When you are panning you are going to want to turn VR off so you should keep that in mind. I'd look at the 70-300mm, I got some amazing shots using it and my D40 when I was using Nikon. The pic below was taken with that combo and it's still one of my favorites. Image Unavailable, Please Login
the OP asks about a d90 and budget zoom and the class goes on and debates $5k+ FF bodies that aren't a remote reality for them... start a new thread for that if FF wants to be talked about as it has zero bearing on the question at hand... why is that so hard to understand
Awesome! That's exactly what I was looking for. So you'd say that the regular 70-300 would be a good buy for now. I really want that 70-200 f/2.8 but yeah... Seriously it's OK. I like reading about all different levels of photography
In the context of a thread in which the OP brought up sensor size (incorrectly or not), frame size is not inconsequential. In the context of a thread in which the OP is selling his body for a new one, brands are not inconsequential. In the context of a thread entitled in part "upgrading my gear," more expensive options are not inconsequential. Even if they were, one of the powers of conversation is that it doesn't take a straight path. Communication would be fairly boring if it did. *shrug* The OP doesn't seem to mind.
Off topic or not I'm learning something... I'm thinking of upgrading also so this is all good stuff. I have a D70 that works well for me and I'd like to get some new lenses. Thus the dilemma, stick with Nikon or go Canon before I get too deep with Nikon? I've found Nikon lenses to be very confusing - seems they have a whole series made solely for inclusion into kits or entry consumer use. Never know which one to seriously consider so I do nothing. So Canon makes one series or line of lenses? I don't have to be worried about buying cheap glass when I thought I was buying something good? Also, I have a Canon G9 which does great on everything but Ferrari red. Almost every pic I took of my 360 (rossa corsa) looks orange. My D70 grabs the red perfectly. Will all Canon's behave like this? (It's a hobby - I can't take the time to color correct every picture I take of a red car.) To drag out full frame again... what is it, other than it costs a lot? Thanks.
I'd go for the 70-300. $420 on Amazon is well worth it. I had a hard time finding good cheap glass for Nikon, but it certainly fits the bill.
This what happens with obsolete lenses.. Moving the focus motor, Nikon has done much then same, to themselves.....as I understand it.
Nikon is pretty confusing when it comes to lenses and which work and which don't. Canon basically has 2 levels and 2 kinds. EF lenses which work on full frame or crop, and EF-S which only work on crops, they are a bit smaller, lighter and less expensive. They also have L lenses which have a red ring around them and it signifies a more pro lens with the best glass and the price to go with it. The odd red is most likely a white balance issue and is easily correctable in editing. I've never had a problem with reds, they actually come out perfect, but dark blue is next to impossible. Your D70 has a "crop" sensor, it is a sensor that is smaller and much cheaper or was in past years. Now full-frame sensors are getting pretty inexpensive at least compared to the last 5 years. Full-frame gives you a sensor the size of 35mm film and crop is a fraction of that. Your D70 has a crop of 1.5x, so a full frame camera will capture 1.5x what your camera captures. I have a full frame Canon so next time I see you, you can try it out and see what you think.
(at the risk and being ticketed by the thread police) But Full Frame isn't better just because it is full. For example you have a 1.5 factor and many Canons have a 1.6. So if you buy a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 that's equivalent to 112mm to 320 f2.8 on a 35mm camera. If that lens existed full frame you'd pay tens of thousands of dollars for it and it would weigh so much you'd need a tripod (or a forklift) to shoot it. When I was shooting the NFL, our goto lens was a Nikon 300mm 2.8... I forget exactly but IIRC I paid $5600 for a USED copy. It weighed about 8 pounds by itself and you needed a 3 pound monopod to support it. Now I can get a '112mm to 320 f2.8 ' zoom for like $1600 in L glass! And hand hold it! The Nikon version of that lens is about $1200 I believe. Long live the smaller sensor! If you have a FF sensor you need a bigger image circle to cover it which means a bigger lens. (which means more money) Unless you're throwing megabucks around a smaller sensor makes your long lens choice much more affordable. Now if you're shooting wide angles and/or a lot of low light, the small sensor crimps your style to be sure. Bottom line they are different tools and both have their uses. (geeky bonus) If you have a FF but a very high pixel density you can ignore the above and just crop. But if your camera and lens combo costs less than about $7000 you can ignore this point. My above point is more practical than theoretical.
