CMCM
Veteran Member
I noticed the EXIF data doesn't specify the lens. Anyone know why?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D60 owner looking for a more responsive camera in lower light.
- Thread starter SteveinColonie
- Start date
..Very nice pictures, thanks for taking these & sharing!You asked for some comparison shots between the 18-70 and the 18-300 ....I just went out back and shot some things randomly this morning, trying to get mostly the same views with each lens. The view is tough because of the range of light and dark, so I like to test with this kind of shot. No special setup, landscape mode I think. I just read that the 18-300 has a decent semi-macro capability at the 300 end, so I tested that with the pinecones. The 18-70 did OK too, surprisingly. I reduced the size of the photos, but didn't apply any sharpening. In each pair, the 18-70 shot is the first one.
18-70 lens
18-300
18-70
18-300
18-70
18-300
..yes, you do have a 'good copy' of the 18-70mm lens.. ;-)
..Cheers..
--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
[YI M1 camera, Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens, firmware 3.0]
Last edited:
..Not sure why either, have read it could be DPR's own website thingy..
..not to worry though.. ;-)
..Cheers..
CMCM
Veteran Member
I found a couple of things interesting about my little test. First, the D5600 made this lens do so much better than the 6MP D70s could do with the same lens. I never knew if it was the lens or the camera, but shooting this very same scene with the D70s I found the photo didn't deal with the range of light and dark very well at all and I never knew if it was the camera, the lens, or both. I'm thinking at this point you could say that the D70s didn't/couldn't show the capability of the 18-70 lens, but the D5600 does.
Second, a lot of people said the 18-70 was designed for a 6MP camera and therefore would have optical flaws that would be magnified or at least show up on a 20 or 24MP camera. I always found that a bit odd, but I couldn't really know how the lens would perform on these newer high MP cameras. What I see is that it seems to be every bit as good as the newer lenses in its class, and if you think about it, not all the available lenses are brand new anyway—many of them came out when cameras were lower in MP. The only big difference was the close-up of the pine cone, and the deck boards looked different. However, that could be a difference in focal length because I was trying to use the 300mm end of the 18-300 to see how it would close focus, and on the other one I was at its max of 70mm and also getting physically closer to the pine cone.
Second, a lot of people said the 18-70 was designed for a 6MP camera and therefore would have optical flaws that would be magnified or at least show up on a 20 or 24MP camera. I always found that a bit odd, but I couldn't really know how the lens would perform on these newer high MP cameras. What I see is that it seems to be every bit as good as the newer lenses in its class, and if you think about it, not all the available lenses are brand new anyway—many of them came out when cameras were lower in MP. The only big difference was the close-up of the pine cone, and the deck boards looked different. However, that could be a difference in focal length because I was trying to use the 300mm end of the 18-300 to see how it would close focus, and on the other one I was at its max of 70mm and also getting physically closer to the pine cone.
..Thanks for sharing your experiences with this..
..I've been looking at the images from the D5600 camera, even though it shares the same sensor as the D3300 camera (which I have), but the images from the D5600 camera seems to be better..
..and I've seen a picture from the D5600 camera with an older lens, the Nikon 18-135mm which was released in 2006, and the image looks very good (not excellent though).. and this same photographer also used his 18-135mm lens with a D80 10mp dx camera, and the image appeared (to my eyes) better than with the D5600..
..even though your 18-70mm lens seems to work reasonably well with your D5600 camera.. but to my eyes, the images from the 18-300mm lens looks better to be, as the images appear to have more depth..
..of course with any image, for folks who are good at softwares, can do some creative post processings, to make almost any images to appear really good.. ;-)
..your images appears very natural, and appears very good..
..Cheers..
CMCM
Veteran Member
Yes, I might have done something in Photoshop with these, but what I really wanted to see was the SOOC results to compare. I really like the range of the 18-300, so for the most part, I doubt if I would use the 18-70 all that much.....I've had it for 14 years and I always seem to want more range than 70mm. I'll have to buy an ultra wide to get below 18mm, however.
..Yes, I'm glad to hear you're liking the 18-300mm lens.. as I know a photography online friend she uses the same lens on her D5300 with great success..
..but, if was me, I would hang on to your 18-70mm lens, it's a good performer..
..not sure if you have read Rockwell's 10-20mm review, I'm truly impressed with this lens, and it even works on full frame camera's too.. ;-)
Loading…
kenrockwell.com
..Cheers..
six34sigma
Senior Member
Have gone from a D90 to D7100 to a D750. It is far easier to set the FX to a higher ISO than the DX cameras including the D7100. I will run the D750 out to ISO6400 but more typically ISO3200 if NEEDED. My D7100 I tend to constrain to about ISO 1250 to 1600 at the high end. The D90 was ISO1000.
If you want low light capability go with the D750.
As for the shots themselves if there is sufficient light and the shots are exposed well the cameras you mentioned all work well. The D7200 may be a hair sharper, the D7100 is than a D750 because of no AA filter. You have to pixel peep to see the difference.
The D750 is inexpensive right now and is still a good camera. Get it and a good lens. The 24-120 is plenty good in my opinion. Good luck.
If you want low light capability go with the D750.
As for the shots themselves if there is sufficient light and the shots are exposed well the cameras you mentioned all work well. The D7200 may be a hair sharper, the D7100 is than a D750 because of no AA filter. You have to pixel peep to see the difference.
The D750 is inexpensive right now and is still a good camera. Get it and a good lens. The 24-120 is plenty good in my opinion. Good luck.
