s._mangrove

<p>This past weekend I shot a 'kids go sit on Santa's lap' session with my neighbor. They recently purchased the Canon XSI (some sort of great deal from a Circuit City that is closing down). We both photographed each other's kids and compared pics on a 24in iMac afterwards.<br>

I was completely underwhelmed by the XSI. Compared to my D300, the colors were off, and the images were extremely noisy in what I consider a well-lit environment.<br>

As to how well my anecdotal evidence relates to your D300 to 40D or 50D comparison I do not know...but if those two camera's are similar in output to the 12MP XSI I would look elsewhere. To be fair, the XSI is a cheaper camera aimed a different audience.</p>

 

My personal favorite is the 70-200. The smoothness and consistency of its bokeh is very appealing.<div></div>

Nikon 18-70 to start. Great lens for the D80.

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/324190-GREY/Nikon_2149_18_70mm_f_3_5_4_5_G_AFS_ED_IF.html

What camera do you have? I have the D300 and there is no auto-mode that I know of. My options are High/Normal/Low

and Off.

 

I leave mine on normal, as I did numerous jpg tests when I got the camera using the various options. I much prefer the

results of Normal/High versus Off. The highlight control gives the images more visual appeal.

 

There is a compelling crowd that suggests using Active D lighting wrecks havoc on your files that makes it very hard to

post process. They usually also shoot NEF. I don't have the time to spend in post processing so I focus on getting the

results that I want right out of the camera.

Thanks for your responses. It looks like there are two opinions regarding the usage of the time capsule here. I would think using it (if possible) would be faster than sharing off my iMac.

 

Can you recommend snappy viewing software for this situation?

Question for you Mac experts.

 

I have a relatively large collection of photos over the years (120GB). I currently have an iMac 24in and plan on getting another (recent

convert from Vista). My photos reside on the iMac but are backed up by an Apple Time Capsule (1 terrabyte). I currently use Adobe

Bridge CS3 and Capture NX for file management. I got dismayed with iPhoto with all the bloat (duplicate files, modified files, blah blah

blah).

 

My question is: if I get another Mac, what is the best solution to enable it to view my photos? Can the Time Capsule act as a NAS in that

regard or should I just point it to my current iMac? Is there a preferred viewer I should use?

 

Thanks in advance!

If you are in Orlando, check out Colonial Photo and Hobby. I have bought from them in the past and they are great guys.

So James...what parts of that 80-200 image are superior to your 70-200? I see nothing that is 'blindingly obvious' except that the 70-200 is sharper. Maybe the 'wobble' impacted the 80-200 crop.

Sean,

I have all threee lenses you mention, and unless you are getting a non-DX body I would get the 17-55.

 

The quality, range, speed, and build are outstanding. While I really like the primes, you will not be satisfied only having the 35/2 on the wide-end with a DX body.

Ellis, I saw those juvenile whale sharks this weekend and could not believe my eyes. The nettles are exciting to photograph as well.

Shun, thanks for the correction. I should have included the "D" in my statement. Interestingly, I went out to look at what the third party vendors are currently making.

Sigma has roughly 15 lenses out of 60 that are HSM.

It's hard to tell if Tokina and Tamron actually have any current offerings in this space but their websites certainly indicate movement that way. For example, the forthcoming Tamron 70-200/f2.8 & 28-300 pages say:

"Nikon - Coming Soon - please check back (with Built-In Motor for use with all Nikon DSLR cameras)"

Here are the techical details lifted from Nikon's site. The fact remains that if you get a D60 you are going to be stuck manually focusing all Nikon primes and most 3rd party vendor lenses. No thanks.

 

D80

Nikon F mount (with AF coupling and AF contacts)

 

D60

AF-S and AF-I NIKKOR: All functions supported

Type G or D AF NIKKOR not equipped with an autofocus motor: All functions supported except autofocus.

Non-Type G or D AF NIKKOR not equipped with an autofocus motor: All functions supported except 3D color matrix metering II and autofocus.

IX-NIKKOR and AF-NIKKOR for F3AF: Not supported.

Type D PC NIKKOR: All functions supported except some shooting modes.

AI-P NIKKOR: All functions supported except 3D color matrix metering II

Non-CPU: Autofocus not supported. Can be used in exposure mode M, but exposure meter does not function.

