donald_weston1

<p>yada, yada, yada, Dave - the bottom line if you have been careful with the images you have taken, no one, I repeat, no one can tell you the camera sample you have is good and the technique is the issue. I have both C and N gear, and issues can come up with both. That said, as far as sharpness is concerned I have had less issues over the years since the D30, re: sharpness, better with Nikon gear. Nikons often take more sharpening as the pixel sharpness of the Canon sensors is higher, but overall for me, Nikon gear offers more consistent sharp images. I mean sharpness acheived more consistently without manually adjusting each lens to each camera, looking at printed 20x30 inch images, not on a fxxxking monitor. It also means that people who have been lucky to have Canon or Nikon gear without issues deny the issues, and just assume it is the user, one does not own the problem unless they see it in use. I know, I had one of the first 5D cameras in the Hartford area, I tested the damn thing like crazy, but bottomline at any distance, with a 50mm macro or other L glass, on tripod, locked up mirror or without, the damn thing was not able to make a sharp image. The issue was denied by the local camera store, and Canon was not responsive to their inquiries. The store tried to convince me that I wanted too much for the camera and I should be happy with 8x10 images, NOT, didn't buy a 12mp body for $3300 to be satisfied with what my Dig Rebel or D70 could easily accomplish. Anyway, you can try another body, I went through two more 5Ds after this over 18 mos, at my cost and finally found one that could focus worth a damn, but little by little have bought more Nikon gear, YMMV...good luck</p>

<p>In a similar place and have decided to wait a bit anyway, for now, hehe. Have a D300, 24mm, 28-75mm Tamron, 80-200/2.8 EDAF, 55-200 afs, 105mm VR micro. FX offers some bonuses... if you need those things, but they cost a premium. Am going to try to hold off until the D700X or D800 is out. For me, I need the rez more then I need the high ISO, YMMV. Don't really see the issue, if you have the money now, just let it sit in a safe place, i.e. non depreciating place, and wait, just don't get the can't wait part. IF you are down to no camera, that is another thing, buy a D300 and wait, they are cheap now, and won't depreciate as much as the newer choices, I think skipping a generation is a good idea, if you can, good luck...</p>

<p>Your gallleries are always great, reviewed this one and the Paros gallery again, am going to Paros in March 09. Makes me want to go now.....thanks, again...Don</p>

If you are allowed to use flash and can get close enough....big if's for high school gym sports. Have shot 3 yrs of basketball and can tell you gym lighting is all over the board, pardon the pun. Mostly I was shooting with D200/300 cameras at ISO 1600 and using fast primes either 1.8 or 2.0 prime lenses, and NO flash. IF you are allowed to use flash a faster focusing camera would still be of benefit, also a faster shooting camera say 5-6 fps. Don't know if I am shooting BB again this year, as my kids graduated last yr. If I do I will be looking at a D700.

Also a Nikon dslr user, but my P&S is a G9. You will never get the quality of a dslr out of it, but otherwise it is a great little camera. There are times when any dslr is intrusive or undesireable. For my kids I bought Olympus models that were water resistant as well as shock, and I believe freeze resistant. They love them, and so far about a year old they are doing well. IF you goal is to have a memory kept, a P&S is fine, if you expect to shoot low light images you will be better with a compact lens on a small dslr, only you can choose. Once can't have enough cameras, I keep both the P&S and a smaller dslr for those reasons...the right tool for the right job....ymmv, If I was buying today, it would be a G10 or if that was too big the LX3...

I have to agree with Shun totally. ..It all comes down to how and what you shoot, whether you will realize any increase in resolution, and whether that will end up being visible in your images. For instance, unless you are shooting on a tripod and objects that don't change position relative to the camera, I have found more improvement in the technical quality of my images using AF [VR or a faster] lens. Any tangible increase in resolution just from using "sharper" glass, is lost by either subject movement, not compensated for manually or noticeable in viewfinder. It is the difference between shooting things in a controlled environment and maximizing resolution or using other tools better suited for a particular task. For just walking around pics, an AF Nikor can be better then the BEST Zeiss or Leica glass, and VR is a definite help when a tripod is not to be used.

That said I own a Voigtlander SL 40mm original model that I have shot on both my old 5D and D300, and it, under controlled shooting conditions is sharper then my 35mmL and my AFD 50mm lenses. But if the subject or I are moving, I get more predictable sharper images with either of the others or a VR zoom lens. Also I question the common wisdom heard often in forums that primes are better then zooms, in the end I feel the zoom allowing a tighter crop of the image, ends up creating a better image file for large prints then a prime lens you have to crop....JMHO....YMMV

What a great trip, and nice images, Love the Louvre Pyramid at nite shot. I wasn't so lucky with that but others

things went ok. Would love to go back anytime, so does the wife..hehe.<div></div>

Eventually yes, they may disappear. As Mp counts reach there maximum for APS and FF 35mm chips, currently

with the new FF 21-24 MP cameras prices will come down to a point in a year or two that one may be able to crop a

FF 24MP image to 12 MP and still have good quality for most objectives. Tied in with lower noise, etc, the APS

cameras will no longer have an advantage in pixel density if they max out at 12-15mp which they seem to

have...maybe a leap in technology will eventually lead to APS 24mp cameras, but for the near future this seems to

be not likely. Even if that occurs there are limits to the needs most photographers need beyond 20+ mp, as most are

happy for now with 12mp. There are plenty of other factors that can be improved aside from resolution. Time will tell

for sure, but I don't see much advantage of a 24mp APS camera over a FF model with the same mp count. Most of

us do not need 39+mp in our daily lives, else we would shoot MF. Those that do, will seek out whatever products

fullfill their needs. Personally I would like to carry lighter smaller equipment, but a 50D or D300 size camera is fine. A

