russ_albion

<p>Hi Marc. <br /><br />Yeah, the new price is insane, but that's how it is outside of the US. <br /><br />Anyway, I bought the kit + 50/1.4 Nikon AI-S for $450. Shot a few hundred frames over the weekend and will post my comments later on the forum. I really like this camera.</p>

<p>That's basically it, the deal is about $450 ( I am in Israel) which is about $200 less than the retail price minus the Nikon prime.</p>

<p>My main concern is that the IQ may not be on a par with the D300 + 60/2.8 (Im hoping for better)</p>

<p>I have Nikon d(SLR)s and lenses so it may be a good fit, with the aim of trading my D300 towards purchase of a good Oly or Panasonic lens.</p>

<p>Sound good to you guys?</p>

<p>Yeah, I agree. But I dont think buying her a tripod at this stage is what she wants. I do like the Powershot model range you and others have suggested; I dont know why I never bought one for myself two months ago though I should say I am happy with my SX130 as a take anywhere travel cam. Slow AF and long shutter lag, but it's images are sharp enough. </p>

<p>Thanks, guys. I think the PowerShot SX280 HS is a very good option. I recommended it to her. I also told her to consider mirrorless but she wants something more portable. Will see. A V1 with a 10mm lens sounds very appealing to me (cough).</p>

<p>Hi</p>

<p>My girlfriend is looking to replace her PowerShot 310 HS. She says she wants something with more zoom and that is sharper. <br /><br />To me, her photos look pretty detailed so I think she is looking for more accurate autofocus. Be that as it may; I am at a loss to suggest a replacement. <br>

G15 and P7700 are not long enough when it comes to zoom and I am wary when it comes to Panasonic (I owned a TZ20 - JUNK) and Sony so what else is there?<br /><br />suggestions very welcome - tnx</p>

<p>R</p>

 

<p>wait, you want to buy an old camera and some glass(es)? Buy a new camera and a fast prime or two and you will have better results.</p>

<p>My 18-105 is just not sharp. My 18-55 VR was/is sharp right out of the box. You can buy my 18-105 if you like. I replaced it with with a Tamron 55-200 Macro, super sharp, super small. No VR and it doesn't need it</p>

<p>I'm pretty much in the same boat as you, Lynn: "I've now owned many digital slr's and my problem is I am just not in a position to afford the lenses I want"</p>

<p>I shoot a D300 plus a couple of entry level zooms. I can trade 'em all in for either a lesser dSLR and a 3rd party 2.8 zoom OR a used m4/3 body and a decent prime or two. One thing's for sure, the latter would be a LOT more portable than my current setup; which means I'm more likely to have it with me than not, and that's the problem I have with my D300 setup.</p>

<p>Good luck with your choice and let us know what you end up getting. </p>

<p>Jon, thanks for your comments. I agree that the traditional wire service has reached a low point. What's in demand here in Israel are good video camera operators. <br /><br />And thanks to your post I just picked up an F100!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's unlikely anyone is going to be able to make a wide range zoom for a few hundred bucks that will take advantage of higher resolution sensors. There's just no real route to that type of optical quality without special glass and aspheric elements, plus tight quality control on fabrication and assembly. None of that comes cheap. It can be done with prime lenses of course since the design is much simpler and optimization is much easier, but most consumers don't buy primes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So what's the point of this MP race, Bob? Im not a pro, but if the lenses they have don't make the grade can we now at least say that the race is over and we all need to be rational about this. What's the limit then? 16MP? 12?<br>

I recently posted about the lack of sharpness of my 18-105. I reset the camera to LS and pushed the sharpening to max and the results are acceptable.<br>

I'm happy to get a sharp image on my D300. My sharpest lenses are primes. </p>

<p>Hilarious! Ren Kockwell writes: "Readers tell me that their Sigma 105 Macros don't work on the D7100." <br /><br />They must be time travelers. I bet they know if there is a D400 successor or not!</p>

<p>Lighter than my D300 (a good thing, for the most part); presumably better high ISO performance (what I really care about); can it meter AI-D lenses?<br>

ummm I'll think about it, then probably buy the D7k :-) later on this year.</p>

<p>JD, I live in Israel and have worked on a few doccis. The name I use here is not my professional name but you can contact me offline to chat if you want. <br /><br />I always hook up with a PR-group event and tag along to cover the event and write something of my own if I find an angle. <br /><br />I would be hesitant travelling to Turkey - the country has incarcerated more journalists than any other in the world on trumped up charges. As an indi looking for work in an hot spot Id be very careful going there.<br /><br /><br>

Re. the issue of film vs dig; Id go with dig cos things are VERY fluid in this part of the world and you may find yourself caught up in something that's VERY newsworthy on the day and filing images to an agency. If you shoot film that may not be possible. <br /><br />When I lived in South Africa the photographers working for the major papers all took their film to a company that specialised in producing high-quality prints in a very short time. That kind of facility doesnt exist in the Middle East anymore (or anywhere for that matter you could argue).<br>

Not that shooting dig is much easier. Years later I shot in Gaza and filed photos through the Reuters field office. Without it I would have had to travel into central Israel to file them (2hrs drive). You wont have that luxury in Turkey unless you belong to a major agency.</p>

