mjt

I don't see much of a reason to wait for reviews - we know what the D90 is<br />

inheriting from, and I doubt seriously that Nikon goofed on this camera.<br />

There *are* reviews that exist already - although not "technical* reviews,<br />

they are geared to *use* of the camera.<br /><br />

I think what's important for you, Veronica, is to sit down and write out<br />

what features are important to you - don't be thinking about the cameras<br />

as you're making your list - simply list what you really NEED, then list<br />

what would be "nice to have's". Then turn to the specs of the cameras<br />

and check off your list. <br /><br />

While you're mulling on about what to do, why not check out what comes<br />

out of the Photokina show - after all, a lot can happen between now and<br />

Christmas. And while we're waiting for Christmas, you might even consider<br />

the D700 - it will probably come down in price and you can probably find<br />

a store discounting it even further through MS Cashback.<br />

I just received my 2 D700's, ordered through J&R via MS Cashback.<br />

I think they came out, with the 15% discount, to around $2550?

Another vote for the F100. As a matter of fact, I just gave up<br />

my F100 to my son, who is taking photography in high school.<br />

(yes, they do it "old school" - film, dark room, etc).

Yea - Adorama has their own branded D300/D700 grip for $99.<br />

Probably the same unit you're talking about.

@Steven S ... Here's my suggestion, for whatever it's worth.<br /><br />

First off, and I'm sure you're aware, glass is forever - the body is a commodity.<br />

My "gut feel", from what you've written, it's the D300. But let me throw a curve.<br /><br />

The majority of lenses you've listed are FX (i.e. full frame) - actually, 3 out of 4.<br />

I think you know where I'm heading: D700.<br /><br />

The difficult part for me, which no one else mentioned, is, "what photographic genre(s)<br />

are you interested in? I think that's an important question that must be answered.<br /><br />

Let's get back to the lenses. I'd kill the 200 and the 105. Of course, I dont know what<br />

it is you want those for - I could guess, but I wont. <br /><br />

I dont know the prices off the top of my head, but here's what I suggest:<br />

D700, 28-70 2.8 (or 24-70 2.8, but more expensive), 70-200 2.8 VR.<br /><br />

Seriously. You can get some of these through Jellyfish, er, M$ Cashback and<br />

save a significant amount. I just ordered 2 D700's, with a cashback savings of<br />

about $450 each. I did the same with the D3's, among other items.<br /><br />

With those two lenses, you'll have much of what you need covered, plus the body<br />

that is in tune with those lenses.<br /><br />

Think about it.

That's one hot lens. I use it for so many situations:<br />

portraits, concert, sports, close-quarters wildlife.<br /><br />

I use that lens about 50% of my situations (40% 24-70 2.8<br />

and the rest to the 17-35 2.8).

Are you sure it's pulling film onto the receiving spool? If so,<br />

have you checked that the shutter opens and the mirror flips?

The point?<br /><br />

Many of us are, and have been, Micro$oft free for a very long time! :)

@Phil Burt wrote, "I love it but I think that I would like a lot of extra features."<br /><br />

That sounds a bit subjective. Just because some device has many features,<br />

does not necessarily bring benefits. What's key is to decide what genre(s) you<br />

enjoy shooting most, then match a cam era to meet those requirements. Back<br />

30+ years ago when I started this, the only "features" we had were a simple<br />

meter, ISO, shutter speed, aperture, focus, and shutter. <br /><br />

Anyway, I think Robert Budding has the correct answer. I'd like to add that you<br />

should wait until Photokina (next month), just in case Nikon has something else<br />

up their sleeve to announce. And watch KEH.com for items of interest.

The D70 was never designed to accept a vertical grip - this grip, like others<br />

made for the D70 are an aftermarket design. <br /><br />

The D80 is designed by Nikon to use the MB-D80 grip:<br />

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/ProductDetail.page?pid=25345

@Clive Woolls ... if you compare to the Sony HDR-SR12, we can see the resolution specs<br />

are not on par with the D90 (less than 1/3). And that's a $1k+ USD video cam. Oh, and how<br />

much control would you have over DOF? Dont be fooled by the 10.2 MP claim - that's interpolated.<br /><br />

For me, dust has never been an issue. I always change lenses in a controlled environment<br />

and always use a minimum of two cameras - one with a short zoom and one with a long.<br />

(The lenses never come off in the field)<br /><br />

Make a phone call with a DSLR? I could see if, if you've embedded Skype in the firmware<br />

of a DSLR with built-in WiFi :)

It runs Mirror lock-up mode and mech shutter open.<br /><br />

What I'd be REALLY interested in is researching the Motion JPG end of things. I could<br />

see using the D90 as a sports camera, i.e. flip it into video mode during those<br />

critical moments while shooting a football game (or basketball, ad nauseum). Then, <br />

during post-processing, extract those [critical moment] frames out of the MJPG file.<br /><br />

Many media organizations are already doing this, using, for example, the Red One.

