I plan to upgrade from the Nikon DX40 to the D 7100 and my question is whether to buy the body only or with the lens kit for an additional $300?

The lens kit with the DX 40 was 18-55 and the one with the D7100 is 18-140 . The specs otherwise are the same with the exception the newer lens has VR. That factor is pushing me towards the body + lens kit purchase. The zoom on the D 7100 is also attractive.

I also have a Nikon 18-200 mm lens with VR which is my walk around lens when traveling so I already have access to a longer zoom but it is heavy,

A second question if I may. Do lenses get better in quality as the years go by? Do newer camera have better quality material or better quality construction? That would also be a factor in choosing on lens over the other.

Look forward to your advice.

5. Take steady pictures without a tripod

You brought your camera to the family gathering to snap some candid shots, but suddenly everyone wants to do a group picture. You really need a tripod, but you don't have one.

Don't worry; as long as there's a lamp with a lampshade in the house, you're covered.

The standard bolt that holds a lampshade to a lamp is the same size threading as the tripod mount on a camera. Simply take the lampshade off the lamp and screw your camera to the bolt.

Now you've got a lamp-turned-tripod for steady or timed shots. Once you have your photos, check out four online photo editors that will make your photos sparkle.

http://www.komando.com/cool-sites/282459/4-online-photo-editors-to-make-your-holiday-photos-sparkle


*******************

Just wondering: When we use a camera, are we "taking" pictures or "making" pictures?

BC

I know that I have been told a 1000 times that I need to get into post work editing. I find it very monotonous a process. I have seen some post work pictures and actually love the results but it leaves me wondering how much of the photo is the man behind the camera and how much of the photo is the man behind the mouse. I know that a few clicks of the button and it's a rave and craze over some images.

I am so stuck on the film mentality that I would rather take a few hundred shots and come out with 10 useable or near perfect in my eyes shots than to take the time editing.


Your camera and computer are simply the tools of the trade. Going digital makes the tools easier to use...in my opinion. Taking a few hundred images for 10 goods one is almost like shooting with a blindfold on. Wouldn't you like to shoot with more discenment and get more than 10 good images. It sounds to me that you are doing the film version of . . . Spray and Pray

I am really curios to know are there many that have this kind of attitude/thought process when it comes to taking shots.

A few years ago I saw a colour photo of Antelope Canyon by Peter Lik.

At the time, not knowing that this was a well-known natural phenomenon, I was very impressed and, noting he had a highly inflated price on it I assumed this was also a very unique shot.

But that was before I did a search and found there was any number of very similar photos by many other photographers - (leaving me wondering if they copied him or he copied them).


The price or worth of anything is what someone is willing to pay for it...it is that simple...

Anyway, he's now re-processed the original colour photo, done a slight crop and applied a black and white conversion and sold it for $6.5 million! ... I know he is a master of self promotion, but I just don't get it - why would ANYone pay that much?

Here's the colour version
http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/01/27/5937543-natures-best-photography-antelope-canyon-ariz

And here's the B/W version in a Guardian article - I tend to somewhat agree with the authors comments
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless

(view them side by side)