AK83's .. it's time to upgrade my camera or lens thread(or debacle)

[Lance B]

wrong, this is only failing of my 7D

the pixel density is too large, the pixels are too small and the edges of the pixels cannot hold information, so as you zoom into the image the pixels edges are the thing making the image not sharp....

google "circle of confusion" and sit back... the F stop best for my 7D (meaning any smaller aperature and the images will get soft as the pixels are tooo small) is F5.6....

so shooting at F16 makes the images only just as good as F5.6....



M

What you are talking about is the diffraction limitation of the lens/sensor combination, which is caused by the sensor having more resolution than the the extra DOF and lens combination will allow, but at f8/f9 (which is about where it starts to kick in) on the 7D has more resolution than a D700, D300, D90 etc. So, comparing lenses across different sensors is not feasible.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm

[arthurking83]

Lance!! You're one of the first, non scientific technical proponents(I've ever known) to reference diffraction limitation to both sensor and lens, in combination.

Almost generically everyone else always points to diffraction as a sensor only phenomenon, and I have lenses that can give their best sharpness/detail at f/22.. which is way beyond the normal point of diffraction on my D300(which is generally @ f/11-f/16.. depending on the lens again).

haven't really tested this lens much on the D70s, which I'd assume would give less diffraction than on the D300, and may be good even down to f/32 or smaller??

Comparing lenses across different sensors is always feasible..and not inappropriate either.. hence the introduction of MF as well.

Photog A has a brief! ..... get really detailed images of scene B. Detail must be immense, because the images are going to be displayed in a very very large manner and will be judged and paid for according to how good the detail/sharpness/IQ is in the images. Lower IQ will result in lower payment, higher IQ will result in higher remuneration.

So now Photog A has to decide. Do I get a 7D and some super pro grade lens combo that gives 100lp/mm, do I get a larger pixel sized D3s and Nikon's even more uber pro razor grade lenses, that may only give 90lp/mm resolution, or does he go for a MF outfit with much higher native magnifications(and hence detail) and 3x the pixel output of the 7D?
The alternative is to use the D70s + 18-105VR combo!.. and hope for the best.

[Lance B]

Lance!! You're one of the first, non scientific technical proponents(I've ever known) to reference diffraction limitation to both sensor and lens, in combination.

Almost generically everyone else always points to diffraction as a sensor only phenomenon, and I have lenses that can give their best sharpness/detail at f/22.. which is way beyond the normal point of diffraction on my D300(which is generally @ f/11-f/16.. depending on the lens again).

Well, a lens does suffer from diffraction limits as well, usually, it depends on the sensor being used. If the sensor has enough resolution, then the sensor is diffraction limited before the lens. If the sensor has low resolution, then you may run into lens diffraction limitations, which usually starts at about f16 depending on the lens. So, my commenst were directed at the fact that there is a lens and sensor combo to think of.

haven't really tested this lens much on the D70s, which I'd assume would give less diffraction than on the D300, and may be good even down to f/32 or smaller??

Comparing lenses across different sensors is always feasible..and not inappropriate either.. hence the introduction of MF as well.

But fraught with danger. Just to say that one lens is better than another when comparing between different brands and especially different sensor Mp's can be misleading. You can get a feel for this when comparing a 3rd party lens on two different manufacturers cameras. A case in point, as tested in Photozone, the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro SP Di on the Canon 8Mp camera compared to the same lens used on a Nikon 10Mp camera shows that on the Nikon 10Mp camera, the Tamron shows better resolution across the board. ALso take note of the diffraction limitation of the lens which is diabolical at f22, but really drops off at after about f11 and is not good at f16.

Canon:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/28...review?start=1

Nikon:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...review?start=1

Photog A has a brief! ..... get really detailed images of scene B. Detail must be immense, because the images are going to be displayed in a very very large manner and will be judged and paid for according to how good the detail/sharpness/IQ is in the images. Lower IQ will result in lower payment, higher IQ will result in higher remuneration.

