ariel_s1

<p>Sticky dial. Definitely send yours in to be fixed. It will likely be no more than $200, which is much less than the camera is worth. So, you can either have a perfectly functioning camera for the repair price, or fix it, turn around and sell it, and immediately come out ahead still.</p>

<p>If you're feeling adventurous, you can try spraying some electrical contact cleaner / switch cleaner into the dial and see if that frees everything up, just a quick spurt. Do it with the battery out, and then let the camera dry for at least 10 minutes or so before powering it back up.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that I do use a mirrorless system, a Panasonic G2, alongside my Nikon D200. So I get why to use a mirrorless camera in general. But, if you're shooting somewhere that you need to worry about battery life, a small DSLR like a T3i or D3200 with 18-200mm lens isn't much bigger or heavier than a NEX-7 with the Tamron lens. The main benefit is handling, as you still get the ergonomic DSLR shape, and more importantly, you retain AF tracking, especially if you're going to be somewhere that you are wanting to track wildlife. The camera is already too large to fit in a pocket, and would likely fit in the same Holster model that you already carried. </p>

<p>The real bonus to the NEX or other mirrorless camera for me is exactly lenses like the Zeiss 24mm, or if you're carrying a full kit or specifically. I was able to get a screaming deal on the micro 4/3 kit I have ($300 for the G2, $100 for the 14-42mm, $100 for the 40-150mm), but I am quite tempted by a NEX-6 and 24mm. And once Zeiss themselves release the assuredly awesome 12mm and 32mm lenses, you may just see my with the NEX-6's successor in 2 years!</p>

<p>Alex, the price is lower because they can defray the costs of the lens development across multiple mounts. They use the same basic lens design for their Sony alpha, Canon EOS, and Pentax K mount cameras. While the quality control has historically been a little lower, I would argue that much of a quality control argument is due to people misunderstanding the inherent drawbacks of a phase detect autofocus system. Also, quality control doesn't account for a 220% increase in price. Also, read that link about the repair data more carefully; I don't know how you can come away from that article with the conclusion that they hold Sony, Nikon, or Canon durability in any higher regard than Sigma. In addition, Sigma, in response to the criticisms about quality control, Sigma has instituted a new quality control system in-factory:<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/17/Sigma-launches-three-lenses-35mm-f1-4-DG-17-70mm-f2-8-4-DC-MACRO-120-300-F2-8-OS-HSM<br>

Overall, physics is physics, and a lens performs subject to its design and build, regardless of which corporation's name is stamped onto the side of it. My Nikon 18-200mm had as many issues as Thom's Sigma 17-50mm (despite being noticeably more expensive), and my old 18-135mm lens that I bought new developed issues as well and had to be sent back to Nikon repair twice, while my Sigma 50-150mm and my Tamron 17-50mm lwwere perfect right out of the box, and continue to blow me away with their performance to this day. If you compare similar build intention lenses, third party lenses can meet or exceed Nikon's performance. The Tamron 70-300mm VC vs 70-300mm VR is a prime example. The various macro lenses are another point; it'd be a hard sell to convince me that the Nikon 200mm macro is superior to the Sigma 150mm or Tamron 180mm, or that the 105mm VR is any better than the Tamron/Tokina/Sigma lenses in the same range.</p>

<p>Also, Nikon's draconian repair policies are in regards to gray market gear, not pressure from third party lenses. And as you can see from the lensrentals link that you posted, the inability to buy menial repair parts like tripod feet is definitely a mark against the new measures, although as a whole I agree with them, when discussing the repairs of ever increasingly complex lenses and camera bodies.</p>

<p>I agree with Thom about the price and the size of the Nikkor 17-55mm. Optically it's great, but you have to get past those two shortcomings if you want to use it, which is why long ago, I bought the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC and happily use it to this day. The Nikon 17-55mm really did price and size itself right out of the competition for me. About image stabilization, I don't really care. It's a midrange lens, and it's f/2.8, so relatively unnecessary for me. I'd say that most professionals would agree, as I don't see either the Canon or Nikon 24-70mm lenses having image stabilization, so the pros must not be clamoring to the respective camera companies' professional services to add it. It does seem that he's being a little unreasonably harsh on Nikon, due to his frustration with them. But overall, I'm sure that Nikon has a fire lit under their butts, with other companies closing in from all sides.</p>

