This might inspire you astro freaks

Stunning images!

Borking my buffer does not sound like a pleasant experience

Not to be confused with buffing your borker, which is a great way to pass the time.

what focal length did u shoot this at?

nice shot cardsharkk, it took me like 1 month to figure out why my moons had no detail! In fact, my pics of a full moon rising usually looked like a sunrise.

I am yet to look over the pictures I took of the eclipse that occurred last month. Hopefully they turned out okay and I will post them.

300mm or close to it on a crop

looks like a 'shop job to me.

Happy with how this one from the weekend of winter camping turned out, not sure why, just really like it. Some other baddies:

not manly enough to build your own winter camping shelter? That was my fav part of snow camping in boy scouts

I thought the picture of bacon cooked over a fire would temper you of all posters!

We were disappointed all the same as you, igloos will come eventually...

Nice Thread - probably ran across it before, but I'm looking to really get back into the hobby. Still need to get my first DSLR..Have a nice point and shoot which does raw and decent low light...

Kinda eyeballing the Nikon D7000 but not sure. - I'm assuming glass is more important than the body or does it all matter? (enthusiast only)

Anyway - found some cool tutorials on Lightroom and fooled around with the demo version - also have the beta so as soon as i'm comfortable with it - I'll commit to getting the program.

though he's a bit annoying at times, this site is great for tutorials and learning...

www.froknowsphoto.com





before


Scout original by cwsiggy, on Flickr


after-


Scout - lightroom by cwsiggy, on Flickr


and a concert shot of the Bunnymen taken in very low light with my point and shoot - super overdone heavy lightroom. But I was able to mellow the insane noise... kinda...


20110512-Bunnymen_Concert_20110512_0104 by cwsiggy, on Flickr

sounds to me like you should pull the trigger . and for your budget I think the D7000 is awesome. I wanted to get that cam but it was a bit out of my budget.

I think dslr bodies are the least important variable in image quality as long as you are making fair comparisons (ie: not canon 5D vs T3). Lenses make or break you. But now a days, eaven cheap entry lenses produce acceptable images.

is Lightroom4 Beta slow as **** for anyone else? It's a total dog compared to LR3, and this is on an i5@3.37GHz, 12GB of ram and a last-gen SSD holding the catalog & 1:1 previews. I can seriously hardly even use it.

Yeah, it is massively dragging its feet for me too. I'm really hoping they still have a ton of optimising left to do. It's also crashed 2 or 3 times on me.

Cwsiggy, I have a d7000 and I'm really happy with it. If it's in your budget I'd recommend it without reservation. On top of its high ISO performance, the custom memory locations, semi weather sealing/construction, shooting speed, dual memory card slots and general handling and responsiveness are all very impressive.

Having said that, glass will no doubt impact your overall image quality more profoundly, so you should definitely budget for that too (the good news is that very sharp fast primes of useful focal lengths are reasonably priced for the f/1.8 variants). With the same glass though, I suspect the d7000 will get you the image you're after more reliably if you're shooting under pressure, and its construction definitely inspires more confidence than its cheaper competitors.

Regarding froknowsphoto, I'm familiar with his stuff but not really a massive fan of his "style". It might just be that I'm something of an old fart these days, but I tend to prefer the Lightroom tutorials on luminouslandscape.com. You have to pay for them, but for what you get in terms of content they are very reasonably priced and cover all the bases. Even so, there's still some "personality" to navigate in the videos, and you have to deal with some potentially annoying banter between the two hosts at times, but they know their **** so it's worth sticking with IMHO.

I like the original SCOUT more than the after SCOUT. The composition is just really nice, I like how all of the parts are laid out, no need to go crazy on contrast/effects

In the after the blacks are too similar, the first one has a nice smooth transition on the top knob (not sure what it's called) that gets overpowered in the second

(disclaimer, i'm bad, and more importantly, dislike a lot of post-processing)

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond800/
D800 finally announced, 36MP, $3K
D800E (same sensor with anti-aliasing filter "nullified") at $3,300
1080P 30 video, uncompressed video out over HDMI

Looks pretty interesting, and fills a very different niche than the D4. Given Nikon's reluctance to undercut their DSLR products in the mirrorless market, I'm a bit surprised to see the D800 come in with 50% more pixels and $5k cheaper than the D3x.
I'm curious to see how the moire issues are with the D800E. It'd be cool if moire correction ended up getting added in to Lightroom and the other RAW processing software. If that happens, D800E sales will probably be significantly more than the 10% Nikon currently projects.

