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, 115 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4570 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?

Thanks,
FLPhoto

74 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1369 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4544 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, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4506 times:

What lenses do you use?

FLPhoto


User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1369 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4473 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, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4468 times:

Would you recccomend the lens iver the body?

User currently offlineyerbol From Kazakhstan, joined Feb 2010, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4456 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgi...d=a8d3b14c1872f03e3a3d85c8ec0ee555
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Indon...d=a8d3b14c1872f03e3a3d85c8ec0ee555



With best regards from Almaty
User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4407 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

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, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4400 times:

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

FLPhoto


User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4388 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, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4384 times:

Megatop,

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?

FLPhoto


User currently offlinemlevert From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 29 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4373 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, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4365 times:

Hey,
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.


User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4358 times:

Hey,
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.


User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1369 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4353 times:

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

not really
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D3100-vs-Nikon_D7000
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, 9910 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4346 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1369 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4313 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, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4259 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, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4246 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, 1369 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4234 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.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cam...Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/D7000

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 (1 year 2 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4118 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 and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4111 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

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, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4076 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?

User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4062 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 and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4042 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, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4026 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?

Thanks,
FLPhoto


User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4030 times:

One more thing- This is my "fun" money, and I have college money set aside elsewhere.

FLPhoto


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9910 posts, RR: 26
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4023 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 24):
Now on to your point Megatop. there is a blue haze on almost all of the pictures, and they are commonly out of focus.

Unless you post examples, it's rather difficult to diagnose these issues. Blue haze could be white balance, could be weather conditions (frequently happens in landscape shots over a significant distance), could be lighting, etc. Out of focus could be lens softness, could be calibration between lens and body, could be the wrong focus points are locking on, could be slight blur, etc.

I finally got around to looking at what I assume are some of your photos on Facebook, and I'm honestly not seeing the issue. Shots through glass and/or heat haze are going to look soft, and possibly be washed out or have color casts (for glass). Shots of backlit airplanes are going to look.....backlit, often with overexposed parts for the bits that are in sunlight. Upgrading equipment isn't going to change that.

Originally (in your first thread), you said your shots were overexposed and noisy at high ISO. Now it's out-of-focus and blue cast.

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 24):
I am worried that the fellas at Nikon are making every new DX camera "soccer mom friendly".

Not sure what the problem there is. My previous camera (Canon Rebel XS) is about as "soccer-mom-friendly" as they get, and I got shots out of it that I doubt 95% of soccer moms were getting (and in the hands of a better photographer, it could have produced shots well beyond my skills as well). You might be surprised by what a "soccer-mom-friendly" camera can do in the right hands. My camera body upgrade was drive more by features than image quality.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4023 times:

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 like my camera now does not have the features I would like. So this is why I need and upgrade.


User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 387 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4019 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 be from human error or the camera itself.

Use the following code, it's easy especially as you say above, you have a photo currently in the queue;

[IMG]COPY AND PASTE THE WEB LINK HERE[/IMG]

Cheers,
HB


User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4014 times:

The link did not work.... Can you resend the link or is there another way?

FLPhoto


User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3967 times:

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 Sam put on here until he finally bought a D 800 was made with his trusty "old" D 300; you can also take a look at some of Agustin Anaya's fabulous F-22 Raptor shots.........all made with his D 300.

The D 7000 is a great camera, no doubt about it; in fact, you can now buy a new one for exactly half what they originally sold for; The D 7100 is even better, and has a LOT more resolution......but you will be paying FULL price on it for several more years yet; if you really are determined to get a very well built, high end body, (at a fraction of what they went for in the beginning), you probably can't do any better than the 300s.



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3961 times:

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 year and buy many lenses. I will most likely wait, and then sell my current setup for a D7100 and an all in one zoom. Are all in one zooms a bad choice?

FLPhoto


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 731 posts, RR: 16
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3956 times:

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 31):
Are all in one zooms a bad choice?

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. Specialist (ie telephoto or wide) zooms will be better and primes better still.

When I was young and short of cash, I bought lenses which seemed to promise much at a low price. As my skills and appreciation improved, I quickly realized their shortcomings and bought decent lenses. Money spent on the quick fix lenses was wasted.

My suggestion is always buy the best glass you can - it will last forever. If this means you are limited in what you can shoot, so be it. In fact this is not necessarily a bad thing - it will probably make you a better, more creative photographer. If all you have is a 50mm prime, you will work harder to find shots that work with that lens. In the long term, these shots will have more value than a bunch of mediocre quality "me too" shots taken with a budget "all in one" zoom.

