^
The D7000 is a billion times better than the D90. I mean, its basically the new D800, minus having a full frame and it takes incredible video.

LOL, I don't know about that. It is better, sure, but the much hyped high ISO performance was disappointing IMO...

The D90 is a pretty good camera. The D7000 only gives one usable stop better for high ISO. The D7000's other strengths (compared to the D90) are a bigger viewfinder, ability to meter with manual lenses, more AF points, more megapixels, a second card slot, and little arrows around the focus dot in the viewfinder. Other than that, the D90 has most of the frills you'll ever need (like DOF preview, manual everything, customizeable buttons and menus, illuminated top LCD, etc, etc). The D7000 will also AF with video, but I've never even shot a video with my camera so I don't care (if I wanted to do video, I'd buy a video camera).

I have a D90 and I'll probably upgrade to a D7000 (factory refurb) when the D8000 or whatever comes out. I go cheap on photo gear so I usually stay one model behind. I got my D90 used when the D7000 first came out.

Something came in the mail today.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7270/7...755643a9_b.jpg
New Beast by Porter Yates, on Flickr

Some sample images:

ISO 6400, shutter was ~ 1/15 handheld. Just wanted to see sensor noise in the blacks. I think there is some visible NR that occurred in camera but otherwise the blacks look clean and the details crisp.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7267/6...1e0eba3d_b.jpg
5DmkII 6400 ISO Noise by Porter Yates, on Flickr

Books taken @ ISO 100 f 6.3 s 125 @ 43mm (70mm ff) on my 7D Sorry for the huge file size.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5343/6...dd6eaef0_o.jpg
Books 7D by Porter Yates, on Flickr

Same shot with the 5D mk III @ 70mm
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7244/7...578801b9_o.jpg
Books 5DmkIII by Porter Yates, on Flickr

The details and metering look substantially better on the new camera. Even at 100 ISO the 7D still has some color noise. I'll post more shots when I get around to it, unfortunately Adobe Camera Raw doesn't work the the 5D files yet. I have to use Canon's software for the time being.

Congrats on the new body. I too went from the 7D to the MKIII. I was going to keep my 7D as a second body, but after seeing the results of the MKIII, I quickly changed my mind and sold my 7D last Thursday.

Lightroom 4.1 will work with the 5DMKIII RAW files. If you don't use LR, then another workaround is to download Adobe's DNG converter. Version 6.7 will read the MK III's RAW files.

Here's one of the first pics I took with my MKIII. Straight of camera. First time I ever made Explore on Flickr.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7214/7...ac076ddd_c.jpg
Profile by D-2-C, on Flickr

I'd love to get a MkIII myself, but for the time being I think I'll spend whatever money I do earn this summer on travel instead.

<-------- totally jealous of all the mark iii awesomeness. All of you die now! :notacrook:

Looking for a new lens
 

So I'm currently in the market for a new lens, but not sure exactly what to get - hoping you gentlemen might have some input as to what would be best. What I'm looking for in it:

• Wide-angle lens
• Good in low light conditions
• Versatile, good for general urban photography
• "Reasonably" priced
• Must be compatible with a Nikon D40

So far all I've found are the Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8 G and Nikon AF 28mm f/2.8D, but I'm not so sure those would meet the "versatility" requirement. Any thoughts?

Perhaps my list of requirements is asking too much, but, if such a lens that has all or most of those exists I'd love to hear about it.

On the Nikon D40, wide is probably something less than 24mm, and more likely you want something around 18mm to fit buildings in. The 35mm f1.8 is a great lens to have, but is not very wide.

I would recommend one of the nikon 18-XXmm zooms or if you want a faster lens, the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Make sure you get the version with the built in AF motor (D40 doesn't have the screw drive)

Tammy would be nice. 24mm would not be wide enough on a crop sensor. Sigma makes the 17-50mm but it costs more. You could also get the 16-85mm nikon. Its a variable aperture but a good all around lens. But when I think wide angle I would go with a tokina 11-16mm f2.8 or a sigma 10-20mm f3.5 or they make a 4-5.6 that is cheaper.

But the tamron is going to be the most affordable option.

Beautiful lens, and I love mine, but it will not AF on a D40.

Thanks for the input, unfortunately all of those are a little out of my price range for now. I would really like the 16-85mm lens though.

...which leads to a new question: do you think I'd be better off using a combination of the 35mm and my current 18-55mm kit lens, or just wait until I can afford the 16-85mm Nikon or 17-50mm Tamron?

(in other words, how much better is the colour/sharpness/speed/ISO performance/etc. of the above two lenses compared to the standard 18-55?)

I have the 16-85. It is far superior to the 18-55 in range, optics, and construction/feel. I was very pleased with the upgrade. It is perhaps the perfect 'walking around' lens outside of the super-zooms, which tend to trade off optic quality for range.

The 16-85 is a great lens, most of my shots are with it. 16mm is noticeably wider than 18mm and the 85mm gives a moderate telephoto effect. A lot of people could get by with just this one lens, but it's quite expensive so I would only recommend it if you shoot regularly.

Otherwise the 18-55 kit lens is quite good. You can even do closeups with it. I used it for several years. The knock against the 18-55 is that it has cheap build quality. Once you've used good lenses, it feels like crap in your hands. But it performs well enough for Nikon to bundle it with many of its consumer DSLRs. Ken Rockwell thinks it's great, but get some other opinions.

Upgreyyedds coming soon. Stay tune.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CppYjSaXEu...slide+-+01.jpg

Upgrade Day!
 

Look what came in the mail!!!

I think I'm going to keep him.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7228/7...c08dc279_b.jpg
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 ex dc os by DiskoJoe, on Flickr

^^sweet. You'll have to give us a review and some sample shots after you've put it through its paces.

I'm feeling an urge to sweep out the darkroom and buy some chemicals and 120 B&W film. Neither of these sweet things has been outdoors in several years, and it's a shame to let them languish.


The one on the left has a f/3.5 75mm lens and dates to 1951. It was my aunt's camera, and it was her fault that I got hooked on the habit of photography.

I bought the one on the right in 1967, used, for $270 from a pro I knew who had it for a backup camera and rarely used it. He bought it new in 1955. It has a f/2.8 75mm lens. Both are fully manual cameras, with no meters or electronics whatever. I have the original Rollei leather cases and chrome lens caps for both cameras.

Got a couple up already. Just some selfies.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7261/7...18fd8986_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7070/7...770f3f8e_b.jpg

Ill have some more up soon. So far lens seems really awesome. Good focusing. Very quiet. I was shocked at how quiet it really is. Pictures are noticeably sharper straight out of the box. Colors match my other sigma which is a plus. This way I wont have to change settings when swapping lenses. Zoom ring is incredibly tight but I can deal with that. Easy to focus manually. Focusing ring has plenty of give. I have also been testing the difference between the internal stabilization versus the the stabilization in the lens. So far I havent noticed much difference but it is still very new and this is the first lens I have ever bought that actually has internal stabilization.