You can't beat the manufacturer's native tools for processing raw images,<br />

which is why I'll use Nikon's software for "critical NEFs" - the images that<br />

require the magic that the Nikon software provides.<br /><br />

The same goes for Fuji's raw processor for my S5 shots.<br /><br />

Otherwise, I use Lightroom - which is 90% of the images I process.

Hi Ryan ... sounds like a case of the "crazy ants":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/14/ants-invade-houston-eat-c_n_101785.html

I'd be cautious using a fumigator and the "liquid" could wreak havoc on the electronic internals. The only thing I could think to do is to hope the ants get bored since there is no food in the body and leave. Of course, if this breed is the same as the crazy ants, they could ruin the camera. Keep your fingers crossed!

You might want to more fully describe the issues you're having. (Both of my S5Pro samples do not exhibit either problem).

Any camera could exhibit a front and/or back focus problem - there are S5 owners that have reported this issue. You could easily run your own test with different lenses to identify a consistent pattern of issue - be sure to compare against manually-focused shots. Remember - some lenses just don't quite mesh with some bodies, for whatever reason; this is why you need to test with different lenses, and if possible, different samples of the same lens. Also, don't forget to factor in that the S5 has a stronger AA filter than similar cameras, so resulting images may seem "out of focus".

Go here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d700.shtml and scroll down to the "The Choices" section and read.

It seems you're toying over cost, i.e. what you can truly afford and whether you should "stretch" for the D700.

What you should be thinking about, when analyzing whether to upgrade, is what feature-set does the newer camera bring to the table? Ask yourself, "what does the D300 or D700 have, as a benefit over the D200, that I absolutely have to have to bring my photography to the next level?".

Take it back for exchange.

An hour's drive is "far away"? Many of us spend that much time

driving to work and back, every day, all year 'round, year after year.

Anyway, what you describe sounds abnormal.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_00.html

http://www.naturfotograf.com/bestof.html

I say the 70-200 VR - in many situations, you'll most likely say to yourself, "I wish I would have gotten the VR".

Other options to purchasing "new" are KEH.com and Nikon refurbished (i.e. has warranty).

Hi David . . .

My personal opinion? Never sell glass - one day you might wish you'd

kept them. Remember - glass is forever and a body is a commodity.

As you mentioned, film can be "annoying". Sell the N80/801? I glanced

at KEH and I see they sell, on average, for $70-$90. You'd lose money

selling to KEH, but you could try selling them through Craigs list to

reap the most reward (money w/out commission). Of course, the

downside is that many folks wont invest in an "old film" body, unless they

are a collector's item.

I still have my D70s, sold the D80, and use D3's and an S5Pro. I find

that the S5Pro produces the most pleasing skin tones, with the least

amount of effort. The D3 does when dialed in correctly. I rarely use

the D70s any more (for obvious reasons). But I will say it produces

great photos.

However, the key question for you is, do you have the right PP

(post-processing) tools (for example, Adobe Lightroom) to produce

[final] pleasing photos? That would be the key, I think.

> mj t, I have to correct you slightly, the shutter speed had nothing to do with freezing the wheels. It was the flash.

Thanks for the clarification, Ralph - I completely overlooked the use of flash.

I never use flash, which is why it slipped my mind. I never use flash for a couple of reasons:

(1) As mentioned, it freezes the action, plus it tends to "artificialize" the photo. In other

words, it tends to make a photo, known to be taken at nighttime, to appear to be

"artificially at day". (I use multiple D3's, so the use of flash is non-existent).

(2) As a rule, flash is not allowed at most sporting events, and even more important,

it's incredibly disruptive to the players/racers/participants/etc. If I were on the field

or in a car or on a motorcycle (I do road race motorcycles, so I understand), I do not

want a flash potentially blinding me or taking my attention away.

Anyway, each to their own [photographic] style.

