Well, the contrast looks great because I cranked it up in Photoshop. Plus, yes, you are correct, the DX line is for the average user, a good lens for all around uses. But I think you are of a more advanced user. Plus Spankie is right about the sensor size. It will look cool if you like Top Gear-type vignetting, but it may get wearisome after a while.
My thoughts? Think about the type of photos you like to take. I myself like to take photos of nature, which can be either close up or a broad panorama; hence the reason I got the 17-50mm. When I take photos of motorsports events, I use my 55-200mm lens and keep it in it's "sweet spot", 135mm. In the future, I am getting a 90mm Tamron like STROBE has, for macro flower shots. It took me 2 months of eating crappy ramen noodles, spending 85 cents a day, every day, on lunch to afford this lens. But to me it is worth it.
Thanks - the noise on the A700 is pretty good. Those Thames shots were taken at a mixture of ISO 800 and 1600. Obviously a lot of the noise is lost when downsized for the web, but they're not too bad at 100%. The main problem is that the A700 performs on-chip noise reduction at ISO1600 and above, which Lightroom can't handle and starts to make a mess of the images. It's an Adobe issue in that LR/ACR doesn't perform the correct procedures on A700 high iso files, but not one they acknowledge or are willing to fix. Fortunately I rarely shoot at 1600 or above, and on the occasions when I do need maximum quality, I can always use the Sony RAW converter which does a pretty damn good job in terms of image quality (but has a terrible interface).
Those bird shots are impressive, a million times more so when I remembered that they were MF! I can only do MF with macro, I'm useless at it on more distant subjects.
DX lenses are just those that are designed for an APS-C sensor - nowt to do with "consumer", "pro" labelling, etc. One of the appealling features of the Nikkor lens range, imho, is that they don't need to differentiate between different "grades" of lens (Canon L, Sony G or CZ, etc), they just let the glass do the talking. There are more advantages to APS-C lenses than disadvantages, if you're using a camera with an APS-C sensor. The downside is that if the lens is quite an investment, it may become useless in future when full frame becomes the standard.
As I explained above, it has bugger all to do with lens grade, it's simply that the image circle is designed for an APS-C sensor. It wouldn't be at all surprised if there are some DX lenses which outperform their Nikkor full-frame alternatives.
My range of lenses is now complete! I have the canon 18-55mm kit lens, my canon 70-300mm IS telephoto lens, and now I just received my sigma 10-20mm wide angle. This lens is probably the best built of all of my lenses, and it was not the most expensive.
I also have the canon 50mm f1.8, and canon 100mm f2.8 macro.
Cool! Thanks for the info, guys! I'm very much playing catch-up here! It's taken me a long time to go digital.. I still feel like I haven't properly arrived yet
My camera sensor is ~66% 35mm frame (lens mm*1.5) so it sounds like the 18-55mm would be good for me, at least for now. They're going pretty cheap on Ebay. I'm very much hooked on OEM glass these days. Some of the early Nikkor lenses are really beautiful things, and I long ago fell in love with the bokeh turned out by some of the Nikkors of yesteryear.
There aren't many full-frame digitals out there.. certainly none within reach of an amateur like me. Medium format digital backs are £25K or more, but they do exist. Nikon and Canon (who I'd consider to be the market leaders, in the sense that where they go the market follows) have invested a lot more effort into the smaller-frame CCD, with whole lens ranges. I'm hesitant to assume that they're doing that with the intention of moving full-frame later. Okay, I take some of that back.. Canon have been known to force new lens ranges in the past, more than once IIRC. Nikon, though, have made great efforts to provide continuity through their pro line-up. All new pro Nikon digitals are still F-mount compatible, and I know for a fact that it hasn't been easy for them to do that. They're investing a lot of money developing wide angle lenses to suit the smaller CCD, rather than producing the full-frame CCD. Going full-frame will break the continuity.. DX lenses would, as you guys point out, introduce incompatibilities that haven't existed in the Nikkor range since the non-AI days.
I think Nikon, at least, are going to stick with the smaller CCD. I don't necessarily think it's the best choice, because of lens resolution (despite an evident move towards some very clever aspherical extra-low dispersion glass) but I think they've made a decision that they'll stick with. Of course, I could be wrong.. it's never happened before, but heck.. first time for everything
[edit] Bugger, I was wrong. The D3 is full-frame. I wonder if I'll bounce from 3 storeys...
[edit:2] Lens compatibility with DX lenses.. shoot at 5MP, the camera automagically masks the viewfinder as well. Lens compatibility retained after all.. clever buggers.
In the states you can get a Canon 5D for about $1800. Thats the cheapest full frame around now. My friend has it and it is an amazing camera.