Thanks Chris and 430man. As usual, more research and soul searching is needed. Years ago I had a simple Canon Rebel something film camera I bought used and it took fantastic pictures. I went Nikon since I was given a lens or two, sold the Canon for what I paid for it, but always remember how easily it took great pictures.
Very very true. If you notice probably 95% of sport's photographers gear is crop. Full frame also has a big advantage in image quality, going from a crop to full frame made a huge difference for me. My biggest issue with Canon right now is that they only really make niche cameras, the 5d2 for instance while having incredible image quality and full frame only does 3fps and bad auto focus. The new 7d has incredible AF and 6ish fps, but is crop and doesn't have the image quality of the FF.
FWIW, people are always asking me about the new camera on the block and frankly, I don't follow it any more. So I always give them the same advice and it's pretty solid, so I'll pass it to you.... (For your typical advanced amateur but a decent budget) Buy the top of the Rebel line and spend the rest of glass. Bang for the buck, the top of the line Rebel is usually pretty impressive and you'll probably never come close to outgrowing it. -- Nothing drives a really knowledgeable photographer mad like seeing some guy with a $5000 body and a $100 lens whine about his pictures. If the budget is tight, get the cheaper body and the better glass. (have I said that enough this thread? lol)
From what I remember your best bet is going by price, though not always true. I'd find a lens you like and then search for some reviews on it. Maybe some Nikon shooters here will chime in.
That's pretty good go-to advice. The Rebel series has roughly the same image quality as the advanced consumer 40/50/60D cameras with less features and build quality. Then you move onto the 5D/7Ds and then to the 1D/s. Going glass over camera is not always the best. I spent $950 on my camera and have around $925 in glass. The major cost in the camera is full frame and it's well worth it. I only have 2 lenses, but even when I have money to spare I can't find any lens I'd want to add.
Can you manually meter color with the G9? Get a grey card (inexpensive), meter it under the same lighting as the car, and you should be golden. There's probably too much yellow in the color profile you're using with the Canon. A reference to the size of the sensor. Full Frame DSLRs have the same dimensions as a 35mm piece of film, which popularized portable photography in a world of 4X5 and 8X10. All else being equal (i.e. same processor, same glass, same sensor generation), a larger sensor should give you better image quality. They cost more because a. the yield isn't as consistent as smaller sensors (QC ends up throwing more away) and b. they simply can't cut as many out of a wafer. Unlike the marketing department at Canon and Nikon would like you to believe, going to a smaller sensor doesn't change the focal length of your lens. It simply makes the image bigger relative to the borders of the frame (and thus viewfinder). To frame something the same, you have to stand closer or shoot longer with a larger sensor, so bird and sport shooters often prefer the smaller sensor to eliminate cropping in post.
For the G9 I use Auto and haven't tried any metering, etc. It does lots of things - a technical term. Think I'll keep the D70 and go with fancy glass and see how it goes. Thanks for the comments everyone.
Chris, that's a nice panning shot. But I'm not sure this is a correct statement. I do a lot of panning shots, of race cars, and especially at the shutter speeds we use, 1/100, etc. I think you want to have VR ON. Maybe you shoot your panning shots at faster speeds, like 1/500, where people do start to argue about whether to keep VR on? Thought this was relevant in that the OP is trying to decide between some lenses that may or may not have VR.
Good info to add. I usually shoot around that speed as well, 1/100, but have dipped as low as 1/40 depending on the traveling speed in the corners. So far I've always had VR on.
Hmm, I've always heard to turn it off. That shot was at 1/160th BTW. As long as VR isn't affecting the shots I guess there is no issue having it.
Yeah, for sure a complicated question. In this article, http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm the author says: "...VR should be on while panning. That's because the Nikon VR system is very good about detecting a constant camera movement. If you're doing a smooth pan in one direction, the VR system will focus on removing only motion on the opposite axis." But basically the long complicated article explains that people are NOT sure about all this, so it's an interesting question. It's a bit hard to do a test, as you know that getting a great panning shot at the track, with a different car, changing lighting, etc. is difficult. So it's hard to just turn on and off VR and compare. I guess one thing you are proving is that you don't need VR to get a good panning shot!
