james_martin9

I currently own a Tamron 18-75 2.8 XR Dii lens. I love this lens, but have

found that 2.8 is typically soft for what I shoot. I do little if any portrait

work and with this particular lens, DOF is not my primary concern. I also own

the 70-2002.8vr which produces shallow DOFs when I need them. Would anyone

consider switching from this Tamron to the Nikon 24-120vr lens? I know it is

f4 on the low end, but I have produced some good photos with f4 lenses in the

past. Thoughts? A 18-200 is unattainable and probably outside my prices range

since I just dropped for the 70-200vr. Sorry for the sloppy typing, doped up

for neck injury here..lol

I think Shun raises a good point. I also do not own the 50mm lens because for what I shoot, I just dont find it has enough utility. However, it is a STEAL so there is no reason not to purchase one either. I will say this though, the 50mm 1.8 lens is one of the few lenses that almost everyone on this website and others praises whether they need or own one themselves. Someday I may purchase one, but I prefer mid-range zooms. I know primes are typically superior in their ability to render images, but I hate carrying a bag full of lenses, especially since I have at least one very heavy lens. That is why I love the 18-200 vr idea. It is a good average lens to use. ALsolk I am not comparing the two. The 50mm is around 100.00, the 18-200 if you can find it is anywhere from 800-1000.00. I say go get it and spend the reat of your money on a good dinner with the family to take photos of with your new lens.

I also agree that learning to use your camera is shutter, aperture or manual is a very good idea. When I had my D70, I used portrait mode because it always produced better photos. I told myself that the end result was what mattered; however, I never learned the "art" of taking pictures. I now have a D200 without the presets, so I was forced to learn to use the stabdard shooting modes and despite numerous terrible photos, I have learned much. Good luck.

I downloaded PSE 5.0 and it works fine. Not sure why I did not do that to begin with, but thanks for all the input.

DOes every discussion have to be complex? I think a VERY simply question was asked here LOL. Despite the COMPLEXITY of all of us, this is a great place to get information.

Nikon 70-210 F4-5.6 is an excellent lens. The non-D can be had for under 100.00

Mybe I should clarify. Elements 4 and 5 do not list AMD processors in their system requirements. I had heard when PSE 4 came out it was Intel only. I just wondered if this was true or not.

Will Photoshop CS2, Elements 4.0 or 5.0 work with an AMD Athlon processor? I

keep finding competing opinions on the matter.

I also agree that you would want to use the fastest lens possible. Depending on the distance, you may want to rent a 70-200 2.8, or even something faster if possible. Regardless of whetner they expect "pro" results or not, you will want to produce the best images possible. The best solution for white balance would be the measure the actual color temperature of the gym and set the WB manually; however, that is impractical. In lieu of that, try to get into the gym and compose some test shots to play with the WB until you get it right.

The D80 will probably begin to drop in price with the approach of it's replacement. One thing I considered when purchasing my D200 was potential resale value. I realize the resale value of any camera is always much less than it's retail price; however, it seems that higher grade cameras retain their value slightly better. Having said that, I would go ahead and purchase the D80, or if you want to save money look for a good D70s. I realize everyone says it is a relic and an antique, but in fact it is still a wondeful camera.

Did I say 18? Well I meant 28-75..sorry it has been a long day and I was not thinking.

So Shun do you get free Sandisk cards and can we be friends? lol

My wife would tell this story more colorfully than me. I initially purchased a used D70 with an 18-70 lens for 600.00 with a small bag and 512Gb CF card. Due to photographing Manhatten on a trip, I purchased a Sigma 10-20 wide anlg lens with filter for another 600.00. I also bought a Nikon 7-210 f4-5.6 on ebay for 100.00 or so. A few bags here and there, and I was ready to upgrade. Then I traded the D70 for a D200 and bought an SB800. Not being content, I traded the 18-70 for a Tamron 18-75 2.8 VR DII and a new Lowepro bag. Recently, I traded the 70-210 for the Nikon 70-200 2.8 vr used for 1350.00. So yes, I am noe fully upgraded and dirt broke, but I take damn good photos (opinion only and probably not true)my wife says..lol

I recently purchased the 70-200 vr and it was a huge chunk of change. I decided against the 80-200 simply because I have shaky hands. The 80-200 is one awesome lens, and really a staple in the Nikon lens lineup. I ended up purchasing a used 70-200 vr for around 1250.00 with filter, so it was not too much more then the 80-200 new. As for the body upgrade. Since the D70 is a great camera, I would probably spend on the lens; however, I recently also traded up from my D70 to a D200 because I wanted to, not because I needed to.

