The camera body does indeed have something to do with sharpness of a lens. When I go into the set-up menu on my Nikons there is a setting for sharper or less sharp recording of images. Something to pay attention to is that at least on the 300's and 90's each of several different settings -- Vivid, Neutral, Standard, B&W, Sepia -- you must go into each of those areas and set the sharpness to the way you want your photos to look. For most images, I want maximum sharpness, but on the Neutral setting -- the setting I would use for portraits, I would set the sharpness to the middle setting. Portraits don't need to be so sharp you can count the pores on someone's face.

Some bridge cameras can go for as much as 400.00. Look on Craigslist and you may find an Olympus 510 with 2 lenses for under 500.00. I've seen these for as little as 425.00. I'm a Nikon shooter but found one of these sets locally for 275.00 and bought it. It is a small camera and fun to use. I keep it around as a grab and go camera. Recently my wife started using it and really likes it -- I guess it's her camera now! The camera comes with a nice little extra -- built in stabilization -- something none of my Nikons have.

I agree with the person that suggested the lens might have been defective -- it does happen at times. Some years back I bought a Vivitar Series 1 19 - 28 and felt it was always a little soft. I ended up sending it back to Vivitar and when it was returned it was much better. Although there were numerous problems listed in association with the 18 - 135, most reviews said it was a sharp lens and that seemed to be one of your problems with it.

I read an interesting article recently: It pointed out the revolution in photography was both helping and hurting the pro photographer. What it was talking about was the fact I-phones and their kin are starting to get very high-tech cameras. It is putting a big dent in the point and shoot cameras. It is helping pros from the standpoint that people aren't going to be shooting a major event such as a wedding with an I-phone and a lot of people aren't buying top end point and shoot cameras that could be used for an event. Thus more business for the pro. The downside for the pro is that camera companies relied heavily on profits from their point & shoot cameras, with that market drying up, they will have to raise prices on their pro lines.

I like shooting in the rain under a large golf unbrella. It takes a little practice to balance a large unbrella and keep the camera in position but it works really well. Of course if there is much of a wind at all, forget the unbrella! I have used the zip lock bags method. There are also ponchos designed with a camera view window. I think these are around 40.00 at a camera store. Sure wish that was me going on that trip. Machu Picchu is in the top 5 places I would like to go to shoot. Just behind New Zeland!

I know my reply may have seemed like I was promoting spending a fortune on equipment as have several others here. But if you are proficent with a camera and you find you are in a position to help someone that actually can't afford a professional photographer, there are ways to handle the cost. Equipment rental is one. Or if you know someone with an SLR, offer to rent it from them -- they may even offer to let you use it without charging you. People in a position where they can't afford a professional will be thrilled with some good quality photos even if the event isn't covered as a pro would cover it. Be careful though. If they just want to cheap out on the photos and they have a sit-down surf & turf dinner for 200, then bow out and let them get what they deserve -- nothing!

I've seen weddings where the couple will spend 500.00 on a cake, but want to get someone to shoot their wedding for half that amount! The cake lasts a few hours while the photos could last a lifetime. I don't get involved with those situations.

Good advise. You can spend 1200.00 for a top of the line receiver and buy 50.00 worth of speakers and get crappy sound. Same with cameras. A less expensive body and money spent on a top lens will give you much better photos than buying a 3000.00 body and putting a 200.00 lens on it.

I see a lot of people on here do a lot of different things when shooting weddings. I'm rather amazed at the range to tell you the truth. Here are some things I do and my results have been very satisfying. I use a 16-85 for about 80% of my shots at a wedding, and a 70-300 for the rest. I would love to have a 70-200 VRII for those 20% shots but haven't been able to afford one yet. I shoot RAW but not RAW + JPEG -- no sense slowing the processor down any more than necessary. I shoot at 800 ISO -- this will save your battery allowing more shots before you have to switch batteries. I also use a shutter speed of 25 to 40. This allows a little ambient light to light the background. Your subjects won't appear to just be pasted on a black background this way. I attend the Photo Expo every year at the Javits Center in NYC. I have heard many pros give tips and show how they set up things. I remember one whose favorite lenses were those with a constant f4. He felt that was sufficient for all his work and was lighter and easier to use than the f2.8. The best advice I could give anyone though is to NEVER, NEVER, EVER go to shoot an important event without a backup camera & Lens. Things break and you can't say that won't happen because the camera has been working fine. Back about 20 years ago a friend was going to shoot a wedding. He had his back-up body in the shop and took only his primary body. I told him to take some of my equipment but he chose not to. On the 3rd roll of film his camera locked up and he was done. Although he rented a guest's Yashica, he knew nothing about the camera and managed to get only a few good shots. I take three flashes, three bodies and back-up lenses. There is nothing more important than having enough equipment when photographing events that can't be done over.