P&S with a good APS or FF chip would be nice for real, with a good zoom lens range would make a fine backup at

that point. At some point as camera sales trail off, technology not able to continually improving in leaps and bounds,

I am sure camera prices will decrease and eventually a few years down the road, a FF 24MP camera will be sold in

the $500-1000 range just like 12mp models do today....sorry for the rant...

not off topic, the more JD one drinks the sharper your lenses will become, this has been tested and works 100% of the time.....;-)

another advantage is that you shoot jpegs not raw files with the fujis, so a digital learning curve will be a bit easier as well....also 2 memory card slots, CF and xD, which is not bad in a pinch....although the xD are limited in size...

another option to consider is a Fuji S2 or S3 if you can afford, a abit more resolution, better dynamic range and either would work well with your lenses....

...any of the D80/90, D200, D2H bodies with a 180mm will give good overall performance. With smaller bodies also a lighter, sharper combo and better resale value should she outgrow an older body...jmho...having a prime may be a little more inconvenient but if she has not done this type of shooting before might be an easier to learn without worrying about zooming, allowing the action to come to her is any easy thing to accomplish first....

Depends on what he needs in a camera....with the D90, he gets a dust shaker, Expeed processor for better color and more rez then he has now in a lighter package. FPS are also very close to present levels 4.5 fps vs 5 fps.....picks your poison.....not ot mention some video capability....

Have bought several cameras and lenses from them over the last couple of years and have had no issues, as a matter of fact I just put my money where my mouth is again by ordering a D700 body from them on Sat...fwiw.....

I have had the original 70-200L F4 without IS, and always wanted more tele length, but there are times when you need 2.8, like for some sports.. for me the compromise was buy a 70-300mm IS USM and a 200L 2.8. I travel with the zoom but use the 200L for high school football etc, when light is low. Life is full of compromises....All in all, the 100-400L is a great lens but except for safaris it does not appeal to me for my uses, just too heavy bulky to carry most days and with a crop body the 300mm on the zoom works ...at about half the weight...JMHO...

Lots of discussion going on, on what and how, and such, but no word from anyone as to when? Don't care if you

want it or something else, and the pros and cons of what Sony or Nikon alternatives offer, just curious about the

timing?

After reading this thread and others on a few forums, it seems like Nikon and Canon are just wasting their time, as no one will buy a 20+ Mp camera....:-) Is this like Bill Gates saying no one needs more then 64k......

for me it is the 17-40L and the 70-300 IS USM.....and it works nice on APS-C or FF.....that and a high speed prime, and I find I can cover just about anything.. Of course two bodies, one aps and the other FF.....ymmv.

I totally agree Yakim, I have been saying this even back to film AF cameras. really how hard would it be to put AF sensors in a "Rule of Thirds" distribution...really....a good nine would well be enough...jmho...Don

I sold my 5D about a month ago, until then I used a Transcend 32GB CF card without any issues, including formatting, albeit did not need to do too often considering the card size...fwiw...

 

Also, 12 gb cards were not so common, wonder if it was missed marked at factory and really an 8gb card. Did it ever read a full 12Gb or approx 10.79 or whatever...more then 7.4...? jmho..

Some good info here, I would add, that for me, primes offer an advantage you may not need, and this is not only are they lighter, but since I was NOT covering the game but shooting a friend's son, I needed to be able to make a poster size final print. The f2 allowed me to get a sharp, no subject movement frame that I would not have been able to accomplish with a f2.8 zoom. ... horses for courses...

I had a 40D which I used last year for shooting high school hockey with 85mm f1.8 and 200mm f2.8 primes. Light in a hockey rink is terrible usually at its best! It can very greatly with the rink, but assuming you will not be able to use a flash to shoot, primes I have found for me are the way to go. You need every bit of speed [fstop wise] one can get. I would prefer to use F2 glass overall, and either with the 85mm or 135mm. While the f2.8 zooms are good for daytime and evening football with decent light, the f2 primes are easier to use. They are also a fraction the cost of the f2.8 zooms. I switched over to Nikon since then and will be getting a D700 to use similarly. Luckily for me it is just football this year. BTW shoot manually, both for shutter speed , fstop, and white balance. Set it with the histograms and leave it. Unless you can shoot from the players box, wider lenses are of little value, except for team pics with flash. JMHO... Don

when in doubt, your histogram is your friend, learning how to use this, should be the first thing one does with a digital camera...

Am sorry for the digression, momentarily, but can anyone comment on the shutter noise compared to the D3, is it similar or greater in the D700? I guess I am looking for just one more reason to upgrade from my D200 to a D3, but would like to know if the shutter noise is that much different. TIA. Don

What I find helpful, even with research sometimes is to go to a place locally at each town, and look at postcards

of the area, if I find a scene that is a site of interest I would want to visit, I just ask the proprietor if he

or she knows where it is. You can then put your own slant to your own images. Most everything in Europe has been

shot a gazillion times, so coming up with your own slant on something that shows promise is up to you....also

acts as a good introduction for conversation and can lead to lots of other great info, eating places etc...fwiw...