<p>A better camera won't help, and your lens is fast enough focusing for your needs. The D300 is not "overwhelmed" by your lens, haha. As everyone says, the problem is the all-black dog with no contrast and no edges, and the D800's AF system is little, if any, improved on the D300's system. You just need better technique for shooting action.</p>

<p>You should get yourself the Tamron 70-300mm VC. It's at least as good as Nikon's 70-300mm VR, if not slightly better, and is much cheaper.</p>

<p>The chip allows it to work with lesser cameras like a D5100. You don't need the chip for your D700, although it's nice to have. The lens will work fine on your camera.</p>

<p>JC, that's true, I've shot landscapes at about 300mm (Tamron 180mm on a D200)! If you look at this website that describes historical lenses, for example, he shows a landscape taken with such a long focal length:<br>

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/300mm.htm</p>

<p>However, Francisco, given that he has a 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm lens on two full frame cameras, I think he understands focal length well enough to know what angle of view he wants. I am sure that he enjoys using the 20mm on his cameras, and wants to just replicate this with a smaller setup.</p>

<p>If you have to ask whether you need the D600 or D800, then you need at most the D600.</p>

<p>It's a better camera in every way, and the D200 is my main camera. The only problem is that today, you're going to get an older one. That means that it is that much closer to failing, and also, there is just so much better on the market today. Unless you need a specific feature of the D200 such as metering with old non-CPU lenses, you're better off spending that money on a current model, since DSLRs, being so tied to computers, advance just as fast. The D5100 refurbished from Adorama is currently $500 with 18-55mm lens.</p>

<p>The only disadvantage is that you have basically paid $3,000 to get sub-D7000 image quality. It's fine as a placeholder, but you're going to want to get yourself some full frame midrange lenses. There are a bunch of great lenses, but if you're doing landscapes at f/8-f/11 anyway, you might as well just grab the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. There are some slight optical differences, but if you're stopped down then there's little point to lugging around an f/2.8 lens.</p>

<p>The Olympus E-M5 with a Panasonic 7-14mm (or for the more budget-minded, the Olympus 9-18mm) is right up your alley. Sony doesn't quite have anything yet, but if you are willing to wait, their roadmap shows a wide angle zoom coming soon. Wide angle lenses for mirrorless is right up their alley, as you don't have the mirrorbox of an SLR, so I'm surprised that Sony hasn't really pounced on the opportunity. They promise a wide angle zoom:<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/09/Sony_NEX_lens_roadmap_CP%2B<br>

So you can expect something like their 11-18mm that they have for their SLR mount. Which brings up, you can always buy the LA-EA1 adapter and grab yourself something like the alpha 11-18mm, the Tokina 11-16mm, the Rokinon manual focus 14mm, etc. Also, from this discussion:<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00appI<br>

Zeiss promises a 12mm lens for NEX and Fuji cameras to be released in summer 2013, so you could always use the manual focus 14mm with an adapter until it comes out. Once it does, you have Zeiss goodness!</p>

<p>Minolta was bought by Sony, the cameras were rebranded. There is 100% compatibility, don't have any worries as to function on your camera from a Minolta-branded lens. Your alpha mount is a Minolta mount. As Joshua says, you can't compare an old used lens to a brand new one, and conclude that the new one is better. A 10 year old Porsche costs less than a new Toyota Camry, so does that mean that the Camry is a better car? There is a saying in photography that there's never been a bad macro lens. Get yourself the cheaper one to learn. On the bright side, you can sell it in the future if you want to upgrade, and lose no money on it.</p>

