craig_supplee

<p>I have never owned a Mamiya 7II but did have an RB 67 for awhile. The optics are superb. Mine had the auxilary grip which made it a lot more user friendly for hand held shots and just carrying it around. A few other benefits are the fact that it is an SLR, and you simply rotate the back for portrait or landscape shots. The camera always stays in a comfortable shooting position.</p>

<p>Absolutely beautiful! Now you have to go back and try your hand around Sedona and the Superstition Mountains area. Who knows, maybe you will be the lucky one to stumble across the Lost Dutchman's Gold Mine! You could buy a whole slew of Medalist II's.</p>

<p>Michael, this is very interesting, as I have a D7000 with a Tamron SP 70-300, Sigma 10-20, Nikkor 35 1.8, and a Nikkor 16-85. The Nikkor 16-85 needed focus adjustment, and I had to average the setting just as you have described. The other 3 lenses are perfect. The Tamron and Sigma are actually exceptional. Please let me know what your results are when you get your D7000 body back. Should be interesting to hear what you find out.</p>

<p>The Kalloflex K2 is a very uncommon camera anywhere. Period. I had one for awhile. They take excellent pictures. There is a lens cap set on ebay right now if you are interested. They are neat, as the are hinged together. You lift the bottom cap up and pivot the top out of the bayonet. Enjoy your camera.</p>

<p>Excellent speciman you have there Gene. They are truly beautiful brutish cameras. The lenses in both the I and II are supurb. I will say that they are not the most ergonomic to hand hold. Work a lot better on a tripod. I had both I and II for awhile until I lost my mind and sold them. Too expensive now for me to replace. Here are my memories.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I recently upgraded from the D40 with a 18-200 and went to the D7000. The 18-200 IQ was noticeably worse on the D7000 than the D40. I was going on a trip to Mexico, so I opted for the 16-85, a Sigma 10-20, and a Tamron SP 70-300. I used the 16-85 for the majority of pictures. It is definitely sharper than the 18-200. The other 2 lenses are also very sharp on the D7K. I did have to adjust the focus on the 16-85, but this is a simple thing to do on the D7K. You will not be sorry if you go for the 16-85. It's a great vacation walk around lens.</p>

<p>I don't know anything about the 300/4, but if you're not stuck on Nikon brand, you could look at the new Tamron SP 70-300/4-5.6 Di OS HSM. I have this lens, and on my D7000 it is still very sharp at 300. Actually it's a very sharp lens from one end to the other. The OS (VR) is super fast and holds the picture like it's in an iron grip.</p>

<p>Actually the D7000 has a magnesium skeleton. Parts of it come apart though such as the top housing which is buried under all the electronics in that video. The back skeleton is also buried behind all the electronics. It doesn't have as solid a frame as the D300, but is still not made from all plastic. See the pic below.</p><div></div>

<p>I have never owned A Nikon FE, but have played around with a lot of old manual cameras. I wonder if the winding lever is not advancing far enough to set the shutter and button for the next release. It's odd that it would happen every other picture, but it could be some sort of a mechanical synchronizing fault. Are you using quality film that has accurate hole spacing? Just thoughts going through my head.</p>

<p>Well I don't know if anyone will see this as it's been over a week since the last post, but I just wanted to update this thread. I left for Mexico on the 19th, so I couldn't respond to any of the posts. It wasn't operator error in the first pics. I had a chance tonight to really take some sample pics with the 16-85 to play with the focus settings. I ended up having to use a -6 for focus tuning as an all around best setting for that lens on my D7000. It now is very close to the Tamron 70-300. It is also better than what it was against itself at various other settings. I think I probably got a less than excellent specimen.</p>

<p>I used it a lot in Mexico, so I will keep it as an all around lens. My Sigma 10-20 also got a lot of use, and the pics are grand.</p>

<p>As someone else had stated, I don't use a tripod for general shooting, (it would have been a nightmare in Mexico) so my testing was valid as I saw it. I am very happy with the D7000, and all my lenses.</p>

<p>Brian, I am about 2 weeks ahead of you. I just recently sold my D40 and moved up to the D7000. LOTS of camera here. I am only a weekend warrior for photography, so this camera might last me a long time.<br>

