Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nikon D300s  
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 126 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5709 times:

Hi guys and girls,
I am lookin to upgrade my D3100. I currently have 3 lenses, the 18-55, 55-200, and 35mm f1.8. I have beeen lookin at theNikon 70-200f/4 but because I'm 13, my budget is low (around $1300). I also have been looking at a new body, and I have come down to the D7000 and the D300s. Is the D300s too old? Should I upgrade to the 70-200 and stay with my current D3100?


Canon 7D, 70-200mm f4 L, 10-18mm f3.5-4.5
74 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1388 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5683 times:

The D300s has better and faster AF system, more burst rate. Better fro action than a D7000. The sensor of D7000 is better IMO. I have D300 and D7000, I prefer D7000 more for non-av, but both of them are good for aviation.

User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5645 times:

What lenses do you use?


Canon 7D, 70-200mm f4 L, 10-18mm f3.5-4.5
User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1388 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5612 times:

Nikkor AFS 18-105mm VR

Nikkor AFS 35mm f1.8 dx
Nikkor AFS 50mmf1.8

Nikkor AFS 55-300mm VR
Nikkor AF 80-200mm f2.8D
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX

I think the tele f4 lens you mentioned would be a good choice for you.

User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5607 times:

Would you recccomend the lens iver the body?

Canon 7D, 70-200mm f4 L, 10-18mm f3.5-4.5
User currently onlineyerbol From Kazakhstan, joined Feb 2010, 286 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5595 times:

Get yourself a good lens. As per reviews Nikon 70-200mm F4 is a sharp, new gen VR system.
Nikon D3100 will serve you well with this lens. 70-200 is not so heavy so it will fit D3100 nicely.
Photos below were made with Nikon D3100[note the information about lens].
With new 70-200mm F4 VR lens you should get even better result.

With best regards from Almaty
User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9823 posts, RR: 64
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5546 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Bodies come and go, glass is forever. I think the 70-200 f/4 AF-S would be a good fit with the D3100. Find a local store that stocks it and try it out. You will pay a few dollars more buying local (usually) but supporting your local makes it easier to try new stuff...

User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5539 times:

I will look into the lens. Thanks for the help!


Canon 7D, 70-200mm f4 L, 10-18mm f3.5-4.5
User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5527 times:

Perhaps it is too late to be asking this question, but what about your D3100 and 55-200mm is not meeting your needs? Your upgrade path is largely determined by where your current setup is failing you. With the D7000 you would be upgrading your AF and fps(but do you need that?). Beyond that, paying an extra several hundred dollars for slightly better AF, slightly better fps, and significantly better build with the D300s is questionable unless you beat your gear up. And to be honest no one needs pro build except for folks earning a living with their cameras. Problem is, the D7000 sensor IQ is roughly equivalent to your D3100 so I wouldn't change the body unless you need more advanced AF and higher fps.

Lens wise, I went with the 70-300mmVR when upgrading from the 55-200 because I needed the extra 100mm WAY more than I needed f/4. It's become my most trusted aviation lens.

User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5523 times:


I will look morebinto the comparison of both the lenses. I do like the 70-200 f/4, but its is spendy. I could rent one, but I would sort have like the extra 100mm that the 70-300 has. Is the 70-300 sharp? I looked at it but then assumed that it wasn't a good lens. What do you think of it?


Canon 7D, 70-200mm f4 L, 10-18mm f3.5-4.5
User currently offlinemlevert From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5512 times:

I agree with megatop, you should assess what your current set up is unable to do that you want it to do. I have not used the 70-200 f4 but it is regarded as one of Nikon top end lenses. I consider the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 (the older model the new one is f4-f5.6) to be my primary lens and for me I have never found it not to be sharp or slow which are two of the criticisms you see online of the lens. If you are (or intend to be) a professional photographer, the 70-300 might not be enough and the 70-200 is worth the investment in the long run or if you are an enthusiast the 70-300 is still a great lens that takes great pictures that are worthy of this site. I have used the D5000 + 70-300 combo for all but two of my pictures on this site.