<p>Susan, if you don't know whether you need a D3200 or D90, then PLEASE don't waste your money on a D7000. I disagree with everyone that's asking you to step up, and it's out of line with the advice that is usually provided on this forum, of cautious upgrade only with a specific need. A higher-end camera is just going to be a waste of money, buying features that you'll likely never use, and just giving you more settings that will get in your way.</p>

<p>Sun, the only reason that this occurs is because of the difference in crop factor. Longer focal lengths, given the same distance to subject and the same aperture, inherently have smaller depths of fields than wider angle lenses. So, if you take 5 different camera systems:<br>

-Nikon 1 with 18mm lens<br>

-Olympus E-M5 with 25mm lens<br>

-Nikon D90 with 35mm lens<br>

-Nikon D800 with 50mm lens<br>

-Mamiya 645 with 80mm lens<br>

All of the above camera systems, because of their different sensor sizes, despite using different focal length lenses, have lenses that give more or less the same perspective photograph! So, it should be obvious that because of the D800's larger sensor, because it has to use a 50mm to take the same photograph that you could get with a 35mm lens on your D90, will have a smaller depth of field.</p>

<p>I've found that if someone is looking at two models of cameras, and they don't know which they need, then they need the lower-end model. Buy yourself the D3200, and be happy. The D90 has some advanced features that you won't likely need in your first 2-3 years of photography, and by the time you're ready to use them, it will be time to upgrade cameras anyway.</p>

 

<p>There is no absolute winner between your two options. The Fuji X100 has far and away better image quality, but the Sony RX100 is noticeably cheaper, faster autofocus, truly pocketable, and it's also a zoom. You really need to weigh those against each other, because as far as cameras go, they're as different as a Porsche vs. a pick-up truck.</p>

<p>One thing that's annoyed me about the Fujis that I've played with, even as far back as the Fuji S2 (based on a Nikon DSLR), is that they never really invest into the usability of the camera. Glitches, slow operation, etc. are never taken care of. It feels to me like the Rolls Royce/Jaguar mentality. When I'm using the camera, it's as if the company is saying to me, "Yes, we made a nice product, and you'll put up with the pleasure of our camera, since you are lucky enough to be allowed to use our precious device." I can forgive a lot if the image quality is worthwhile, but if another camera is almost as good, and doesn't raise my blood pressure by having to put up with its shortcomings, then I'm going to use it. For that reason alone, even though Sony doesn't have the pure lens choices that you get with Fuji, I'd consider the NEX-6. I bought my mother a NEX-3 when they just came out, and loved using it. A friend from the college days needed a new camera, so I steered him towards a NEX-5 and unloaded some of my old film glass onto him, and he's loved it. Sony has realized that a camera can't just produce great images; it also has to be a joy to use. If Fuji doesn't realize this with their X-E1, and if Sony produces some solid lenses for their system, yet another Fuji digital system could go down in flames.</p>

 

<p>I agree with Joe. Nissin, along with Metz and Sigma, make great flashes. As long as you don't mind the wireless feature and high speed sync feature missing from some of them, then they will work fine for you. I disagree with Mark: third party flashes, like third party lenses, can be just as good as OEM. Lenses today have tons of electronics in them anyway; it's not like a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS is any less sophisticated electronically than an SB900.</p>

<p>I don't agree with Harry's statement at all. As long as they're on the Nikon authorized list, that's good enough for me. Harry, you seem to be lumping reputable, smaller AUTHORIZED stores like 17th St in with the bait and switch scam stores like bestpricephoto or broadwayphoto, as if to say, if they aren't absolutely the largest volume dealer that you ever did see, then they're a scam. That's just not the case, and 17th St is as on the straight and narrow just as much as B&H or Adorama.</p>

<p>17th St is listed as a Nikon authorized vendor, so I wouldn't hesitate to buy from them. I think they get a bit of a bad rap because sellers expect a large website-centric experience, where they are more of a store that also deals online. You will find many people that are perfectly happy with their service.</p>

