Thank you all for your opinions, and it pretty much confirmed what I was thinking. One of my bigger issues with pc base is the windows system itself. It seems there is always a new version coming out to "cure all the issues" with the current one, but then somebody finds a way to hack into it,or it has "unforseen issues"and they keep coming up with patches to fix it, and pretty soon another version comes out and the vicious circle starts again. The one other thing is,I've never heard of anybody that switched to Apple ever say they regretted it (though after spending all that $$$ maybe they would never admit it). And of course the other thing is how good all the Apple products work with each other. I don't know if it's the right move or not but my dream machine would be the 2in. IMac and I will probably start with the Macbook pro...thanks again everyone!
Hi Fellow 'Hoggers..This is probably going to be another "Ford vs. Chevy" or "Nikon vs. Canon" type of argument, but I'm looking for a photographers opinion. ...
I'm thinking about getting a new laptop that I can take with on vacations,etc. so I can work with my photos. I've been looking around a bit and I have to say I was VERY impressed with the Apple macbook pro,even though it was only 13 inches. The retina display is really incedible, but like all things made by Apple it comes at a price. It's at the very least, twice the price of an HP or something else comparable. For me to get that laptop, with the larger flash drive, the larger ram,and some software for photos and whatever, it's pushing the $2,000.00 window. I've never owned an Apple product and have looked at them before,but again,I got my HP desktop for less than half the cost of the Apple and I still wonder if I should have just gotten the Apple anyway.
I too have the 7100..got the 35 & the 50, both 1.8's, and rarely use them...have the Tamron 18-270 and it rarely comes off the camera..extremely versatile and to me, at least, the pictures are very good, plus the cost is very reasonable..I paid about 450.00 but I believe it is cheaper now that the 16-300 is out (also worth looking into). That almost leaves you with enough in your budget to get the flash.
My vote is for the tamron. I think it is very under rated. I have the 18-270 on my Nikon 7100 and love it. It sure beats constantly changing lenses when the one you have on the camera is close but not exactly the picture you are after. Every time you change the lens there is a chance for dirt or damage. For my budget I could not justify the cost of the Nikon lenses in that range and at least to my eyes, the lens is a great deal at 450.00. I would look at the 16-300 as well but it wasn't on the street yet when I got mine.
Both are good but I prefer the color one in this case
Another one you may want to look at that got me interested, though I have not purchased it yet, is by Peak Design...they have what appears to be quite a nice setup but I don't know of anyone using one.
Thanks for all the great ideas!.not sure how much of it I will be able to fit in with the rest of the family along but I am looking forward to trying
Hi fellow 'hoggers
I have a question that may seem stupid to some of you but it has me confused a bit. I'm not real sure how to ask this but try to bear with me. I have a few different lenses, all of these I'm referring to are Nikon lenses. I have an 18-70 zoom from an older camera, a d70 I believe, and it has a 67 mm filter size, but it's only a 3.5-4.5 speed. Yet, I have a 35 & 50 mm with only a 52 mm filter and they are both 1.8. I also have a 55-200 kit lens that has a 52mm filter. What I'm confused about, is -Wouldn't a larger filter size (i.e. More glass) mean it's a faster lens as it can allow more light to enter?-I thought the zoom range might come into play but the 55-200 ruins that theory since it's smaller than the 18-70. Also, if I had not traded my 18-55 in on my Tamron 18-270, that was also a 52 mm 3.5 lens. If all other things are equal, would the larger glass area give me a better picture than a lens of the same speed and focal length? Is there an advantage of one over the other?
Hi fellow 'hoggers..
I'm taking a trip to Phoenix and planning on going to Sedona.My wife tells me it's an awesome place to take photos, but I'm not familiar with the area at all. Any suggestions? (nikon d7100, will have my Tamron 18-270 and Nikon 35 & 50 mm 1.8 prime lenses with)
I have the 18-270 Tamron and I think it's better than my Nikon kit lenses and also seems to be under rated. In any event it sure beats switching lenses so often and gives me more range than both my kit lenses.It's on my d7100 almost almost all the time and it gives me good results. I paid 449.00 but B&H recently had it for 399.00 and for that money it's great. Tamron does have a 16-300 out now but it's a bit pricier at the moment
Don't make the same mistake I did..I had a d70 (one model up from your d40) a few years back and hadn't used it in a while.. I was at Costco one day and bought the 3200 2 lens kit, and 2 months later I realized how much better the d7100 is and now I have that. I also replaced the 55-200 zoom with a Tamron 18-270 and absolutely love it. The 7100 is so far advanced from the 3200-3300, especially in the focusing. .51 points as opposed to I think 11? If you're going to upgrade, do it right the first time and get the 7100..
I have a Nikon d7100 and was at a local camera store looking at flash units. They highly recommend the Phottix Mitros unit. It has a guide number of 190 which is quite powerful. They claim it is as good or better than the Nikon 910 flash at a lot less money (299.00). Wondering if anybody has any experience with this flash. It is supposedly 100% TTL compatible with my camera. Comments, anyone? BTW... As of right now I don't do much flash photography (possibly because i dont have a flash unit) but I want to have a flash when that comes up
Check out the Tamron 18-270 lens. I know some of the reviews say it's just so - so but I think it's a great lens for the money. At the store I got it from one of the girls that works there has sold a ton of pics she took with that lens. They told me to try it and promised me i would like it and they were right. I paid 449.00 for it but saw it at B&H a week or so ago for 349.00
Does anybody have a any suggestions for a website where I can post photos to share with friends and family? I inherited a lot of photos when my parents passed away a few years back, and would love to find a place to post them for the rest of the family to be able to share and enjoy. I also have several of my own (and hopefully a LOT more in the future now that I got my new Nikon d7100!). At this point, I'm not looking for a place to sell photos, and would like for the family to be able to print their own copies online if they wanted to. I'm not against having to pay to do this, but would like to keep costs to a minimum. I would prefer something that's not too difficult to set up and post to, but not necessarily something that just anyone would be able to get to. Maybe something with open viewing to some files, and more personal items could be password protected for "family and friends only" access?
I have the same setup..replaced the 2 kit lenses with the tamron 18-270 and love it! Saves a lot of time swapping lenses which is better for the camera (less chance of a mishap or dust getting in the body), and the pics seem fine to me. It's my favorite lens to carry around and it's not all that bulky. I was looking at B&H yesterday and it's got a $100.00 rebate now and you can have it for only $349.00 which which is a great price