brians.

 

<p>I shoot egrets a lot (with D90) and understand your frustration. I think part of the trouble is that egrets are so white that the subtlety of dark to light in their feathers is much less than most things in the background. So exposure that is right for the bird leaves a dark background and visa versa. I also understand your adversity to matrix metering. I like to control as much of the shot as possible too. However, I've had my best luck with <strong>matrix metering</strong>. Sometimes the camera is simply smarter than I am.</p>

<p>As far as going out at the right time of day to get perfect light, I like to go out when I want to go out. For me part of the challenge of photography is to find a way to make less than perfect situations work. Art Wolfe wrote that he preferred the misty diffused light after a rain to direct sunlight, some of the time. Egrets are a challenge, but then isn't everything?</p>

<p>Another thing, I wouldn't blame the D90 for anything. It has all (but a few) of the capabilities of fancier models. All bodies require some degree of compensation for a given scene, and every different lens requires compensation too. The D90 has plenty of dynamic range to adjust for wildlife situations and all lenses. The problems you're looking at are the same problems all photographers have: how do I get something out of nothing? If you're not getting that shot with the D90 you probably won't get it with a D3.</p>

 

 

<p>This is great! I've been playing with something like that in my head a long time. I hate tripods -- they take all the fun out of photography. However, this little thing folds small enough and sets up easily enough to be usable. Still, it only handles 3 lbs! So it's a step in the right direction but not sturdy enough for my needs -- must handle at least 5lbs.</p>

<p>Did the same thing last year. I'm glad I kept my D50 thought. There are some shooting situations, and some lenses, that just work better with the D50. Still, once you've got the D90 there's no going back for most situations. Have fun!</p>

<p>This is a non-threatening environment and I really appreciate that. Other forums are extremely critical -- a bunch of know-it-alls that live by a "correct" kind of photography. While I may not always "get" what a photographer is after here, I appreciate the wide variety of perspectives. I never hesitate to post my latest experiment or stolen moment in photo.net.</p>

<p>Keep both the D50 and get the D90 too... I did and I'm very happy. The D90 is not just a fancy D50, it produces a different kind of image (I'm not going to get into the particulars). Each camera has it's strength and both are great cameras. </p>

<p>Walter, I am attracted by the "sparkle" of new equipment all the time. However, I doubt any of it would improve my photos that much, at this point. However, should I reach a point where I was sure a larger aperture, a longer or wider focal length, a body with faster frame rate or better sensor would improve my work I'd move up. I can understand professionals acquiring the tools they need for the job and sticking with that for many years. Certainly wedding and studio photographers are able to work with the same equipment for long periods of time. They usually try to buy the best equipment possible right off, their job depends on it. But amateurs are limited by their budget and their skill level. Of course plenty of amateurs waste a lot of money on equipment they really don't need. Harry seems to be the kind of person who recognizes this and isn't going waste his money. I'm firmly in the camp that better equipment makes you a better photographer, but if you don't have the skills better equipment won't help a whit. Thanks for commenting on my post Walter.</p>

<p>I've reached a similar plateau. However, when I have mastered my current equipment I will probably look for new horizons. I have yet to work in full frame or extreme low ISO. I doubt I will ever go pro so the very high end stuff is not a real consideration. And of course there's always the allure of new technolog. I suppose if I won lotto I would buy one of everything, but till then I'm happy with my current outfit.</p>

<p>Sigma 150-500mm</p><div></div>

<p>I have owned the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 OS for about a year. I bought it new for about $1000. Not much can touch it for the price. I recommend the lens, however it only works well in bright light because of the small aperture and some copies are a little soft. The OS is as good or better than VRII but can be noisy and power hungry. This is one of the best price/feature values around.</p>

<p>Your point is well taken Kyle. I spent a year and thousands of shots with my P&S before graduating to DSLR. Adversity can force you to get the most of what you have. However, poor equipment eventually stifles creativity. A young violinist may not have use for a Stradivarius but eventually the beginner instrument must give way to something better. I think you have the right perspective on this Kyle, I just take issue with those who say equipment doesn't matter. </p>

<p>For me Kyle, it was the ability to get long range nature shots. No P&S ever came close to my 70-300 VR. Now I own a Sigma 150-500mm and it's even better. I wish I could afford a D700 for it's great high ISO ability in low light. No P&S gets close.</p>

<p>I get tired of hearing that equipment doesn't count, that it's all about the photographer. If that was so we'd all be happy with P&S toys. Your desire, Roman, for better and more varied equipment is what drives this industry, and your voice should be heard. You may not be Nikon's primary audience but you are making your presence known. </p>

