sparsons

<p>"NO, you will be disappointed with the BIM. AF is slow, 2.8 is soft and you will have other issues such as back or front focusing but then again you might be lucky and get a good copy but I wouldn't take the risk."</p>

<p>I took the risk, and have been very happy with my Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 with built in motor. I'd like to think that the images it produces speak for themselves.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swpars/sets/72157617202614916/</p>

<p>The Tamron 28-300mm VC (image stabilization in Tamron speak) may be a legitimate choice to replace the 18-200mm focal length on a DX camera.<br>

Some D700 shooters seem to like this lens and have obtained good images (for an 11x superzoom).<br>

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond700/discuss/72157606885485828/</p>

<p>Awesome scans. Do you have a site where more are posted?<br>

My dad took a trip to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan in 1973 and shot the whole time with a Minolta SRT-100 and Kodachrome. He's scanned a few slides, but I need to get him to scan more.</p>

<p>My first DSLR was a D40, and now I shoot with a D80.<br>

I don't agree with Eli's characterization of D80 high ISO. Having shot with both cameras, if the D80 shot is down-rezzed to 6 megapixels, the noise level is about the same. The results for both cameras on DXOMark (which measures the amount of noise in a raw file) backs this up.<br>

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/229|0/(appareil2)/201|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon<br>

The D40 has the same amount of noise at ISO 560 that the D80 has at ISO 520. That's not even 1/4 of a stop. Totally immaterial.<br>

However, the D80 has a better sensor than the D40 in the areas of dynamic range and color depth. This matters for me. Shooting in sunlight at ISO 100 in RAW, I can pull back highlight detail from an overexposed image with the D80 that I would have absolutely no chance at recovering in the D40.<br>

The viewfinder is so much better on the D80 that it's not even a close comparision. I shot with a D40 a couple weeks ago after shooting nothing but D80 for several months, and it's amazing how tiny and dark the viewfinder on the D40 is with the same lens (Tamron 17-50mm f2.8) mounted.<br>

The D80's buffer is a lot fatter for continous shooting than the D50's - especially in JPEG. The D80 will still do 6 RAW frames, which is good for a couple seconds of sports action. The D40 would stall after 3 RAW frames. This is with Sandisk Extreme III SD cards - no offbrand stuff.<br>

Bottom line - if you can't stretch to a D90, a D80 is a great upgrade from the D50. A D200 would be slightly more expensive than a D80 and a much better sports camera, with 5 frames per second, a large buffer, and more configurable autofocus system than the D80.</p>

<p>In my last few outings, I've been seeing many more entry-level Nikons than entry-level Canons. Plenty of D40/x/60 cameras, usually with the 18-55, 55-200, or 18-200 VR mounted. In comparison, I don't see many D80 or D90 shooters out there. It seems like there are more D200/D300s in my part of the USA (Pacific Northwest).<br>

I've never seen a D700 out in public though, and have only seen D3s in the hands of wedding photogs doing outdoor shoots at locations that I happened to be at. A lot of wedding photogs around here use the D3 (although I've seen a fair amount carrying the big Canons - probably 5D/II).</p>