So now Photog A has to decide. Do I get a 7D and some super pro grade lens combo that gives 100lp/mm, do I get a larger pixel sized D3s and Nikon's even more uber pro razor grade lenses, that may only give 90lp/mm resolution, or does he go for a MF outfit with much higher native magnifications(and hence detail) and 3x the pixel output of the 7D?
The alternative is to use the D70s + 18-105VR combo!.. and hope for the best.

Well, this is a very specific case and quite out of the ordinary for most situations. With the 7D, you will get noise being introduced at super large enlargements. The D3s will have less noise as it has to be enlarged less, it has less native noise and higher DR, which may result in a better enlargement. From what I have read about MF sensors is that they actually do not have that much, if at all, better noise or DR as their sensor development has been less than that from FF sensors. Their advantage is that they need less enlargement for such applications as you describe and therefore are usually a better bet for this type of application.

[arthurking83]

my hypothetical was just a random scenario that came to me as I typed it... the point was that there are so many variables (needs/requirements, etc) as to why someone needs to upgrade their kit that there is always a wrong answer as well as a right answer even though they're both the same answer!
A dedicated macro photogrpaher simply wants resolution(for best results), a landscape photographer wants dynamic range(for me as a priority) as well as mechanical advantages that a lens upgrade can't offer(mirror lockup!)

.....
But fraught with danger. Just to say that one lens is better than another when comparing between different brands and especially different sensor Mp's can be misleading. You can get a feel for this when comparing a 3rd party lens on two different manufacturers cameras.....

While I'd love to say you're wrong here, that's misleading because for your purposes you are right.
Reason I say it doesn't really matter(cross referencing sensors and brands) is that a long time ago, a well respected photographer here(SeeSee) made the decision to upgrade his gear for the purpose of capturing better bird photos. (ie. he had a specific need!)

He was a dedicated Nikon person, and owned a D50+D300 as well as a pretty useful 300/2.8 or Tokina branding, as well as a few other Nikon fit lenses, and speedlights.
He was then in the market for a 500/4 lens, and the option was Nikon, Nikon and Nikon.... as thirdparties don't have any such beasts. So the decision was made.. get a Canon 50D and a Canon 500/4.

As far as I know, he should still have the Nikon kit too, but if I were him, I'd have sold it off to fund other Canon gear.. (for me)compatibility would take precedence over brand loyalty.
50D + 500/4 to suit gave better ultimate resolution, even though the difference between the two sets of gear would be small between. His main concern was price!
The Canon camera and lens cost less than the Nikon version of the lens alone!
Once again the point is not to separate the combination of camera and lens, they have to work in unison, as has been said on numerous occasions by all and sundry, but when it comes to gear upgrade the common denominator is always upgrade the lens... without any real technical explanation as to why.

Once again I'll propose a silly hypotheticalgenerally proposed by many newbies as a real situation on here)

I have a D70s, and I like to take images of most things, one of my favoured focal lengths is 100mm for some strange reason (dunno why, I just seem to use my 18-105Vr at 105mm a lot. I'd like some better IQ.. should I get the Nikon 105VR macro(macro would be nice too.. but not essential) or should I get a better camera. I'm thinking a D90 or D300s
I have about $1500.. maybe a little more to spend.

My reply would be, without reservation, that this member would see a better improvement in IQ in just about all conditions by going with a D300s over a 105VR. I know this because I just did a few basic tests to see what works and what doesn't. There is a clear advantage in having the D300 coupled to the already good 18-105VR. There are many aspects to the D300 that will give you an advantage that the 105VR will simply not be able to match.
(had the D70s been replaced with a D90 in that silly hypothetical, then the answer would be 105VR every time.... or maybe ..... stretch the budget to a D700! )


BTW: I still can't see why any discussion on the matter of how we each apply our different philosophies and abilities towards photography would be considered "misleading". ???

