kohanmike

<p>When I decided to replace my two D70s bodies just after the earthquake/tsunami, I handled the D7000 and the D300s, it was not even a question that I would choose the D300s. At the time I got two refurb bodies for $1250 US. Even now, I would choose the D300s over the D7100 for how I shoot.</p>

<p>I shoot concerts with D300s often (have one today) and I shoot the sound check to get most of the closer shots, even right in with the orchestra. During the performance I find a couple of strategic locations and get the longer shots during the louder portions. I have to say, some of the suggestions for DIY blimps are very interesting. I was a propman on movie sets for 25 years and always envied the still photographers with their Jacobson blimps.</p>

<p>Pamela must be out shooting somewhere deep on the woods of Costa Rica. Just as a comparison, the recently discontinued but still available Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS HSM with a 1.4 teleconverter is about $2850. Between the two, that's an equivalent range of 180-450mm f2.8 and 252-630mm f/4. The Nikon AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR for $2700 would be 120mm f4.5 to 600mm f5.6. I opted for the Sigma with my D300s.</p>

<p>H.P. - I'm going to agree with Clive, you didn't need to put it that way at all. You say your comments are a simplification of what Kent, Rick and Thomas said, no way. If you meant to say what they did say, than do so, don't denigrate the OP then try and side-step it when you're called out on on your poor choice of words.</p>

<p>Daniel - There are a lot of very good suggestions from members of this forum, obviously the posters do have experience and valid information to pass on. You're actually coming off as elitist.</p>

<p>I shoot events and concerts professionally with two D300s bodies, a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC, and what I consider one of the best lenses ever made, a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS, along with three Nikon SB600s. I constantly get comments on how "professional" my equipment looks, but what I think is far more important, my clients are extremely happy with the results. I think most people are not aware of the level of equipment, what I find really impresses them is the way the photographer handles him/her self and does the job, and of course, how good the results are.</p>

<p>Don't neglect the third party flash units that are just as powerful and less expensive than Nikon.</p>

<p>Yes Rich, I just realized that the Tamron events are a traveling tent show they do on their own, but in Los Angeles they're part of the The Big Photo Show, a much bigger event.</p>

<p>I just visited The Big Photo Show web site and as best as I can tell, the event is $25US for everyone, not free, at least for the Convention Center in Los Angeles. I went to it last year and I'm pretty sure I paid general admission.</p>

<p>Here are the screen shots. I don't know any other way to explain it. Be absolutely sure your photo is resized to 100k or less and 700 pixels on the long side.</p><div></div>

<p>These images should make it more clear.</p>

<p>I find the instructions to be confusing, here's how to do it: After you write your reply and click the Submit button, on the next window click the Confirm button, which will take you to the window where you click the Choose File button and find the picture on your drive. You must also give the photo a caption before you click the Upload button. Be sure your photo is resized to 100k or less. I make mine 700 pixels on the long end. Like this:</p><div></div>

<p>zdfsdf</p>

<p>dfsdfsdf</p>

<p>Looks like a Mike fest.</p>

<p>Halliwell - The 120-300 was as you said, no motor on AF. I sent it to Sigma.</p>

<p>Bradtke - I tested the camera with three other lenses and the tightened 50-150 and there are no discernible problems.</p>

<p>I use the 50-150 with a D300s and I think the lens is the best I've ever touched. I shoot events and concerts with two bodies, a Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 50-150 and get more keepers than I ever have before. I also use the 50-150 for portraits, usually set to 70mm.</p>

<p>I've had very good experiences with the Los Angeles:Woodland Hills/Torrence/Wilshire Nikon service center (it keeps moving).</p>

<p>A few weeks ago I shot a concert using my two D300s bodies, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC and Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS (the best lens I've ever used). With the cramped space in the wings, I dropped the camera with the 50-150 on the floor. "Oh CRAP!!!, did I damage it?" I did a few quick tests and all seemed to fine. I use the 50-150 mainly to get tight shots of the conductor from the wings or behind the orchestra.</p>

