ohr_hirsh

<p>Yeah, the size issue has also put me off the G1x and G15 Canons</p>

<p>Ricky, I was considering the LX7 as well. <br /><br />Walt, the GoPro (had to look it up) doesn't fit my needs. Id want to use the camera elsewhere; basically carry it everywhere to work, and weekend trips to Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, etc.<br />Siegfried, agreed, they do look interesting, I'm wondering what the IQ is like.</p>

<p>More info: I use a handlebar bag as my only cmera bag is a Kata R101 backpack, not suitable for the trail</p>

<p>Hi<br /><br />Well both my Canon SX130 IS and Panasonic ZS10 have taken a beating while on the trail with me on my bike. First, the Canon lost the internal battery (+ holder) so now I cant assign dates to any of my images... then the battery compartment door (?) of the ZS10 snapped off in my bag. The battery and SD card still stay in but ... <br /><br />Anyway, all things considered my D300 isn't going to come along for a ride any time soon so I am left with no option but to replace what I have with a robust Mirrorless / Compact cam for bicycling.<br /><br />Any suggestions? Do any of you go mountain biking (not racing, recreational) with a camera and if so what do you take with?<br /><br />My most used focal lengths are 24, 50, 80, 100 and, occasionally, out to 300mm. That's about it. <br /><br />tnx</p>

<p>Orly</p>

<p>I'm interested. Even at the old price, where I live, it's still cheaper than the cheapest Rebels. AF too slow... faster than that other M- the M9 so that's not a problem... and with a 22mm lens it's always going to be in my bag unlike my D300</p>

<p>Nice pic, Eric</p>

<blockquote>

<p>interesting that you prefer sigma colors as some find them a little yellowish compared to nikkors.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Funnily enough when I first became interested in photography I used to read American photo magazine. Nikon took up the adds on the last two pages of every edition and they profiles a Nikon photojournalist - and almost every shot I saw had a'slight' yellow tint to them. OK. I liked that and it was one of the reasons I eventually chose the brand. But I have never managed to reproduce 'that' tint - except on one occasion when I used an old p-105/2.5 tele.<br /><br />Overall I find Nikon colours to be 'cool'.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>50-150 ... the compact size is a big plus, especially if you've ever carried around a 70-200 for a few hours</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a woman I'd prefer to carry less - and still get good IQ</p>

<p>I did a quick comparison between a Sigma and a Nikon lens today and while I preferred the colours of the Sigma, I wasn't impressed with the time it took to lock focus compared to the Nikon.</p>

<p>It wasn't a top of the line Sigma so I was wondering, Eric, how you would rate the AF of the 50-150?</p>

<p>Just a quick point: IF I value the 16-24 mm length and find the 1855 too short on the tele side THEN why am I even looking at an UWA lens? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But first and foremost, try to define for yourself which problem this new lens should solve. That will cut down the list considerably, and make choice a lot easier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I look at it from this point of view, Wouter, then definately it's not having the extended reach of a tele.</p>

<p>I have looked at the Sigma 50-150/2,8 which has a much, much nicer price and lots of good reviews on photo.net.</p>

<p>The 17-50 Tamron is a known quantity for me, and a good deal, so chances are good its a range I will go for.</p>

<p>Re. the UWA lenses; most of them appear to fall within a similar price bracket 3300 - 3900 so I guess it comes down to whether or not I want f/2.8 or 16-24mm the most.</p>

<p>Sorry, Eric, I should have explained that a little better. The impression I got was that it was easy to spot the photos taken using a very good lens and as Wouter suggested I consider the Nikon 80-200, I brought this up.<br>

But you are correct, it all comes down to technique.</p>

<p>Eric. A friend of mine recently shot a corporate event using a Sigma 10-20 f3/5; Nikon 17-55 and 70-200 VR.</p>

<p>He gave me samples to review, and shot for shot, the 70-200 VR was spot on. He used it for the majority of images and it was sharp every time indoors and out.</p>

<p>The Sigma was funky indoors and out but the bulk of the images were nothing to write home about (unless you are into distortion) with many of them being blurred or simply distorted. Clearly he was pushing to get the action but was let down by the lens and camera.</p>

<p>I guess on some level I have all this money coming in and want to make a serious investment in my kit. </p>

<p>I have an idea where I want to go in terms of my photography (talking to friends about setting up an agency in our area) so I don't want to come up short.</p>

<p>Wouter, it comes up short in terms of focal length on the long side. Most of my photos are either at one end of the lens or the other (mostly wide) </p>

<p>Dan, the price/performance on the 17-55 is worth it?</p>

<p>Peter, I hear you regarding study and practice. If I look at Nadal's work I think it is very tasteful.<br>

<br>

If I look at a lot of photographs taken today using ultra-wide lenses I see it as gimmicky. Long extended body parts; it's like I'm watching an aliens movie. I can't stand it.<br>

<br>

Again, referring to Nadal, I realise he has a vision in terms of the work he wants to produce. I don't have that yet, although I do have access to the subject matter. I am thinking of photographing the rabbis of the town I live in (many of whom are very prominent in Israel).</p>

 

<p>FTR, I do have a D300, 35 f1.8G and SB700 as well as the 18-55</p>

<p>Wouter, I find the 18-55 comes up a short in my day to day photography.<br /><br /><br>

Lex / Peter, yeah, agreed; he is shooting very wide. If I go with the tamron and Tokina it would cost me somewhere in the range of 5500 shekels. Leaving me with 2300 for a spare battery and maybe an 18-70 or something similar :)</p>