To me lens hoods are not a necessity is like saying good shots are not a necessity. Stray light coming from any source can degrade a photo. Even if you are facing away from the sun, a reflection from glass or water can send stray beams of light across the lens and wash out color. Also the UV filter is accurate however covering a lens with even clear glass is advisable -- a friend scratched his front element and it cost him 100.00 for a repair. A decent UV or clear filter would have saved him 2/3rd's that cost.
#50 to me is that when it comes to rules of composition, there are no rules. Some of the best shots I've ever seen are because the rules have been broken and the result is a jolt to the senses. I tend to think of rules of composition as guidelines of composition.

My thoughts on Olympus: Back in film days, this was my choice of cameras. I owned every model from OM1 to OM3 and OM4. Their lenses were second to none. They never built bodies as sturdy and durable as Nikon, Canon and Minolta and were never a favorite to the professional trade that had to take equipment into the field especially in hostile environments. (That was Nikon's strong point back then -- just couldn't kill an FM2 or F3). Today Olympus still makes great lenses and most people still would rather have a Nikon or Canon body. I would love to see Olympus go into just making lenses for Nikon, Canon and Sony. With their reputation for great lenses, they could zoom right up to #1 ahead of Tamron, Sigma and Tokina. (Anyone from Olympus paying attention out there?). They may not go out of business on their own, but the problem is that perception is often reality. If enough camera stores do what your's has done, they will be forced out. In the last two years Sony has zoomed ahead of them in the market and I don't see things getting better for them. One problem too is their smaller sensor size. The trend is going the other way -- Sony and now Nikon (if the D600 rhumor is accurate)have full frame cameras in the prosumer price range -- around 1600.00. With the increased sensor size more megapixels can be added without increasing noise. If Olympus tries to pack too many megapixels onto their 4/3rd's sensor, they may be making a sharper image at the expense of increasing noise.

You are doing nothing wrong. It's just that the more range that is built into a lens creates more problems. Back in film days a good rule of thumb for zoom lenses was to keep within a 2x range. A great lens I own and used back when shooting film was the 75-150 Olympus lens. Now in digital days the range has been extended through better computer designs but there will always be problems for lenses that have such great ranges. You will find that such lenses have "sweet spots" where you will get great shots and other areas that are very soft. Usually the extreme ends of the range are soft and sometimes there will be a soft spot somewhere in the middle of the range. Problems created with shifting focal length is why so many photographers keep one or two prime lenses (single focal length) in their bag. Another thing you may be seeing is movement when using the larger lens. It is hard to get a good shot at say 240mm without using a tripod. You would have to be shooting with a pretty fast shutter speed. Another old rule of thumb -- shoot at least as fast as the focal length. In other words, at 240mm, you shouldn't shoot slower than 250 unless again you are on a tripod. Remember when a lens is at 5x power, all the problems with movement are 5x greater as well. Good luck with your photography, now go buy a prime lens if you want to really get blown away!

You are comparing a 1200.00 camera to a3000.00 camera. If the rhumor is true of Nikon coming out with the full frame D600 at around 1600.00, you may want to wait and jump on that band-wagon. Of course if an extra 1500.00 or so isn't a problem for you, the 800 would give you the full frame you are wanting.

I have used Cameta several times over the years without a problem. Recently bought a 300s and it's in great shape. It was a Nikon referb -- looks and works like new. Nikon only gives a 90 day warranty with their referbs but Cameta extends that to 1 year. They take time to talk to you when you call unlike some dealers that only want to take an order. I even visited their place a few years back. It's in a small village on Long Island. At that time they were located in a house. Maybe they have a larger place now, but back then, it seemed small for the amount of business they do.

Two problems: 1. Too many people take photos of people for various illicit reasons. They aren't always perverts -- some just do stupid things like post photos of people on the web and attach their heads to unflattering bodies -- they consider something like that fun. There are a few perverts out there also.

2. Young adults & older teens just don't have time for anyone over 30. The old adage "don't trust anyone over 30" has somehow taken a spin to "people over 30 are just insignificant". They just don't want to give up time they can spend with friends or texting friends to work with a photographer. I'm in a photo club and over the past few years we have had more models agree to come to our annual model night and simply not show up than have actually shown up. Our club meets in the basement of a local church, has been around since 1937, and is well respected in our community. Still we have trouble getting models. One thing we have done is contact local acting groups from high school, college, or local theater and this has worked well for us in the past. Good luck!

When shooting 35mm cameras, one of my favorite lens was the 24mm Nikor prime. I was able to get back to that scope with the 16 to 85. I keep the 16 to 85 on my camera all the time. It is an excellent lens and I do recommend it. I also use the 12-24 Tokina and it too does a good job. You will be happy with your purchase.