[Lance B]

my hypothetical was just a random scenario that came to me as I typed it... the point was that there are so many variables (needs/requirements, etc) as to why someone needs to upgrade their kit that there is always a wrong answer as well as a right answer even though they're both the same answer!
A dedicated macro photogrpaher simply wants resolution(for best results), a landscape photographer wants dynamic range(for me as a priority) as well as mechanical advantages that a lens upgrade can't offer(mirror lockup!)




While I'd love to say you're wrong here, that's misleading because for your purposes you are right.
Reason I say it doesn't really matter(cross referencing sensors and brands) is that a long time ago, a well respected photographer here(SeeSee) made the decision to upgrade his gear for the purpose of capturing better bird photos. (ie. he had a specific need!)

He was a dedicated Nikon person, and owned a D50+D300 as well as a pretty useful 300/2.8 or Tokina branding, as well as a few other Nikon fit lenses, and speedlights.
He was then in the market for a 500/4 lens, and the option was Nikon, Nikon and Nikon.... as thirdparties don't have any such beasts. So the decision was made.. get a Canon 50D and a Canon 500/4.

As far as I know, he should still have the Nikon kit too, but if I were him, I'd have sold it off to fund other Canon gear.. (for me)compatibility would take precedence over brand loyalty.
50D + 500/4 to suit gave better ultimate resolution, even though the difference between the two sets of gear would be small between. His main concern was price!
The Canon camera and lens cost less than the Nikon version of the lens alone!
Once again the point is not to separate the combination of camera and lens, they have to work in unison, as has been said on numerous occasions by all and sundry, but when it comes to gear upgrade the common denominator is always upgrade the lens... without any real technical explanation as to why.

Once again I'll propose a silly hypotheticalgenerally proposed by many newbies as a real situation on here)

I have a D70s, and I like to take images of most things, one of my favoured focal lengths is 100mm for some strange reason (dunno why, I just seem to use my 18-105Vr at 105mm a lot. I'd like some better IQ.. should I get the Nikon 105VR macro(macro would be nice too.. but not essential) or should I get a better camera. I'm thinking a D90 or D300s
I have about $1500.. maybe a little more to spend.

My reply would be, without reservation, that this member would see a better improvement in IQ in just about all conditions by going with a D300s over a 105VR. I know this because I just did a few basic tests to see what works and what doesn't. There is a clear advantage in having the D300 coupled to the already good 18-105VR. There are many aspects to the D300 that will give you an advantage that the 105VR will simply not be able to match.
(had the D70s been replaced with a D90 in that silly hypothetical, then the answer would be 105VR every time.... or maybe ..... stretch the budget to a D700! )


BTW: I still can't see why any discussion on the matter of how we each apply our different philosophies and abilities towards photography would be considered "misleading". ???

My commenting of misleading is if you simply look at the resolution figures of one brands camera and lens combo compared to another brands lens and camera combo and use only that as a basis for judement. Of course there are many other variables that come into it.

[arthurking83]

Yep! I understand what you meant, but the case is also true of same brand bodies that even use the same sensor, albeit with subtle design changes.

eg. D70/D70s was based around the D100 sensor that preceded it. The D100 was (sometimes criticised0 for not being overly sharp, and the D70 series was slightly sharper.. even though they had the same sensor. The difference was in the AA filter, where the D70 had a weaker AA filter and the inherent problems it then gave.. moiré.
In my just done images in comparing the D70s+105VR against the D300+18-105VR@ 105mm, the D70s was not only lower in resolution, but also gave hints of moiré too! lower detail due to lower resolution as well as some artifacts that gave even less detail.
Note too, that the later D40 also(reputedly) gave slightly better high ISO results as well(same sensor again).

that was the intent of the thread.. what will give the user a boost in IQ. I don't think that anyone has ever compared (say) the ability of a Tamron lens fitted to a 7D to that of a Nikon lens fitted to a lower res D300. But if the user simply wanted a better image in terms of resolution, amongst other elements, and a Tammy fitted to a Canon gave better IQ over an equivalent Nikon lens on a Nikon body, wouldn't it seem logical that the Tammy/Canon combo is then better for that user's purposes?

hence the introduction of the case of SeeSee, above.