I have also found the D200 metering to be very sensitive to light, and if I am not precise, I tend to blow out highlights, especially with the SB800. Typically, inside of 5' I have to dial down the SB800 1/3 to 2/3 EV to keep from overexposing. Some, if not mose of this may be inexperience though.

Perhaps my language was a bit harsh; however, I stand by the pricipal. If someone is a professional photographer who makes a living with his or her camera and can afford several hundred dollars per lens, than yes Nikkor lenses are the way to go. However, if someone is considering a D40, than there is a good possibility he or she is a beginner and will benefit from an excellent Sigma or Tamron lens. The Tamron 28-75 2.8 Xf DII is a magnificent lens. The comporable Nikon lens is absurdly expensive and does not produce results for most people worth the cost difference.

First of all, anyone who tells you buy only Nikon lenses is a fool. You will here people claim they only way to go is all Nikon or all Canon. That is the biggest bunch of garbage. I own a Sigma 10-20 and a Tamron 28-75. Both produce crystal clear pictures with little distortion, good bokeh, etc.. I also own a Nikon 70-200 2.8VR which by any standard is a pro-lens. THe images produced from that lens are marginally better, but the price difference between the Nikon 17-55 and my Tamron 28-75 is almost 1000.00 USD.

As for the camera, you already own the D40 so are you going to take ti back. The D70s is a great, and I repeat great camera. However, the only thing you loose in the D40 is the inability to use lenses that lack an internal focusing motor such at the brilliant 50mm 1.8 which is around 100.00. For this reason, I would not purchase the D40, but all things being equal, if you like your kit lens and this is a starter camera for you, keep it. The D40 has received very high ratings and produces brilliamt images.

Nikon is the only brand to stick with for any type of compatibility with older lenses. Pre EOS lenses wont even fit on a new Canon.

That depends on the camera. If your camera is a newer DSLR, than no Sunpak flash will work in a dedicated fashion like the Nikon SB400, 600 or 800. Given that Minolta no longer makes SLR cameras, I am guessing the flash is older and might work on a film SLR, but I am not fore sure.

I just purchased the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR because I need VR. The VR feature adds significant cost over the 80-200 2.8 Nikkor. However, I have unsteady hands and it allows me to ramp up the shutter speed in very dark situations that I shoot. For me, it is indepensible.

I own the Sigma and it is marvelous

Your 70-300 is f4-5.6. If you move down to a 80-200 2.8 your gain 1 stop of speed at the low end and 2 stops at the high end becuase it is constant aperture. 1 stop equals double the light, 2 stops quadruple the light, etc..if I am not mistaken. Also, in my experience you can push a fast lens more and use EV compensation to lighten the photo even more, but be careful with that. I may be way off here, but as you can see double the light means that you can shoot higher shutter speeds. Also, what ISO are you shooting at? If you decrease the aperture as afar as you can go, next up the ISO to see if you can get 1/60th or better. Maybe some pros can help out here.

http://www.moosepeterson.com/techtips/flash.html

 

I just found this link and it seems to explain things fairly well.

I used to wonder about the same thing. I have never really received an exhaustive answer, but here is how I have come to understand it. The in camera meter is an reflected ambient light meter which "sees" the available light minus flash. The iTTL meter then displays the expected exposure of the photo, which is this case is significantly underexposed, or on the light meter scale all the way to the negative side. The camera then realizes a flash is attached or pops up the built in flash and tells the sets the flash output to offset the lack of ambient light. When you depress the shutter the camera fires and the flash compensates to properly expose the photo. I may be over simplfying or incorrectly explaing things.

I owned the 18-70 that came with my D70 and kept it when I purchased the D200. I initially used it for some time, but wanted a 2.8 lens. I could not afford the Nikon, so I purchased a Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di and traded in the 18-70. With the exception of being faster, the Nikon lens is as good or better. I love the Tamron, and would not go back, but the 18-70 worked well, metered well, focused quickly and produced crisp shots.