User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5504 times:

Thanks for the info. I am very far from a pro, because I am only 13. I will have to look into both of the lenses and look at my capabilities.

Canon 7D, 70-200mm f4 L, 10-18mm f3.5-4.5
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5497 times:

Thanks for the info. I am very far from a pro, because I am only 13. I will have to look into both of the lenses and look at my capabilities.

Canon 7D, 70-200mm f4 L, 10-18mm f3.5-4.5
User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1388 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5492 times:

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 8):
Problem is, the D7000 sensor IQ is roughly equivalent to your D3100

not really
Advantages of the Nikon D7000

More dynamic range 13.9 EV vs 11.3 EV

2.6 f-stops more dynamic range
Significantly better image quality 80.0 vs 67.0

Around 20% better image quality

Lower noise at high ISO 1,167 ISO vs 919 ISO

The D7000 has a slight edge (0.3 f-stops) in low noise, high ISO performance

If you are basing on A.net photos, i.e., aviation shots at ISO 100 shouldn't make a difference as you don't need the DR, or noise performance, you'd be right , but to say their sensors are similar would be a stretch imo.

[Edited 2013-06-12 21:00:22]

User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 12147 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5485 times:

I don't mean to be a dick, but in two threads now you haven't really provided much info as to what exactly is wrong with your current setup. People are asking so they can help you, not to give you crap about it. It may well be that you just need to practice, or adjust something about how you shoot, and then you can save yourself the hassle (and money!).

I'd suggest (again) that you post a couple shots to show what issue(s) you're trying to solve. There are plenty of free hosting sites around.

People here can be an invaluable resource if you supply them with enough details.

I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1388 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5452 times:

Since, everybody is favoring the lens upgrade, they are absolutely right on that one.

I would like to give input why a body upgrade is needed, I could never stand the one dial and two step menu process of the entry level nikons, I had a D5100 along with my D7000.
On IQ level they are similar, but the handling and ease of use of D7000 is superior not to mention the lens motor, CLS and AF fine tune. I ended up selling off the D5100, I could not go to the menu at the display and keep changing stuff, where in the D7000 I can just push a button and use two dials. The LCD info panel on top is something I need and I hate how the D5100 display stays on all the time.
So, there are definite advantages for upgrading the body, the things for D7000 also applies to D300s as it is a more advanced body. If you have the money, the body upgrade would be good or else upgrade the lens as it will serve you a longer time and will retain more value.

Now coming to Vik's point, there is some issue with your photography style, since your complaints were not directly related to your body or lens, but your choice of settings because with similar setting you should get similar photos(although not L quality) to you friend's 60D or 7D unless they were using a faster aperture than the lens you have.

User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5398 times:

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 9):
Is the 70-300 sharp?

Stepped down to f/8, it is sharp enough to be a nice compromise between cost and IQ. The 70-200mm lenses are incredible, but you have to look at whether you're willing to pay that much more for incredible performance as opposed to Very Good. Plenty of folks have gotten images accepted here with that lens. I always thought I would 'move up' to a 70-200mm, but after 5+ years, I've found the more versatile focal range is much more useful.

User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5385 times:

Quoting trvyyz (Reply 13):
to say their sensors are similar would be a stretch imo.

You are correct from a technical standpoint. From the stanpoint of a 13-year-old who is just starting out in this hobby(the perspective I think matters more in this case) those sensors are in fact close enough to be considered similar to one another. All those specs you listed, while accurate, translate into minute differences in the real world. More importantly, those differences are entirely too small to upgrade a body on and would cause him to miss the proverbial forest for the trees.

Sites like 'snapsort' and DxO obscure real world differences with their proclaimed scientific objectivity, which is why many people should take their numbers with a grain of salt instead of saying 'well the D7000 has an 80 in image quality while the D3100 has only a 67 in image quality, so it's a better camera.' What does that really mean? Who gave those grades? What qualifies them to give those grades? Are those 'qualifications' valid enough to lead people to base purchasing decisions on those assessments?