[Clubmanmc]

I don't see how you read that, going by your initial post.

You referred to your downward spiral in upgrading bodies, but you already have top class lenses.

The summary of this thread is: for those newbies that have found approximately $1.5-2K spare moola, and can't decide whether to upgrade their camera, or purchase a new lens.. that the vast majority of replies will be simple "upgrade your lens, because the lens last a lifetime, whereas better bodies go and come every couple of years"

And then you made a statement of fact with the implication that all Canon lenses work equally well on all Canon bodies, but the results from DxO seem to indicate the opposite is true as with every brand. The brand was irrelevant, and I only chose Nikon because that's what I'm familiar with and have any real interest in.

Despite what the user thinks they see in their equipment(which is generally jaded by having made the investment with their own money), a scientific set of data is really the only way with which to properly judge the relative performance of each lens-camera setup.
That is, a slightly lesser quality lens(consumer grade) can produce better detail on a higher res body if resolution is a paramount requirement!
Your, or my, subjective opinion doesn't mean a thing if the data can't be quantified without any prejudice... which we'll all have to a degree, if we don't analyze the results in a scientific manner.

While your requirements may not be such that lp/mm differences are going to make any difference to a 300DPI print, your actions don't seem to reflect that philosophical stance either.
You know you can only really get 11-12lp/mm in a 300DPI print, yet all your lenses far exceed that capability... and you still set yourself on a downward path of upgrading camera bodies as well.

So it poses other questions ...
1. if you can't see any difference in those lp/mm figures in a 300DPI print, why waste money on better equipment?

2. is a 300DPI print the final say on what it is we want from our equipment?

3. has technology suddenly stopped progressing for some reason and that in the future better printing technologies will not become available?

if that is the case(in #3) how do the high res chart creating folk produce prints that can resolve up to 400lp/mm.. that seem to cost a small fortune to purchase?

as for pixel information sharpness issues with hi res sensors, that's a user/operator induced variable.. not one that can be blamed on the sensor itself.
The best way to get more information from every detailed part of a scene is to have more pixels, sometimes even if that means smaller pixels, as long as noise(SNR) doesn't interfere with the sensor data.
My post came about as a result of having read some discussions(elsewhere) as to the value of hotrodding a camera by removing the AA filter!
The camera in question pertained to no less than a D3x! the owner wanted more detail/sharpness, and the end result of the discussion is that if you want more detail/sharpness from each detail in the scene, you simply need more pixels... in this case that means moving up to MF, as 35mm DSLR technology has maxed out at the moment at 25Mp. Due to inherent problems and the psuedo increase in detail/information levels it was suggested that the owner not hotrod his D3x(or any camera).. MF was the only real way forward for now.


at the risk of running another gauntlet of scorn! I'll produce one more quote with a simple question:



In what way are they misleading? Are you saying that their results are bogus, that a kit lens on a hi res body doesn't produce more detail, or apparent sharpness than a pro lens on a lower res body?
or are you implying that my opinion that having a more feature rich body with better ability(eg. better focusing/faster fps/cleaner high ISO/etc won't produce better images either).