At this point you need to decide whether you want to be a "photographer" or a spotter who takes pictures as a record of what they've seen. Both are completely valid uses of a camera, but the answer to that question will determine what your best lens choices will be.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3948 times:

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 standing there and zooming in. The dream setup would be a 10.5mm fisheye, a 24-70 f/2.8, 200mm f/2. Also a 400mm would be nice. Well now it's time to stop dreaming and be realistic. My setup now definantly needs to be improved, and I have my eye on a few lenses. I do like the 85mm f/3.5 macro, and the 50mm f/1.8. I already have a 35mm, so a 50mm is not that necessary. This is not the greatest setup for aviation, and I need some help. What do you recommend?

FLPhoto


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9910 posts, RR: 26
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3944 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 29):
The link did not work.... Can you resend the link or is there another way?

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 your post like this (without the quotes):

"[img]paste your photo's url here[/img]"

Alternatively, just paste the link here, and we can open the image ourselves.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3936 times:

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/addphotos/b...ady/z1370991847.8805dsc_0915_8.jpg


http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...dy/y1370993808.6018dsc_0583_10.jpg


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9910 posts, RR: 26
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3932 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 35):

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-time contributors, myself included. It takes awhile to understand what the site is looking for, and how to shoot/edit to meet that criteria, should you wish to.

Your first obstacle with the photos you submitted is that they're both heavily compressed, which is an immediate no-go. The first is flat and off-level as well. The second is also flat, a bit high in frame, and would suffer a motive rejection for the clipped tail. Looks like it might be affected by heat haze as well, but it's sort of tough to tell with the compression.

If I were you, I'd start out submitting at 1024 pixels, instead of 1500. It can be pretty difficult to get 1500 pixel images accepted, even after you have a bit of experience. Look through the database, and try to get a feel for how the photos look that are accepted. There's also an Editing Tutorial that covers the basics of editing for here. Lastly, make use of the Photo Feedback forum, so you can get feedback without having to wait for photos to be screened.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3929 times:

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 here. Well I will keep on working at it and use the Feedback Forum. I almost always shoot at around 12mp, and had to reduce the size greatly. What exactly do you mean by "flat"? Is there any way I can avoid the heat haze?

Thanks for the help,
FLPhoto


User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3926 times:

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 wouldn't get accepted.

http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=02331267

http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=02331268


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9910 posts, RR: 26
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3925 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 37):
I almost always shoot at around 12mp, and had to reduce the size greatly.

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 make sure you're saving at the highest quality possible.

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 37):
What exactly do you mean by "flat"?

Flat means low contrast.

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 37):
Is there any way I can avoid the heat haze?

You can minimize its effects by getting as close as possible to the subject, and shooting on days when heat haze isn't prevalent. Resizing to a smaller size can also help hide some heat haze, provided it isn't too bad in the first place.

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 38):
One other thing, do you think that there is a chance that these could be accepted?

Not as they currently stand, no.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 3899 times:

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 they probably won't get accepted. That being said, I will either head back to PDX, or go to a smaller GA airport. What would you suggest I do today to get my first photos accepted? Also, what would help me get my photos on here gear wise?

Thanks so much for all of your help,
FLPhoto


User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 19 hours ago) and read 3896 times:

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 feedback has to do with your processing skills, as well as your choices involving composition and time of day. These are not correctible through gear upgrades, they are workflow and shot discipline adjustments you should make. Colin makes excellent points about glass selection, but I do not believe any of the shots you have provided links to would have turned out any better had you used any of the dream lenses you listed. If your main goal is to get shots accepted here, do the workflow changes first. However, you seem to be leaning towards investing in photography for the long term, so that may justify the expensive glass in the long run.

I don't upload here, so from a non-acceptance criteria perspective, your shots don't require too much editing in my mind. I like the one with the prop and the selective focus.


User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 19 hours ago) and read 3894 times:

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


User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 3868 times:

Any advice for types of shots that will usually get accpted?

User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9910 posts, RR: 26
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 3860 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 40):
What would you suggest I do today to get my first photos accepted?

Practice shooting and editing. And all the stuff I already said:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 36):
If I were you, I'd start out submitting at 1024 pixels, instead of 1500. It can be pretty difficult to get 1500 pixel images accepted, even after you have a bit of experience. Look through the database, and try to get a feel for how the photos look that are accepted. There's also an Editing Tutorial that covers the basics of editing for here. Lastly, make use of the Photo Feedback forum, so you can get feedback without having to wait for photos to be screened.
Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 40):
Also, what would help me get my photos on here gear wise?

I'm not sure why you're so reluctant to hear this, but as many have said, your gear is likely perfectly fine.