Stephanie - I would suggest borrowing, if you can, an SB800, and see how things

turn out. As I mentioned earlier, a faster lens would be great (I never use flash,

even at night events). I still recommend the use of a monopod - for the price, they

offer a lot in the end image.

hi Stephanie . . .

Ralph provided some great advice. However, I would like to provide a slightly different

perspective and I will use Ralph's sample photo to prove my point. It all has to do with

shutter speed. (BTW Ralph, you wrote, "I shoot with a f/stop of 1/250 ..." :)

The first thing that jumps at me is the chroma noise. But that's the fault of the D2x,

because they dont handle ISO's from (including) 800 and up.

The second thing that jumps at me, which is actually more important than my first

observation, is that the shutter speed is too fast. When it comes to shooting both

motorcycle and automobile (and truck) racing, one of the most important attributes

you want to portray in the final image is the feeling of m-o-v-e-m-e-n-t. If you look

at Ralph's example again, you will see he's used a shutter speed fast enough to

stop the spinning of the wheels. To my eyes, it looks as if he shot these two racers

standing still.

As Ralph mentioned, panning is a great technique. Keep the shutter speed slow

enough to portray movement, but fast enough to capture the subject without blur.

Every shot that my clients choose to pay for, considering my racing photos, are

the shots that portray movement.

Let's talk about blur for a moment. One thing that will assist you is to use a

monopod - a monopod, because it has one leg, will allow you freedom of

movement, but helps tremendously with respect to keeping your camera

steady. I'm confident, Stephanie, that your first sample is blurry because of

camera (or hand) shake, not necessarily that you didnt have the focus set

on the subjects. I do think that the cars are in the correct depth of field,

but if you look closely, there is ghosting on all the objects in the photo,

which all points to camera shake.

A monopod will help tremendously to keep the camera still. I use one at

all sporting events, be it football or motocross racing or ... ad nauseam.

Your second sample shot has a lot of potential. It was shot at a shutter

speed of 1/30. I probably would have doubled the shutter speed and,

as you did, using the panning technique. Again, the issue with the

second shot is camera shake. The only other thing I would have done

with the second shot concerns framing - the car's rear end is too close

to the right edge of the frame. You could probably crop this image

and it still be "usable". But you have the idea correct - with forward

moving objects (such as a race car), you want some empty space

in front of it.

I'd like to touch on one other thing - lens choice. You mentioned that you

cant yet afford your next lens, but I find, to be successful, for night time

shots, is to have a fast lens. What is a "fast lens"? It's one that has a

wide maximum aperture. A lens rated at f2.8 is faster than a lens rated

at f4.0. Think about how your eye works - as you go from a well-lit

room to one that is darker, the iris of your eye opens up to allow more

light to enter into your eye. The same is true of a lens' aperture blades.

A smaller f/stop number means the aperture blades of the lens (think

iris of the eye) open up more. If you can get a faster lens, then you

can use a lower ISO and more appropriate shutter speed.

hi Dave ...

the process you've suggested is HDR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

you can use the HDR technique with any camera. if you're asking whether the "D3 has enough dynamic range so that a *single shot* can capture the complete DR of the room", can only be answered based on the current [lighting] conditions of the room.

to be a big more concrete, if a room reflects 11 stops of DR, then the answer is *no*, the D3 will not be able to capture it. the D3 has somewhere between 9 and 9.5 stops of DR. (as a point of contrast, you could capture the room's DR, in a single shot, with an Fuji S5 Pro, which easily has a 2 stop advantage over other cameras).

what you *can* do with the D3 is bump up the ISO in low-light conditions to obtain a better exposure - maybe that's what you're talking about?

i never anticipated this thread to turn as it has. it's about choosing between the D300 and D3.

Anthony's reference to Stany's post at DPR was on topic (switching from D3->D300). Stany switched from the D3 to the D300 because the D3 didnt fit correctly with his photographic genre. if you're going to go saltwater fishing, why purchase freshwater gear? :)

hi Anthony ...

yes, i remember reading Stany's post about "downgrading" from a D3 to a D300 (and i posted a reply). a great and honest post ... many are not willing to admit the same.

Stany's post is important because it reveals his honesty to photography. many non-pros will purchase a D3 merely for the bragging rights (though they'll never admit it). and many (non-pros) will purchase the D3 thinking it will produce better photographs.

it's important to choose your (pros and non pros) equipment carefully. each photographer must seriously consider what genre is their bread-n-butter (pros) or of their personal interest(s) (non-pros), do the research, then choose the body that best fits.