[bigshot]

The complaint was that the 18-200 VR had dull colors. Now it's oversaturated. Believe it or not, colors in the middle of the Mohave desert on a clear Spring morning actually are that bright. (The third shot is a time exposure taken in the spill light of a Las Vegas neon marquee.)

In any case, the 18-200 is sharp enough to print very large at any f-stop or zoom position, and it's perfectly capable of capturing vivid colors.

By the way, the colors here are set for viewing on a Macintosh Cinema Display. If you're viewing on a PC the colors will be slightly higher contrast.

See ya
Steve

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif In any case, the 18-200 is sharp enough to print very large at any f-stop or zoom position, and it's perfectly capable of capturing vivid colors.

Well then, we agree to disagree. Either way though, you are lucky that you find the 18-200VR acceptable. I'm seriously considering selling mine while I can still get a good $ for it (especially if DX goes obsolete).

 

[bigshot]

DX won't go obsolete. I have thirty year old lenses that still work on my D200. Nikon is very good about backwards compatibility.

See ya
Steve

 

[meat01]

Quote:

(especially if DX goes obsolete).

That will be a while. Not everyone upgrades their bodies to the latest and greatest. People still actually use film cameras. Nikon has 1 full frame camera right now that is what $5000? I think it is safe to say, DX will be around for years to come.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Well I just traded my 18-200 for a super-sharp macro lens. See you on the prime side of the moon! LOL

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well I just traded my 18-200 for a super-sharp macro lens. See you on the prime side of the moon! LOL

Which is what lens?

I don't think DX will be going obsolete either. It's a matter of economics. Full frame would be too expensive and a lot companies have invested much in making DX lenses.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Which is what lens?

Tamron 90mm f/2.8, and quite a bit of cash. I wasn't completely sure if I wanted to get this or the Nikon 85 1.8, but this trade opp came up, and it was actually a lot easier and a bit more advantageous than selling it would have been anyway.

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif DX won't go obsolete. I have thirty year old lenses that still work on my D200. Nikon is very good about backwards compatibility. See ya Steve

Unless they pull a "Canon" on us

 

[agile_one]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Tamron 90mm f/2.8, and quite a bit of cash. I wasn't completely sure if I wanted to get this or the Nikon 85 1.8, but this trade opp came up, and it was actually a lot easier and a bit more advantageous than selling it would have been anyway.

A prime (pun intended) exchange, Peter.

Now you can capture dust and metal filings on all our gear.

Should do as a medium tele in addition to macro duties. Have fun with it ... I know you will.

 

[bigshot]

I recently got the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro, but I haven't had a chance to put it through its paces yet. I think it's going to prove to be pretty useful.

See ya
Steve

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif DX won't go obsolete. I have thirty year old lenses that still work on my D200. Nikon is very good about backwards compatibility. See ya Steve

I agree. I might be wrong of course but I can't see Nikon making FX their mainstream format for a while and even once they do, I would imagine they would introduce a crop format program like on the D3 for a few years after the stop of DX production.

 

[WhatMACHI]

Okay, ive got my girlfriend heading back HK again and im thinking of upgrading my 18-135.

I have a wedding coming up in August and i was thinking to just get an 18-200 as a run about lens, but using this with my SB600 to shoot some shots at the wedding. Are there any quicker lenses that wouldnt break a $700 AUD or so budget?

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhatMACHI /img/forum/go_quote.gif Okay, ive got my girlfriend heading back HK again and im thinking of upgrading my 18-135. I have a wedding coming up in August and i was thinking to just get an 18-200 as a run about lens, but using this with my SB600 to shoot some shots at the wedding. Are there any quicker lenses that wouldnt break a $700 AUD or so budget?

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It certainly lacks the zoom of the 18-200, but for most wedding shots I'd be more concerned with a faster F-Stop than a longer focal length. Just watch out for sample variations, as third party manufacturers aren't exactly known for their consistency.

 

[OverlordXenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meat01 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That will be a while. Not everyone upgrades their bodies to the latest and greatest. People still actually use film cameras. Nikon has 1 full frame camera right now that is what $5000? I think it is safe to say, DX will be around for years to come.

I wasn't aware that film isn't as great as digital. I didn't know that digital could match the contrast that I get with Rollie ATP (or the resolution for that matter, 35 theoretical megapixels).

What kind of stupid comment is that to make about film? It costs about the same as digital (more or less, depending on different factors), sure it takes longer to get processed, and you might have to get your hands dirty (god forbid, right?). Digital is fast and clean. That's pretty much its only pro over film. You can't get the kind of contrast that you can with film.

You can get a good medium-format film outfit for less than $800. Digital medium format backs go for $30,000. And that is just the back, not the body or the lens or anything. There really isn't a digital large format.

I mean, really...What an absolutely ignorant comment to make.

In the end though, it is the photographer that matters. Not the medium, equipment, or the amount of money that you spend.

 

[Edwood]

Unless you're shooting high end Medium and Large format, film is pretty much dead. And the so-called better contrast you think you're getting with film is often crushed blacks. A lot of film, depending on the ISO shot, is actually lacking in dynamic range of the best CMOS sensors out there. Now, color rendition is a whole 'nother story. I've professionally retouched many many photos in a past life, and have seen the crappiest photos shot in high end film, and absolutely phenominal pics shot with a point and shoot digicam.

One of the things people don't take into consideration with film (if you don't develop and print from your own film) is the retouching work that is done by the lab. With digital, much of that work is now in the photographer's hands. While you are saving a lot of time by not having to deal with a print lab, you are trading that in for doing the lab work up front on your computer.

But in the end, all the high end printers deal with a digital file. So even film ends up being digital. Albeit with a very expensive drum scanner in the middle.

But, yeah the person behind the camera is the most important part of photography.

-Ed