If you want to stand over his shoulder while comparing images between the two cameras on a large IPS monitor @ 100% and point out the subtle differences in shadow and highlight detail, only then will he(and many others) notice

User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1388 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5373 times:

True that the op maynot see the difference, shooting at f8 , airplanes on a bright day at iso100.
The numbers 67 and 80 are the test results of DXO.

I am not sure who is more qualified, people over here or them.

User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5257 times:

One thing that no one has mentioned yet about the D-300s..........there are literally thousands of Nikon shooters waiting for Nikon to come out with a new D-400; the prices on the 300s are already way down from what they were when it first came out, and when the D-400 does come out, prices on the 300s will go even lower. I can tell you from owning one that the 300s is a superlative camera; I bought mine new just when the 7000 had been introduced, and actually got the thing for less than a 7000 would have cost. You just can't buy more camera for what you can pick one up for.

For the most detailed information possible about the 300s, you can get a copy of David Busch's great 300s manual for only about $10 U.S.D. (That guy knows more about Nikons than anyone I've ever seen yet.)

Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9823 posts, RR: 64
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5250 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There is no such thing as a "D-400." There maybe in the future, but as of now it doesn't exist.

There will always be something new, just over the horizon. While you wait for the latest specs, true shooters are out taking pictures, with the tools they have.

D300 prices have fallen because it is a 5yo design. It is still a fabulous camera, and would be a great camera for 99% of the people reading this.

Nikon has labeled the D7100 their "flagship DX" camera, and I am enjoying the copy they have provided me, I just wish it felt as solid as my trusty D200's.

User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5215 times:

Thanks for the replies. Because the D300s is an older camera, it is a low price because of the 7100. I need a new lense, but also a body. I have $1400. What should I do?

Canon 7D, 70-200mm f4 L, 10-18mm f3.5-4.5
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5201 times:

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 21):
What should I do?

No one can answer that question but you; It "all depends".......on a BUNCH of things. Here's the very best advice I can give you; You're 13 years old; from your posts, I would guess that you are already more knowledgeable about photography in general than about 99% of young fellows your age. Photography is a very technical subject; so are are modern digital cameras and lenses. Always remember one thing before you buy ANY digital SLR body; in a short time, there will be another camera that will come out "soon" that will have features that the one you just bought lacks. It's completely impossible for anyone to make a really good buying decision about which camera to buy, unless you have a thorough knowledge of many things; exactly what kind of pictures you want to be able to take, what kind of equipment you need to do that kind of work, what you intend to do with the pictures you take, and what your overall financial condition and income is likely to be in the near future. Only by taking all of these things into consideration can you make a really good buying decision.

The whole reason you are feeling frustration right now is because you lack the knowledge you need to make a really good choice about "what to do"; obviously, there are a lot of very knowledgeable people on this forum relative to photography, but then I'm guessing most of them didn't become that knowledgeable over night; the more you learn about the technical aspects of photography in general, the less you will need to depend on someone else's advice. I think the smartest thing you could possibley do right now, would be to read a lot, take a LOT of pictures with the equipment you already have, and concentrate on vastly increasing your skills; if you do that, and if your enthusiasm for photography continues, sometime in the near future you'll KNOW what new camera you need to buy to do what YOU want to do.