<p>As for Amazon, I've ordered multiple photo-related equipment from them, never an issue. Everything's always been packaged well, and unlike Shun, I've always gotten a receipt with my camera gear. Heck, I've gotten a receipt with everything. I don't know if you guys realize, but Amazon sells everything. My brother bought much of his kitchen, from appliances to cookware to even pancake mix and dog food from them. He regularly gets items like deodorant and toothpaste through them. So, they're a juggernaut online, and have just applied their huge warehouse, inventory, and shipping capabilities to cameras.</p>

<p>What is compact to you? A NEX-7 or GF1 with lenses aren't all that small, not to the extent that I'd call them compact. They're too big to fit in a pocket, for example, unlike the Canon S100 or Sony RX100. I assume you just mean "smaller than DSLR." At that point, you have tons of options:<br>

-Fuji X100<br>

-Fuji X-E1 with whatever lens you want to add to it<br>

-Any micro 4/3 camera. I'd skip the GF1, as it's old news, Olympus seems to have the edge right now (and this coming from a longtime Panasonic G2 user). So, consider the E-M5 or E-PL5, or if you must stay with Panasonic, consider the current crop: G5, GX1, GH3, again with whatever lenses you want. You give no indication as to what's important to you, so I can assume that a fixed 35 to 50mm equivalent will work fine for you? In that case, either get the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 or the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4.<br>

-Sony NEX-5R or NEX-6 (they're both newer enough that unless you need the resolution, they're better choices than the NEX-7), with whatever lens you want.<br>

And the Sony RX1 that's been mentioned is about double your budget, so ignore that recommendation.</p>

<p>No issue whatsoever. I think that the Tamron 70-300mm VC is one of the better buys in telephoto lenses right now. Buy it and enjoy!</p>

<p>My D200 uses 16GB cards without issue. There is no way that the D700 wouldn't be able to as well. By the way, if you think that 16GB is large capacity, then you haven't been in your camera department's storage media section in a while!</p>

<p>Mark, just because you're using larger cards doesn't mean that you have to fill them up. I still swap amongst multiple cards, but it is nice that if you come across something unexpected, you can shoot with impunity. The capability of DSLRs to not have your shooting media be the limiting factor is one of the great advantages over film. Especially when you consider shooting at 5 fps or more, you'd exhaust even a larger, 36-exposure roll in no time at all!</p>

<p>Steve, read Tom's post again. He exhaustively and objectively shows how diffraction CANNOT be affecting the image sharpness at the given photo sizes. It's not an opinion, it is a fact that diffraction in those photos would cause a loss of sharpness of LESS THAN ONE PIXEL. Also, diffraction is independent of the pixel density, and is only affected by the sensor size and aperture. Feel free to do any amount of google searching to your heart's content to verify his post. It is mathematically sound.</p>

<p>With regards to upgrading your camera, I agree with others about the advancements of SLRs. You have Nikon's very first consumer-level camera, and if you're willing to step up, the new-ish D5100 is worlds above yours in image quality. However, that also means that about $500 of your budget is going to a new camera, and your D50 isn't going to be worth very much on the used market. Still, I think it's worth it for you to upgrade. Adorama has the D5100 with Nikon 18-55mm for $500 right now, which is a great deal.</p>

<p>With regards to lenses, you should definitely upgrade. Those cheapo Quantaray crap lenses aren't worth using for the most part. If you even upgraded to the cheapest Nikon zoom, its own 18-55mm, you would see worlds of improvement. I don't agree that a superzoom is the answer. For the same price or cheaper than a superzoom, you can get two quality lenses that beat the image quality up and down the street, no question. For example, adding the Tamron 70-300mm VC to your kit, the 18-55mm is just as good as the 18-200mm or 18-300mm in the overlapping range, and the Tamron 70-300mm VC versus one of those superzooms is like putting Michael Phelps in the Special Olympics; it's not even a fair comparison. If you want a higher quality midrange lens, either the Nikon 16-85mm or the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS are the golden boys right now of good image quality.</p>