Glass is very important for the D7000 as I am finding out due to the very dense 16MP sensor. I had the Nikkor 18-200 3.5/5.6 VR on the D40 and that gave very nice shots. It didn't work well at all on the D7000. I just bought a Nikkor 35 1.8, a Tamron SP 70-300 Di VC, Nikkor 16-85 VR, and just getting the Sigma 10-20 4/5.6 today. The 35mm and the Tamron are awesome on the D7000. Jury is out on the Nikkor 16-85, although I am still tweaking the settings in the Picture controls. I hear good things about the Sigma 10-20. I have my fingers crossed.<br>

So to answer your question, I would definitely go with the D7000 and try all your existing glass. You might be very pleasantly surprised.</p>

<p>Tamron at 200 and 300</p><div></div>

<p>I recently bought the Nikkor 16-85 3.5/5.6 VR and the Tamron SP 70-300 4/5.6 Di VC for my new D7000. Today I was finally able to get a few test shots in. The Tamrom had shown excellent sharpness in the monitor, but I hadn't had a chance to check them out together at 100% resolution. The following JPG 100% crop test was done at 70mm, f8, ISO 100, hand held with VR and VC on. I used F8 as this is supposed to be the sweet spot on both lenese according to Photozone.de test results. The Nikkor is on the left, Tamron on the right. The Tamron is amazing.</p>

<p>The next test is the Tamron at 200mm on left and 300mm on right at 100% crop. Adding sharpening will bring the 300mm rope in fairly well.</p>

<p>Having seen these results, and the fact that I also have a Sigma 10-20 4/5.6 coming today, and I already have the Nikkor 35mm 1.8, I wonder if I even need the Nikkor 16-85. Will I miss the spread between the 35 and 70-300? Your thoughts are welcome.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Assuming that Nikon will continue to add high-pixel DSLRs this year, lens selection will become a lot more challenging for most people.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, this is exactly what I was referring to in one of my earlier posts on this thread. I think that possibly most people that look at this camera or others that will have a high MP sensor at a "reasonable" price may not realize the need and necessity for ever increasing quality optics and become disenchanted with the outcome. I am still not sure the Nikkor 16-85 I am supposed to get tomorrow will do what I anticipate or expect. It is scary. I bought the D7000 because I believed that the higher MP would get me closer to the medium format film that I am used to. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. The D7000 I feel has a lot to offer for the price point, but the lens manufacturing is still too costly to mate the needed optics to the "prosumer" price point. It would be great if there was a way to bring that technology down to an acceptable average consumer level. I think that is a long way off unless a miracle glass formulation is discovered, or we all go back to carring around a bunch of prime Tessar style lenses.</p>

<p>Shun, clearly I have not been following this forum or reading Thom Hogan's review. I have been a member of the Photo.net community for several years, just not on this particular forum. I just started looking in here after I decided to get the D7000. Didn't see anything in recent posts jump out at me about choice of glass for that camera.<br>

As to my test procedure, almost all your questions were answered in my last post. I didn't record shutter speed although I seem to recall it was in the neighborhood of 1/500 or slightly above. I focused using the center dot in AF-S mode. ISO was 100. The Tamron is an older model from around 2001. AF 70-300 4/5.6 LD. No VR.</p>

<p>This whole situation came about because I wanted to upgrade from my D40. I bought the D3100 but didn't like it at all, so after reviewing what was new and at a price point I could handle was the D7000. None of the reviews or tests I read before getting this camera mentioned anything about the need for high quality glass. Apparently I read the wrong reports. I probably still would have bought this camera, but would have done so knowing I might be looking at new lenses.<br />For Elliot's benefit I am posting a test pic. It is a 100% crop of a shot taken at 200mm f5.6 on a tripod with VR off and using the self timer. Sharpening was set to auto in SD picture control mode. The lens was focused on the center of the ivy on the tree for these test shots. The pic on the left is the Nikkor 18-200 and the one on the right is the Tamron 70-300 set to 200mm.</p><div></div>

<p>Elliot, I only said that the Tamron was giving me sharper images than the Nikkor 18-200, not that I felt this was a lens that could offer blow up quality marketable prints. The Nikkor has much better color saturation than the Tamron.<br>

I stand corrected in the fact that I do believe the $200.00 Nikkor 35mm 1.8 does give great results, so maybe the D7000 can use less expensive glass.</p>

