I thought the same but since I'm throwing in the lens I thought 500 would be reasonable.

I thought the same but since I'm throwing in the lens I thought 500 would be reasonable.

Hi all. I have a good friend who would like to buy my gently used 5d, circa 2006. It's only flaw is a fleck of something under the first rear lens of its 27-135 zoom which will require cleaning. This combo is seen on eBay in the $500 range, but I'd like to know if there is a better new camera in that price range that my friend could buy instead. I'd like to see him get the best deal for his money. He was an slr film camera user in olden days, but this will be his first foray into the dslr world. Not unlike myself, he is more artistically oriented rather than technically inclined and seeks that sweet spot between the two. Any advice appreciated.

Thanks, JS

Agreed....I'd rather not duplicate the focal lengths I already have with my Tamron 24-70.

Thanks Joer...just put it on my dxomark browzing list.

Thanks...I'll research the Tamron 70-200....I was thinking that a prime 150 lens with VC might fit the bill...but not sure which manufacturer has anything close.

JS

I've been very pleased with my recent d800e/Tamron 24-70 zoom purchase....but...despite it's optic limitations, I miss the reach of my old canon 27-135 zoom. Can anyone suggest an additional d800e lens with IS that would fill this void? Thanks, all.

j

That's not an intelligent response, Donna.

Is that essentially the same as running out of pixels to foil the space between contrasting parts of the image?[pquote=amehta]I think a white outline in almost any situation would be a digital artifact. Optically, to create white out of colors is quite difficult, to get the exact colors of the rainbow to merge. Monitor manufacturers spend a lot of energy making sure the RGB pixels can produce a clean white. Chromatic aberration does not need the crop/enlarging actions, I think it is optical.

Some of what you are talking about is a resolution limit, where the colors of adjacent items blend together because the lens/sensor combo does not have the resolution to keep them separate.[/quote]

I purchased an Epson stylus pro 3800 in 2006. It has consistently produced gallery quality b&w and color prints and continues to do so 8 years and counting. I use it daily when putting together an exhibition and weekly or even monthly otherwise...so its not what I would call under a heavy workload. I am now considering its larger format big brother 7900 for 24 inch wide prints.

I used to get a white outline on some areas of an image on over cropped and enlarged images. It's one of the reasons I moved to the d800e where it is seldom seen. At times the color of an adjacent object would seem to bleed into the edge of a neighboring object. It seemed that as the image was enlarged there weren't enough pixels to cover the contrasting lines separating the objects. That's what I thought was a kind of chromatic aberration as it would occur in strong side lighting situations. But I defer to your view on this due to my own lack of technical experience.

Chromatic aberration????

Chromatic aberration?

[I too am an d800e novitiate and have been equally as pleased with my results using the Tamron 24-70 VR lens. My only complaint is the lack of reach on the lens. I purchased a Canon 5d Markiii with their 24-70 non-IS lense prior to the D800e. It was nice but cant compare to the Nikon, despite it's more user friendly setup. If you like big big prints and great croppability without moving into the new and expensive medium format digital cameras Nikon d800e is hard to beat.
quote=Gobuster]A while back I borrowed a friend's with D800E for a couple of days, stuck my 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 VR Kit lens on it and went out to shoot some photos. The resolution of that camera is amazing so I wanted to see just how good it was. I've read that the D800E needs only the best glass, needs a tripod & etc. However, that seems not to be so. The following two images are from the same frame, shot handheld, VR on, lens at 24mm, 1/100 sec., f6.3, ISO 100. The first is the full frame 4912 x 7360, uncropped, the second is a severe crop, 837 x 867. The names on the wall can be clearly read![/quote]

Shoot jpeg and raw...decide later what suits what imagined to be your imagined final result. Its an art and in my opinion should not be constrained by technical hard and fast rules.