mark_drutz

<p>I have a D50 and a D60. I think that the D40, while a good camera, is a step down from the D50. The D40's IQ is no better than the D50's and it doesn't AF with all the lenses that the D50 does. The D60 is a different story. It needs motorized lenses, but the Active D-Lighting, auto sensor cleaning, and EXPEED processor are big advances. Most of my JPEG's come out of the camera needing little or no postprocessing. It also has better noise control and a usable ISO 3200. To me, between my D50 and my D60, the D60 wins hands down.<br>

Needing motorized lenses is not entirely a negative. Nikon's AF-S and Sigma's HSM lenses focus noticeably faster than nonmotorized lenses.</p>

<p>Brian, we're all above average to those who love us. Thanks all for the warm greetings.</p>

<p>Enjoy your F2. Maybe you'll catch the collecting bug. The price of very nice classic 35mm SLR's is so low that a couple of years ago I started collecting them. Three of my favorites are an original model Nikon F (made in 1969 from the serial number), a Canon Pellix, and the original Konica Auto-Reflex (the first high quality autoexposure SLR). These are cameras that I loved but couldn't afford at the time.<br>

Now that you have the F2, what's next?</p>

<p>Another vote for the Sigma 70-300 APO with motor. It's noticably better than the DL version or the Tamron and much less expensive than the Nikon 70-300 VR. The Nikon 55-200 VR is a good lens and a great value, but if you're shooting birds, the longer the focal length the better.</p>

<p>Sigma just came out with an 18-250 OS so the price of their 18-200 OS (OS is their version of VR) has come down a lot. You may even be able to find a good used one. I have the Nikon 18-200 VR but the Sigma 18-200 VR tested a little bit sharper in Pop Photo and dpreview. The VR is a little better than the OS, but the OS is still good. I've had and still do have several Sigma lenses and they are excellent lenses. Their 18-200 OS also has an HSM motor which focuses very fast, much faster than the 28-200.<br>

I suggest that you look into the Sigma 18-200 OS (new or used) and if you can afford one, return the 28-200. It may even pay to wait since some people will be trading their 18-200 OS for the 18-250 OS so you may get an even better deal on a used one.</p>

<p>You're going to have to give up your Kodachrome as it's been discontinued. Sensia is Fuji's amateur line and Velvia and Provia are their pro lines. The difference between pro and amateur film is not quality. Film changes as it ages. Pro film is sold at point when its color is at it best and should be refridgerated or frozen to slow or stop the aging process. That way all rolls from the same batch should have consistant color.<br>

I never shot Fuji slide film (I shot Kodachrome and some E200 and E400, now I shoot only digital). From what I remember, Sensia is Fuji's film most like Kodachrome. Provia is similar to Sensia but more expensive. Velvia is known for its highly saturated and vivid colors.<br>

If you use filters, use multicoated filters. I use Hoya Super Multicoated 1B Skylight filters. They're a little more expensive, but when you add up what photography costs, it's a drop in the bucket. My rule of thumb is don't skimp on the cheap stuff.</p>

<p>Hi. I'm new to the forum and I just want to say, Hello. I was on Pop Photo's forum for eight years and decided to try photo.net. It seems to be an intelligent and friendly forum. So, Hello.</p>

<p>I try to carry as little as possible and as light weight as possible. If I'm shooting in the park or on the street or boardwalk I might just carry a Nikon D60 with a Nikon 18-200 VR attached. If I'm shooting scenery or architechture I'll also bring my Sigma 10-20 and Nikon 10.5mm FF fisheye. For the zoo or aquarium I bring my D60 with my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX II, Nikon 70-300 VR, and Nikon SB-600 or Nissin flash (very compact and lightweight).<br>

Other than that I take a lens pen, a microfiber cloth, and maybe an extra battery. I use three bags, all Lowepro. I bring a Nova 1, 3, or 4 depending on which is the smallest that can carry what I'm bringing.<br>

I'm not a kid anymore and when I'm shooting all day, every pound makes a difference.</p>

<p>Broadway Photo has a store in Brooklyn. People should realize that any price that seems too good to be true is usually a scam. As mentioned above, check the place out with resellerratings.com and/or BBB.com. Better still, only deal with reputable dealers like B&H, Adorama, and keh.com.</p>

<p>I print mostly 4x6's which I keep in albums by subject. I print some 6 2/3 x 10 (uncropped 8x10) on 8.5 x 11 paper for framing most of which I give to friends and relatives (whether they want them or not).</p>

<p>I agree with Stephen Worth. I have the 18-200 VR and I use it more than any other lens. Like most superzooms it's very sharp until you get to the longer focal lengths. It loses some sharpness in the 135-200 range but it is still sharp enough to make a very good to excellent 8x10 and a good to very good 11x14. If you want more sharpness in the longer focal lengths then go for the 18-55 VR or 18-105 VR and 18-200 VR.<br>

Personally I feel that the versatility of the 18-200 VR is worth the small loss of sharpness in the 135-200 range. A lot depends on the kind of shooting you do. I do a lot of street shooting and being able to go quickly from wide to tele is very important to me. Someone shooting landscapes doesn't have that need.<br>

I also agree with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is a good lens, but with the crop factor it's a little too long for some uses although it makes a good inexpensive portrait lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you can afford the Nikon 70-300 VR that would be your best choice. The next best is the Sigma 70-300 APO. The APO is a much better lens than the DL and not that much more expensive. It lacks the VR of the Nikon 70-300 VR but it's much less expensive. I also have the Tamron 70-300 Di but the 70-300 VR is a much better lens. I don't see the Tamron as a big improvement over the 70-300 G.<br>

Why did you replace the 18-55 with the 28-200? I would think that you would need something wider than 28mm.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It could be that you are having flare problems with your wideangles. If you are using a filter, remove it and use a shade made for that lens. W/A's are more subject to flare and a filter can make the problem worse.</p>