|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hertfordshire UK
Posts: 759
|
![]()
MY criteria is good ISO performance as I often take pics in low light where flash is banned.
My question that rjseeney hasn't answered, probablybecause he feels he answered it in his previous reply but I did not know whether his recommendation came from first hand experience or not. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
|
![]()
deadshot wrote:
Quote:
For moving subjects, you may need brighter lenses than are being discussed to get a higher percentage of photos without blur from subject movement in low light. Most of the time, I use a bright prime for existing light photos indoors when moving subjects are involved with my cameras (although you can sometimes get away with an f/2.8 zoom in brighter lighting if your subjects are not moving much). I'd give more info on the conditions you want to shoot in. Both the D90 and D300 use a Sony 12MP CMOS sensor. The D300 has the better feature set and AF system between them. Nikon does a pretty decent job with their Noise Reduction algorithms in their newer models. But, you still don't want to use ISO speeds any higher than you need to (and a brighter lens will help prevent that need). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hertfordshire UK
Posts: 759
|
![]()
Hello Jim,
You are absolutelyright of course.Unfortunately I have reached an age where I dont want to have to carry a lot of lenses hence my 18-200vr venture into digital. When I had film SLRs in the past I needed a donkey to help me. I realise an all purpose lens is a compromise but so is not carrying a bag of lenses. It is a much better lens than I anticipated, so I was concerned at the earlier post stating that a similar lens did not like the extra pixels, hence my post. I recently went to the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg and took lots of pics of paintings by artists like Monet Picasso Micheal Angelo etc, and inside various Cathedrals, all low light conditions.I was very pleased with the results.Some of these places are almost dark. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
|
![]()
deadshot wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8
|
![]()
I trying to upgrade from a Panasonic DMC-FZ50 into the real thing. Money hurts but it is not the problem right now. My problem is that I am a very small female (5'4") and madly in love with the Nikon D300. The feature I like the most is the 51 focus points. Is it really a huge baby? Does it weight a ton?
Question: 1. Is it really that big and heavy? 2. Is there another camera that could match the quality of the D300 without breaking my back? 3. I was thinking of the Nikon 18-200 for my Nikon D300. If you will suggest a different camera, would you also suggest a comparable lens. I take landscape, architecture and interiors pictures. I also take pictures of pets and people's postraits. Thanks for your answer! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 202
|
![]()
ocelle wrote:
Quote:
16-200 is 560 gram / D300 is 800+ gram / battery = 100 gram? Total = 1460 (1500) gram = 1.5 KG that should be ok... not? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 | |
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
|
![]()
deadshot wrote:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hertfordshire UK
Posts: 759
|
![]()
feetjai wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1
|
![]()
Spamming post removed!!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
|
![]()
I love to eat SPAM. I loathe SPAMMER posting.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|