Subscribe to the CC version of Photo Shop for $10 per month. Elements is fast becoming an antique.
IMHO, those are all pretty good filters. I own a couple of B&W's, Hoya Pro's and one other whose name escapes me. I have paid as much as $100, Used for a pro level filter but can't see the difference between it and the Hoya. The one think I will say is that the four or so brands I have tried vary in the depth of polarization available when the filter is turned.
Where I have seen huge differences is in haze filters. Hands down, B&W and the high end Hoyas etc. do cut down haze significantly.
bsprague wrote:
No. Not if it says "Ships from and sold by Amazon.com". If it is sold by third party contractors, you have the same risks as buying from eBay except, no matter what, you can get your money back from Amazon if a product is falsely advertised.
Actually, you can get your money back for a purchase misrepresented on eBay as well. I have had to do it twice.
You are articulating what I have been thinking perfectly. I am still low level intermediate yet I am happy with my pictures. I shoot local high school sports with a d7000 and a 80-200 f2.8 lens, a f1.8 80mm, a 50mm 1.8 and a 18 - 140 f3.5 VR. I also am trying outdoor / wildlife photography and a little macro work. I would like to get paid at some point and to that end, shooting events and parties strikes my fancy. I am happy with my lens collection and the only think that I may think about is a relatively (2.8) 17-80 from Sigma or Tamron. The Nikon at mega bucks would not deliver anything better in my case and would work well.
I like you, have looked at "upgrades" as they are called and after GAS wore off, I thought that truthfully that my pictures wouldn't be any better that the guy, me, behind the camera could shoot and my money, if I had any would be better spent elsewhere.
GPS is of no use to me. VS is worthless when shooting sports. I can't see the difference visually between IQ with 12 MP, 24 MP, 30-or whatever MP. A bigger buffer would help when shooting HS basketball but it won't help me be a better photographer so I can live without it.
Thank you for your intelligent response and your sage advice.
Dana
Bugfan wrote:
To me a camera is only a tool, like a hammer. As long as I'm banging regular nails I never need anything other than the hammer I own. If I now need to break up cement it's time for a new hammer that is good for that but not nails. And if I'm using small tacks, yet another hammer is needed,
I purchase a camera to meet my photographic needs and no camera meets all those needs.
I have my first entry level six megapixel camera with two lenses in its own case with a manual and a charger. That is my loaner camera, I lone that to aspiring kids who want to learn photography. It never needs an upgrade because it does lovely pictures within its limitations.
I have a very old 10 megapixel camera with a crop censor and an 18-300 lens which I use exclusively for travel. It's reasonably light, it only needs that single lens and it has a flash build in.
I have a twelve megapixel professional body that I use for almost everything else I do except macro. For that I have another body with 36 megapixels.
All of my cameras have been replaced with new models. That really old one can't compete with the 24 megapixels SLRs these days but I have no need to upgrade it, the job for which it is intended it performs perfectly well. My professional body could now be a sixteen megapixel but so far I've not needed that higher resolution, the improvements are only incremental, not worth over six thousand dollars. And my super resolution one? That too has a new model but it still has the same resolution and the new goodies are incremental and minor too. So nothing has changed.
I've done the same with lenses. As my subject matter changed I would sometimes acquire another lens to fill a gap that has come up. Eventually that's added up to a bunch of lenses but like with the camera bodies each performs a job and does it well. I have the odd old autofocus lens that's slow but then I don't need the new faster one, the subjects that lens goes for don't need high speed focus. I have the odd lens that doesn't have a stabilizer but then the application I use that for, like on the end of a bellows, I don't need the stabilizer and if I had it I'd not use it. So that one doesn't need upgrading either.
I suggest you look at your photographic goals. What are you presently doing and how well is it going. What else do you want to do tomorrow? To achieve those goals, are your tools still adequate or is there a gap that needs to be filled?
