[ozz]

just got a d-80 and it came with an 18-135 i was thinking of
a 70-300vr has anyone tried one.

 

[dj_mocok]

Never tried 70-300VR, but I personally don't really like zooms that cover too much and slow.

If I were to get a long zoom (and of course I can't afford 70-200 from Nikon), I probably would rather consider something like Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 or I might even just get a used AIS tele prime. But I'm not really into telephoto lenses since my shooting style and subjects don't really include wildlife or sports.

 

[Edwood]

Head's up.

Nikon 18-200mm VR lens in stock at B&H.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...&O=&sku=408518

If you want one better hurry, they go out of stock fast.

-Ed

 

[asebastian0]

Nikon Persons:

Got a D40x (Yeah, I know the extra MP's aren't of any use to me

) the other day and I have a major issue with this camera. Namely, in order to look into the viewfinder I have to smash my nose almost to the point of breaking it, or the camera. So I have begun to look into the various viewfinder apparatuses which will extend the distance between my face and the camera.

The DK-21M does not look like it will give enough clearance and overall reception seems lukewarm. Someone on dpreview said they are using the "DK-17m with 2370 adapter and the orion [telescope eyecup]"

This leads me to a few questions..

1) Will the DK-22 fit the D40?

2) Which orion telescope eyecup/magnifier will fit in between this and the final eyepiece, the DK-17M?

Also other suggestions from you guys are welcome... Need about 3/4"-1.5" and don't want to use the right angle viewfinder all the time.

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozz /img/forum/go_quote.gif just got a d-80 and it came with an 18-135 i was thinking of a 70-300vr has anyone tried one.

I have the 70-300mm VR and it's a great lens. It's tack sharp up until about 200 or so mm and the VR works wonders. I can shoot way out at 300mm at very low shutter speeds without worrying about my shots coming out blurry. Sure it's not as sharp at 300m as it is at throughout the rest of the range but honestly it's more than sharp enough. As long as you can get it to focus on the right subject at 300mm, your pictures will be very sharp.

Some other pluses include next to zero distortion throughout nearly the entire range, and very little chromatic abberation (Shows up a little at 300mm, but overall very little). If you're shooting indoor sports or the like than yes f/5.6 at the long end might be too slow too freeze your subject but if your outdoors than it shouldn't be a problem. Though I should add that I shot my girlfriend's commencement, which had very little light, and was able to shoot at 300mm f/5.6 at ISO1600 and the pics were still very usable (Her dad, who shoots with a 5D and a 30D was surprised by the results!) so it can do low light in emergency situations.

 

[ozz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have the 70-300mm VR and it's a great lens. It's tack sharp up until about 200 or so mm and the VR works wonders. I can shoot way out at 300mm at very low shutter speeds without worrying about my shots coming out blurry. Sure it's not as sharp at 300m as it is at throughout the rest of the range but honestly it's more than sharp enough. As long as you can get it to focus on the right subject at 300mm, your pictures will be very sharp. Some other pluses include next to zero distortion throughout nearly the entire range, and very little chromatic abberation (Shows up a little at 300mm, but overall very little). If you're shooting indoor sports or the like than yes f/5.6 at the long end might be too slow too freeze your subject but if your outdoors than it shouldn't be a problem. Though I should add that I shot my girlfriend's commencement, which had very little light, and was able to shoot at 300mm f/5.6 at ISO1600 and the pics were still very usable (Her dad, who shoots with a 5D and a 30D was surprised by the results!) so it can do low light in emergency situations.

thanks you answered my question the price is right so i think i will get it
all the pictures will be outdoor and later i will get primes.

 

[ozz]

i can see this hobby getting like my hi-fi expensive fun and addictive.

 

[bloodydoorknob]

"Namely, in order to look into the viewfinder I have to smash my nose almost to the point of breaking it, or the camera. So I have begun to look into the various viewfinder apparatuses which will extend the distance between my face and the camera."

I've had the same problem using the d40 at the studio I work at and I have a small pudgy nose, yet it always gets jammed up against the LCD, making it greasy as hell.

 

[ozz]

could not resist got both the wired and wireless shutter control.

 

[dj_mocok]

Nikon D3 sample images. The high ISO performance is scary. That picture taken at 6400 looks like my picture taken at ISO 1000 using D80.

 

[fabool]

Those look fantastic! Sure, there's noise, however the quality of it is great - it's more like grain than digital noise in my opinion. Almost makes me want to sell my D200, which I got only two days ago

I think there may be a few Canon people changing to Nikon this winter

 

[jjcha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nikon D3 sample images. The high ISO performance is scary. That picture taken at 6400 looks like my picture taken at ISO 1000 using D80.

Given it's a "Standard" JPEG, I imagine there is standard noise reduction and sharpening applied. It explains the lack of chroma noise, with a fairly gentle luminance noise. But having said that, that's pretty insane performance. f5.6 and 1/160th of a second in a dark club? We're only seeing the beginning of what digital sensors can do, I think.

Best,

-Jason

 

[Edwood]

Wow.

Can't wait until that sensor trickles down to lower end models. Like a D400 or somthing in the future.

-Ed

 

[dj_mocok]

The high ISO performance is indeed crazy huh?
You know I've always been one of those that are not extremely tempted to get newer and most current camera body, but seeing what it can do here, I was thinking, once it trickles down to lower end camera in the future (eg. D90), that will be awesome.

In a way, I can even consider it as ALL my lenses got an extra stop down performance, so if you have f/4 lenses, they can now perform like f/2.8, etc...
For example, the only thing that stands between me and an ultra wide lens now is the f/4 aperture, if I use f/4 indoor, it will be difficult for me to do so, but if I could have ISO performance like that, I wouldn't hesitate a bit to crank the ISO up to get more shutter speed.

PS: This is the most recent thread from photo.net about a guy who was lucky enough to try the D3 hands on. If D300 is similar in ISO performance, I can see lots of D200 for sale very soon (considering how "bad" the ISO performance of D200 is)

 

[fureshi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjcha /img/forum/go_quote.gif Given it's a "Standard" JPEG, I imagine there is standard noise reduction and sharpening applied. It explains the lack of chroma noise, with a fairly gentle luminance noise. But having said that, that's pretty insane performance. f5.6 and 1/160th of a second in a dark club? We're only seeing the beginning of what digital sensors can do, I think.

i agree and really happy that nikon/sony is more focused on improved sensor performance instead of playing the megapixel game. when i had talked with the sony sensor guys a year ago for camera phone sensors, they wanted to focus on a lower pixel count since they knew they could make them better but because of customer requirements, they were forced to work on higher pixel count sensors. in their minds, a higher pixel count didn't equate to better image quality and i'd have to agree with them.