Right now, you are perilously close to falling into the age old "Canon or Nikon" trap; that's one decision I wouldn't want anyone to make for me ! They both are capable of taking great pictures, obviously. But there are reasons why some people prefer one, and why other people prefer the other. One of the hardest things for any camera manufacturer to do, is to year after year, keep improving their cameras while at the same time, keeping the newer cameras compatible with all of the pricey "gadgets" that people have accumulated for the cameras from that company that they have owned. Here's the best example I can think of to illustrate what I mean; not too awfull long ago, there were NO....I. digital cameras 2. autofocusing lenses 3. automatic diaphragms 4. automatic film advance ...........and a whole bunch of other things that people take for granted now; another thing......most of the light meters in most of the 35mm cameras left "much to be desired". About this point in time, I bought my first really good 35mm camera; a Canon F-1; the battery in the F-1 was about the size and shape as an aspirin tablet; and they lasted for a year or two; (no wonder, because all it did was furnish power for the light meter)
back then, almost everyone had a big hand held light meter. Canon had previously had a line of lenses, (which I don't recall right now the letter designation), but they came out with this really GREAT new line of lenses, with, IMO, the BEST lens mount on ANY 35 mm lens line, which they called "breach lock"; a VERY secure and positive locking mechanism; absolutely NO "play" or "slop"; the new line of lenses were designated as "FD" lenses; (I think the old ones were "FL" ?)
Remember, the FD lenses were "manual everything"....manual focus, manual aperture ring, and so on; camera bodies were entirely mechanical at the time. But the F-1 was Canon's "top" (and only) "pro" camera for quite some time; if you were a sports photographer, you bought a very expensive motor drive; if you needed LOTS of shots, fast, you bought a high dollar bulk film gadget (that held about 50 feet of film, and was motorized; depending on what you were doing, there were something like 5 or 6 different penta prisms, (each one doing something different), another expensive gadget to measure extremely low light levels (which were all called ASA back then) instead of "ISO"; Oh, I almost forgot......there were like 9 different focusing screens made for the F-1; ( I only has about 3 or 4 of them) ( at $50 per screen) You could spend 15K on gadgets for the F-1 and you were just getting started !

After a few years, Canon came out with another "pro" camera, the "new F-1" ! ( never did understand why not just call it "F-2"?) Needless to say, very few (if any) of the "gadjets" for the now "old F-1" worked with the "new F-1". Hey.....no probeblemo......I loved that camera! It took GREAT slides! It was a great camera; finally, and before the new F-1 had been around all that long, you started hearing about "digital cameras" that didn't use film ! ( I strongly suspect that Canon was working on all of this new digital stuff for the last 3 or 4 years of film, ( while people were still spending tons and tons of bucks on new FD lenses )

Then it finally happened; Canon says, "we're coming out with a new line of lenses, called "EOS"; and everyone asked, "but what are we gonna do with all of our great FD lenses "? Canon's answer to that was......." they make great paperweights, door-stops, or you can sell them at auctions, ( for a penny on the $ )

Let me back up a year or so; while all of this digital revolution was getting started, Nikon came out with it's next to last killer film body, the F-5; the F-5 made everything before it look like something from the Flintstones ! Also, the F-5 uses Nikon's F-mount lenses; (which they had been making "for years"; you can't describe the F-5 without writing a book; anyway, for a few years there, every pro that shooits for Nat Geo, Outdoor Photography, etc etc etc was shooting Velvia with an F-5; and finally Nikon came out with the F-100, then the F-6; (I think the F-6 people got the shaft though, because Nikon was just starting to come out with digital bodies; and guess what ? Even though Nikon DID start designing all of their lenses to optimize with digital, you can STILL use every f-mount lens from the last "years and years" on your new D-whatever body !
To prove that point, I have two bird pictures on my Flickr page, both shot with the same 300 mm manual focus, f4 Nikkor lens, which was about 20 yrs old when I snagged it on eBay for about $125, about 10m years ago; I also used a Nikon 2X TC bringing the focal length up to 600mm, and with the 1.5X crop factor of my D 300s, bothe bird pictures were taken at an effective FL of 900mm, on my Gitzo 340 with Arca Swiss ball head. (VERY stable support)

While the Nikon F-5 was still the "go to" film body, I got a free 3 month trip to Oahu, and while I was there I had a new F-5 and six new lenses for it, (including a brand new 600 mm /f4 and a whole bunch of other "goodies" at my disposal to play with for the summer); I guarantee you, if you ever get a chance to go to a world class botanical gardens (like Foster Gardens in Honolulu), and you have a F-5 Nikon and a F-1 Canon both in your bag, you probably just oughta leave the F-1 at the Hotel Ilikai ! After returning from Hawaii, I bought my own F-5, and it's all I used for the next 3 or so years. Finally, I got kinda burnt out on photography, (mostly due to buying film) when you start shooting Fuji Velvia and you do very much 8 fps stuff, you can go seriously broke, just buying film, then you STILL have to pay to have it processed.

