dat2ra wrote:
This is such a silly discussion to recommend particular cameras without knowing what the buyer intends to do with the camera and what the constraints are. It quickly degenerates into a Chevy vs. Ford vs. Mopar circus. If you want a reliable answer, you need to clarify your purpose and priorities.
It may be a silly discussion but it is a discussion none the less, and isn't that really the purpose of this type of Web site?!
Even if there is nothing wrong with your D7000 a D7200 or D7100 will definitely produce better quality images. If you can afford to upgrade then go for it. If the problem is your technique then you will need to improve. One advantage the D7200 will allow you is the use of higher ISO'S without adding additional electronic noise. Higher ISO'S will let you use faster shutter speeds thus reducing unwanted camera shake. Also, have you tried the D7000 on a tripod? If you're still getting bad images even on a tripod then there very well may be something not right with your D7000.
Time is constant but out perception of time is not. As we get older time appears to be going faster, but it is not. When you were 5 years old, 1 year was 1 fifth of your life. When you are 60 years old, one year is one 60th of your life. We just see time differently the more of it we've seen.
If you don't mind a 6 pound lens then I'd recomended the Sigma Sport. If you don't want a lens built like a tank then the Tamron G2 is the way to go. If money is an issue but you still want a decent lens, the Sigma Contemporary may be what you are looking for.
The long reach of Coca Cola...
Cute dabbling duck butts...
The USS Cod, one of two WW2 submarines I've had the privilege to tour. The other is the USS Becuna which is a museum ship moored in the Delaware river in Philadelphia, next to the historic cruiser USS Olympia. Nice photos.
Yes, they will repair the lens for a fee.
A very interesting boat indeed...
I'd have to say no. I have a few DSLR'S without an AA filter and several with and with the exception of my Canon EOS 5DSR you really don't notice the difference. A pixel peepers probably would but realistically, how many people truly concern themselves with details at that level. Sure, a camera without an AA filter is capable of slightly sharper images but under normal viewing conditions, whether it be a print or video screen, most people won't see a difference. As for moire, it is quite rare unless you are shooting a lot of objects with fine line patterns, and then it's really only a problem under certain lighting. In my opinion, unless you are a professional photographer, which I am not, you really don't need a camera without an AA filter, but if that's what you want then you will probably be ok, just look out for the occasional moire that may appear in your images.
I have purchased a few of the novelty ultra tele zooms over the years mainly as toys to experiment with, to see what I could do with them. I never considered them as quality optical devices which realistically they are not. This lens is large and heavy, about 18 inches long and weighs over 4 pounds. Granted the Sigma 150-600 Sport weigh more but it also has image stabilization and auto focus, the opteka does not. It's also comparing a $250 lens to a $2000 lens; there is no comparison.
Will the lens do what they claim it will do? In the hands of someone who knows how to get the best image out of a lens like that, it will produce decent photos but it demands a lot of light a very sturdy tripod and a bit of post processing to achieve decent results.
It does not have the image quality of the Sigma or Tamron super telephoto zooms. It is not a bad lens for $250 but you would be much better off picking up a used Sigma 150-600 contemporary or Tamron 150-600. They will cost you more but the end results are well worth the extra expense.