What to do; new camera body or new longer lens? I currently have a Nikon 70s (6 megapixels) and my longest lens goes to 300mm. I would like to take decent photographs of the comets...

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

I currently have a Nikon 70s (6 megapixels) and my longest lens goes to 300mm. I would like to take decent photographs of the comets appearing this year. Can't afford both, so which should I get? A new camera body with 12 or more meagapixels or a new longer lens, perhaps with a matching 1.4 teleconverter.

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

is 6 mp adequate for your needs?
Consider that to double your resolution you need 4 times the MP. Soooooooooooo 24MP is equal to twice the resolution of your 6 MP sensor.
What budget do you have to work with>? Lots of great bargains out there, Nikon factory Refurbs, good quality used gear.
When I traded up from my Pentax 6 MP I bought a Canon 50D with 15MP. I was very happy with the difference.
Now there are 22, 24MP and more.
The Nikon shooters in here will be happy to provide more detailed info as to nomenclature and features.
In my opinion, bodies come and go, glass is forever.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Time to take a look at the new D7100, should get the upgrade job done quite well! Then save up for a longer lens and forget the teleconverter on your zoom.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

MT Shooter wrote:

Time to take a look at the new D7100, should get the upgrade job done quite well! Then save up for a longer lens and forget the teleconverter on your zoom.

Thanks MT - now must save for both - only problem I have is I also like to fish and fishing is almost as bad as photography. Have you seen the new Yamaha 250 HP, 4 stroke motors; or the new 360 degree fish finders; or the new GPS run trolling motors. Well, I think you get the idea. Decisions, decisions, decisions. :lol: :lol:

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

charles brown wrote:

Thanks MT - now must save for both - only problem I have is I also like to fish and fishing is almost as bad as photography. Have you seen the new Yamaha 250 HP, 4 stroke motors; or the new 360 degree fish finders; or the new GPS run trolling motors. Well, I think you get the idea. Decisions, decisions, decisions. :lol: :lol:

Unless you're a professional bass fisherman, try fly fishing from the shore or a float. Or buy a 14' Valco with a 9.9hp four-stroke Yahama or Mercury.

2dogz

Do yourself a favour and buy a Nikon D7000 body. I picked one up in Dec for $800 and I just love using it. If that's too expensive, you can still buy the D90 which I've been using for years. They're both great cameras.

Hando Rei Loc: Long Island New York

Forget the teleconverter . Glass more important . Your budjet will pretty much determine what you will get ...however there are many options there . Good luck !

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

Mogul wrote:

quote=charles brown Thanks MT - now must save for... (show quote)

Already have a 17' G3 with 50 hp 4 stroke Yamaha. Trying to talk folks here into fly fishing for bass but they just look at me like I'm nuts. Guess thats why I have 8 rod and reel set ups and find I need more. Decisions, decisions, decisions.

0627ramram32 Loc: Orange County, CA, USA

Neither one. Sony just released a bridge camera with 18+ MPs on an Exmoor sensor, a Zeiss lens that runs out to 1200mm optically, optical palsy control, and many other bells/whistles. My video cameras use the Exmoor sensor, and it yields superb images. $500.

The name of it is DSC-HX300, and mine is on its way!

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

0627ramram32 wrote:

Neither one. Sony just released a bridge camera with 18+ MPs on an Exmoor sensor, a Zeiss lens that runs out to 1200mm optically, optical palsy control, and many other bells/whistles. My video cameras use the Exmoor sensor, and it yields superb images. $500.

The name of it is DSC-HX300, and mine is on its way!

The biggest drawback to this Sony is the minuscule sensor (smallest on the market), 1/2.3" that results in a 6.22X crop factor. This hinders larger prints should they be desired. That said, the reviews are good and the zoom of the lens is great, I hope you enjoy it.

Brian in Whitby Loc: Whitby, Ontario, Canada

Normally I would say go for the glass but in this case, I think you would benefit from a newer camera. No only will you get more resolution but a newer camera should produce less noise.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

charles brown wrote:

I currently have a Nikon 70s (6 megapixels) and my longest lens goes to 300mm. I would like to take decent photographs of the comets appearing this year. Can't afford both, so which should I get? A new camera body with 12 or more meagapixels or a new longer lens, perhaps with a matching 1.4 teleconverter.

Charles, I think you are truly between a big, hard rock and a fishing hole.
Get as much camera as you can get and a converter for you lens. You will need to crop a lot if you are talking comets. You will need the pixels more than anything else. Plus the cameras are cheaper than top end super teles.

Charles my boat is antiquated. My motor(55hp) is two stroke and was new in "91". My finder is only good as a depth finder. But my poles are custom made.
I drag my little boat down to Baja every couple of years and the dorado don't seem to care at all.
And the photography ain't half bad either.

0627ramram32 Loc: Orange County, CA, USA

Well, pray for me in my hour of need: you're right. The sensor in the still camera is the same size as my video. I can make pretty good 11x17s from the stills so long as there wasn't any movement. I can only hope that along with the increase in the number of pixels (to 20.4 MPs, though still jammed into that little sensor) Sony has been able to upgrade the appearance of the image, noise- and smoothness-wise. I've been using Sony video cameras since the days of BetaMax and 8mm; to my eyes, they have always provided top of the heap images, for their day.

Ah well: I'm not facing disaster because I bought it from B&H, and if it doesn't perform well I can send it back (though I imagine I'll have to pay the freight). But there will go my dream of equaling the wild-life pictures of the big players on UHH. I can't even carry those lenses any more -- let alone pay for them.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

I have a Canon D60, which is a 6mp, and a 300 2.8.
That combo gets very nice shots. I also use a 2x with them to bring the wildlife right up to me.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

BigBear wrote:

I have a Canon D60, which is a 6mp, and a 300 2.8.
That combo gets very nice shots. I also use a 2x with them to bring the wildlife right up to me.

Yours is a widely used combination among experienced bird photographers in my area. The 6mp is sufficient to make 8 X 10 prints, and the 300mm f/2.8 is quite sharp, even when used with a matched 2X teleconverter. We have a local professional who owns 400mm and 600mm lenses, along with a 1.4x TC. Yes, you can tell the difference in his prints, but only from a very short distance. At normal viewing distance, even he is pleased with the kind of results locals get with a combination like yours. The main mistake beginners make in trying to duplicate such results is to use lower priced zooms, which compromises image quality and auto focus.

As an aside, people seem to be overconcerned nowadays with image sharpness, forgetting that most art is viewed from a distance. When was the last time you saw anybody examining the Mona Lisa from six inches away. Hint, NEVER! I have been to the Lourve and seen the aforementioned piece of art - from a respectful distance delineated by a red velvet rope and enforced by four armed guards.