New Sony NEX-5n looks REALLY tempting! Truth be told, my S95 has not seen much action lately, just for non "photography" snap-shots really..

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/09/05/the-sony-nex-5n-digital-camera-review-a-monster-full-of-features/

ACLU - Know Your Rights: Photographers

Edited September 9, 201114 yr by Salt Peanuts

KD what are your impressions on the s95? I'm still torn between it an the SD4000is and having a hard time justifying the extra $115 or so for the ISO performance and slight increase in image quality. Otherwise the two of them spec out to pretty much identical numbers etc.

want to get the s95 but I can't bring myself to do it. My wife is probably going to end up making the decision for me, as it will be her camera anyway.

Based on what I saw in the Just Bought thread, I'd say you made your decision. For me, the S95's dual control dials are well worth the price premium. After 5 years of using a DSLR with two dials, I don't think I could ever go back to a camera that just had one.

Fair enough I shoot nikon and wouldn't know what to with them anyway.

Yeah. I thought that too but looking at the example picture comparisons at ISO 1600 on dpreview there really isn't that much difference (very surprisingly to me) unless I'm really cropping:

http://www.dpreview....000is/page8.asp

I also found this comparison of the two:

http://www.cameralab...S/verdict.shtml

After talking it over with my wife were going to go with the one with faster turn on time, better automatic, and higher shot rate: the SD4000. I'd love to get the S95 with the manual focus ring and kick ass review screen but I have a DSLR for that. I think we (and more importantly she) will be very happy.

Hmm, interesting. They really are a lot closer than I thought. A higher frame rate can be a definite advantage for the candid shots. Looks like a good decision.

Ordered the Feisol CT-3441S Rapid Tripod and Photo Clam PC-36NS Ballhead from Kerry at Really Big Cameras. Also got a used Really Right Stuff L-plate on ebay.

Still trying to decide on Macros. I am going back and forth between the Nikon 60mm AF-S VR Micro (newer one) and Sigma 70mm Macro. I decided that I would probably like to have a macro that can also double as a walkaround camera. I think getting something like the Tokina 100mm (which was my other choice) would not be so great as a walkaround. The Sigma70mm has great reviews in terms of being very sharp. Seems to be slightly better from the reviews than the 60mm. Also has more working distance for Macro (even with the extending lens) than the Nikon 60mm. However, I am worried about the slow autofocus and no VR for times that I am not doing Macro. I would also rather have a lens that doesn't extend. Any thoughts?

Edited September 10, 201114 yr by shellylh

My 60mm is the non VR version and I am not sure how they changed it. As a general rule I prefer Nikon glass to Sigma but that is not based on any recent, i.e. Less than 6 years, comparisons.

I haven't tried non-Nikon glass yet but my inclination is to go for Nikon. I suppose I don't really need true 1:1 macro shots, mostly just want to do closeups, so the lack of working distance shouldn't be that bad.

I'd get the Nikon 60mm AF-S. It is non-extending, and gets very good reviews from a couple of guys I respect, who use it as a general lens, for everything from macros, to portraits, to landscapes. It's a versatile lens that is close to an 85mm equivalent on DX, and a near-normal lens on FX. It will AF with any Nikon DSLR.

The Sigma 70 MIGHT be marginally better optically, but I doubt it's a difference that you'd ever notice. The Nikkor AF-S wins on pretty much every other front.

Ordered the Feisol CT-3441S Rapid Tripod and Photo Clam PC-36NS Ballhead from Kerry at Really Big Cameras. Also got a used Really Right Stuff L-plate on ebay.

That's exactly my setup.

^Cool. I hope you like it. Looks like I might have to wait a week or so for Kerry to get in the next batch of Feisol 3441S. Not a big deal though.

Ordered the Nikon 60mm AF-S from amazon. Should be here Monday.

I suppose I don't really need true 1:1 macro shots, mostly just want to do closeups, so the lack of working distance shouldn't be that bad.

That's what I used to think, but the more macro's I shot, the more magnification and more working distance i wanted, more the better. I used to walk around with the Sigma 70 on crop body, thinking two birds with one stone, macro and walkaround, but 70 mm was just too long for indoor walk-round, and the working distance was not enough for macro when shooting live objects. Then one realizes macro is really about lighting! I now use Canon 100 L IS macro, but I still wish for a little more working distance at 1:1 for those nervous insects, but the IS does come in handy for when tripods are not handy and wish the Sigma 70mm had IS as well..

Edit:

just took this Macro today hand-held 100 mm F8 1/60 with IS on.