I apologise if my posts are long a tedious, and I do warn folks about that issue, but the context and implications are 100% set and there is no (usually)ambiguity, and that requires detailed explanations.
A small quip, then taken and turned into a quote is a simple quote.
I've read and reread your initial post a few times now, and I really can't see how I've misrepresented what you said... maybe you also need to take more time to explain in detail what you really meant then?
I did read(in your first line of your first reply) a large amount of contradictory opinion.
First you say that a Canon lens works equally well on ANY body whether a low end consumer body, or whether it's a top flight uber pro body... that there is no demarcation from one body to the next in terms of IQ. Then you say get the best(body??) to get the best out of your lenses?.. whatever your experiences you have that dictate your opinion is fine by me.. but it seems that my experiences are slight the same, even if they are slightly different too.
My humble opinion, and limited experience, with having used various bodies is that you can get a much better image result in many cases by upgrading the body first, as long as the (consumer grade)lens is of semi decent quality to begin with.

sorry but the downward spiral should have been in italics, as it was sarcastic,

regaurdless of its ability to produce a "better" number per line photo... some one spending 1500 - 2000 is not going to produce amazing 5000mm x 5000mm images with them... all your doing is confusing the poor sod who comes and asks you for advice...

to make it plain and clear...

my advice to some one who has a lowly model camera and wants to get "better pictures" is to ask them what their short comings are... are they missing images between frames, are they needing to shoot low light, are they needing to capture action thats happening faster??

all those questions will have a very different response for what to buy next... as does what they currently poses...

sorry but i think you have too much free time on your hands...

take some more great pictures, they say they are worth 1000 words...

M

[arthurking83]

Firstly, I'm not the type to guess the mood or intent of another persons post. that is generally up to the poster to provide.

I can't really remember anywhere in the thread, the topic of producing amazing 5meter x 5meter images ever coming up as prerequisite, but that's a fair point and now that you've raised it:

if a higher res camera with a semi decent lens can't do that, I doubt that a lower res camera with a good lens will be either.... or are you sarcastically commenting that the lens has more to do with output size than the camera does?
If you have any proof to the contrary that greater pixel numbers with inferior lenses can't produce larger sized prints, this thread may actually be a good one to prove this statement too.

I believe that any camera can reproduce an amazing 5m x 5m image.
But as you haven't defined amazing, and my definition of amazing will almost certainly be different from yours, there will always be differences of opinion on this topic anyhow.

Just to be clear, the original post was purely on the topic that, a higher res camera with a good lens can take as equally good images as a lower res camera with a great lens can.
(according to the scientific data proposed my DxO).

When I do have some spare time, I will endeavour to take a few more pics, as I did today, but they won't be great pics, they'll almost certainly be boring pics just as today's two were. But for me, they were telling images that kind of prove DxO's results(higher res camera+kit lens > lower res camera+great lens).. boring stuff tho.

[bigdazzler]

To quote the famous kiwi .... "I need popcorn"

[Clubmanmc]

yes its time for popcorn...

sorry aurthur...

this picture is for you, you just need to go that one step too far and correct every thing some one says... as you need to have the last word..

so here is a pic, its worth 1000 words...

just in case you dont get it ill spell it out...

the cliff is HIGH... and its a HORSE... and some one needs to GET OFF it

M

[Clubmanmc]

Photog A has a brief! ..... get really detailed images of scene B. Detail must be immense, because the images are going to be displayed in a very very large manner and will be judged and paid for according to how good the detail/sharpness/IQ is in the images. Lower IQ will result in lower payment, higher IQ will result in higher remuneration.

So now Photog A has to decide. Do I get a 7D and some super pro grade lens combo that gives 100lp/mm, do I get a larger pixel sized D3s and Nikon's even more uber pro razor grade lenses, that may only give 90lp/mm resolution, or does he go for a MF outfit with much higher native magnifications(and hence detail) and 3x the pixel output of the 7D?
The alternative is to use the D70s + 18-105VR combo!.. and hope for the best.

did i mention you have a short memory...

you cant remeber mentioning a large print??

hmmmmm

M

[arthurking83]

yes its time for popcorn...

......

the cliff is HIGH... and its a HORSE... and some one needs to GET OFF it

M

did i mention you have a short memory...

you cant remeber mentioning a large print??

hmmmmm

M

LOL! I remember mentioning a large print(definitely remember that), but I never specified a 5m x 5m large print.. I was referring to maxed out 100% pixel capability of the cameras sensor.. in terms of 'large print'.