<p>Jim, thanks for sharing that article. It confirmed a lot of stuff I had suspected for a long time. It should be mandatory reading for anyone making a post about their equipment. That made my day, thanks again Jim.</p>

<p>Second Wow! This article it great. It brings to light the things so many amateur photographers struggle with. This is what I wanted the manufacturers of my equipment to admit but never would. I now wish I had set my sights on a more expensive body that could be adjusted to match my lenses. I would consider accessing professional services but that's probably very expensive. Anyway, it's a relief to have someone confirm what I suspected but could never nail down. Thanks <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3668464">Laurentiu</a>, and thanks LensRental</p>

<p>If you can't get focus on the Tamron it's of little use, of course. You could check with Tamron about a repair. However, if autofocus isn't working because the contacts are dirty or something easy like that you can take care of it yourself. The 80-200 is a great old lens. I'm curious to how the ruler test will look. I suspect your concern that you got a poor version of the 80-200 is right. I've had good and bad luck with versions of Nikon lenses. I just read a review of the 70-200VR where the tester got very different results from 4 different versions. </p>

<p>Wow, I think you answered your own question Ray. The Nikon looks great, but something's wrong with the Tamron. There could be a lot of things happening, does it try to autofocus? You might try a manual focus and see what you get. </p>

<p>The 70-300mm VRII is a great upgrade. I've had one for two years, first on a D50 now a D90. The sharpness is excellent from 70 to 200mm and very good to 300mm. I keep it and a 16-85mm in my kit all the time. It's one of Nikon's best values. I've never read a bad review of one.</p>

<p>I'm not a pro Ray, but it looks to me like there is some camera shake with the Tamron shot. With the Nikon, since you are at f2.8 your depth of field is very shallow leaving only a small area in focus (you can clearly see the difference between the "1" and the "2" in 12. However, both shots seem very noisy. The D70 doesn't handle ISOs above 400 very well, especially in dim light. To me it looks like you need to try these lenses on a tripod in good light and more general settings.</p>

<p>I found this comment on the mtf of the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR by Klaus in Photozone.com interesting:</p>

<p>"We're a little worried about the amount of sample variation we saw during the creation of this review. A total of 4 lenses were run through the complete test cycle, two of which showed resolution values significantly below what you see in these charts. Two additional lenses were so soft wide open that we stopped to review them after just a few test shots.<br />In all cases softness wide open seemed to be a result of misalignment of one of the elements, maybe the VR unit (but this is pure speculation on our side)."</p>

<p>I shoot with a Sigma 150-500mm with OS (IS). I could not use this lens realistically without a tripod, were it not for OS. Sigma's OS is very good (a real 3-4 stop advantage). If you're shooting hand-held you'll want OS.</p>

<p>My 2 cents: I like more pixels so I can corp smaller pieces from the frame. However, if the clarity is not there what's the point? I think my D50 (6mp) delivers sharper images than my D90 but they can't be cropped very much. Before I'd go beyond 12mp I'd want better ISO (lower noise) and all the other things that increase sharpness. If I could afford a D700 I'd have one. I like to see Nikon hold it's own with Canon and know my collection of lenses will work on bodies of the future. Resolution should increase as long as there's a demand for it but beyond 12mp other things should take priority. </p>

<p>I just wanted to thank everyone for an in-depth evaluation of these lenses. Either lens is way out of my price range but high on my wish list. Should I win lotto, I can make an informed purchase. Thanks.</p>

<p>I'm sure you'll be happy with the D700. However, I'd hang on to the D70 for awhile. When I moved up to a D90 I found one lens (Sigma 150-500) worked better with my old D50. Good luck!</p>

<p>The 50 f/1.8 is an important part of my kit. If you're unsure of how it will work in your situation, just set the 18-135 around 50mm and try a few shots. If that's long enough or wide enough you're good to go. I'm too cheap to pay for most large aperture lenses so the 50 f/1.8 is my go-to lens in low light. There's no VR, but it is completely automatic on your D80. I paid $110 for mine last year and I doubt the price has gone up much since then. The pros go for the f/1.4, but at 4 times the price the f/1.8 was a no brainer for me. Here's a review (the center mtf is about as good as it gets): <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/217-nikkor-af-50mm-f18-d-review--test-report">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/217-nikkor-af-50mm-f18-d-review--test-report</a></p>

<p>I don't think most people here understand your question, Douwe. You have discovered a clear difference between cameras. This has nothing to do with how to repair the photos. I think you are asking whether 7D owners have experienced this anomaly. In my experience, some lenses work better with some cameras, so it might be helpful (or confusing) to identify which lens you are using. </p>