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 43):
Any advice for types of shots that will usually get accpted?

Again, see here:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 36):
If I were you, I'd start out submitting at 1024 pixels, instead of 1500. It can be pretty difficult to get 1500 pixel images accepted, even after you have a bit of experience. Look through the database, and try to get a feel for how the photos look that are accepted. There's also an Editing Tutorial that covers the basics of editing for here. Lastly, make use of the Photo Feedback forum, so you can get feedback without having to wait for photos to be screened.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 3855 times:

I am at PDX right now and just wondered if there was a "money shot". I suppose Ilthe upgrade will have to wait.

User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 3836 times:

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 42):
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?

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 didn't work out for me, maybe it'll work for you. If you want to try, you need to trust what vikkyvik is saying and re-read his last reply over and over until you are doing those things.


User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 3838 times:

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 $1000. Do you like the 50D? Is it worth it?

FLPhoto


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9910 posts, RR: 26
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 3835 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 47):
Do you like the 50D?

Yes.

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 47):
Is it worth it?

See here:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 44):
I'm not sure why you're so reluctant to hear this, but as many have said, your gear is likely perfectly fine.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 731 posts, RR: 16
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 3815 times:

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 33):
This is not the greatest setup for aviation, and I need some help. What do you recommend?

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



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1369 posts, RR: 10
Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3791 times:

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 don't meet the screening requirements of this site. You could get your shot accepted here with a point and shoot camera and at the same time the picture from a $10,000 dollar SLR lens combo can be rejected here.

Here your photo should fit through the window laid out by this site, a rejection here, in no way determines your ability as a photographer or the capability of your gear.

To get photos accepted here, keep it simple, don't try anything fancy, once you get used to being accepted here you can be more creative.


User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3780 times:

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 local off of craigslist. I was looking at getting the 70-200 f/4 (no IS) for $600 with tripod collar, or $540 without. Both are in mint condition, just not sure what to get. What other lens suggestions would you have in the $600-$700 range used?

Tryyz- Yesterday I visited two airports (Portland International and a smaller GA airport). Hopefully I got some good shots that could be accepted. I used all of the tips I have been given, shot in full manual, and tried to make them look good. I will submit them here today or tomorrow.

FLPhoto


User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3758 times:

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


User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 387 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3755 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 earlier in reply 41, composition and time of day to shoot are vital to aviation photos, and you won't be able to "solve" that simply through gear upgrades.

Get a feel & rhythm going first, by shooting static aircraft or slow moving one, process it and share it with us.

I noticed in your recent posts, that you took some shot @ Portland, in full manual mode. How did the photos turn out? Are you familiar with manual settings? Were the settings suited to the current situation? What time of day did you go and shoot? Care to share some examples with how you went?

Cheers,
HB


User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3750 times:

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, probably less than 30 were sharp, and about 15 of those were usuable. Given I did shoot at about 2pm, the planes were very reflective, but many were soft, out of focus or blurry. While at PDX, I had a hard time with autofocus. It was slow, and often caused me to miss the shot. Also,at both of the airports I could not zoom in very far. If I were to get another body, I would get a Canon because of their greater selection of resonable priced zoom lenses.

Plan to post some of my shots tomorrow,
FLPhoto


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9910 posts, RR: 26
Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3750 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 52):
If I shouldn't upgrade, how do I know when I should?

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 (very few) photos we've seen.

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 52):
Why did you upgrade from a Rebel XS to a 50D?

Major reasons were:

1.) Higher burst rate.
2.) Larger buffer.
3.) Larger ISO range.
4.) Control wheel on back, making quick adjustment of aperture much easier.
5.) Joystick on back, enabling quick access to a bunch of settings without going into menus.

Mostly nothing to do with actual image quality. Higher resolution was more of a plus than a major reason. And frankly, the gain in detail was not that great.

Note that I also upgraded all my lenses first, and shot with quality lenses on a cheap body for awhile. That made a much bigger quality difference than upgrading bodies.

Honestly, I easily could have gone another year or more with the Rebel. And I would have been able to upgrade to a better body than the 50D if I had. But oh well....



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3750 times:

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 better High ISO performance, and also two dials. Bust rate is fine, but it would be nice around 5 or 6fps. Looking at some Canon 50ds and 7ds now.

FLPhoto


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 731 posts, RR: 16
Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3741 times:

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 51):
What other lens suggestions would you have in the $600-$700 range used?

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 you plan to stick with crop cameras, the 10-22mm.

For primes the 50mm 1.8 is a no brainer and the 85mm 1.8 is remarkable value for money.