<p>Ok, I did another non scientific test today. To take me out of the equation I used a tripod (Marfrotto 3221, pretty sturdy) and remote control. I didn't use Mup as I probably wouldn't use that if I was walking around with the camera. I took pictures at 200mm f5.6 and 70mm f5.6 with the Tamron 70-300 and Nikkor 18-200. Pics were of tree trunks,ivy, and my shed with barbed wire designs on it. The Tamron still showed sharper images, although the color was not as good as the Nikkor. I also tried my new Nikkor 35mm 1.8 against the 18-200 at the same setting of f5.6 and focal length. The prime lens was quite noticeably better which I would think should be expected. It was sharp with great color and contrast.<br>

My feelings are that while the 18-200 lens seemed fine on my D40, it just is not cutting it on the D7000. Is it just my lens, my eyes, the camera? Perhaps I got a less than perfect 18-200 from the beginning and just never noticed it on the D40. Who knows.<br>

This thread has waivered somewhat, but I would now ask this: did Nikon bring out the D7000 "prosumer" camera knowing that to get good results ( subjective I know) that the enthusiast or even pro would have to buy (or have) new optimum glass to achieve the benefits the 16 MP sensor can offer. A lot of people get caught up in the mega pixel race and while new cameras are fairly cheap, great glass is not. So is the D7000 a camera that can deliver great results but only through the use of 2K-3K cost of glass? If that is the case, a lot of people are going to be dissapointed.<br>

Maybe it's time to re-think using my Kodak Monitor Six-20 that can deliver 100+ MP pictures for those once in a lifetime shots.</p>

<p>So... I'm taking it that you gave up putting steaks on the barbie for awhile!<br>

That is one darn good little shooter. Very surprising results.</p>

 

<p>Before I wrote last night, I had tried some tripod tests, Mup, VR off, with charts and steel lined rules on my 18-200 just to rule out a need to adjust the AF f/t. These seemed to come out sharp at the time. My new testing last night between the Nikkor 18-200 and Tamron 70-300 wasn't exactly scientific. I tried some shots hand held using flash at various matching focal lengths and apertures. In every instance the Tamron lens gave much sharper results in the monitor under full mag. Today at lunch I did the same thing only with faster shutter speeds shooting outdoors in the sunlight. Again you could definitely see the detail difference. The Tamron gives a sharper image. After reading several reviews on both the Nikkor 16-85 3.5/5.6 VR and the new Tamron SP 70-300 4.5/5.6, I took the plunge and ordered these. I just hope they will show a decent improvement on the D7000 over the Nikkor 18-200. I think my biggest problem is the fact that I have been shooting with various older medium format film cameras that give me 30 x 40 blowups without complaint. Even with the new D7000 I guess I will have to re-evaluate my expectations somewhat. Thanks to everyone for all your input.</p>

<p>I recently bought the D7000 and have noticed that the pictures from my Nikkor 18-200 VR have worse IQ than when I used this lens on my old D40. For kicks tonight I tried a Tamron 70-300 4/5.6 that I bought several years ago for use on my N80. I always thought the IQ of this lens was a little lacking on that camera compared to the 28-105 I also had. Well the test pics I took tonight on the D7000 showed that the Tamron is killing the Nikkor 18-200 in sharpness. I had read that due to the 16MP sensor on the D7000, you need great glass to keep IQ high. I just don't understand why the Tamron lens that cost about one third of the Nikkor 18-200 is showing such better results. It focuses slow, but I don't shoot sports, so that is not an issue. What I would like to know is what would make a good wide angle zoom companion to the Tamron if I decide to use it over the Nikkor "superzoom". My budget if I decide to do this would be ~$600.00. Thanks.</p>

<p>I just got my D7000 and was snapping some test shots in the house with the 35mm 1.8 lens. I had the settings on AF-A and 39 point area. When looking at the way the various points light up, some on the subject and some closer and or farther away, I wonder if it isn't using a hyperfocal focus based on an averaging of these points. The pics looked that way as it was hard to find a critically sharp part of my pic. When I tried the single point AF in either AF-A or AF-S mode I get sharp focus. Has anyone noticed this? If this is indeed the way it is programed, then I guess I am back to shooting with one point (at least for still shots) just as I did on my D40.</p>

<p>Looks like a neat little camera to drop into the pocket when going out. I really like the village train station shot. It's amazing, but there is the exact (from memory) same clock in the middle of main street in a small town by me in Michigan. Love the instruction manual.</p>

<p>Excellent stuff, all of it. This woman is very lucky to have found out about your "found film" expertise. I'm sure her family is getting a kick out of these photos. I know I enjoy looking at my parents old photos. B&W lasts forever.</p>

<p>Should have been 14MP not 14MB. Too early I guess.</p>