It's in the LR4 beta, and I imagine since Lightroom is little more than a catalog and frontend to Adobe Camera Raw, it will probably end up in ACR as well.

Quick question as I research more for my first purchase - full frame vs cropped sensor?
Is full frame sensor the bees knees? I notice of course it costs a hell of a lot more. One does get extra reach with their lenses with cropped. I don't think I'll be a pixel peeper and i will rarely print beyond 8X10 (if even)

What does full frame give one and is it worth the extra dosh? (prolly out of my reach budget wise...)

I'm going to start looking for a longer lens for my Nikon D-80. My current "walking around" lens is the 18-135mm Nikon that came with the camera. So I guess I'd like to cover everything else up to 300. But if it's reasonable maybe I could cover everything from my 10-24mm wide angle up to 300mm in one lens. That would be nice.

I've narrowed it down to these guys:

$376 - Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG Macro Aspherical Lens for Nikon AFD Cameras

$399 - Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR

$579 - Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD LD Aspherical IF Macro Zoom Lens with Built in Motor for Nikon DSLR Cameras (The interesting/nice thing about this one is it could totally replace my current lens and I'd mostly just need to switch between this one and my wide angle).

$589 - Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

$669 - Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Ultra Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras


Thoughts? I have a Tamron wide angle that I'm reasonably satisfied with. Don't know anything about Sigma.

I'm pretty sure I don't want any of the sub $200 lenses just because I'd like this to be a nice lens I keep for a while. I'm not sure about about over $500 either though. Sorry for being such a noob but I really have no idea what qualities I'm looking for in a longer lens.

I believe there's an English proverb that says the jack of all trades is the master of none. I guess thats how I feel about getting an all purpose lens.

"Sorry for being such a noob but I really have no idea what qualities I'm looking for in a longer lens"

Well you should least know what kind of subjects you enjoy shooting in the longer focal lengths! In general, lenses that cover that wide of a focal range tend to be pretty slow, so if you're going to be photographing sports, wildlife, or anything in low light, you'll probably run into a bit of trouble.

I'm getting more into night time street photography but I only have a canon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6mm lens and I want to smash it every single time I use it. I find myself constantly pumping the ISO between 3200 and 6400 to get a clean shot. Even when I shoot wildlife in broad daylight its still not that sharp. Ugh, I hate it. So I don't really have any advice on which lens to buy, but make sure its consistent with what you like shooting.

I haven't tried any of these lenses. Before checking the reviews, my initial impression was that the Nikon 70-300mm would be the best lens of this group. After reading reviews, that impression stands. The reviews generally confirm the adage that you get no more than what you pay for.

Cliffs before the wall of text:

Compared to their Nikon equivalent, the Sigma and Tamron lenses are generally less sharp, have less accurate and slower autofocus, have more distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting, fewer features, lower build quality, and lower expected durability. They are also significantly less expensive. Generally, as zoom range increases, so do the price:quality ratio and distortion, while sharpness decreases. TANSTAAFL.

-------------

The details:


The Nikon 70-300mm is a clear choice here, IMO. Compared to all the other lenses, it is significantly sharper, and its autofocus is more accurate. Of these five, it is the only one with an autofocus fast enough to reliably handle moving subjects. If you are only photographing still life, you may ignore this consideration, (but why do you want a 300mm lens on an APS-C body if you are not shooting moving wildlife?). It has less vignetting and distortion than the others. The Nikon also has less chromatic aberration (CA) than all the the others except the Nikon 55-300 DX. The 70-300mm lens, along with the Sigma and the Tamron 28-300, can be used on full frame bodies. On DX bodies therefore, it will be even more sharp and have even less vignetting, since the outer part of the imaging circle (where the problems usually show up) will not be used. Its major downsides are that it is bigger and heavier than the others (40%-50% more, but still nowhere near the size/mass of a professional f/2.8 lens) and does not have the close focus performance (under 1.4m) of the non-Nikon macro lenses. From what you have said before, I didn't think you were looking for a macro lens.

The Nikon 55-300 DX is sharper than the non-Nikon lenses and has the least CA of all five. It has more distortion than all except the Tamron 18-270 (and maybe the Sigma). It has some vignetting problems wide open. Its autofocus is better than all the others except the Nikon 70-300, but may be too slow for distant moving subjects. It can only be used on DX bodies (like your D80). Unlike most Nikon lenses these days, this one doesn't provide manual override in autofocus mode. Like the Tamrons and the Sigma, you have to switch it to manual focus mode before you can manually adjust focus.