<p>I owed and shot with two of them until 2006. Great lil cameras - e-bayed away - and I may buy another just for kicks. </p>

<p>Lol, well-spotted Lannie; too late to edit!</p>

<p>Who'd buy this without VR if it brought the price closer to Canon's 20-200/4?<br /><br />Aye!</p>

<p>Well the review isn't SO bad: <a href="http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-coolpix-l810-digital-compact-camera-review-18763">http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-coolpix-l810-digital-compact-camera-review-18763</a></p>

<p>I wouldn't touch this with a barge pole but that's just moi...<br /> <br /> What's telling is you haven't told us what she likes to shoot, nor have you provided us with a breakdown of her EXIF data - - the missus only shoots at 37mm - THAT's it! But we want a 24-5000mm bridgecam... (what Jim said, cept he was sobre...)</p>

<p>Actually if you look at the high res version of the not too shabby blonde photographed in the review you will see its mush. Really sad. But if you can live with that...</p>

<p>Lol, Peter, no that's something I'm most likely to do. <br /><br />Marcus, thanks I will ask around but it doesn't make sense at this stage for these two well established companies to pull a move like that. I'm sure the much older Tamron 28-75 would also work just fine with the 6D.</p>

<p>Hi. I'm asking on behalf of a friend who is contemplating this purchase. Is there any need to be concerned as to compatibility between the new Tamron 24-70/2.8 and the up and coming 6D?<br>

<br />Thanks</p>

<p>Mine fell while attached to a Fuji S3. The 35/1.8's aperture blades jammed. I had it repaired at minimal charge and Im still using it without problems two years later.</p>

<p>Hi Ilka<br /><br />I have reviewed exif data for two events I have shot indoors: a wedding and a barmitzvah:<br /><br /></p>

<ul>

<li>Of 680 photos; 225 were shot with an 18-55mm zoom (129 @ F/4, ISO 1600, 18mm);</li>

<li>423 were shot with my 35/1.8 G (400 between f/2 & 2.8; from ISO 800 - 1600)</li>

</ul>

<p><br />Note: while I say I dont like to shoot wide; it turns out I do it anyway!<br /><br />Chances are I could have used the 17-55/2.8 @ ISO 800 + flash to cover both events with ease. I may have had a backup camera with the 35mm just in case.<br /><br />Looking at the recent company event I attended (Im in the PR department so I got to review the hired photographer's work). <br /><br />He used a combination of the D300 (+ Sig 10-20/3.5 and 17-55 AF-S) and D700 (+70-200 VR), though I don't think he used the benefits of either 2.8 lens to the fullest, either aperture or focal length.<br /><br />Arguably one could have shot this event (mostly outdoors) with the Nikon 10-24/3.5-5.6 and 24-120/4, + 60 G for headshots indoors, based on his EXIF data.<br /><br />Budget-wise - and in practical terms, the Nikon17-55 seems to be the way to go. Add a UV filter and spare battery and Im sorted.</p>

 

<p>I spent a lot of time reading today. Ultimately I guess I will go to a store and try them out. This will happen on Sunday.<br /><br />@Kay-C thanks for you input; your English is a-OK. Question: how do you find the low; light performance of the 4/12-24? Can you provide sample shots? You can PM me if needs be.<br>

<br />I bought the 60 G for a specific reason - repro work; and it has paid for itself; a really nice lens, but seldom used for repro nowdays. It's my longest, sharpest f/l so I haul it out a lot. If I had a longer f/L Id use that instead. Like you, I am also considering the 85/1.8 G. I think I have waited a long time for this lens.<br /><br />Elliot, I will give the 24-70 a shot. I have managed to raise my budget to $2000 which would cover that lens but that's about all. <br /><br />Can you believe I used to have a D40 and traded it towards my D300. Stupid stupid. <br /><br />Jose, I like the immersion concept, thanks for that. <br /><br />Craig, while KR may love the 18-200 VR I think most of us know it's somewhat lacking. However, seeing it in use here - probably because we have so much light and because situations are so fluid requiring a lens that can go from one extreme to the other, I can see its merits. That said, it's not for me.</p>

<p>Lex, where can I find examples of your projects? Oh, just saw the link. I will check it out and get back to everyone with questions!</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Leslie, you are right, clearly I was voicing my opinion on his shots. Im not sure of the environment; I'll only know more on Sunday, though I suspect more PJ, than setup, though this may change once I have met with people. </p>

<p>I believe there may be a conflict situation soon and I would Like to be there because it will be relevant, so my guess is I need to be as versatile as possible.</p>

<p>I just took this shot with my 35/1.8. There is a festival starting tonight in the city where I live so I stepped out to get a shot of these people praying by a bonfire. Doubt I could have taken it with the 24-120</p><div></div>

<p>Craig, Jose, your posts came while I was writing my initial response. <br /><br />Craig, does my reply give you a better idea? FYI I have been on stories where the Nikon-equipped photojournalists always carried 18-200 zooms for general work + a fast prime for indoor shopoting; whereas the Canon guys always seem to have a whole rack of lenses. </p>