IMG_5663 by drjlo1, on Flickr

Edited September 10, 201114 yr by Jon L

^ Yes, I was afraid of this. I imagine that I will end up buying a 100-110mm at some point in the future. It seems like a lot of people have both a 60/70 and 100/110 and use them for different reasons. I just didn't want to get pay the money for the 105mm Nikon right now and didn't find the lower priced options (Tamron 90mm and Tokina 100mm) all that exciting. If I really get into macro and find the 60mm is just not enough, I might be willing to get the Nikon 105mm macro at a future time (might as well spend the money rather than losing it in stocks ).

Edit: Uggh, I decided to cancel my order and wait a little longer and think about what Jon said. I promise no more posting about macro lenses until I have one in my hand.

Edited September 10, 201114 yr by shellylh

If you will be taking a lot of insect shots, and are impatient, then the 105 may be worth the money. If most of your macros will be of non-motile things, then I do not see the big advantage of increased working distance at a given magnification. Anyone who makes proclamations that one is always better is simply full of shit. If you are buying the lens from somewhere that has a thirty day return, use it yourself and decide if it works for you.

Buy all of them, return what you don't like. Simple, no?

**BRENT**

Does amazon.com or bhphoto have a 30 day return on lenses that are opened and used?

Nice insect shot Jon.

Edited September 10, 201114 yr by shellylh

Does amazon.com or bhphoto have a 30 day return on lenses that are opened and used?

Nice insect shot Jon.

They both do, as long as they're in "new" condition and you keep all the packaging. Depending on how many things you try out, insured return shipping can quickly add up, though.

If you pay insured shipping both ways you can try out my Nikon 105 VR

Now that I'm thinking about it, why aren't we all telling Shelly to get the most expensive lens? And here I thought we were all enablers.

If you pay insured shipping both ways you can try out my Nikon 105 VR

Thanks for the very generous offer Chris but I wouldn't feel comfortable borrowing such a nice lens from somebody... in case something happened.

I am pretty sure I would like the Nikon 105mm AF-S for Macro (and not as a walk around lens). The question would be whether I would be just as happy with the Nikon 60mm at least for a while for Macro and could use it as a walk around lens.

Finally - HCers back to being enablers! I thought everyone was acting much too sane for a while. You really should be telling me to get a 200mm macro.

Some pics from last weekend (over Labor Day) from Mt Evans and Golden Gate Canyon State Park.

Thanks for the very generous offer Chris but I wouldn't feel comfortable borrowing such a nice lens from somebody... in case something happened.

I am pretty sure I would like the Nikon 105mm AF-S for Macro (and not as a walk around lens). The question would be whether I would be just as happy with the Nikon 60mm at least for a while for Macro and could use it as a walk around lens.

Finally - HCers back to being enablers! I thought everyone was acting much too sane for a while. You really should be telling me to get a 200mm macro.

Ignoring the "getting in your own light" thing, the longer lens is nicer for situations where you cant get "truly macro close" to your subject.

Fish or insects in an enclosure, and in certain situations flowers are great examples.

I wish I had a 200mm macro, or at the very least 180mm I REALLLLLLY wish I owned & brought one of those instead of my 90mm when I went to Longwood gardens earlier this summer. The 90mm was fine for the majority of the day, but a longer lens would have been totally welcome for shooting the lily-pads. In hindsight, any long lens that focused closer than 9 feet would have been adequate for the lily-pads, but it never hurts to kill 2 birds with one stone.

Well the offer is there if you change your mind Shelly. I've lent it out a couple times with no issue but those were all local.

OK, after thinking about what Ari and Job said, I ended up ordering the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro from B&H on Sunday, it should be here Thursday. The 100mm lens will give me working distance. Also, I decided not to pay more for Nikon/VR since I figure that most real macro I will be using a tripod. I am not a fan of the extending lens, but I can probably put up with it to save ~$500. I may still end up with a Nikon 60mm for a macro/walkaround, we'll see. I wonder how the new Nikon 40mm macro would work as a close-up + walkaround. Probably not as sharp as the 60mm AF-S. I think I noticed that (taking into account that the lens length on the 40mm is shorter than that of the 60mm) the working distance of the 40mm and 60mm was about the same.

Edited September 13, 201114 yr by shellylh

OK, after thinking about what Ari and Job said, I ended up ordering the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro from B&H on Sunday,

Great choice, at a great price also. Honestly, I doubt anyone could tell the difference in IQ between the Tokina and Canon/Nikon 100-105mm options in real life shots.