Personaly I'm waiting for the 5D mk2 thats going to be out by the end of the year. Supposedly Canon is going to be really kicking things into gear to combat Nikon's recent very feature-filled cameras.
True, there are few full frame digitals, but it's where the market is headed. At the moment it's the preserve of camera bodies aimed squarely at working pros, although soon Sony will be adding to the line-up with their own full frame camera (which they're refusing to call a "pro" camera, hinting that they're leaving space for an even higher end camera body in the future), and it's often suspected that the next generation 40D/A700 will be full-frame.
I expect the APS-C sensor to be the preserve of low-end camera bodies for a while yet, where the number one issue is cost. The advantage of APS-C is the lenses require less glass making them smaller, lighter, and cheaper. Lens resolution isn't really an issue - I think the Carl Zeiss 16-80 outresolves even the 12MP of the A700. Changing to full frame only makes even more demands of the lens, especially when the pixel density barely changes from APS-C sensors (as is the case with Sony's forthcoming 25MP full-frame flagship camera).
I have a few more photos. Some was from a while ago when the apple trees were blooming. Some were walking around the yard while my daughters planted their flowers the other day.
First up, my little buddy again. This time gathering up some bedding....
1.
2.
I stood under the apple trees with the camera for about an hour with bees swarming everywhere....
3.
4.
Some flowers from around the yard....
5.
6.
7. This guy was extremely hard to focus on because I couldn't see from how sunny it was, and the fact that the flower is about half the size of your fingernail on your pinky finger....
8. And isn't this just about the fluffiest looking flower you've ever seen? Makes you think that if you stuffed a pillow with them you'd sleep like a baby....
And finally, a picture of my babies. Don't blame me for the crooked rows, the "farmer" who planted the seeds is only 4 years old. Can't wait for these little guys to produce. Nothing like it in the world of going out, yanking it right off the stalk and immediately cooking and eating. Even "fresh picked" from the farmer selling along the road can't compare....
9.
And yes, these are all from a cheap P&S camera.....
Thank you. I only wish I had $500 or so burning a hole in my pocket.
I just got the camera for Christmas and had no idea anything about photography or what the settings of a camera was. I was in the market for a compact point and shoot to keep in my pocket for "family photos" when I picked up the larger bodied Fuji in my hand. I just felt I could do more with it than one of the little compact P&S. I was right as I have full manual control over everything with my Fuji. It's just that I don't have the quality in the sensor or glass that I would get with a dSLR.
All I want now is a D40 and I'd be perfectly happy with it. I've seen the sharpest and best shots come from the D40 with either kit lenses or the manual focus only (with the D40/x) 50 mm primes.
I agree with Jay, you've definitely got "the eye". What's holding you back is the lack of DSLR, for sure.
With film cameras, the sharpness and contrast of a photo had almost nothing to do with the camera itself. It was down to the glass and the film. With digital photography, the "film" (i.e. the sensor) is absolutely no less important. In fact, it's MUCH more important. In extreme conditions, my Nikon very definitely takes a film-like photo. My Fuji takes a digital-like image. It's not about the number of megapixels in the sensor at all, I'm learning, but about how the camera handles the data that hits it.
My Fuji S5600 is definitely a really good camera. I cannot complain about its performance, and I definitely wouldn't want to be without it when I'm out with family and friends - it's much more unobtrusive. I went out for our traditional "UKCT Curry Night" a couple of weeks ago, and took my Nikon (I'd just got it, wanted to show it off) and the photos I came home with were awful. Whenever I got my camera out, everyone knew, and instinctively presented their "best cheek". Though the image quality was there, the "moment" wasn't. In fact the photos I got were completely devoid of "moment". It was a shocker for me, actually. A point-and-shoot with a decent optical zoom, IMO, is a must-have, if you have kids or go on picnics with friends, etc.
You're clearly interested in the other side of photography as well though, Mike.. the one we're splashing about in, here.. and for that, you're going to need that D40 at least.
Beware of the lack of internal lens focus drive in the D40 though.. most of the really good Nikkor lenses (eg. the D-type) would finish up manual focus. You'll need AF-S or AF-I lenses (more expensive, with their own internal AF motors) to get auto focus. If you only ever bought one lens, it might be worth it, but if you want multiple AF lenses at your disposal (and which DSLR user doesn't?), the D40 may be false economy.
Yes, I know about the D40's lack of in-body focusing motor. Hence the reason I stated "with either kit lenses or the manual focus only (with the D40/x) 50 mm primes.
In due time, in due time. It costs too much to heat the house in the winter to waste it on a camera at the moment....