<p>Hi<br>

A lot of what I photograph would fall under the Travel banner; but I am hoping to concentrate on specific subjects such as the type of work done by <a href="http://yuvalnadel.com/">Yuval Nadel</a>:<br /><br /><br>

I live in Israel (light here is abundant) so $2k is equivalent to 7700 shekels. I am considering the following as upgrades to the 18-55 zoom that I shoot on my D300. If I go with pro Nikon glass I'm limited to a single lens:<br /><br /></p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor -- 6300 shekels (1400 left, maybe buy a spare battery...). <br /><br />Sharp, fast focus, heavy, expensive. I've taken a few shots on lenses belonging to other photographers. </li>

</ul>

<p><br />A little lower down:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR AF-S Nikkor -- 5500 shekels (2200 left)<br /><br />Not cheap but a good focal range, f4 and sharp according to the test shots I took in a store the other day.</li>

</ul>

<p>And lower (this is all price related, of course): </p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor -- 3900 shekels (3800 left)<br /><br />Cheaper, variable aperture, sharp. A lot wider than I have ever shot but may be useful for the work I want to do especially if I style myself along the lines of Nadel.<br /><br />Alternatives: Sigma 10-24/4-5.6 (cheaper); <br />Tokina 11-16/2.8 (sharper, faster, cheaper)<br /><br /></li>

<li>Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX AF-S Nikkor -- 2840 shekels (5000 left)<br />Sharp, good range, VR for travel, street</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 -- 2000 NIS (5800 left)<br />Sharp, cheap, very good for the occasional wedding, barmitzvah, etc. I've used a friends Tamron before and I was impressed.<br /><br /></li>

<li>Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Nikkor -- 900 shekels (7000 left)<br />A low cost, sharp option with VR for the very occasional trip to photograph birds </li>

</ul>

<p>What combo, or not, would you suggest?<br /><br />Thanks<br>

<br />Orly</p>

<p>I will take a look at the P7100 this weekend. Anything that works with Nikon Capture and D-Lighting is a bonus!</p>

<p>I currently carry a small, entry-level canon A800 in my bag for snapshots and its IQ is not good, esp. images at and over ISO 400 - a noise-fest when compared to my D300. Also, it has no manual control except for Exp. Comp.</p>

<p>Hi Todd</p>

<p>Thanks for that; I didn't know about the P7100. Similar price point to the P7000 and G12 - and all are cheaper than the P6000!</p>

<p>Hi</p>

<p>I have a D300, lenses and an SB-700. Im looking for a Nikon compact for general travel photos that can also take my SB-700.</p>

<p>Any ideas what I should go for:</p>

<ul>

<li>P6000 (I like the form factor) </li>

<li>P7000 (does it still have AF problems?) </li>

<li>a used P5100?</li>

</ul>

<p>Of course I am also concerned about:</p>

<ul>

<li>Manual controls </li>

<li>IQ </li>

<li>VR </li>

<li>ability to shoot clean images over ISO 400 </li>

<li>response time between shots </li>

<li>portability (which is why I'm not considering a bridge-cam)</li>

</ul>

<p>thanks for your help</p>

<p>O</p>

<p>OMG, how silly of me! I saw that the lens I was comparing the 17-40 with was not the 15-85 - it was the 18-55 IS II.</p>

<p>OK, now I made the right comparison and I see the 15-85 is a very nice lens indeed when compared to the 17-40 at 35/4.5. Sharper, more contrasty. Of course I will try them out after I get my camera but Im leaning towards the 15-85.</p>

<p>Mendel, that's a very useful tool. Now I know where the term pixel-peeping comes from. I see that at 35mm / f4.5 the 17-40 has the edge; with the 18-135 being softer. </p>

<p>Then looking at Andrew's suggestions the 17-40 trumps the 17-85 & the 24-85 at 35/5.6.</p>

<p>The lens that matches the 17-40 at 35/5.6. is the 15-85.</p>

<p>Andrew, I must admit I'm interested in the 17-40 because of it's L-rep for IQ and BQ, USM, as well as its physical size.</p>

<p>I hadn't considered either the 15-85 or the 17-85 at all. No particular reason they never came up on my radar - though looking at pricing, the 15-85 is more in line with 17-40.</p>

<p>Looking at reviews, both offer USM (a BIG plus for me which is something the 18-135 lacks) and the 15-85 appears to have very good IQ.</p>

<p>OK, financially the best used body I can afford (outside of the USA) is a 20D. Other models available around the same price point (+/-$300) include: 400D, 450D & 1000D. I've used a 20D before so I'm comfortable with it.</p>

<p>So I pretty much have my heart set on the following lenses:<br>

60 USM Macro &<br>

35/2.</p>

<p>To keep it small and light Im considering these:<br>

17-40 or<br>

24-85 or<br>

18-135 (not so small but light)<br>

24-105 (not so small and light)</p>

 

<p>I should add that I dont have a body yet (used 450D or new 1100D) though I am thinking of the following setup options:</p>

<p>24-85<br>

35/2<br>

60 macro </p>

<p>17-40<br>

35/2<br>

60 macro </p>

<p>24-105<br>

35/2<br>

60 macro </p>

<p>18-135<br>

35/2<br>

60 macro </p>

<p>I do enjoy macro and repro work, and some portraiture other than that I want a general use lens. Samples of my photos are in my gallery. Lenses used include: 35/1.8; 17-55 Nikkors and a 24-105 L. I think the cameras were a D40, D80 and 20D respectively</p>