I can tell 'ya too.. there is no high horse here ... if you're trying to imply a particular mood or emotion in your replies, the onus is not on me or any other reader to guess at what the tone is. If I quote someone, I do so based on the tone on the reply.

My thread and responses are purely for informational purposes, I don't need to have the last word, in fact I prefer it if other do have the last word, but for the record, this is how the topic went:

I said: (based on tests, from that DxO site) that having an old camera body and upgrading the lens to a better quality equivalent may be a futile upgrade path. With a very god quality consumer grade lens, and upgraded/updated body the user can then see some decent improvement in their images. The test data to substantiate that is right there in the DxO site.

You came into the thread and countered that assertion.. with comments like "any canon lens will work equally as well on a 1000D as it does on a 1Ds", etc, etc .. but have yet to provide any proof.. only argumentative countering.. but, as far as i can see.. no proof.
Then you made remarks on how information and threads and posts on AP seem to be misleading. I know that you can't see how your comments are contradictory and therefore misleading to the newbie observer.. because you made them and are the owner of those comments, but you provided them, and haven't provided any proof to counter the results seen on DxO.

I'm not going to lower myself into abyss of personal attacks and garbage like that. What you think of me or my comments are your own personal opinion and you are more than entitled to them.... but in your first reply, you said "blah blah blah" yet the technical results seem to say "halb, halb, halb".
If you have nothing other than sarcasm to offer, maybe it's best then to let me have the last word at which point you can then feel secure in the knowledge that you made at least one factual comment in the thread. If you did in fact have any technical input to offer, other than your opinions on myself, I'd gladly let you have the last word. The final word is of no interest to me in this thread.. only facts. If so, then hurry up.. Silver(HiHo!!) is trying to throw me off!

FWIW tho:

D70s_Nikon105VR-macro
D70s-105VRDSC_0610.jpg

D300_Nikon 18-105VR
D300_18-105VRDSG_2906_MLU+remote.jpg

At these resolutions you can't really see the huge difference, but now I'm in the market for new gear. I have a D70s and a Nikon 18-105VR kit lens.. I like to take portraits at 105mm, and VR helps to keep my unsteady hand from ruining every single shot I make.. (because shooting from atop a horse is quite hard you know! )

I have about $1500 to spend, and I think I want one of those really nice 105VR lenses too, even though the 18-105VR has 105mm. But then I'm thinking maybe a newer body would be nice, even though I'm pretty happy with the D70s for now.
(note I'm only happy with the D70s for now.. because I don't have the D300 to compare with to see how unhappy I was in only having the D70s).

Now I know people are reading this thinking I'm on some kind of high horse again, and I'm not. My memory does seem to be able to extend to many topics on AP from approximately Jun 2006.. and common and recurring theme is and has always been.. I want to upgrade my kit to get better pictures... where 99% of respondents chime in to the tune of get a better lens... almost without fail!

if youse all need 100% crops of the images I can supply them, but you can clearly see that the 18-105VR on the D300 is better in so many respects in this portrait session. The portrait session is supposed to indicate clear sharp eyes and eyelashes, and without sharpening the D70s+105VR(which is a super sharp lens at this focus distance!!) fails. it won't give me the eye/lashes detail that everyone thinks is super important in portrait photography(and hence why you see so many over sharpened eyes in portraits).
Neither image has been sharpened in any way, and the D300 image should accept more sharpening in this situation, because it didn't produce moire to begin with. Moire in the D70s image is evident in full view as well.. it'll affect the image in print.

Printing this portrait in a large manner.. and no!... not 5 freaking meters!.. large, as in 12-24" will be a problem with the lower res camera+pro grade lens, whereas from what I've now seen with printing... the higher res camera and half decent consumer grade lens will print it easily.

