elliot1

Have you tried making real prints at a lab with the same images? The problem is likely with the settings for your printer. While I don't have the printer you are using, I am a Canon printer user and have always had to 'tweak' the printer settings regardless of the body I used.

<p><em>"What possible advantages do you think a nine year old DSLR 12.1mp full frame DSLR might give you over an APS-C D7200 which has a far larger dynamic range when shooting NEFs?"</em><br> <em> </em><br> Larger, brighter viewfinder and superior high ISO performance come to mind. While the D7200 does have a bit better dynamic range, the advantage is most apparent at base and very low ISO and it might be difficult to see the difference in prints anyway. Above ISO 400, the two basically provide the same DR.</p> <p>If the D700 meets the OP's needs, does he really need more?</p>

<p><em>"....wondering if I would be taking a bit hit in image quality going with the Olympus"</em><br> <em> </em><br> My subjective opinion is that many of the Olympus lenses offer superior IQ over their Nikon counterparts and which may make up for the slightly smaller sensor as compared to the D500.<br> <br> Each system offers advantages over the other in different areas but in the end both will produce excellent results when it comes to IQ and unless you are making huge prints or doing extensive cropping, you probably won't see any differences.</p>

<p>Unless you are shooting often at high ISOs and/or want a larger, brighter viewfinder, and/or make poster sized prints often you likely will not notice much of any difference in your photos from your current bodies to a FX body.</p>

<p>I am not sure how many landscape shots you would take on he long end of either of those lenses. IQ at the long end of a superzoom is typically good but not great anyway and if you are concerned about getting the best image quality and don't mind changing lenses, consider getting two lenses:</p> <p>A couples of possibly better choices for the wide end:<br> 24-85mm<br> 16-85mm (probably your best choice)<br> A lens I have and like the focal length of is the 18-105mm. IQ is reasonably good throughout the zoom range.</p> <p>and if you want longer reach, add a 70-300mm VR.</p> <p>But if you typically don't make large prints, don't pixel peep and are looking for a one lens solution, either of the two you mention will work well.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Not all AF points are created equal. Only the 15 in the center 3 columns are cross-type points and only these will give you good results (the best you can expect) in less than ideal shooting conditions.</p>

<p>Whether using DX or FX, extension tubes offer increases magnification without loss in image quality.</p> <p>Which format is better? Chances are you would not see a difference between the two for most typical macro applications assuming good technique is used.</p>

<p>Which AF mode were you using?</p>

<p>I love macro photography and have found that extension tubes on many of the various 'typical' Olympus lenses, especially primes, I currently own work extremely well. You might want to give them a try as they (extension tubes) are quite affordable. The results are in fact so good that I decided not to purchase a dedicated macro lens.</p>

<address>Dylan because you are shooting with a lens that has a very shallow DOF when used at or near wide open, your best bet to get the focus the way you want it is to use a single focus point selecting it manually. Also I suggest you use only the AF that are cross type which are the most accurate, which there are a total of 15 in the center 3 columns. Stopping the lens down obviously increases DOF and helps keep the image area you want in focus sharp but IMHO you still want to the the 'right' focus point selected and that can only be done manually.<br /> <br /> If you must rely solely on face detection, you need to stop down the lens quite a bit to insure everything you want in focus is.</address>

<p>What lens are you using and what f stop are you shooting at? And how far is the camera from the subject?</p>

<p>Lion Fish</p><div></div>

<p>Dali Museum, Tampa, FL</p><div></div>

<p>Grandson</p><div></div>

<p>Took my family to watch a recent sunrise and snapped this image of my son and his girlfriend.</p><div></div>

<p>If you shoot raw and use good quality current image processing software, you can obtain high quality noise fee images with very reasonable detail even at ISO 6400.</p>

<p>Nice shots everyone!</p><div></div>

<p>Nikon's SB-500's movie lights have nothing to do with its flash itself, but rather are built into the flash's body, so the the 'flash' is not really on when using it for video. A flash is as Hans states.</p> <p>Small LED movie lights are very inexpensive, and lights more powerful than the SB-500's 100 lux are readily available and very affordable. If you are shooting a lot of video, a dedicated movie light might make more sense.</p> <p>In any case, this feature is not available withe the camera's built-in flash.</p> <p>You can find out more about the SB-500 here:</p> <p>http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/flashes/sb-500-af-speedlight.html</p>

<p>Yes, hand held at 1/20.</p>

<p>Happy birthday</p><div></div>

<p><em>"12 bit lossless or 14-bit lossy?"</em><br> <em> </em><br> Why don't you do some test shots and compare them?</p>

<p>Why didn't you send the lens in to have it checked by Nikon?</p>

<p>So you are expecting a low priced consumer zoom lens to focus as quickly as a much more expensive pro fast aperture prime? </p>

<p>Tunin, actually you probably would be happy with any of the bodies mentioned, as they are all very similar and all excellent. <br> All the latest Nikon bodies easily meet the criteria you set forth in you original post, whether FX or DX. And ultimately you would likely be equally happy with any of the bodies mentioned. But ultimately you may need to handle them all to see which you prefer. </p>

<p>DX sensors have more 'reach' by virtue of in-camera cropping due to sensor size, but in reality do not get you any closer to your subject. The D500 sensor is about 20mp, the D800/D800e/D10 DX crop is about 15mp. A difference of 5mp is not enough that you could see it in a typical print or likely even with extreme pixel peeping.</p> <p>My experience with the D800 was that its ISO 6400 results were pretty close to low ISO IQ when shooting RAW, processing with a high quality image processing program, and printing typically sized prints. In any case, IQ from a FX sensor will always be better than a DX sensor, especially when high ISO performance is the goal. My D3, as old as it is, will deliver better high ISO results than any current DX body (I will exclude the D500 as I have not seen any tests results from it yet) when comparing processed RAW images.</p> <p>While results are similar with all of the latest Nikon DSLR bodies DX or FX for most applications/shooting conditions, the FX bodies do deliver slightly better IQ under adverse conditions.</p> <p>In any case, the OP will be happy with any of the bodies mentioned for his application.</p>