<p>Sunday night I shot another of their concerts and the conductor asked me to get some shots from the balcony. To get the best framing, I needed to use 50mm on the 50-150, but I discovered it would not focus, neither auto nor manual. I zoomed in a little and found that it would focus from about 100mm to 150mm. I was able to get most the shots I needed, but I was bummed to realize that I really had damaged something.</p>

<p>Monday morning I looked over the lens as best as I could, checked all the AF/manual settings, and found that the lens had real difficulty mounting and unmounting. I figured I must have bent the flanges on the lens and maybe the camera too. But when I put the Tamron on that camera, it worked fine. In trying to put the 50-150 in my other D300s body, it would not mount at all. So I got out my fairly new Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 to verify that the mount on the camera was OK, but discovered that 120-300 would not focus at all. Now I have two messed up lenses.</p>

<p>I took them over to Samys Camera near me since they're a Sigma dealer. They were about to send them both to Sigma in New York when I asked to mount the 50-150 one more time on another camera, but it would not mount on the D7000 he brought out. He inspected the lens carefully and discovered that the screws on the mount were loose. When he tightened them, the lens worked perfectly. The 120-300 though, would not focus at all, but at least it's still under warranty.</p>

<p>I was so relieved that the 50-150 was a simple fix, and I have to say, if not for that problem, I would never have tried the 120-300 and might have discovered it didn't work only when I used it for a job. So it's on it's way to Sigma.</p>

<p>I had a Nikon 70-300 AF-S VR and found it to be an excellent lens, I highly recommend it. Just for the sake of clarity, AF-S means it has a built in auto-focus motor which makes focussing faster than an AF-D lens that could only be auto-focussed with the motor built into the camera. VR stands for vibration reduction and helps prevent blurry photos caused by the photographer shaking the camera while shooting, but it does not freeze the action of the subject.</p>

<p>A D7100 is a good idea, so I will suggest if you want a better long lens, go with the Sigma 50-150mm F/2.8 OS (75-225 on Dx), It's one of the best lenses I've ever handled, every bit as good as a Nikon 70-200, and in your price range.</p>

<p>Thanks Tammy. I use a flash all the time.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure back focus is a problem with a lens, not a camera. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.</p>

<p>Tammy, in your response to using a flash indoors when needed, I have three SB600 units and use them with my D300s all the time when I encounter limited lighting. Even though the menu system is a little awkward, I find them to be very good for what I need, including all three at once with command mode. Here's a shot with one SB600 in the hot shoe of the D300s, bounced off the ceiling, with a LumiQuest diffuser, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC.</p><div></div>

<p>So far my aspirations over the last few years has been within the parameters of the D300s.</p>

<p>I just subscribed to the Nikon YouTube channel, which emails me when a new video is available. Great stuff to watch on my plasma via Apple TV when there's nothing to watch on TV/cable (all too often).</p>

<p>Michael Darnton - I agree 100%. While still using my D70s, a magazine published one of my shots, when I sent it in and they saw it came from a D70s, they immediately asked for higher res. I told them that's all I had, so they used it. When I received copies of the magazine, the printed photo looked great. There is this pre-determined notion that photos can only look good if they are 300 dpi at the exact size of the print, WRONG, most times I use 180 dpi.</p>

<p>I even tested it out one day; I printed an image at 300 dpi, then 180 dpi and gave them both to an editor I was working with who was adamant that an image for print always has to be 300 dpi. I didn't tell her they were different. She had no idea.</p>

<p>According to some comments, I guess I have to consider myself lucky that the concerts and events I shoot are lit well enough most times not to use a flash, but in really low light situations I was allowed a flash. I haven't encountered an indoor sport where the light was so low I couldn't use 1600 ISO; volleyball, basketball, etc. I'm not even sure I've ever seen a really low light indoor sport.</p>