BTW - I would not bother with the tripod collar on the 70-200 - its not a heavy lens and should be fine on a tripod using the camera's tripod mount.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3692 times:

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 Craigslist for £687, but I would upgrade to that later. For the wide/standard zoom range, the L lenses you mentioned are great, but with a limited budget I could not do it.mwhat would you do with about £1.068?

FLPhoto


User currently offlinesouthwest9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 63 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3681 times:

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 and 200 f/2.8 combined would be enough to buy a 70-200 f/2.8 USM. So if you got the 70-200 f/2.8 USM, plus the 300 f/4 that might work out better because then you wouldn't have to worry about needing the 2.8 at 200 with a separate lens because it would be built into the 70-200 f/2.8, unlike the 70-200 f/4.

User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3680 times:

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 best bet?

FLPhoto


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 731 posts, RR: 16
Reply 61, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3678 times:

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 light portraits - and for that the 85 1.8 does a better job.

It may be a tad sharper than the 70-200, but believe me, the 70-200 is plenty sharp enough.

Buying used I would look at either the 17-40 or the 24-105 depending on how wide you want to go. If you want really wide, then 10-22 is the answer. Any of these lenses can be found for under £500 used.

There are plenty of photogs who find they need no more than the 24-105 and 70-200. For aviation you probably want a bit more reach, so the addition of the 300 when you can afford it makes sense. This lens also works very well with the 1.4 convertor, giving you a bargain 400mm (with IS).

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3675 times:

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 would use this for mainly aviation, and it is also cheaper than the 300mm f/4, or would the 300m, with a 1.4x TC be better?

FLPhoto


User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3627 times:

Also, I uploaded some pictures to the DB today, but I have no idea where they went.

FLPhoto


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 731 posts, RR: 16
Reply 64, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks ago) and read 3596 times:

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 (though still good), but you do get the bonus of IS as well as the flexibility of 2 focal lengths.

Neither is a bad choice, it's a matter of what suits best. I would say that the IS and the faster aperture could mean that you may be able to use the 300 for your indoor sports - unlikely to be able to use the 400.

If you shoot a lot of indoor sports perhaps you should consider the 70-200 f2.8 - yes its more expensive than the f4, but you would be killing 2 birds with one stone, and the flexibility of the zoom for sports is well worth while.

Now that the 70-200 2,8 IS mk II has been released, the older IS mk i can be found used for well under £1000 - and it is a good lens. Note that there is also an older, non-IS version which is excellent and probably cheaper still.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3577 times:

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.

Is this a good setup?
FLPhoto


User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3580 times:

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.  


Whatever.......
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9910 posts, RR: 26
Reply 67, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3549 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 65):
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.

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 very close-up stuff.

Quoting ckw (Reply 64):
The 300 with the 1.4 is not as sharp (though still good), but you do get the bonus of IS as well as the flexibility of 2 focal lengths.

Absolutely correct on the two focal lengths; that was my reasoning. Unfortunately, I've been disappointed with the 300 + 1.4 combo. I've generally been able to get just as sharp shots just using the 300 and cropping, and I certainly get better color and contrast.

Though, I have the 1.4 Mk 3, and I'm honestly wondering if the Mk 2 was better; seems that's the one people are always raving about!



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3531 times:

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 most likely ask for that for Christmas or just save up and buu it in a few years. I uploaded somenpictures but they are not in the queue...
FLPhoto


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9910 posts, RR: 26
Reply 69, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3531 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 68):
I uploaded somenpictures but they are not in the queue...

How many and when? And what is your photographer name?

Did you check your "Photographer's Corner" to see if they are displayed?



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3528 times:

I posted 3 yesterday morning. I can check agian but they wetnt there. If they are I will attach them for criticism.

User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3528 times:

http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=02335320#

http://www.myaviation.net/search/fullscreen.main?id=02335306

Found them. I only posted them on MyAviation because my photos arnt good enough to be here. One conpletely sucked and the others were decent for me.

FLPhoto


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9910 posts, RR: 26
Reply 72, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3521 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FLPhoto (Reply 71):
Found them. I only posted them on MyAviation because my photos arnt good enough to be here. One conpletely sucked and the others were decent for me.

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
11-99: 10
100-499: 15
500-999: 20
1000+: 40

Since you currently don't have any in the database, you're limited to 2 uploads at any given time. Any photos you upload past that will default to uploading to MyAviation.net only. My guess is that you uploaded the 3 shots before your original 2 submissions had been screened, in which case they uploaded to MyAviation.net only.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineFLPhoto From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3519 times:

I only selected them to be on MyAviation. What do you think of them?

User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9910 posts, RR: 26
Reply 74, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3502 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
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