charles brown wrote:
Judy:
Holy smokes - another new word for my wife to use along with stubborn, pig headed, you get the idea. :roll: I think you are right on, the sensor is only one component of a complex and rapidly improving system. I still argue that the format most threatened by all the latest technological advances is DX. Caught in the middle between FX and the smaller sensors. Additionally, that's where the money is. Imagine all DX owners having to replace their "stuff" in order to keep up with the latest and greatest improvements. Does film to digital ring a bell.
Judy: br br Holy smokes - another new word for my... (
show quote)
I have upgraded to FX with a D600, but I wonder whether in a few years we will all be going back again to the incredible sensors which will be available, to take advantage of the lighter weight lenses.
jerryc41 wrote:
I get a daily email from A Word A Day - interesting.
http://www.wordsmith.org
This is a really good link thanks, I think I was the only teenager I knew who liked to do the "it pays to increase your word power" in Readers Digest. Does anybody else remember that?
I forgot to ask the question relevant to the thread! Which of those sensor sizes do the Nikon bridge cameras have, eg my Coolpix L110 and the 850 (I think)which my wife has, and takes very sharp photos if you don't blow them up too much?
saichiez wrote:
You called the RR a "roller", and that's appropriate slang nomenclature for a RR.
In my neighborhood, a "roller" is any disheveled car that is still sitting on four tires, with enough air in them to "roll" the car on and off a car trailer, or into a bay in the shop to proceed on some restorative project. I have owned many "rollers" in my lifetime, but never a "Roller Rolls Royce", as being on a car trailer, that looks like both types of "roller".
I restored British and Italian cars for about twenty years, and can appreciate what I see there. If it is a project, it looks like the parts that need restorative work are "under the skin".
Very Nice. Oh, and if I give you a ship address, will you send me what is shown in the top pic?
You called the RR a "roller", and that's... (
show quote)
My Grandad had one in black, had been used as an ambulance in London in the war, and was converted back again afterwards. Drove all over Wales in it during his retirement, at a steady 25 miler per hour. He would not have dreamed of calling it anything other than "The Rolls". Great fun, but freezing cold in the rain (which is most of the time in Wales).
Well done to both giver and receiver, hope you have lots of luck in the future. Show us some piccys!
gessman wrote:
I don't ordinarily order enough from Amazon to justify joining their "Prime" club because when I do order from them, I usually make sure I'm over the limit to qualify for free shipping, but thanks for that information. I'm sure some who will read here can benefit from it.
I paid for Prime once because it was worth it for some specific reason on an order, otherwise i would not have bothered. Then I discovered just how useful it really is. And my family benefit from membership too, although I am not sure how you switch that bit on, they did it. I continue with it now anyway. Not had a problem yet with Amazon.
olcoach wrote:
I'm not sure the education here is "cheap" or "inexpensive" as I keep reading about some equipment I need to get to make my photography really take off. Now, don't get me wrong as I love this place and appreciate the folks here that have been so helpful, but I sure seem to spend a bunch of bucks. I am being facetious I think. Have fun and keep shootin'. Mike
I have spent heaps of money since listening to all the enthusiasts on the HOG! I just want all the equipment, right now, and go out and get stuck in! And our postman, he costs me so much money, he keeps bringing me things I have to pay for!
I can't believe how much valuable knowledge is here, compared with my textbooks!
I went through the same exercise (for D600) and became convinced (MT Shooter and others) that the Nikon 28-300 would suit me. Then I spotted a Sigma 28-300 on Ebay and thought well, give it a try, and got it for less than 1/4 price of the new Nikon. I thought if I don't like it I can resell it or even park it on my D70.
Actually I really like it. This is definitely a good choice to leave on the camera when you go out and don't know what to expect, or need to travel light. So I would say along with the others above, this is a good answer to the question.
But what about the Sigma one? I like it too. Design very similar also same aperture & closest distance etc, sharp, not too much distortion anywhere, good build quality. The downsides
1 Heavier (more metal?)
2 Zoom a bit stiff (may be my lens)
2 Older screwdriver auto drive not HSM/SWM motor but fast and accurate
3 may not focus as close or be as well optimised for close up? seems to do a good job though
4 The main one - no image stabilisation.
The trouble is, without buying it I cannot try the Nikon one to compare; maybe I don't know what I am missing in image quality, and how much of a benefit is the VR? I am going walking in Madagascar later in the year to try to catch some wildlife. Would anyone like to comment please?
When I bought my D600 I was going to buy body only, and two prime lenses. I was recommended the kit 24-85 kit lens and thought OK why not. Now I love it, sharp, not too much distortion, versatile, my first lens with VR and works really well. A cracker. Actually, I cannot knock the 17-70 which came with my D70 somewhere around 8-10 years ago, for the age and price also a good one. Is it that long ago?
I would not go so far as Ken R who seems to say that any lens is good enough, but I do say don't knock the kit lens as a carry around, until you find something that suits you specially.
Happy shooting.
Excellent result, makes it all worthwhile. Photography, like science and art and so many other things, is all about people really.
jerryc41 wrote:
But I bet all those who bought expensive DSLRs know that their cameras are really better. Right? Right? :D
No matter what you buy today, it's impossible to get a bad camera. With advances in electronics and manufacturing, you can't go wrong.
Without any doubt. (On both points.)
These are proving unbelievably difficult to distinguish correctly. Definitely a lesson here. These bridge cameras are really unpretentious pieces of kit, and come up with the goods. Nice postings everyone.
steve40 wrote:
Since there are no other shots, other than Sony images posted here. I will assume all to be in reference.
At one time RCA, and Zenith had two very different looks with their Tv's. RCA had a very pleasing soft image (much like Canon), and Zenith had a really contrasty cross your eyes, and make you blink picture (Sony and Others). Each one of these Tv's had their dedicated customers, just as cameras have theirs.
All of my other cameras are Canon's, the Sony made me blink. Yes the images are really sharp, and look more-so if you are used to a Canon. Canon is not so soft that they are mushy, and I can deal with the Sony's sharpness more than I could deal with a mushy image, which used to belong to Olympus P&S cameras. Maybe they are better now?, I really don't know.
But it is much easier to soften an image slightly if you want, than it is to do anything with mush, except to have sharper mush. :)
Oh yes I forgot to add anywhere in any post here, the shots from the DSC H90 Sony, were both made using fully manual exposure. :)
Since there are no other shots, other than Sony im... (
show quote)
Apologies for the delay. Sounds like sense. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting shots. Without wishing to be picky, they look rather over sharpened in the camera. What do you think?