chip_chipowski

<p>Kim - your sample shot is fantastic. I don't know what Kent meant by "not THAT bad." Maybe he is joking.</p> <p>For your intended purpose (portraits and wedding) I think it makes sense to try FX if you have the budget. It won't necessarily be a huge difference in a lot of situations (FX versus DX) but I think FX will tend to help you in (a) low light situations with high ISO, and (b) controlling DOF when you want shallow focus and nice background blur. If your sample shot is a good indication of your style, I think FX is a reasonable upgrade. </p>

<p>With a fisheye at f/2.8, I think DOF is an issue. Something in the center of a fisheye shot is probably not in the same plane of focus as the corners. Just my guess.</p>

<p>Is the old 70-300VR going to continue? These new versions look down market, in terms of build and f/6.3 at the long end.</p> <p>EDIT: Oops - just realized these 70-300 lenses are DX. That explains it!</p>

<p>Yeah, kind of funny mock up with all four lenses having the same specs.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Lens is over the top. A lens for the filthy rich or an untreated Nikon gear acquisition addiction. <br />I'm fine with my Nikon 85 1.8 G at 1/5 the cost.</p> </blockquote> <p>I am reminded of a quote from a user on a different forum: "And when you cannot reach for the fruit at the top of the tree, you can always claim it is bitter."</p>

<p>Mt. Adams, seen from I-82 (north of Yakima, WA).</p><div></div>

D300 is an easy choice, should be somewhat familiar going from your D100. It is tough and good. Should also be available around that price point on used market.

<p>I think using M-Up on the drive mode is probably ideal if you are looking for the most stable tripod shooting. I have used this on D200 and D300, and basically the first shutter trip raises the mirror, and the second shutter trip opens the shutter. If you just press the shutter once, the mirror raises and I think the shutter automatically opens after 30 seconds. A kind of de factor 30 second timer. Or you can get a remote to release the shutter, once mirror is raised.</p>

<p>I really like the 28mm f/3.5. I have a Type-K version, which has been Ai'd. It is plenty sharp, but I really like the character of this lens. Nice transition from focal plane. Pretty subjective I guess. The lens has some vignetting, which I tend to like. Construction is rock solid and operation is a joy. You can find the f/3.5 version at very low cost on the used market.</p>

<p>The D90 does not support metering with the old MF Nikkors, which you may know already. If that is no problem, you could try the Nikkor 75-150 f/3.5. It might be a little long on DX, but it is very cheap (should be able to get a nice copy for $100-$150) and creates nice separation. The 85mm 1.8G is quite a bit pricier but works well on DX. There is also the 105mm f/2.5, but I think the 75-150 will give you more flexibility.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Wait until about $2,300 worth of stuff gets ripped out of your hands, and you get shoved down along a subway train. Those people are out there.</p> </blockquote> Kent, I always thought the SD stood for South Dakota but it sounds like you do your street shooting in South Damascus.

<p>Andrew, careful not to assume heavier = more quality. I recall Shun's anecdote about the use of lead weights in phone handsets to imply high quality. I do agree the Sigma lens diagram shows more glass compared with the Nikkor though. I don't care so much about weight with my lenses (my reptile brain likes the feeling of a heavy lens) but I do care about bulk. The Nikkor 50mm 1.4G is nice and compact (the D version is even smaller) and I often use it without the hood when I am trying to keep my kit as small as possible. The lens barrel provides a decent amount of front element protection sans hood.</p>

<p>I have been happy with the 1.4G. I cannot compare it to the 1.8G but I have no problem with sharpenss at wide apertures. These two lenses have been compared extensively. I think the big question is whether you want f/1.4 or happy enough with f/1.8. I mainly use the 50mm f/1.4G for people photos and like to use it wide open. Focus speed is not especially fast but accuracy is good.</p>

<p>Tim - great tones in your canoe shot</p>

<p>Justin, I recommend finding some photos to illustrate your dissatisfaction. Don't get me wrong, this forum loves to speculate. But you will probably get better advice if we can see examples you like from your old cameras and ones you don't like from the D810. </p>

<blockquote> <p>With fairly continuous improvement in lenses we don't hang on to them nearly as long as we use to so they are not the investment that they once were.</p> </blockquote> <p>Some of us do. Old lenses are great and new lenses are great, it just depends on what you like and what you need and how much you have to spend. I enjoy using a mix of MF Nikkors, AF Nikkors, and AF-S Nikkors. This is one of my favorite aspects to the Nikon system. They have done a great job in maintaining compatibility. Only you can decide if switching is right, and I appreciate those who switch and put their old Nikon gear for sale on the used market :)</p>

<p>Alma - the example you provided is from your Samsung point and shoot, right? Have you tried any of your current DSLR/lens combos? I think everyone means well, but you don't necessarily need a f/2.8 telephoto to get some nice photos. Maybe you will want to go to that price/quality/size level, but I recommend trying your current gear and see how you like the results. The 55-300 is not optimal for low light, but your D3200 may be able to compensate with high ISO settings. It may be a little noisy, but could be good enough? Your 55-300 has VR which helps using slower shutter speeds. You will potentially get more motion blur with slow shutter speeds, but take a bunch of shots and work on timing your shots when your child is still. Also, the 35mm f/1.8 will work well if you can get in close enough. It would be great if you could take some time to read about basic exposure settings like shutter speed and aperture and do some practice in similar dark conditions. Good luck! </p> <p>[soapbox comment: It is amazing how quickly a beginner's question can turn in to a pi**ing match about who's advice is best. Gotta be confusing for a beginner OP to make sense of the gearhead arguments.]</p>

<p>Falls Creek Falls, Lower</p><div></div>

<p>On the top shot, the camera may have struggled to find the correct focus point - that is a tough scene. It looks like focus is in the mid-background, so the Metro sign appears out of focus. The second shot is just a tough one, with that direct sun. Hard to tell at this size, but the focus appears to be on the hills and power lines in the distance.</p> <p>How well do you understand the auto-focus system? If the photos don't seem crisp to you, I would make an effort to take care in achieving focus on your subject. Maybe even slow down and use manual focus in live view, just to see if sharpness improves. A fast shutter speed might also help, but I think the camera should work fine in auto-mode for the time being. There is lots to learn and experience will help.</p>

<p>Hey Malli, I took some quick and dirty sample shots last night with the 85mm 1.8G on my D300. Hopefully these can at least give you a sense of the OOF rendering at some of the larger apertures. It is a nice, tight field of view on DX but you do need some working room with your subject. <a href="https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E1DAB4830840E416!6424&authkey=!AFJ1mK9-ad_CD6c&ithint=folder%2cjpg">LINK</a></p>

<p>Kent, I know you mean well but you really need to read the OPs carefully. Not that I have a contribution, but OP has a 200-400 and is asking about using his 70-200 as a backup.</p>

<p>Lew, Pelican just announced a new line of lighter cases. They say just as tough (hmm). I haven't seen prices, but I am guessing they will charge a premium for the new Air line. <a href="http://www.pelican.com/air/">LINK</a></p>

<p>Clive - this photo certainly has the "it factor" in good measure. I don't even want to know the background story, I love the mystery!</p>

<p>Wouter - you understood my term perfectly ;) When talking about "bokeh," it is usually a pretty loosey-goosey discussion. </p>

<p>#4</p><div></div>