After a few years, I was down to only shooting a very few rolls of film every now and then; Canon and Nikon had both come out with a bunch of digital bodies before I even started thinking about getting into digital; when I finally did decide to give it a try, just like the OP, I had no idea what camera to buy; so I bought a $189 Fuji mega zoom (at WalMart), and started reading about digital photography and started using the Fuji to make up my mind if I wanted to bother buying a D SLR.

How good do pictures really need to be ? That depends entirely on a whole bunch of things; who's going to be seeing them? Are you going to print them ! Or just stick them in Flickr for "the world" to look at; in other words, pictures just need to be "good enough"; everyone has their own criteria about what THEY consider "good enough". Before I even half way got that little Fuji camera figured out, I had an opportunity to attend the open house of a brand new airport that was still being worked on, on opening day; the airport has a 10,000 ft runway, and on opening day, no airplane had ever been on it, much less make a landing or a take off; the pilot flying the B 737 that made the very first landing on that brand new runway had gone to high school in that town; so it was a "big event", the Governor was there, and a LOT of people; because of someone I know quite well, I got to take my pictures of the first plane ever to land on the new runway from a super vantage point; standing in the shade directly underneath the jetbridge; (which was great, because it was hotter than hell that day !) I managed to get some pretty decent pictures, when the 737 touched down (and went through a bunch of loose mud that construction vehicles had left on the brand new concrete). Are the pictures "good enough" ? I'll put it this way; they look pretty good for a $189 camera from WalMart; later, after I had made some 18 X 24 prints of them, and created some custom graphics of my own design and matted and framed them, there are a number of them hanging on some walls where very few people ever get their pictures displayed; so in this case, I guess they are "good enough"; (they were also good enough to get me interested enough to finally buy my D-300s, which I sure wish I'd had to take that picture of the first plane to land on a brand new 10,000 runway. ) If I ever get around to transferring all of my files from my old iMac that died, to my new iMac, I may put them on my Flickr page for everyone to look at so they can tell me if they're good enough.

I have no idea what you like to take pictures of; Myself, I do little bit of everything; here's one more example of "good enough"; my best friend decided to start a sign business; he had to buy some pretty "pricey" equipment that most people who are just "enthusiasts" never get to play with. About 2 years ago, way before I bought my D 300s, a local business had this all wooden billboard on a busy state highway near where I live in Indiana; the original billboard was a hand painted picture of a local covered bridge, and each side was painted on four sheets of 4ft X 8ft plywood; the framework of the bill board was still in good condition, but the ply wood with the picture ( each sided is 8ft high X 16ft wide ) was in bad shape; so we ripped all the old plywood off and disposed of it; I then took a picture of the real covered bridge that was painted on the bill board, with the same little $189 Fuji camera; at first, my friend had planned to print the photo on 8 sheets of 4ft X 8ft alumalite, (which is a sandwich of two .30 sheets of aluminum bonded to a 3/16" core of corregated plastic. My friends 48" commercial ink jet printer only prints on roll stock, so to do an alumalite sign, you print the picture and graphics on paper-backed vinyl film, then you apply the film to the new, bare aluminum; vinyl printed signs have an average life-span of maybe 3 or 4 years; plus, doing a 4 panel sign takes a LOT of "matching pictures up"; after thinking about it for a day or two, he decided to have a big commercial printing plant in Indianapolis do the print job; a bunch of advantages going this route; first, because they have huge flatbed printers, they print directly on the alumalite, which give a longer life span; secondly, they have a huge shop, with every thing needed, and if they make a mistake, they just do it over and it costs you nothing for the wasted material; alumalite is almost $200 a 4'x8' panel, vinyl isn't cheap, and ink tanks for my friends printer are about $125 apiece, X five. We made all the arrangements with the print shop on the phone, then sent them an email with a file attached from my little Fuji, and three days later drove up to Indianapolis and picked up all 8 printed panels, all crated up and wrapped up; It took us less than 6 hours to place all the panels on the billboard frame, shoot stainless steel screws through the
panels into the framing, did a little touch up painting on the framing and the screw heads, and ended up with a tidy $3,500 net after paying the $1800 printing bill. I you don't think you can blow a file from a dinky little $189 camera up to 8' ft X 16', I'm going to be putting a shot taken with my D SLR on my Flickr page so everyone can see it for themselves.
Is it "sharp" ? Obviously, if you view it from 3 feet away, it's not that sharp; but it's a highway billboard.......people see it from the road as they drive by; to them, it's nice and sharp; so again, that picture, for what it's used for, is "sharp enough";
(plus the customer who paid the bill is delighted with it.)

