Sorry to disagree. Image quality is important, but it takes a back seat to content. For the right content, we can tolerate some pretty funky stuff. And DXO does compare at multiple focal lengths. I have both a bachelor and masters degrees in photojournalism and got my masters under Clif Edom at the University of Missouri. While you make your living teaching it, I have made mine doing it for more than 50 years.
AS someone with a back pasture full of these long tailed pasture pigs, I like the shot. Does not appear over-processed to me at all.
Mark, never heard of cameralabs, but DXO Marks claims the Tamron exceeds the Nikon for sharpness and matches in every other category except for some fringing. Weather sealing on the lens is excellent. Nikon may be slightly better built, but if so, it's a near thing. Frankly, I don't care about the cost difference. I'm fortunate in that area. DP Reviews tends to agree with DXO in their field test.
They are different lenses and Nikon, which I have been shooting since before they created their first SLR, has always been my choice. However, in this focal range and for what my clients are asking me to do, I need VR. Nikon doesn't have it. Tamron does. I have ragged on my Nikon rep and my NPS rep for more than a year about VR on this focal length. While they would prefer that I stayed with Nikon, they understand the switch in this case and even agree.
There are easier, less expensive ways to overcome the filter issue. I am not one of those that believes in a "protective" filter.
I shoot a pair of D4 bodies and a D810. So far, I'm pleased with the lens on these bodies. It gives me a capability Nikon did not and the image quality is comparable.
It is your right to disagree and to go your own path, as did I. I've made a living with Nikon gear for more than 50 years. This is only the second non-Nikon lens that has earned it's way into my bag.
Nikon's 24-70 is an excellent lens. I recently sold mine and replaced it with the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. The Tamron is as sharp as the Nikon, maybe even a bit sharper AND it has VR. Some would ask why on a lens in that focal range is VR necessary and my response is that I often drag the shutter and VR makes that more viable.
So, positives about the Tamron are that it has VR, it is as sharp if not sharper than the Nikon and it cost a lot less money.
Negatives about the Tamron...82mm front element which makes filters rarer and sometimes non existent and more expensive and there is an intermittent focus issue with the lens and Nikon.
Here's the deal...when mounted on a Nikon, some Tamron 24-70's have VR issues that cause focus problems where focus jumps around and refuses to lock. So try the exact lens you plan to buy. Some do, some don;t have the problem. My first one did, but Tamron just swapped it out for me and I am both impressed with their service and the quality of the lens I now have.
51 focus points, virtually INSTANT focus on AF-S lenses on my D4's, D3s, D800 or D700. 24 of the 51 focus points are cross points. Don't misunderstand. Canon makes some great gear and they were first into digital and for a long time, had better digital than Nikon, but the D3/D700 jumped in front and Canon has been playing catch up since. Unless you're talking video, then the D4 brings it about even, but just barely.
I shoot professionally, both studio and sports with a background in news. I'm around a lot of pros and if anyone is switching, they are going TO Nikon, not FROM Nikon. One of the reasons the Canon shooters give for changing is Nikon's focusing system.
With AA's or the D3 battery in the grip, it's 8-9 fps. On just the plain D70, you're right.
According to
www.nikonusa.com, price of a D7100 is $1,199.xx, body only. Now maybe there is a better deal elsewhere, but other than cost, why would you stay with a cropped sensor if you could get a full frame sensor for close to the same money. You get versatility, better low light capability and more lens options. If you could buy a D700 for $1,200, the you could also buy a used but excellent 50mm f/1.8 for around $80 and you essentially have a D3 with a slower frame rate. No brainer!
We are all ignorant, just on different subjects. But questions like "What camera should I buy" are a waste of effort. Too many variables, too many unanswered possibilities. Instead bring a problem, such as "I need a really wide angle to cover...and low light is important. How can I solve these issues? Currently I have a...Can I get there from here and if so, how do I do that?"
BS! Currently, if a pro sports shooter is changing systems, they are going from Canon to Nikon and not the other way.
But to the point...the question evidences a misunderstanding of what controls focus and/or sharpness of a moving object. The answer is shutter speed, not f/stop. Focus on the spot where you will take the photo and speed up,the shutter speed, then forget about focus and just shoot when the object gets to your point of focus. In sunlight, you can shoot at iso 400, f/11 and 1/1000 sec and you should be fine. Be aware that many cameras refocus when the shutter release is initially depressed, so you may have to partially depress the shutter and then finish the release at the appropriate time.
The three digit DSLR's are not all less well built than the pro level bodies. I shot a pair of D700's for years with MB-D10's attached and they were bullet proof. I finally broke one. Dropped just the body onto granite rocks from about 5' up. Viewing was screwed, but the camera continued to focus sharp and shoot for another 4 hours. Sent it to NPS and they turned it around in 4 days including replacing the shutter just as a precaution. D700 shutters were guaranteed for 150,000 actuations, but despite blowing way past that number, in 56 years behind a Nikon, I've never had a shutter problem. Besides, replacing it at Nikon is relatively cheap. $300, including the prism repair.
I've moved on to a pair of D4 and one D800 and the D4 shutter is guaranteed for 400,000 actuations. The camera is so fast it almost reads your mind. Buffering is also lightning fast, supporting more than100 frames at 11 fps. Rain is a non issue. So is temperature within what a human can tolerate. The 51 point focus points are not enough points. In studio, need to put the focus point in the eyes without having to reframe.
I'm really anxious to see what the D4s improves. If it's just video, I may pass. The current 4 does 1080p pretty well, but needs an external mike. I do not expect better low light. Now, iso of 12,800 is perfectly usable. One can always hope for more dynamic range, but the 4 is pretty good right now.
Anyway, that's my mind currently on Nikon. If someone wanted to be budget conscious and they are not concerned about video, I'd go for a used D700 for about $1,200-1,300. Same sensor as the D3 and tough as they come. With the D3 battery in the grip, it shoots 8-9fps.
White is softer, no doubt, and the main difference in size of a beauty dish is portability UNLESS you are using it for full body or multiple people shots. Then size matters! If you are using the dish for the standard clamshell beauty portrait, 16" works just fine. So does an umbrella.
Without referencing a chart, there is no way to determine intro date simply from model number.