stanleys

<p>I think Betty and several others have the right idea. The 'average' person now has more than one camera, and can produce very creative work using cheap software and a photo printer. The way to get paid for your photography is to produce significantly better images than anyone else.<br>

I took some photos at my sisters wedding and gave her the 'negatives'. She put together an album and did some manipulations that were awsome. Having a good camera and a diploma is no longer enough to be considered a 'professional' photographer.</p>

<p>I'm the 70-200mm's biggest fan, it rules. If I wanted to go longer regularily, I would buy the 80-400mm.</p>

<p>I would lean towards the 80-400mm Nikon. I don't have one, but have used it several times and been pleased with the results (I have no un-real AF expectations, and was was very happy with the VR, colour and contrast). I own the 70-200VR and 1.7x TC, and they are good, but not as good as the 80-400mm IMO.</p>

<p>I got that message before, not with a D90 though. It's a card problem, not the camera.</p>

<p>I haven't seen any corner softness problem with my 70-200mm on film or a borrowed D3. I have heard that the addition of a 1.4x TC can eliminate the problem with only a very small loss in quality.</p>

<p>An itouch or something similar would work well.</p>

<p>I don't have mine anymore, but i'm pretty sure the zoom was push - pull, not twist.</p>

<p>The 28-105mm AF-D and the D90 will do what you want very well. It's a very good lens with a 'macro' mode that is very legit. Note, the lense will only AF with the D90, not the D60 or lower.</p>

I lay mine on its back. That way there's no stress on the lens mount.

<p> oops</p>

<p>Your problem might be the bulbs. I believe the colour they put out changes several times a second, your manual WB might not match the actual WB for the image taken. Try using tungsten lights and tugsten WB.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Brooks,<br>

Dumpster divers are looking for something of value.</p>

<p>I find it amusing that the negatives are more valuable to an imagined dumpster diver than they are to you. Everything else has been said.</p>

<p>Wait for the 35mm f1.8. I've used the d40 and it's a great camera (if you can learn how to work around it's interface). The 60mm micro AFS will give you more photo options than the 50mm if your looking for a new lens. The D80 is also a good (IMO) choice if your looking for a better body.</p>

<p>A MF 50mm f1.8 will work with your ebay extension tubes, and cost less than the dedicated tubes you need. Depending on the lens you have, you might get better quality as well.</p>

<p>The D70 is at its best at ISO 200, color and DR go quickly if you use anything higher. Shoot raw and watch the histogram. I find that the D70 (and others) underexpose in overcast conditions, use exposure compensation if required.</p>

<p>The "quality of the megapixels" is not great? I'd take four good megapixels (D2H) over 15 poor ones any day. The D80 new, or the D200 used, are a great value right now. They are excellent cameras (so good, you might see the light).</p>

<p>I, for one won't be selling mine when (if) a new version comes out. There is no way it will be enough of an improvement to justify it. </p>

What does democracy have to do with Nikon, or this forum?

The size, weight, image quality, and versatility of the 18-70mm is the best you can ask for. I own the 20mm f2.8D, and under the right conditions it is slightly better. Too heavy? You've got NAS bad.

Under the right conditions, my D70s can make cleaner images than my D300. With a D70, use ISO200, the histogram (though it's green channel only), RAW + captureNX, optimal apertures, a tripod and remote. The camera is capable of excellent quality. The real limit is the skill of the operator.

To me, your examples don't show any obvious lens problems. A friend of mine asked me the same question about his D90 and lens. He has decent photography skills, but this was his first DSLR. I looked at his testshots, and the results were fine, I think his expectations were simply unrealistic. Many things affect how we percieve sharpness, high contrast and subject isolation can influence how sharp an image looks.

I would take another look at the 18-70. I have used both the 18-70 and the 18-135, the difference in price is small,

but the difference in image quality and build quality are big (longer zoom ranges make compromises). I haven't used

the 18-105, but the reviews look good, and VR is amazing under some conditions.<div></div>

I would play with the different blending modes for different effects. A good way to make overlays is with a flatbed scanner (If you don't have any).

I second the need for 'more light'. A sensor that size will get good DOF and less diffraction at f8. I don't have the A250, but I just checked the manuals for both my Canon P&S cameras, and they both recommend the telephoto vs wideangle setting for macro. Good luck, try lip gloss and post some results.