I hope all of this will give you a few ideas.

Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5181 times:

With my head now spinning I'll ignore the confusion introduced by the previous post by saying this: the OP still has not answered the question of what is it about his current gear that is failing him. And I'd be willing to bet that if it is, it is because of user error, not the body or the lens. You need to practice with what you have, a lot, just like the rest of us did. If you feel your work requires more than what you have, I invite you to post some shots that we can see. I have a feeling that, at age 13, you have not yet developed a level of competence that would make the most use out of semi-professional equipment.

Want my advice? Put the $1400 into a college fund. There's nothing wrong with the D3100 and the 55-200mm setup. If you absolutely MUST get something oe need more reach, get the 70-300mmVR and put the rest towards college. Notice my emphasis on saving for college.

User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5165 times:

Geezer, WOW!!! That's the longest post I've seen on the forums. Now on to your point Megatop. there is a blue haze on almost all of the pictures, and they are commonly out of focus. The minimum focus distance on the 55-200 and 18-55 is not at all good, and on the 35mm it is good at a f/1.8, but the focal length is too small. You are probably thinking "why is this kid talking about macro on an aviation forum"? Well I also like to shoot landscape and macro. So, on that note, here is what I am looking for. 1) A good camera that is past the consumer range. It does not need to get prints larger than 24 by 36, which is also a stretch. 2) I can't be too old. The D90 is a nice price, but it is discontinued. Yes, I know that cheap and pro rarely go together, and this is why I think the D300s would be good for me. At 12.3 megapixels, it is plenty large enough, and also is the same price as the D7100. Honestly, I have only held the D7100. I have never held the D300s, but I bet it feels more solid than the D7100. I have seen that many pros use a D300sfor a backup body, and I am worried that the fellas at Nikon are making every new DX camera "soccer mom friendly". I have only held the D7100 once at Costco, and it felt very dense with the attached 18-200mm. It is heavy, but in a good way. The D300s is larger, but I am not really that worried about it, because I usually shoot close to a car for not that long. I will also get the Lowepro 10L bag, and just use my Lowepro 20AW for hiking. Back to the camera, I really don't need it to be weather sealed, but it would be nice. I would like to keep my D3100, to use for Camping with my Boy Scout troop.

So, with all of this said, what would you say the camera for me is?