Lens with maximum aperture of f/5.6 or faster: Electronic rangefinder can be used.

Hmmm, let's see here.

 

- The D60 does not (to my knowledge) command a wireless Nikon strobe. You would have to purchase the SU800 or SB800.

 

- The D60 does not have two command dials.

 

- The D60 does not fully support non-AFS lenses.

 

The D80 has all of these features, which in my book are significant.

 

If they are not useful to you, choose the cheaper camera. Otherwise the pictures will be largely the same.

^^^Forgot to finish my response^^^

 

If you are able to get a flash, set your camera to ISO 400, and shoot in A mode. You can choose the lowest aperture available, which will allow you to fire the flash pretty much all day without killing your batteries.

 

I've found that ISO 400 is the 'happy medium' that allows for good sensitivity and image quality. Of course ISO 100/200 is cleaner, but you really don't have that option in terms of exposure in a very dark aquarium.

 

Good luck and post your results!

I highly suggest you pick up an SB 400 and use it for bounce flash. I used this along with my D80 and 35/f2 this weekend and got outstanding results. Do not bother with a front facing camera flash, as you will get obnoxious reflections off the glass.

 

Take note, certain tanks are non-flash (some fish are highly sensitive to flashes).

 

Here is a picture I took this weekend.

"Couldn't I just cover the flash with my hand instead?"

 

Yes you can, to an extent. I routinely cover 90% of the flash surface area to further limit the flash effects on the subject...and just enough gets through to fire the wireless strobe.

Jon,

Not everything is black and white. Ease of use, convenience, simplicity, and weight/size are situational. I see absolutely nothing wrong with having an outstanding camera and the option of a small flash if the sitation calls for it. There are obviously limitations to the SB400, but why limit your options in photography? I personally like having the option of picking up the sb400 in lieu of the 600 when I anticipate and active day with the camera.

Best Regards.

^^^

It's not always about using a bomber-flash.

 

Form, fit and function...

 

As you can see from many on this thread, the 400 produces great results when used in its intended fashion. It's small, lightweight, and yields great results. I too often choose the 400 over the 600 for its ease of use and convenience.

#1 - ($105) Stay with your kit setup and purchase the SB400 - bounce the flash.

 

#2 - ($1,200) Get the Nikon 17-55, which will probably stay on your camera 95% of the time from there on out.

 

With the kit lenses you are limited both technically and artistically. For shooting children, you probably want shallow depth of field to help remove/blur the distractions (which are everywhere with children). Obviously with the variable aperture your low light shooting capability without a flash is compromised unless you want to boost your ISO up to the noisy ranges.

'Dear S.Mangrove, not that I would pay that much money but what is a fast AFS lens for those 2? As I understand the fastest is the 70-200/2.8 AFS with VR and the Nikon 12-24 AFS with a f/4 but f/4 isn't that much faster than a Sigma 10-20mm.'

 

BTW, Ralph which kit lens did you get (18-55)?

 

Of course the 70-200 VR is fast but there are reasonable alternatives like the Sigma 70-200HSM and the Nikon 80-200AFS (don't forget the used market). Commensurate bump in price to get this speed (focus and aperture). Only you can decide if its worth it.

 

The 10-20 is a fine lens, but by itself (which is what you offered -one or the other) it is very limiting.

I have the 50/1.4 and also get purple fringing at the intersection of ultra high contrast portions of the picture. Not nearly as bad as your example though...

Your requirements

- 'all around lens'

- 'shoot a variety of stuff'

- '18-200mm vr but I think its a little expensive'

- beginner lens

 

I'd say your 18-70 example is the best choice consider your scenario. Its well built, provides great range, and is affordable.

I've seen the Sigma 17-70 and 17-35, but not the 17-50. Don't you mean the Sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM? If yes, this would be my choice over the slow wide angle - hands down.

Neither of them are optimal by themselves, but I would personally opt for the 10-20. With the wide field of view you'll have more flexibiliy shooting landscapes and places of interest than you will with the 55-200. However if you prefer the 'zoomed in' look for your vacation pics the choice is obvious.

 

You will be limited... but for the price you paid, you can't complain too much. The vignetting and slow AFS would drive me nuts, but if you have a tripod and shoot around f8 your results will be quite good.