CMCM
Veteran Member
I've read Rockwell's comments on the 10-20. I really like that lens due to its size and light weight...my main concern is the f/4.5, which may be too slow for astro shots. Not that I want to do a lot of night sky photography, but I'd like that option. Mainly I would like the 10-20 for landscape type things, and the price can't be beat either, so for most things I'd use it for, the 4.5 is OK. Nikon has a refurb sale with addition 10% off that lens, so it would be $242. Very tempting, but I'm a bit nervous about refurbs since they only have a 90 day warranty.
Winterfrost
Senior Member
A "soup" Zoom, like the 18-300 can't be that good optically by laws of physics, and it isn't - period. There are just too many lenses, and the focal length spans a too huge length...Very nice pictures, thanks for taking these & sharing!You asked for some comparison shots between the 18-70 and the 18-300 ....I just went out back and shot some things randomly this morning, trying to get mostly the same views with each lens. The view is tough because of the range of light and dark, so I like to test with this kind of shot. No special setup, landscape mode I think. I just read that the 18-300 has a decent semi-macro capability at the 300 end, so I tested that with the pinecones. The 18-70 did OK too, surprisingly. I reduced the size of the photos, but didn't apply any sharpening. In each pair, the 18-70 shot is the first one.
18-70 lens
18-300
18-70
18-300
18-70
18-300
..yes, you do have a 'good copy' of the 18-70mm lens.. ;-)
..Cheers..
--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
[YI M1 camera, Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens, firmware 3.0]
Of course, it works, but it is by no means a serious competition for a 17-55/2.8, 17-50/2.8, 17-70/2.8-4, or 16-85, 16-80 lens. Into optically terms, it's far better to use a separate zoom with xx to 300mm, than a 18-300mm mega zoom.
It work for travel photography, or people which aren't concerned about image quality.
If i'd built up a DX Setting, 16-80 E VR, and 70-300 AF-P E VR.
Good Light !
Marc
--
"The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis
..Yes, you're right.. there's a 'trade-off' of consumer zooms verses good primes or pro lenses..A "soup" Zoom, like the 18-300 can't be that good optically by laws of physics, and it isn't - period. There are just too many lenses, and the focal length spans a too huge length...Very nice pictures, thanks for taking these & sharing!You asked for some comparison shots between the 18-70 and the 18-300 ....I just went out back and shot some things randomly this morning, trying to get mostly the same views with each lens. The view is tough because of the range of light and dark, so I like to test with this kind of shot. No special setup, landscape mode I think. I just read that the 18-300 has a decent semi-macro capability at the 300 end, so I tested that with the pinecones. The 18-70 did OK too, surprisingly. I reduced the size of the photos, but didn't apply any sharpening. In each pair, the 18-70 shot is the first one.
18-70 lens
18-300
18-70
18-300
18-70
18-300
..yes, you do have a 'good copy' of the 18-70mm lens.. ;-)
..Cheers..
--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
[YI M1 camera, Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens, firmware 3.0]
Of course, it works, but it is by no means a serious competition for a 17-55/2.8, 17-50/2.8, 17-70/2.8-4, or 16-85, 16-80 lens. Into optically terms, it's far better to use a separate zoom with xx to 300mm, than a 18-300mm mega zoom.
It work for travel photography, or people which aren't concerned about image quality.
If i'd built up a DX Setting, 16-80 E VR, and 70-300 AF-P E VR.
Good Light !
Marc
--
"The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis
..even with some 'faults' of these zooms, I'm a big fan of them.. it's because they are 'convenient' to use, and the image qualities from them is reasonably 'good enough' for me..
..and I do have the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens in my collection as well.. ;-)
..Cheers..
--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
[YI M1 camera, Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens, firmware 3.0]
..Thanks for the heads up on the Nikon refurb sale.. I'm with you.. even though I have purchased refurbs in the past, but I do prefer to buy new.. however, for good prices, buying used is often easier on the wallet.. ;-)
..Cheers..
Skatterball
Senior Member
Without any doubt, the undisputed king of DX low light cameras, at the moment, is the Nikon D500. You can shoot in candle light and get a really decent quality image. Only negative is cost.
Skatterball
Senior Member
I went from a D90 also, to a D500. Shooting ISO 12,000 and a lot higher still produces clean, crisp low noise images. The D500 is a beast and it's expensive. But low light and focusing are where it excels.
One of the reasons the D5xxx is smaller and lighter than the D7xxx is that the former does not have an autofocus motor in the body. If you don't have any old lenses that use the screw drive autofocus, this isn't an issue.
You mentioned "responsiveness". The D7100/7200/7500 have an autofocus system that is better in low light than the D5xxx.
You mentioned "responsiveness". The D7100/7200/7500 have an autofocus system that is better in low light than the D5xxx.
FingerPainter
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,593
- Solutions
- 37
- Reaction score
- 13,643
A less expensive option with the same sensor (and therefore same noise and DR performance) is the D7500.
Last edited:
I am also a D60 owner and I too get frustrated at high ISO. I bought a D300S, which will gain me a stop at least.
Even the cheapest new Nikon DSLR is vastly better than a D60 at low light, so you really can't miss. IMHO the D7200 refurb is the sweet spot for results per $. I probably should have got one, but I love the pro bodies and found a nice D300S with 1700 clicks.
IMHO the gains of FX compared to DX are only worth it if you have cash for lenses. If you are lens $ challenged, your DX body is going to win out.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum