On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:52:25 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:



Bigger the better. Little cameras are not good for fat fingers, and
get left on car roofs.
Yeah, I could find info elsewhere, but I'll trust boaters first.
Lots of gearheads.

--Vic

Low light requires a decent sized chip and good processing
electronics. Those are most likely found on Nikon or Canon SLRs.

Olympus wouldn't fit your fingers. You can pick up a lightly used
Nikon D200 or D300 on ebay from a reputable seller. New are just too
damned expensive. They're built like tanks using metal cases.

Shutter, apeture priority, full auto or fully manual. I use my D200
in all sorts of situations. Travel, sports, nature. Stunning detail.
The sensors and electronics on the Nikons are geared towards skin
tones, Canons sensors and electronics are more neutral. I've always
liked the look of a Sony picture, similar to Nikon sensors.

The obvious complement to either of those bodies is the 18-200 VRII.

The cheaper lenses are just that.

That's a serious setup with serious heft but a bit more than your $1K
threshhold. You would not regret it and the camera would last many
years, like they used to...

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:08:31 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:52:25 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:



Bigger the better. Little cameras are not good for fat fingers, and
get left on car roofs.
Yeah, I could find info elsewhere, but I'll trust boaters first.
Lots of gearheads.

--Vic

Low light requires a decent sized chip and good processing
electronics. Those are most likely found on Nikon or Canon SLRs.

Olympus wouldn't fit your fingers. You can pick up a lightly used
Nikon D200 or D300 on ebay from a reputable seller. New are just too
damned expensive. They're built like tanks using metal cases.

Shutter, apeture priority, full auto or fully manual. I use my D200
in all sorts of situations. Travel, sports, nature. Stunning detail.
The sensors and electronics on the Nikons are geared towards skin
tones, Canons sensors and electronics are more neutral. I've always
liked the look of a Sony picture, similar to Nikon sensors.

The obvious complement to either of those bodies is the 18-200 VRII.

The cheaper lenses are just that.

That's a serious setup with serious heft but a bit more than your $1K
threshhold. You would not regret it and the camera would last many
years, like they used to...

I just took my 18-200 VR back for the second time to get the
auto-focus fixed. Lucky the warranty is for five years, but I'm
wishing I'd not spent the money for that lens.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:15:21 -0400, John H Rant
wrote:



I just took my 18-200 VR back for the second time to get the
auto-focus fixed. Lucky the warranty is for five years, but I'm
wishing I'd not spent the money for that lens.

Didn't get too far into it, but VR seems an unnecessary complication
unless you're printing posters or into forensic photography.
Ken Rockwell touts it, but he shoots from moving cars at 1/125.
And he crops to examine quality closely.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

Check out the cropping of the cushion with VR and non-VR.
No doubt the VR is much sharper.
But I would never do that cropping, or print posters, so I don't know
if it's worth the complications.
Seems too much can go wrong in a VR lens.
Besides, I still have my good tripod.

--Vic

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:06:59 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:15:21 -0400, John H Rant
wrote:



I just took my 18-200 VR back for the second time to get the
auto-focus fixed. Lucky the warranty is for five years, but I'm
wishing I'd not spent the money for that lens.

Didn't get too far into it, but VR seems an unnecessary complication
unless you're printing posters or into forensic photography.
Ken Rockwell touts it, but he shoots from moving cars at 1/125.
And he crops to examine quality closely.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

Check out the cropping of the cushion with VR and non-VR.
No doubt the VR is much sharper.
But I would never do that cropping, or print posters, so I don't know
if it's worth the complications.
Seems too much can go wrong in a VR lens.
Besides, I still have my good tripod.

--Vic

Once you have the capability, you'll find yourself doing all kinds of
things you used to think were unnecessary, cropping included.

I've another lens with VR, this one: http://tinyurl.com/6qpzhk

It has never had a problem, and the VR is remarkable.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:06:59 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Ken Rockwell touts it, but he shoots from moving cars at 1/125.
And he crops to examine quality closely.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

Just a a piece of advice - don't take Ken Rockwell seriously about
anything.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:06:59 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:15:21 -0400, John H Rant
wrote:



I just took my 18-200 VR back for the second time to get the
auto-focus fixed. Lucky the warranty is for five years, but I'm
wishing I'd not spent the money for that lens.

Didn't get too far into it, but VR seems an unnecessary complication
unless you're printing posters or into forensic photography.
Ken Rockwell touts it, but he shoots from moving cars at 1/125.
And he crops to examine quality closely.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

Check out the cropping of the cushion with VR and non-VR.
No doubt the VR is much sharper.
But I would never do that cropping, or print posters, so I don't know
if it's worth the complications.
Seems too much can go wrong in a VR lens.
Besides, I still have my good tripod.

--Vic

I shoot my kids playing sports so it comes in real handy, especially
I've got the 70-300 racked to 300 and trying to catch a kid running
full speed.

Also helps in low light conditions.

My hands aren't as steady as they once were...

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:08:31 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:52:25 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:



Bigger the better. Little cameras are not good for fat fingers, and
get left on car roofs.
Yeah, I could find info elsewhere, but I'll trust boaters first.
Lots of gearheads.

--Vic

Low light requires a decent sized chip and good processing
electronics. Those are most likely found on Nikon or Canon SLRs.

Olympus wouldn't fit your fingers. You can pick up a lightly used
Nikon D200 or D300 on ebay from a reputable seller. New are just too
damned expensive. They're built like tanks using metal cases.

Shutter, apeture priority, full auto or fully manual. I use my D200
in all sorts of situations. Travel, sports, nature. Stunning detail.
The sensors and electronics on the Nikons are geared towards skin
tones, Canons sensors and electronics are more neutral. I've always
liked the look of a Sony picture, similar to Nikon sensors.

The obvious complement to either of those bodies is the 18-200 VRII.

The cheaper lenses are just that.

That's a serious setup with serious heft but a bit more than your $1K
threshhold. You would not regret it and the camera would last many
years, like they used to...

What I like most about the higher end DSLR's is
their response time and metal bodies.
Maybe shouldn't have started this, as I find myself reverting to my
old ways about wanting quality in a camera.
But when I bought my old SRT-102 and Rokkor lenses they really did get
about 30 years of use before the shutter gave up.
Probably put as much into that as a new D200 kit, but in 1973 dollars.
Now the money is the easy part, but justifying it ain't, since I don't
have the interest or another 30 years to shoot.
I do the like fast response and metal body of the D200.
Going through the Rockwell site Eddy posted (thanks, Eddy) was a kick.
Almost had me just going for a D40 until I dug deeper, and noticed he
mentions a couple times they have defective meters.
That guy gets some beautiful shots with little camera at all, and he
makes for good reading, but he's all over the place.
What I came away with is that I need to look harder at the adjustments
on my A1100 to see if it can better handle the low light
landscapes/clouds I often want to shoot at dawn and dusk.
If I'm too dissatisfied with the results I might study up and pop for
one of the higher end DSLR's. Maybe even used.
Thanks to all for your input.
I learned a lot.

--Vic

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:08:31 -0700, jps wrote:


Shutter, apeture priority, full auto or fully manual. I use my D200
in all sorts of situations. Travel, sports, nature. Stunning detail.
The sensors and electronics on the Nikons are geared towards skin
tones, Canons sensors and electronics are more neutral. I've always
liked the look of a Sony picture, similar to Nikon sensors.

You make some good points, but I would disagree that it's all about
sensors. Up until recently, Nikon and Canon used the same CMOS sensor
array for a long time when Nikon came up with a different sensor
matched to their lenses - LBCAST I think it's called or something like
that. It's a hybrid CCD/CMOS array, but I could be wrong about that.
Lenses are the most important part of any SLR system and all the
majors make great lenses.

I still prefer the 4/3rds format - I get great performance in a
smaller size, the lenses (in particular the new SWD series which is
really sharp) are excellant. I have pudgy fingers to and I don't have
a problem controlling any of my Oly DSLRs.

Like I said, the one problem with the 4/3rds format is that you really
have to know how to deal with the low light issue. The E-3 is a dream
in that sense - I've gotten some spectacular low light results from
the E-3 and 50mm SWD lens.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:18:40 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:08:31 -0700, jps wrote:


Shutter, apeture priority, full auto or fully manual. I use my D200
in all sorts of situations. Travel, sports, nature. Stunning detail.
The sensors and electronics on the Nikons are geared towards skin
tones, Canons sensors and electronics are more neutral. I've always
liked the look of a Sony picture, similar to Nikon sensors.

You make some good points, but I would disagree that it's all about
sensors. Up until recently, Nikon and Canon used the same CMOS sensor
array for a long time when Nikon came up with a different sensor
matched to their lenses - LBCAST I think it's called or something like
that. It's a hybrid CCD/CMOS array, but I could be wrong about that.
Lenses are the most important part of any SLR system and all the
majors make great lenses.

I still prefer the 4/3rds format - I get great performance in a
smaller size, the lenses (in particular the new SWD series which is
really sharp) are excellant. I have pudgy fingers to and I don't have
a problem controlling any of my Oly DSLRs.

Like I said, the one problem with the 4/3rds format is that you really
have to know how to deal with the low light issue. The E-3 is a dream
in that sense - I've gotten some spectacular low light results from
the E-3 and 50mm SWD lens.

Your E-3 takes in about 75% of the information that a good Nikon
body/lens will deliver at the same resolution. I've witnessed it
personally.

I said "sensors and electronics" since it's what happens as the image
is processed to a file that also counts.

I find Nikon's processing to be more my cup of tea than Canon's.

Canon does better on the low light front.

Ken Rockwell has a well-earned opinion but he's not the holy grail. I
find him to be reasonably on the mark but there are plenty of other
opinions to consider before chosing equipment.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:21:46 -0700, jps wrote:



Ken Rockwell has a well-earned opinion but he's not the holy grail. I
find him to be reasonably on the mark but there are plenty of other
opinions to consider before chosing equipment.

Rockwell is entertaining and throws a lot at you in good fashion.
Did surprise me a bit how hard he pushed the D40 then in another piece
knocked the metering.
But I think he had the gist of what he was saying right.
His enthusiasm spills over, and he doesn't seem to pose with airs of
tech expertise about him. Comes out naturally though, and there's no
doubt about his tech expertise.
I liked his section on cheap/frugal. Aligns well with my own
philosophy, except he's one new car ahead of me.
But as you said, there's other opinions to look at before laying down
the cash.

--Vic