The Tamrons and the Sigma are 1/3 stop narrower at the long end, and thus exceed the usual guidelines for autofocus systems. This may be why they don't focus as well as the Nikons.

The Sigma appears to have been discontinued. Some dealers may still have a few units in stock. I haven't been able to get as detailed reviews of it as of the other four lenses. On the whole its performance does not appear to have been significantly better then the Tamrons, and may have been worse in some aspects. It doesn't seem to have any stabilization. Stabilization is pretty standard on tele-zooms, and a must if you are off-tripod and shooting at longer focal lengths.

Tamron seems to continue to have quality control problems. There is a lot of inconsistency between samples. Some are good, others have focus or sharpness issues.

The Tamron 18-270mm has an exceptionally large zoom ratio of 15:1. Lenses of this sort invariable have distortion that is more pronounced and more complex. This is no exception. It underperforms both Nikons in every category, except of course that it covers the wide end of the focal length range. It is only for use on DX cameras.

The Tamron 28-300 is better than the 18-270 in the 28-55mm focal length range, but gets appreciably less sharp than the 18-270 at the long focal lengths. making it the least sharp lens in the group. It has less distortion than the Nikon 55-300 DX and the Tamron 18-270. It has no signifcant vignetting, but does have major chromatic aberration when wide open. It can be used on full frame bodies.

I notice that you didn't include the Nikon 28-300mm VR. This full-frame lens is Nikon's equivalent to the Sigma and Tamron 28-300 lenses. Perhaps you excluded it on the ground of cost. According to SLR Gear's review, you may also want to exclude it on the grounds that its sharpness is no better than the Tamrons in the mid-range, and may be worse at shorter focal lengths. Unlike some full-frame lenses, it may not be at its sharpest at the centre of the image circle. This review result may be an anomaly, however. Many other reviews don't find the same degree of softness. Photozone, for instance, disagrees and proclams its sharpness good for a superzoom (it doesn't test the Tamrons or the Sigma), but cites signficant distortion and noticeable vignetting. The distortion, however, is less complex than on many superzooms, so may be easily corrected in post. Photographyblog.com also seems well pleased for sharpness in a super-zoom, but doesn't deign to deal with off-brands like Tamron. Ken Rockwell calls it "super-sharp" but points out the distortion and vignetting. The vigneting shouldn't be a problem on your DX body, and the distortion is easily corrected in post-processing. Unlike the other two Nikons, this one focuses about as close as the Tamrons and the Sigma.

On a DX body, a 28mm focal length is no shorter than a normal lens. It is no surprise that all three 28-300 mm lenses are capable of being used on FX bodies. They were designed as all-in-one lenses for full frame cameras. They just aren't short enough for that role on a DX body. If you want a superzoom, get the Nikon 18-200mm DX. It's the best superzoom out there IMO. All superzooms compromise image quality to increase versatility. Nikon's 18-200mm DX compromises IQ less, but you pay for it. Probably the same can be said for its 28-300mm. Any maker's superzoom will be optically inferior to their tele-zoom.

Do you really need to get to 300mm? What will you use an EFL of 450mm for? A fair portion of my shooting is wildlfe on a DX body, and I don't have a lens longer than 200mm (300mm equivalent on DX). I do have a 1.7x teleconverter for my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens though, which gives me a full frame equivalent of 180-510mm at a constant f/4.8. I use this combination mostly for birds, or when I cannot get closer to the subject. Generally, over about 300mm EFL, (200mm on DX) getting closer to your subject gives a better shot than using a longer focal length.

If getting a 300mm lens on DX is really that important, you're probably better off with a 70-300mm or the 55-300mm. Consider what Sigma and Tamron have in 70-300mm. The Sigma is less sharp than the Nikon(even more so at the outer edges, which won't matter on a DX body) and more cheaply made, but less than half the cost. The Tamron is also less sharp, especially so wide open or at longer focal lengths and has more CA. It is even cheaper than the Sigma. Neither the Tamron nor thr Sigma include stabilization, which makes them pretty well tripod-bound for longer focal lengths.