If you can tell us exactly what things you like photographing and what you plan to do in the next few years we can offer you suggestions on how to possibly achieve that. Similarly if you tell us your present photographic issues or frustrations we may be able to recommend technological solutions for you too.
But we really can't do that without understanding what tools you need and how well the ones you have do the job for you.
To me a camera is only a tool, like a hammer. As l... (
show quote)
The Nikon TC's, or at least the new ones will not allow your in camera AF to work. The only lenses that "work" are AFS lenses. Shutter, ap and other stull will work but if it is not an AFS you will have to focus manually. Plus Nikon TC's are way to rich for my blood. The Kenko and Tam work well and and are not priced out of reach. Just sayin
While I am sure others will disagree, I don't think people viewing great photographs can see the difference between 8 MP and 50 MP.
I think that supposed upgrades are designed to sell more cameras to more people with GAS more than they are to improve upon what the naked eye sees in a photograph,
jfn007 wrote:
You could probably sell the D90 for around 500 dollars, body only. That does not seem like enough to go out and buy a D7100.
I did sell the D90 for $335, body only and like I said, I bought a new D7000 for $475. Yes I looked at the 7100 and the rujors of the
D7200 but for me, the IQ, added MP's etc weren't enough for me to spend much more than I did.
When you consider many gallery, (as in the one you can walk into). were shot with a D70 by great photographers, my thought was that the person behind the lens is the most important part of the outfit. Upgraded camera features will not make me a better photographer, experience will.
I use my monopod quite a bit with my Tam 200-5-- and my Nikon 80-200 two ring. I shorten the pod if I need to shoot something that would allow for the pod to rest on the ground, floor etc. and I can go back to pod support in just a few seconds.
That is funny and one would have to think that the origin has to be in an interest shown in something else perhaps on Craig's List or elsewhere. More often than not, the emails are not sent to you specifically but are sent to multiple people or groups of people.
I have been having a little fun with them. When I get an email about a dead African long lost uncle in Nigeria, Camroon etc. I respond with the text of another scam email as the body of the reply. It is called 'feedback" LOLOL.
Not really. This is the going price for grey market 7100's.
They were great with something I bought from them. They sell grey market cameras however which are always less expensive than those sold through authorized Nikon dealers. Thus if something happens during the first year Nikon USA will not service it during the warranty period and won't service it for a fee after.
The company you speak does offer a warranty and an extended warranty which sounds pretty good.
The company is great on service and communication. They are good people if my experience with them is any judge.
Jack47 wrote:
Do u have the option of returning to factory settings?
There is an option to return to original settings in the menus. I accidentally set my D7000 for something I did know existed. The manual, while being helpful does have some knowledge holes in it. I used the setting restore to start fresh.
I think you pictures are great. I shoot with an 80-200 on a D7000, manual, 2.8, shutter 500-650 depending home close I am, ISO 3200 to 4000. I shoot a lot under the basket with an 80mm 1.8 and a 50mm 1.8.
I crop out as much background that I can so that the action specific to the player is what people will see.
I don't shoot for publications. I shoot for kids, parents and whoever else wants to look at them. Hence, I don't worry about grain.
On this site if I recall correctly some of the 7200 specs were itemized but from what source???? If they are correct and you own a 7100 or even a 7000 in my opinion they are nothing to get real excited about.
I have made a decision however. I found a new U.S. D7000 which does everything I need for $475 being sold by a reputable seller. I talked to him on the phone and he told me that he took advantage of a Best Buy sale on the camera kit which included the 18-140 3.5 VR. He is selling the lenses separately and coming out ahead on the packages. He bought 4 of the kits from Best Buy. Included is the Best Buy receipt, the Nikon warranty and all the goodies.
Cdouthitt wrote:
makes sense to me...but I prefer shooting with primes (one less thing to think about).
I am beginning to like that as well. I am thinking about a 28mm or there abouts fairly fast, 2.8 or better instead of the zoom.