You're welcome. Only two other points: We are taking a chance on this oil on the sensor problem, I don't know whether Nikon have fixed it, we will have to hope we are lucky. The other one is: if you can, don't wait, just do it now.......
Hi there, the above is all spot on. I have just made an almost identical jump from D70 with a similar lens set. I have the kit 24-85 and it is really nice to handle, if I had thought of it I may have picked the 24-70 as MT Shooter suggests......
I too bought the 105 macro which is stunning in every respect, and I think will make a great portrait lens too. The depth of field is (as expected) less than my Sigma 60mm on the D70, and for wee beasties in the field this has its difficulties.
I too bought the 50mm prime and went for the 1.4 This less because of logic but more because I have always wanted a 50 1.5 on my film camera and could never afford it, so I thought what the heck! And I love it so far. Lightweight, very sharp, good for flat things like documents (I don't know if there is a technical term for this)and in the evening put the ISO up and turn the flash off and you can still capture things you would not believe.
My next will be a wide angle for landscapes, after all that is where some of the full frame advantage lies. What do you other guys suggest please? Prime or zoom to lug about on long walks? (Fergus please excuse me if I seem to be barging in to your question, but it is a relevant continuation!)
Good job Jerry. Ditto to Hammer. Why 6 sided cards?
I have been wrestling with this one too. I have a well loved and used Nikon D70 for the last 8 years or so and wanted to upgrade for more pixels and a bigger view screen. I do lots of macro with a Sigma 50mm, and often need to blow up parts of the mages because I cannot get close enough to insects etc before they are off. MT Shooter said it right about the bridge camera, I have a Nikon L110 which is great to carry when walking and doesn't hold up the group when I snatch a few shots on the way, and has given me some of my favourite photos. But for my DSLR do I get a D7000 or a D600? You cannot try them in the shop well enough to really show up the difference. Do I want lighter weight, less cost, more depth of field or full frame with better resolution? Then I looked at the D600 with the 105mm macro and thought I have to have have this! Only a few shots so far but I love it, and can blow up images to pick out wee beasties, the viewfinder is fantastic (see the separate forum on glasses vs no glasses!) I will put up with the weight, and let you know how I get on with reduced DOF in the field. GoofieNewfie is right, if you look through the viewfinder of a full frame you might fall in love with it....
Hi there all. The rule you state implies that the camera focus will be out because your vision needs correction. This is true with binoculars, because you are looking at a virtual image. So if you focus binocs and then give them to someone with a different prescription not wearing glasses, standing in the same spot, they will sneed refocusing. Not so with a camera because it focuses the image onto a screen, then you look at the screen independently. If you can see fe image clearly enough to compose, with or without diopter correction, hen use the AF and shoot. If you can see well enough to manual focus, and you want to do that, it will be fine: you will not be focussing it off because of your eyesight..
I have a big nose which spaces my glasses off, so it is impossible to use them and view through my DSLR! So i use my strongest eye which is my left which is probably the wrong one for the way round cameras are designed! Worse still I have astigmatism which the diopter correction does not help! Who cares , I put most of my effort into composition which is the most important thing, make the best I can of the aperture etc info, and let the camera auto control as much as possible. I have fun anyway!
Yep, all season's greetings to all, and enjoy the break. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!