on another lens.</p>

<p>Shutter speed is the key to great moving photography. At night you will probably need a fast lens in order to get the shutter speed you need. I would maybe look at adding a 35mm 1.8. It is a sharp lens and will give you a normal lens perspective. Getting the shutter speed just right is the difference between having blurry photos and photos that make the cars look frozen. Ideally you want to show a little movement in the photo. Fast enough that the cars are sharp but the tires show they are spinning looks best to me. Depending on how close you are, probably 1/250 to 1/500 should to it. I would add that the 35mm may not be wide enough for the photos of the overall stadium but might work for shooting the cars.</p>

<p>I would go for the F100 as well. Good camera.</p>

<p>If you have a macro lens that will be very helpful. Just keep in mind that macro photography has a very very shallow depth of field so shoot at the smallest aperture you can get away with. Butterflies in motion I would try to shoot wide open to get the fastest shutter speed I could. You can play with the shutterspeed to get a little motion blur too. Also shoot as many photos as you can with different apertures to give you as many photos to chose from when you done. Many times things look great on the little screen but when you get home you wished you would have tried a different aperture.</p>

<p>The new Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM is supposed to be an excellent lens on par with the Nikon. I would imagine it would have to be for 899.00. I plan to buy it one of these days for my D700. I can tell you my favorite lens is my 50mm 1.4. It rarely leaves my camera. It has easily became my main lens. The image quality on the D700 is incredible and the DOF is like nothing I've seen from any other lens/camera combination. If you don't own a 50, you need to put it on your list. Not to mention it is light weight and compact.</p>

<p>I have owned the 18-200 and sold it because I didn't like the image quality. The only problem is if you sell it you don't have anything wider than 50mm. If that meets your photography needs then I would keep the Sigma. The Sigma has very good image quality. After selling the 18-200 you could spend a little money on a nice wide angle like the Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma 18-50.</p>

<p>I have not owned the 18-105 but I have owned the 18-200 VR. The 18-200 is a great one lens solution. If you're only going to have one lens that is not a bad lens to have. It gives you great range and the VR works extremely well. The range does come at a sacrafice of image quality, but compared to the 18-105 there is probably not much difference. I would agree that adding a cheap 50mm 1.8 would be a nice addition for low light situations and portraits. I own the 50mm 1.4 and it rarely leaves my camera. I have an FX sensor so it is more like the 35mm on D90.</p>

<p>The FX definitely does have a narrower DOF. I own the D700 and it has taken me a while to get used to that. I have to admit I love it, the image quality is amazing. I am sure they will come out with a higher MP sensor at some point, but I am more than fine with the 12mp sensor. Every time a take photographs I am amazed at the image quality. The D700 and a 50mm 1.4 produces some sharp images.</p>

<p>If you're used to using the VR version you will likely notice the difference when you don't have it. You will have to pay more attention to your shutterspeed.</p>

<p>Just about every manufacturer has some great lenses. It really just depends on what you need. There are several 3rd party lenses I would be happy to have. Generally the top of the line Nikon lenses are the best in their catagory, but the 3rd party top of the line lenses are excellent as well. You can usually get a top of the line 3rd party lens for what a middle of the road Nikon would run. In MOST cases the top of the line 3rd party is a better lens. The Sigma EX line is one of my favorites. Tokina makes some nice lenses too. I generally only buy the best lenses the 3rd parties offer. I figure if I am not buy Nikon glass then I want the best the 3rd parties offer.</p>

<p>I love the DXOMark website. It really gives you an idea of image quality of every camera on the market.<br>

As far as ISO 100, as others have said you would be better off shooting at ISO 200. You can nothing by shooting at ISO 100 in terms of image quality. It doesn't seem like it would be that way, but with Nikon they work best at ISO 200. I am used to shooting at ISO 100 as well, but with the image quality possible at ISO 200 I don't mind the switch. My current camera is the first that I actually leave in auto ISO mode most of the time and it works great.</p>

<p>Of course, there wasn't any image quality improvement from the D70 to the D70s.</p>

<p>I would imagine that the ISO performance will be slightly better simply because it usually improves as they come out with newer internal parts. Even though they may have the same internals the firmware may improve ISO performance.</p>

<p>If they want to give me the feature I'll take it. I can see how it would be an interesting feature. I am definitely more concerned with still image quality, but I think there is a place for it. I would imagine it is a papparazzi's dream. Just watching some of the things they did on Nikon's web site with the video option makes it intriguing.</p>

<p>Body is a great choice, you might look at the Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 HSM. It has very comparible image quality, cheaper price, and faster auto focus.</p>

<p>The D300 is a great camera, and is very good for all types of photography. If you shoot a lot of landscapes you might consider the D700 if you can swing it.</p>

<p>I buy everything over the Interet from B&H and have never had an issue. They are very easy to work with even on returns.</p>

<p>I would look at B&H or Adorama. You will get a better deal and they are very reputable companies. You might add what price range your trying to stay within as well.<br>

Not sure which model you are looking at, but chances are you will find a better deal at the above dealers. A very good lens would be the 16-85 VR Nikon. I am not sure what price range you are trying to stay within. You will find VR very helpful in getting more keepers.</p>

<p>If you decide to go the 70-200 route I would look at the Sigma EX 70-200 2.8, it is really tough to beat for 749.00 new. A lot of people will recommend the Nikon 80-200 but the Sigma has faster focus which is critical for sports shooting. Optically they are very close with a slight edge to the Nikon wide open. The 300 will obviously give you the best image quality. If you find yourself shooting a lot at 300mm then I would seriously consider going that route. Also worth considering is the Sigma 100-300 f4. Optically it is supposed to be very good with the added benefit of a zoom.</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/390173-REG/Sigma_134306_100_300mm_F_4_0_EX_DG.html</p>

<p>Depth of field is probably the biggest. I have never used the 17-55 but I own the 50mm 1.4D. I can't imagine a zoom being as sharp as my prime. The 50 is the sharpest lens I have ever owned, and it's DOF is incredible on the D700. It rarely leaves my camera.</p>

<p>There is a 50mm 1.4 G which is an excellent lens. I own the 1.4D and find it to be an amazing lens. I can't image the G being any better, but all the reviews say it is.</p>

<p>It should run them just fine. I have the same Mac and it runs CS4 just fine. I bought 4 gigs of ram which you can do yourself very easily. I bought this ram and it works great. It is tested to work in Macs. Don't buy ram from Apple, they are a rip off. Easy to do, you will need a very small set of screw drivers if you don't have them to take the back off. But other than the ram your system will run just fine. I've been using Capture NX 2 lately on a trial and am considering buying it. The more I use it, the more I like it.<br>

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146878<br>

Mushkin makes excellent ram. One of the top manufacturers along with Corsair, OCZ, etc.</p>

<p> </p>