Peter_in_PA

<p>For me, I'd love to see a pair of regular old zooms (12/14 - 40/45 and 40 - 150 or even 175 or 200) that were f4 for less money and way less weight than the pro zooms available. The f2.8 are way too big and expensive for me, and the kit lenses are fine, but I'd like a little more.<br /><br />What about you?</p>

<p>The 18-200 was fine at every focal length (although you HAD to stop down one stop above 135 to get usable results) on my D50 at 6MP.<br /><br />When 12MP was the norm with the D90, even back then, above 135 it drove me crazy and I sold it.<br /><br />Printing below 8 x 10 or never cropping? It might make you happy (same with 18-300). Only viewing on the internet and screens? I think it would be just fine.</p>

<p>Any lens like that will be weak enough on the long end that you cannot crop or print big. If you do neither of those things, it might be fine.</p>

<p>Young pros I've seen working lately are shooting a lot of stuff at wide apertures. <br /><br />Using your 18-200 for pro-level portraiture (if that's your goal) in 2016 is, imho, a total no no...</p>

<p>The 50 might be enough. When I shot Nikon DX with a D90, it was all I needed for portraits.<br /><br />If you have lots of space, an 85 or 105 is great, too, but for most people on DX, it's not the best choice.</p>

<p>I keep them all.<br /><br />So when I sold a bunch of stuff a couple years ago, I couldn't find the boxes after our move.<br /><br />Sold everything anyway, no problem... go figure...</p>

<blockquote> <p>The Fuji I've used quite a bit</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> You said "soon". You have your answer. The one you know.</p>

<p>That's a once in a lifetime trip.</p> <p>If it were me, I'd buy either an 80-400 AF-S or a 200-500 (both Nikkor), used if possible, and then sell them upon returning.</p>

<p>Also, the 18-300 will be markedly worse (especially on the long end) than the lenses you have now.</p>

<p>Does it happen on every photo? with any lens?</p>

<p>Josiah, that 35mm f3.5 macro lens needs an adaptor to work on a µ43 camera. Bad idea for Autofocus macro. If you're going to mostly shoot manual focus macro it might be just fine. I use a manual focus old old Nikon 55mm f3.5 with an adaptor for macro on my EM-5 and LOVE it, but alway always like manual focus for macro.<br /><br />The EM 5 ii and EM 10 ii will take more or less identical photos. If weather sealing is a must, go with the 5, but you are really limiting the lenses you can buy, and since they're not weather sealed, you will still have a problem in really bad conditions.<br /><br />If you need a portrait lens, the Olympus 45mm can be had for a GREAT price used or refurbished and is an outstanding lens, but the short end of that panasonic lens can do what you need in a pinch.<br /><br />The kit lens from Olympus is surprisingly good and so small and light. I love it. for travel? Awesome. And if you have to stretch the budget, the little Olympus 45 - 150 is very very light weight and takes okay pics even at the long end if you stop down a stop or two. not long enough for wildlife.<br /><br />Hope I helped.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Who said anything about Sony...</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Edward, you didn't... yet... but given time...</p>

<p>Edward, I'm so surprised to see you say that... (come on... laugh a little...)</p>

<blockquote> <p>Leszek; I don't have any interest in acquiring anything more than a D3X, which for me will in all likelihood will be my end game DSLR.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> 'til it breaks and there aren't replacement parts available... jus' sayin'...<br> <br> Also, the top end products like D5 are really designed for pros who probably wear out a camera much faster than amateurs like me. Such folks are NOT going to replace a dead D3s in 2016 with a used D3s, they are probably going to the D5.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Do you really think there's no perceptible difference between a 10.7 Mp sensor and a 24 Mp one? </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> If you print a billboard, there is a huge difference.<br /><br />If you print a 16 x 20, there might be a small difference.<br /><br />If you print an 8 x 10, there might be no difference.<br /><br />If you're just viewing on-screen as a jpeg, there is definitely no difference.</p>

<p>Kent, I totally respect you, but I'd definitely have to see that to believe it...<br /><br />Here's the thing, is it something you notice because you were looking for it? Would the crop "fail" as a photograph?</p>

<p><strong>The real question is how you're using these photos.</strong> (Why does nobody ask that?)</p> <p>Printing at 16 x 20 or below? I can't imagine you'll see the difference between a D7200 and a D810 shot with the same lens where the D810 is cropped in.</p>

<blockquote> <p>this is extremely random. whatever. but what about cats?<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>And gerbils and rat snakes...</p>

<p>Diffraction? It's seriousness is mis-understood, imho.<br /><br />Let's say you shoot a photo with a 12MP camera and a 24MP camera. Let's say that diffraction "sets in" on the 12MP camera past f11 and the 24MP past f8 with the lens you will be using with bothy.<br /><br />Now...<br /><br />Shoot at f11, <br /><br />Print both photos at 16 x 20.<br /><br />They will be identical unless you use a loupe, and if you're using a loupe to look at a photo, you're doing it wrong.<br /><br />Gup took off a LONG time ago and just bought a Holga and a film scanner...</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns">The law of diminishing returns is in full effect here...</a></p>

<blockquote> <p>"Attn: Photo.net. I would like to ask what time it is?"<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Immediately starts an argument about the history of clockmaking.</p>

<p>I don't mind the Nikon menus. In fact, I like them a lot. I don't even mind the much-maligned Olympus menus.</p>

<p>The internet needs a sarcasm font...</p>

<blockquote> <p>My ideal camera would be a totally manual Nikon Pro body, that new Sony 42 meg FF sensor, no motor drive, no auto focus, optical viewfinder, carbon fibre build, waterproof with all exterior controls. The tiny battery would then last for days in the field, the body could be much smaller and Nikon would sell 10's of them. ;)</p> </blockquote> <p>You and the other five people that want exactly that configuration won't sell out 5 grand for it...<br> you don't save cost when they take stuff out.<br /><br />Here's why.<br /><br />If I can sell 1 million D-999s with built-in flash and video, for 1500 bucks... but instead make one model with built-in flash and video for 950,000 of you and one without in a quantity of 50,000... the price of the built-in flash model is now 1600 and the one without ends up being 2 grand, because most of those 100,000 people ALSO want something that adds cost to the camera (Nikon Df anybody?)<br /><br />Economies of scale.<br /><br />If a camera has features you don't want... wait for it... DON'T USE THOSE FEATURES... Don't like video? Ignore it. It's pretty easy to do.<br> If camera companies start making super-niche products, they have super-niche prices. They already know this.</p>

<p>A lot of us want a camera to just be a camera, and if I want cell phone camera capability, I'll use the camera in my iPhone.<br /><br />It is perhaps possible that Nikon actually has done research and found that their target markets don't want the features you describe. There have been android-based cameras, for instance, but they didn't set the world on fire.</p>