Canon 7D, 70-200mm f4 L, 10-18mm f3.5-4.5
25 FLPhoto : One more thing- This is my "fun" money, and I have college money set aside elsewhere. FLPhoto
26 vikkyvik : Unless you post examples, it's rather difficult to diagnose these issues. Blue haze could be white balance, could be weather conditions (frequently h
27 FLPhoto : Vikkyvik, I have posted pictures but they are awaiting screening. Yes, I have a lot of problems. Noise, blurry ness, overexposed, many things. I feel
28 henkita217 : I think we are all waiting for you to post some examples, so we can see and help you to advise on which areas are not working out for you, whether it
29 FLPhoto : The link did not work.... Can you resend the link or is there another way? FLPhoto
30 Geezer : FLPhoto; If you're wondering what photos taken with a D 300 look like, take a good long look at Sam Chui's pics on the forum; I think every picture Sa
31 FLPhoto : Geezer- After doing some more research, the decision was a refurbished D300s or D7100. Since I am not a pro, I can't replace my bodies every other yea
32 ckw : In the short term, maybe not. In the long term yes. "All in one" will always be a compromise, and the longer the coverage, the greater the compromise
33 FLPhoto : Ckw- I love primes. I only have one, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8. I really like it because I feel that it makes me be more creative, rather than just standin
34 vikkyvik : Go to Photos --> Photographer's Corner --> My Upload Queue Photos Then click on the large version of an image. Copy the URL, and paste it in yo
35 Post contains links FLPhoto : Ok thanks. Didn't quite understand what you meant the first time... anyway the pictures I submitted were some of my best. http://www.airliners.net/add
36 Post contains links vikkyvik : OK, now we're talking and can offer some advice. First, both photos will be rejected. Don't be disheartened by that, it happens to a lot of first-tim
37 FLPhoto : Vikkyvik- Thanks for the feedback. I assumed they would be rejected, but I just thought that they were better than some of the pictures I have seen on
38 Post contains links FLPhoto : Hey Vikkyvik- One other thing, do you think that there is a chance that these could be accepted? I posted them on MyAviation.net, but I was sure these
39 vikkyvik : As you should. A.net doesn't accept photos over 1600 pixels in the long dimension, or over 1 megabyte in size. But when you're resizing, you have to
40 FLPhoto : Vikkyvik- thanks for all of your help. Currently, I am in Portland for a basketball tournament, and visited PDX yesterday. I did get a great spot but
41 megatop412 : OK, now that we can see some photos your issues have context. I'm glad you have a screener responding to you, that will only help you. Notice how his
42 FLPhoto : Megatop- Thanks for your help. Actually, the one with the prop was the one I was sure wouldn't get accepted. Where do you post instead? FLPhoto
43 FLPhoto : Any advice for types of shots that will usually get accpted?
44 vikkyvik : Practice shooting and editing. And all the stuff I already said: I'm not sure why you're so reluctant to hear this, but as many have said, your gear
45 FLPhoto : I am at PDX right now and just wondered if there was a "money shot". I suppose Ilthe upgrade will have to wait.
46 megatop412 : I have a dropshots page that I use as a cloud archive, and I also have a flickr pro account which is for my best work. Geting shots accepted here did
47 FLPhoto : Megatop- what gear do you use? Vikkyvik- I found a great deal on a Canon EOS 50D. I could get the body, grip, and a few lenses for probably about $100
48 vikkyvik : Yes. See here:
49 ckw : Afraid I can't help with Nikon lenses - but if you do switch to Canon ... let me know your available budget for lenses. Cheers, Colin
50 trvyyz : Those pictures look just fine and if you want sharper may be stop down a bit. Also, you cannot say your gear is inadequate just because your photos do
51 FLPhoto : Ckw- I am looking at some cameras that are used, and I could get a good deal for a 50D or 60D body. If I did, I would buy a used lens from somebody lo
52 FLPhoto : Vikkyvik- If I shouldn't upgrade, how do I know when I should? Why did you upgrade from a Rebel XS to a 50D? Just wondering, FLPhoto