All other elements of this basic portrait shot.. I'll do what everyone else does, and leave that up to some super chic new PS action!

NOTE(so that it's perfect spelled out here) I realize that this shot is not a portrait shot, but the purpose is to clearly define in a slightly scientific manner, how fine detail is rendered, both on the sensor and subsequently in print.
I have no interest in how much or how far technology has advanced and how printers can only print 11 pairs of lines per millimeter. The pure numbers mean nothing to me! But the relative differences in how the numbers stack up does.
The common consensus seems to be, that a pro lens will give you better images because the lens is sharper, when that is clearly not true in every single case.


Now anyone is free to have the last word, just as long as that last word makes sense and can be verified in some way.

And now I'm off .... Hi Ho Silver!!.. awayyyyyyyyy!

[ving]

[bigdazzler]

more popcorn ??

AK you crack me up .... hi ho silver ....

[Clubmanmc]

neigh

M

[N*A*M]

i'd have to agree with arthur from my own experiences, because upgrading my camera body did wonders for my shooting. here is my photographic journey!

i started on a D80, 18-135 kit lens and SB600. i was fairly happy with the pictures. but i didn't like the "plastic kit lens" with plastic lens mount, the zooming action sucking air, and wobbly front element. i thought it was a crappy kit lens and was holding my shooting back. so i saved up and followed the invest in glass mantra.

i got 50/1.8, 35/1.8, 80-200/2.8, 11-16/2.8, 17-55/2.8. shooting enjoyment went up initially, as did my technique. i shot a lot of things from interiors, to portraits, weddings, sports. results were moderately good partially due to lenses, and partially due to better technique. but i still struggled in poorer light to acquire and keep focus. indoor sports was particularly difficult. i struggled with balancing sufficient shutter speed, and noise. also the white balance was crappy to say the least. each shoot required heaps of post processing time because each frame needed work. on top of that, the sensor was developing hot pixels that i had to clone. the images were never really that sharp and the colours never really popped.

i pulled the trigger on a D300. but i had to let some lenses go. 11-16/2.8 and 35/1.8 were cut. the D300 was a revelation. detail was leagues above the D80. i did a lot of personal tests with fabrics, textures, newspapers, people and came to this conclusion. AF fine tune also revealed inconsistencies with the 80-200/2.8 that i hadn't realised on the D80. one of the best things about the D300 was adding the D2x modes. i love shooting, and i hate post processing. i could setup the D300 to produce excellent JPGs SOOC and this saved me a lot of time. the white balance and AF system also totally trounced the D80.

but what about the lenses? guess what? i still keep and use the 18-135 kit lens. it has a purpose and will have an occasional place in my bag. the D80 however, i gave to my dad. i would be quite happy to live with a D300 and any of nikon's recent 18-xxx kit lenses. the optics in any modern lens is more than capable for the bodies we have today.

my 2c.

[arthurking83]

Because I'm Nikon orientated, If I had to choose any 18-(?) Nikon kit lens, i think, and taking into account practicality/price/performance(and overall use) my list would be:

18-105VR(because of the VR.. for my son!)
16-85VR(yeah! 16mm but you know what I mean)
18-70(nice and cheap)
18-200VR
18-55VR(18-55 is just too limited and limiting, and decent fast alternatives exist in that range, from Tammy and Sigma).

I'm sure tho, that at the rate that Nikon are producing 18-? variants, we'll soon see an 18-120mmVR, 18-121mmVR, 18-122mm VR.. and so on (I'm wondering if they plan on doing an 18-19mm VR as well )

although!.. if I were to have an Fx body as well, I reckon even the new 24-120/4VR would be a nice allrounder kind'a lens too.

and for anyone interested(still on the topic of Nikon consumer lenses) Bjørn Rørslette says that the new 28-300VR from Nikon is a very good lens(plenty sharp), and is planning on acquiring one for himself!