Hi Ron,

Thanks for your feedback, which is much appreciated.

You make a good point about the Nikkor 80-200 VR lens in that it obviates
the need to change lenses and avoids the possibility of introducing dust
onto the sensor. I do worry about 200mm being too short, and realistically I
can't see ever justifying the price tag on an 80-400 VR lens to myself, much
less to my wife. That being the case it looks as though I will be committing
to two lenses, and will live with the hassle of changing lenses from time to
time, and the inevitable dust on the sensor. Presumably there are ways of
removing the dust without damaging the sensor, albeit at the cost of some
effort and expense.

Your image using the 70-300VR lens looks excellent and shows that this lens
is capable of good results. Can you, or anyone else comment on the pros and
cons of this lens?

I also need to decide on a shorter focal length lens. Any recommendations
would be most welcome.

Has anyone used DX0 software which purports to remove lens artifacts etc.
from RAW and JPEG images?

Please excuse all the questions. This will be a significant outlay for me
(I'm a pensioner) so I want to make sure that I make an informed decision.

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto


--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult. W.S. Churchill

R Hi Indrek,

R I'm a Nikon DSLR user, glider, recreational and General Aviation
R pilot and
R very enthusiastic aviation photographer.
R I have been shooting with a D200 with a D70S as back up. Just bought
R 2 new
R D300's

R You would be far better off with the Nikkor 18-200 VR lens first off.
R The
R D80 does not have built in sensor cleaning and even if it did, it
R never pays
R to be complacent about microscopic dust getting on your sensor. In
R other
R words, don't rely on auto cleaning sensors even if you've got it.
R The less
R you need to change lenses the better.
R Tamron offer an excellent 18-250mm lens but it doesn't have the VR.
R You are far better off buying the most appropriate lenses first and
R waiting
R to save for the 'wish list' lenses when you can afford them because
R otherwise you eventually(read sometimes very quickly) finish up with
R a
R cupboard full of old lenses you don't use, can't easily sell and
R were a
R waste of money.
R The vibration reduction is particularly beneficial for all handheld
R photography, but especially for longer lengths and even more so when
R shooting moving objects (planes)

R The 70-300 VR lens is excellent, but don't bother with the non VR
R model. If
R you follow my suggestion and go with the 18-200 VR first up, but are
R still
R looking for longer length, save for the 80-400VR as your next
R purchase.
R With 18-400 in two lenses both with VR, you will be the envy of many.

R The D80 is an excellent camera, you won't go wrong there. Now that
R the D300
R is out, don't overlook the possibility of getting a second hand D200
R as
R another option. Physically feel the camera, hold it, shoot a few
R frames and
R listen to the shutter action and compare before you commit. Downside
R of the
R D200 v D80 is weight. It is noticably heavier to lug around, but
R believe
R me, its one horny camera.

R See attached pic using D200/70-300VR combo. In the full size image
R you can
R count the rivets! The owner of the plane has this image printed and
R mounted
R in the back of his hangar at 1800mm x 1200mm and it blows everyone
R away who
R sees it.

R Hope I've been helpfull and happy snapping.

R Rob Wintulich

R "Indrek Aavisto" wrote in message
R ...
I am contemplating replacing my Konica Minolta Z3 with something
better. In
the past this camera has taken reasonable shots of static displays,
but the
shots of flying aircraft have generally been mediocre, to say the
least.

If anyone has any advice it would be much appreciated. A Nikon D80
with the
kit 18-55 and a 70-300 zoom lens would just about fit in my budget.
Any
comments about what sort of results I might expect with that set up?

Thanks in advance

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto


--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult. W.S. Churchill