MT Shooter wrote:
Wondering where you got that "C" lens Bill, since its not even in production yet. ;-)
Sigma just announced the 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | C and the 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | S a few days ago. How did you get your hands on the C?
And don't forget to sample fish tacos everywhere!!
[quote=Mark7829]<snip> In fact, one's personal observations and limited experience are often presented as definitive and conclusive.<snip>quote]
You could have stopped there as that pretty much sums up your usual contribution.
Mark7829 wrote:
You are correct. You are not at my level.
THANK GOD!!!!
Gdelvecc wrote:
We are planning a trip to Italy next year! Any comments on which lens to have on my Nikon for the entire trip? Just a camera and a lens is all i wish to carry... Any comments?
If it absolutely MUST be one lens only, the 18-200 is your best choice. It covers a good range for a wide use.
Definitly not the 300mm. It will be overkill for your use.
If you decide you are open to two lenses, you might take the 55-210 and get the Sigma 18-35 1.8 for your wide angle and indoor shots.
Chris F. wrote:
Can you hook a DSLR up to that thing? If so, I may be feeling GAS as well! LOL.
Chris
I believe there is an adapter for just that purpose. Yet another purchase. :evil: :twisted: :evil: :twisted:
Don't forget to dress for the weather...Which, when you will be there, will probably be...
perfect....
As opposed to other times of the year, when the weather tends toward...
perfect.
The poor souls of San Diego, how do they manage???
Mickey Mantle wrote:
No one helped me with my GAS problem. You are all mean and nasty. Just bought the Nikon 14-24 2.8 to be used on my D610. Will take it to my trips to Sicily, Charleston and Savannah. Hope everyone is happy. We are all NUTS.
You are welcome...
Such a nice thank you...
I am all teary eyed... :cry:
I have the 18-35 and think it is a simply amazing lens. The advantage, for you, would be the 27 53 ish equivalent range. The 20 gives you a basic 30 on the D7100.
However, you also seem to be building a nice set of primes. If your shooting style is more prime centric (if you prefer to zoom with your feet), then go for the 20 and save up for an ultra-wide prime later.
rob s wrote:
I concur.
I have a NEX3n and find it's performance every bit as good as many entry level DSLRs. I would think you might consider the Alpha 6000. It'll do everything you want superbly.
Mark7829 wrote:
Yes I too have the NEX3NL/B and against my Nikon D810, does not compare to the output of the D810. It has its place like in my pocket but not anywhere else. The A6000 is a 24 mg apsc camera and can not compare with the output of the 36 mpx, with incredible low light, and the dynamic range of the D810 or with any of the superb professional lenses out there. You sir are a charlatan and likely a poor excuse of a photographer. I believe you next statement should be, "I have a Kodak Brownie and find it's performance every bit as good as many entry level DSLRs".
Yes I too have the NEX3NL/B and against my Nikon D... (
show quote)
:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
So, Mark, let's see who you are. You now claim the D810 is an "entry level DSLR" since that is the comparison set up by Rob. You call him a "charlatan and likely a poor excuse of a photographer"
Well the D810 is NOT AND ENTRY LEVEL DSLR. The OP said they were looking at an entry level DSLR on a budget of $1,000 or less. Can you get the OP a D810 with a lens for less than 1K? Can you?????
Well, Mark, Rob is not a charlatan, merely someone trying to help with a clearly defined issue. So while Rob is not what you claimed, you, sir, are
. not going to get me to sink to your level.
I just got the 10-18 and am enjoying it.
The Sigma 18-35 1.8 is simply amazing!!!!
Cameras and flashes are also empty.
Dngallagher wrote:
Does anyone use a service like Digimarc?
I looked at them once upon a time but then read some info that claimed the embedded copyright would or could reduce image quality... any info??
Thanks.
EDIT: Might have answered my own question at Ken Rockwell's site....
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digimark.htmAt least based on his premiss of reducing quality to maintain the same file size....
I have also read about it quite a bit. The idea of imbedding a searchable and nearly invisible watermark is interesting, but beyond my current budget or needs.