Tokina doesn't make a lens that goes to 300mm. It has a couple of 80-400mm models, but I know nothing about them, other than they are small and light. If they are comparable to other Tokina products they might be better (and more expensive) than equivalent Tamron models.

In the end it comes down to price vs. quality. If you are comparing your Tamron wide angle to your Nikon 18-135mm and you're "reasonbly satisfied", then maybe image sharpness isn't all that important to you. The 18-135 is very sharp except when stopped way down at long focal lengths. The Tamron 10-24 isn't very sharp anywhere except the centre of the image circle unless you stop it down to about f/8 or more. However smaller apertures are common for many uses of an ultra-wide angle lens, so you may not have noticed and it might not matter to you. It has high CA and really bad vignetting. Distortion isn't great. OTOH the 18-135 has high distortion and signficant vignetting. It is not a lens that gives you an idea of what a good lens can do. It was so unsuccessful that Nikon quickly discontinued it in favour of the 18-105mm DX.

Full frame gives you a larger sensor.

Is that too simple?

OK, full frame means that for the same resolution as a cropped-frame sensor, the individual light receptors will be larger. This makes them more sensitive, and less likely to interfere with their neighbors. This in turn gives less noise and better ISO range.

For a given pixel density, a full-frame sensor will have more pixels. That means (if your lens is up to the task) you can resolve more detail.

In short, full frame tends to produce better image quality.

However...

Larger sensors are harder to manufacture error-free, so they tend to be more expensive. Because the core of the camera is more expensive, the manufacturers tend to include other higher-end, expensive features, driving the cost of full-frame bodies up even more.

Larger sensors require lenses that cover a larger area. Such lenses are more expensive to manufacture, both in absolute terms and in cost per image quality.

The way crop-frame cameras are set up, they alter the angle of view for a given focal length. For instance, a Nikon DX camera (cropped frame) fitted with a 50mm lens, renders a scene that has the same (narrower) angle of view as if a 75mm lens was fitted to a full-frame camera. Essentially this makes it easier to take picures of things farther away or at a narrwer angle on a crop-frame , and harder to take pictures of things close up or at a wider angle. It is harder to make a really wide angle lens for a crop sensor, but easier to make telephoto ones. What would be an ultra-wide lens on a full-frame camera, would only be somewhat wide on a cropped frame camera.

This makes different frame sizes better for different applications. Landscapes are taken with a wide angle, and benefit from lots of detail. A full-frame body is better. Wildlife requires long-distance shots, and a cropped frame offers a built-in 50%-60% zoom. Many portrait photographers prefer full-frame because they believe the sensors better capture subtle tonal variations in skin.

Print size is tied more to resolution (pixel count) than frame size. The rule of thumb is to allow 300 pixels per inch of print. Some printers need a bit more, around 320 ppi. For an 8"X10" print that would be about 2560 on the short dimension, and (since most dSLR sensors have a 3:2 aspect ratio) about 3840 in the wide dimension. That's about 9.8MP. Even a 10MP sensor allows for a little bit of cropping while producing an acceptable 8"x10" print.

The main determinant of picture quality is not the camera body or the lens. It is the skill of the photographer. If this is your first SLR camera, and you don't have much experience, I think a full-frame camera is likely to be overkill. You probably won't have the knowledge to get the most out of the more advanced features, nor the budget to afford them. I'd suggest an entry-level or near entry-level dSLR like a Nikon D3100 or D5100 or a Canon Rebel T3 (1100D) or Rebel T3i (600D). However, forgo the kit lens. Bodies become obsolete much faster than lenses. It is always worth buying lenses to last. Get one or more lenses that are versatile and will be useful when you upgrade to a newer body. On a Canon, get a 50mm lens. Eventually add maybe a wide zoom and a tele-zoom. (OR consider just buying primes). On a Nikon, the best learning lens may be the 35mm DX. Nikon makes the best all-in-one super zoom lens: the 18-200mm DX. It might be all you need until you learn from experience why it isn't good enough for serious work in certain conditions. Canon makes an 18-200mm EF-S lens too, but it just doesn't cut it, IMO. Tamron and Sigma have 18-200mm lenses or ones with even wider zoom range, but they don't compare in image quality or build quality.

You are very generous for the detailed posts you make in this thread

Went to the cabin this weekend

Hard to sit still for 30 seconds!


I need a remote because my D90 only does BULB when my finger is pressing the shutter down, whereas a friend has a box that you press the button, release, and then press again to stop...anyway: