bill_keane2

I don't believe the Tokina is sharper, and I am pretty sure it's CA is significantly higher (but doesn't the D300 auomatically correct this?). I too like the lighter weight of the Tamron, and it's easily my most used lens -- performing on a D80/D200 for two years without a hitch. But the Tokina is very solid. Of course, compared to the standard kit lenses, the Tamron also feels like a brick.

 

I don't know, why not just get the Tokina and have done with it?

"E-3 has a 100% viewfinder that is almost twice the size of previous 4/3 viefinders. The viewfinder image is as high as the other E's are wide. Side by side, it is very similar to the best APS DSLR sized viewfinders and in no way loses out." -- Ilkka

 

This then is a HUGE improvement. Olympus has always made unique, quality instruments -- The Pen, half-frame, OM's with shutter speed setting on the lens mount... My OM-4T was a jewel.

 

They're kind of like the Saab of cameras

"Thanks Bill, but I have requested a more specific answer from the user of both cameras on the performance parameters I am discussing about." Manu T

 

Oh... That's too bad.

 

Anyway, do some reading of sites fully testing both cameras and you can get more depth on the relevant points I raised.

As a 30 lover of Olympus cameras, the E-series was tempting. But, in terms of resolution, array of OEM and 3rd party glass, and noise-less high ISO image making, I don't believe the E3 compares to the D300.

 

With the 4/3 sensor, other Olympus SLR's have had a viewfinder that is akin to peering down a tunnel. The D300 has a 100% viewfinder, of a larger format.

"Other options... 3rd party glass: well, I usually try to avoid this (except for my fab Sigma 10-20) so would probably not consider a Tamron 17-50 or equivalent."

 

If you think the Sigma 10-20 is fab, the Tamron 17-50 will really send you over the top. I use both. Plus, the Tamron is less money, and less lost if you need to move on to FX...

The Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is a great lens. (17mm in DX being equivalent to about a 26mm lens on film) Wider? Then the Tokina 11-16 2.8...

"The D200 is a bargain right now, but I doubt that you would ever regret getting a D300." -- RL

 

Yes. I'd go with the D300, and never look back...

Keep in mind that the D300,as is, (like the D200/D80/D90), will control the SB-R flashes (and SB-600/800/900) wirelessly, using the Commander Mode for the on-board flash. You do not need the SU-800 to do this.

I have the SB-600 and have a single SB-R200 (which is the flash paired in the SB-R1). Any way you go on this, you'll be most happy with the results. The ring that attaches to the lens to hold the SB-R flashes is most convenient.<div></div>

"- Bill, any software is not an option for me since it is an extra time to process pictures.. "

 

True, it takes time. About a second. This of course assumes a spot the size shown would even be noticeable, and necessary to fix.

 

Proper liquid cleaning may also take some time.

Should this dust actually appear in a real-world image, shot at f8 or larger, I would use the AutoRetouch tool in Capture NX2, and never worry again.

My D200 has 1 or 2 hot pixels at higher ISO. With NX2, and the Auto-Retouch brush, single pixel issue matter not one iota.

 

I agree with Shun, but to set things in a longer term perspective, when eventually even a perfect CCD will exhibit some problems, the Auto-Retouch tool will make them disappear.

Ditto, ditto, ditto on the Tamron 17-50. It's a great lens. I found if I align the dot on the Sigma rear cap, I have no problem using them on any lens. The front caps I replaced with Nikon center-pinch...

Since this sounds like a once-off issue with a significant item of residue on the sensor, why not have a trained camera repair person do the job for you? It'll probably take them 10 minutes.

There are a few DRY sensor brushes out. Sensor Brush is one. Did you use a compressed air blower in a can, or just a rubber bulb? Canned air can leave a residue. If that's what you did, then I'd sned it in to Nikon for a cleaning... If it's not what you did, then I can't see how water-spotting could occur (unless something else rather unusual took place).

 

BTW, the Giotto Rocket blasters are great items to have...

Why do you need a spare body? Is it truly going to be a spare? Then the D80 you already are familiar with could be the way to go.

 

On the other hand, one reason we sometimes don't think we better technology is because we haven't used it yet. I would assume the D90's focus speed, LCD, resolution, and ISO capability would be markedly superior to the D80's.

 

But maybe with what you really want to shoot, this won't matter...

My son has one, and it's capable of fine images.

"You are not going to see huge differences in daylight images." -- Shun

"Oddly, you would think the larger sensor would give you better IQ even at lower ISOs. As you (and I) have discovered, it does not." -- Elliot

 

These statements seem to re-emphasize the point that (image wise) going from a D200 to a D700 may not result in a dramatically noticeable jump in IQ. It may not be noticeable at all. Factoring in the price differential, for many people these observations are very significant.

"Otherwise, the Sigma 400mm/f5.6 AF was recommended many times in the Nature Forum."

 

The one to get, if you can find it, is the APO HSM version. I have the 300mm version, and it's great.

"As for Canon - I have an irrational prejudice against it, no real idea why..."

 

Don't worry. This is quite normal.

 

I'd go at least with a used D200, or a new D90 and not the D40, because AF won't work on the D40 with non-internal motorized lenses.

 

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a wonderful lens, and you should get an SB-600 flash. BTW, the Nikon flash system makes beautiful images a piece of cake to capture. Definitely get a Nikon SB-800 or 600... You could also get a Tokina 11-16 2.8 for real wide, or a used Nikon 180 2.8 for close-up portraits.

 

I wonder if the D90 will tend to "hot" exposures like the D80. If so, you'd just want to be careful about blown highlights. It looks to be a fine camera.

Lex - Just to clarify - the fence you see is the one behind her, not in front that night have interfered.

 

Lex is right. The fence he saw is the one between you and your daughter. Shooting through a fence can cause diffraction and resulting blur. Next time, if you have to shoot through a fence, get your lens an inch or two from an opening and shoot through that. Use an aperture that will allow 1/1000, and not only will you freeze the ball, but you'll get decent depth of focus.

 

If capturing a serve, then use your center point focus sensor to hone in on her eyes, hold that setting, and recompose, then fire.

"Assuming the scanner people are not just pulling my chain, is there information to that degree in these formats? I am hoping it is not all interpolation. ;-) "

 

John, your question is a good one. I'd love to know the answer. Scanning at 4,000dpi from Velvia and K25, I'd STILL prefer what I'm getting with my 10.2mp D200, enlarged to 20x30...

 

I've had expensive 70mb TIFF scans done of a few Velvias, and again, I wish I'd shot the frames with what I have now.

The Giotto Rocket Blower... Hold camera face down, whilst using the mirror lock-up. Lots of hard squeezes, then emplace the lens back on.

 

BTW, I always blast the rear element of a lens before putting it on my D200. Blast, then place loosely on rear cap, take lens off camera, quickly put new lens on...

 

Hardly ever have to deal with dust.

 

Also, when storing your camera, have the lens pointing down.

Using a D200, I often print 20X30's glossies via the Durst Lambda (?) at EL-CO Color Lab. In portraits you can see fine detail in people's hair and the cornea of their eyes. I suspect interpolation? But still the prints are stunning, vibrant and noise free. I assume 20+ megapixels would be better, and in an a/b comparison, noticeably better.

 

But it's the overall impact of the image that matters most, and at this size, even 10.2MP is great.

One pro I respect saves as NEFs and as JPEGs. Now I do too. Why? Because for the vast majority of cases a full size/quality JPEG will be more than adequate. If, in some rare case, it's not, then you can always make a special case TIFF from the NEF. And finally, 57.6mb TIFFs take up WAY more space than 5 to 7mb JPEGs.