Went on a trip to Shenandoah National Park this weekend. Got some cool shots. Got alot to go through, but here's a big highlight. I caught a real wild snake, hehe. Only the 2nd snake I've ever seen in the wild.
Anyone who knows anything about snakes (I have one as a pet) can tell that it is a harmless garter snake. Luckily here in the states all of our venomous snakes look like venomous snakes, except the coral snake which is very brightly colored and is nowhere near here
When I was a child my mother sent me on missions to grab garter snakes to put in the garden; I use to freak the other kids out by playing with them or sticking the head in my mouth.
Yes, I was that kid who played with snakes, bugs and spiders.
Indeed...Unbelievable pics! How on earth do you keep the subject so clear on motion when the background is a blur? Is there a trick, or pure talent? Could you share your settings for one of those so that I get an idea?
There is no trick to it; it is called panning. Probably had the shutter speed at 1/80 (or less?) a second, and used a strobe to freeze them in place.
I can tell you first hand though, that panning is very difficult to learn, and the only way to master it is to do it over and over and over again. If I scaled Don's photography at 100%, I would say 30% of that is from practice, 70% talent. And boy DoN, you are talented!
For example, this is one picture from about 100 that I liked; the rest I deleted. Actually, from the 500 I took, I only saved 23.
Indeed. Every time I seem to have something new to post, Don shows up with a link and I have to wait a week to let his photos die down a bit before showing my sorry excuse for images......
Actually, we were getting about 45 free movie channels over the weekend on the satellite, thus I have quite a few movies recorded on the DVR to watch. So, I haven't had much time to look at my most recent photos. Also, have some family photos to go through and distribute in email to the various family members that's taking my time away from my personal "for fun" photos.
Edit: And a little photography funny that I just read elsewhere.....
The Smiths were unable to conceive children and decided to use a surrogate father to start their family. On the day the proxy father was to arrive, Mr. Smith kissed his wife goodbye and said, "Well, I'm off now. The man should be here soon."
Half an hour later, just by chance, a door-to-door baby photographer happened to ring the doorbell, hoping to make a sale. "Good morning, Ma'am", he said, "I've come to..."
"Oh, no need to explain," Mrs. Smith cut in, embarrassed, "I've been expecting you."
"Have you really?" said the photographer. "Well, that's good. Did you know babies are my specialty?"
"Well that's what my husband and I had hoped. Please come in and have a seat".
After a moment she asked, blushing, "Well, where do we start?"
"Leave everything to me. I usually try two in the bathtub, one on the couch, and perhaps a couple on the bed. And sometimes the living room floor is fun. You can really spread out there."
"Bathtub, living room floor? No wonder it didn't work out for Harry and me!"
"Well, Ma'am, none of us can guarantee a good one every time. But if we try several different positions and I shoot from six or seven angles, I'm sure you'll be pleased with the results."
"My, that's a lot!", gasped Mrs. Smith.
"Ma'am, in my line of work a man has to take his time. I'd love to be In and out in five minutes, but I'm sure you'd be disappointed with that."
"Don't I know it," said Mrs. Smith quietly.
The photographer opened his briefcase and pulled out a portfolio of his baby pictures. "This was done on the top of a bus," he said.
"Oh, my God!" Mrs. Smith exclaimed, grasping at her throat.
"And these twins turned out exceptionally well - when you consider their mother was so difficult to work with."
"She was difficult?" asked Mrs. Smith.
"Yes, I'm afraid so. I finally had to take her to the park to get the job done right. People were crowding around four and five deep to get a good look"
"Four and five deep?" said Mrs. Smith, her eyes wide with amazement.
"Yes", the photographer replied. "And for more than three hours, too. The mother was constantly squealing and yelling - I could hardly concentrate, and when darkness approached I had to rush my shots. Finally, when the squirrels began nibbling on my equipment, I just had to pack it all in."
Mrs. Smith leaned forward. "Do you mean they actually chewed on your, uh...equipment?"
"It's true, Ma'am, yes.. Well, if you're ready, I'll set-up my tripod and we can get to work right away."
"Tripod?"
"Oh yes, Ma'am. I need to use a tripod to rest my Canon on. It's much too big to be held in the hand very long."
It has been a long time since i've taken any photos that I felt are worth to be shared. I didn't have the time anmore to seriously "go outside and take pictures"... or didn't have the camera with me in the "wrong" moments. I think it's been almost a year since i've taken any decent photograph.
Now i finally got the chance to take a few shots again, on a two day business trip to morocco.
Plus, yes, you are correct, the DX line is for the average user, a good lens for all around uses. But I think you are of a more advanced user. Plus Spankie is right about the sensor size. It will look cool if you like Top Gear-type vignetting, but it may get wearisome after a while.