53 henkita217 : FLPhoto, You should give your current equipment a chance (I won't say you should not upgrade), because, and I quote what megatop412 said to you earlie
54 FLPhoto : Just got back from Portland. Viewed all of the pictures from PDX and Aurora State Airport. Very disappointed of the results. Out of about 300, probabl
55 vikkyvik : That's up to you and you alone. If you feel like you should upgrade now, then really, it's up to you. The rest of us can only comment based on the (v
56 FLPhoto : I was doing some research, and I found out that my pictures have a bad case of chromatic aberration (I think that's what it's called). I would like a
57 ckw : Not sure what current US used prices re (I'm UK based), but lenses I would look at include the 300 f4 and at the wider end, 24-105, 17-40 ... and if
58 FLPhoto : Ckw- the plan currently would be to get a 70-200 f/4, and an 18-55. Later, I would upgrade to get mabye the 200mm f/2.8. I found a 300mm f/4 on Craigs
59 southwest9 : Wouldn't getting the 70-200 f/4, then the 200 f/2.8, then the 300 f/4 all add up to be a pretty redundant set of lenses? The prices of the 70-200 f/4
60 FLPhoto : Yes, it would. But, I don't have all of the money right now. I would need a body first, and then lenses. For $1400, what lens body combo would be the
61 ckw : Unless you have a real need for a fast lens, why the 200 f2,8? I used to own a 70-200 f2.8 but realised I only used it wide open when shooting low lig
62 FLPhoto : Ckw- I also do shoot some indoor sports (volleyball, basketball), and f/2.8 would do the trick. Now at the 300mm, would the 400mm f/5.6 be good? I wou
63 FLPhoto : Also, I uploaded some pictures to the DB today, but I have no idea where they went. FLPhoto
64 ckw : The 400 f5.6 is a superb lens. The main thing against it is that it has no IS, which I think is very worthwhile. The 300 with the 1.4 is not as sharp
65 FLPhoto : For indoor sports, I would plan on using a 70-200mm f/4, and then using an 18-55 for normal length shots. I would mabye upgrade to some L glass later.
66 Post contains images derekf : I should think your photography willl be dramatically improved by switching from Nikon to Canon. I don't know why more of us don't do it.
67 vikkyvik : The 70-200 is L-glass. The 18-55 is a pretty good lens for the money, in my experience. I used it for quite awhile, and still occasionally do for ver
68 FLPhoto : Vikkyvik- When I said upgrade to L glass I was talking about upgeading the 18-55 to an L series lens. Also, I might need the 400mm length and I will m
69 vikkyvik : How many and when? And what is your photographer name? Did you check your "Photographer's Corner" to see if they are displayed?
70 FLPhoto : I posted 3 yesterday morning. I can check agian but they wetnt there. If they are I will attach them for criticism.
71 Post contains links FLPhoto : http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=02335320# http://www.myaviation.net/search/fullscreen.main?id=02335306 Found them. I only posted
72 vikkyvik : Please also note that how many photos you can upload is governed by how many you have accepted: photos in our database: queue limit 0-1: 2 2-10: 5 11
73 FLPhoto : I only selected them to be on MyAviation. What do you think of them?
74 vikkyvik : They wouldn't be accepted here for multiple reasons, if that's your question. I'd suggest you start a thread in the Feedback forum.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Nikon D7000? posted Fri May 3 2013 16:46:08 by BriceJohnson
Nikon D3200 / 55-300 Nikkor DX VR - Help. posted Sun Apr 28 2013 17:51:34 by planotxwx
Nikon 70-200 F2.8 W/ 2TC Or 80-400VRII? posted Thu Apr 25 2013 06:29:45 by yowgangsta
Canon Vs Nikon, Low-light Performance posted Wed Apr 17 2013 08:51:09 by YXD172
Nikon New 80 400 VR AF-S posted Sat Apr 13 2013 11:52:44 by antoinepsaila
Nikon L820: Thoughts Anyone? posted Mon Apr 8 2013 13:12:04 by aerovtp
Article On IQ Degredation Using TCs (Nikon) posted Sun Apr 7 2013 20:57:56 by SNATH
Any Experiences On The Nikon D7100 posted Sat Mar 30 2013 22:45:38 by egondo
Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 Vrii Worth The Purchase On Sale posted Fri Mar 1 2013 17:08:48 by chuck9941
Nikon D7100 Announced posted Thu Feb 21 2013 05:46:16 by SNATH