Ridiculous.  You can take photos of anything in public view.  You can't take photos into people's homes where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  A police officer can't force you to delete images.  You can even take photos of people in public without a release, how do you think paparazzi operate?  You can also film or take photos of the police.  If you were to use a picture in an advertising campaign then would have to get a model release.  Next time that happens get their badge number and name.  Be polite, but don't let them push you around.  Taking pictures while on private property is entirely up to the owner, but taking pictures of private property from public property is completely legal.  

Here are some user reviews off Fred Miranda.  It's a pro lens, it should be good.  I think the AF is slower than the Nikon.  I've seen some wonderful pictures from this lens over the years.  

http://www.fredmiran...php?product=131

D610 Tamron 70-200/2.8 85mm f9 1/320@ISO100

Love that one, Jerry. 

How are we supposed to Nikon16's money if you're going to be so reasonable, Scott?

A 7000 series is a huge upgrade in interface and AF, as Merco said.  The D3300 produces great images, as you've shown us, but the control offered by the higher models is something to be appreciated. 

 

Kenafein: Sigh...you and PebblzNnutz are convincing me that I am doing something very wrong with my Tamron lenses. This is a wonderful capture--so detailed and beautiful. I have the 150-600 and have used it on my D600 as you did, but I didn't get nearly the same sharp results.  

I have the Sigma Contemporary, but they are very similar.  I was just lucky to get close, far shots don't look sharp.  This Kestrel was already too far for really good detail, and he was likely closer than I'll ever get. 

This sparrow was really close, and if I look at this at 1:1 in Lightroom you can see so much detail in the feathers, because the light was good and I was close(almost at the minimum focus).  
DSC_7146 by kenafein, on Flickr

This Grebe was too far away, if you zoom in the detail is lost and it's all muddied and blurry. 
DSC_6983 by kenafein, on Flickr

Fantastic reception shot, by the way. 


 

Kestrel

DSC_7072 by kenafein, on Flickr

American Kestrel - My daughter and I were fortunate to have this little guy land pretty close to us along the path.

DSC_7072 by kenafein, on Flickr

DSC_7097 by kenafein, on Flickr

Black Phoebe

DSC_7015 by kenafein, on Flickr

Belding's Savannah Sparrow

DSC_7146 by kenafein, on Flickr

Have you guys seen this new lens?  It's a wide angle 4.5:1 macro.  Looks pretty interesting.  Manual focus and what not, running $200.  I am considering getting one for my Sony, but it comes in multiple mounts.  

http://www.zyoptics.net/

Check out the charts on the Digital picture vs the Canon and Nikon offerings and the Otus.  The Otus is the clear winner, but the Sigma is right behind it.  

Seems like a great lens, maybe only beat by the Otus and the Sony 85mm GM lens.  

I have the Tamron 24-70/2.8.  I haven't found I needed the extra reach in a walk around lens, and the 2.8 is nice.  If I want more reach, it's usually more than 105-120 that I'd want.  That difference can be made up in a couple of steps, usually.  Wider would be nice, but that's not really an option.  This is just my opinion and follows from the way that I shoot.  The lenses that the others have recommended are certainly great choices.  

If your budget is 500-1000 then you can easily pick up the Tamron 150-600.  It routinely goes on sale for the high 600s to low 700s.  However, you will run into limitations with your camera body.  The buffer on that camera is too small for birds in flight.  Keep your eyes out for a used D7000.  If you shoot larger birds, 300 is probably sufficient, but if you get into it you'll always want more.  I used to shoot with a Sigma 100-300/4, but I jumped on the Sigma 150-600 as soon as it went on sale.  

With how ubiquitous photography has become with cell phones, etc, everyone is a photographer, but you can't just buy a tool and become a craftsman.  I am an intermediate hobby photographer, with years of experience, but I wouldn't feel qualified to turn out professional photoshoots.  Flatlays are one thing, you can buy a tent and some lights for those, but fashion/model shoots are another.  Understanding lighting and composition is key.  I agree with Merco and Bear.  If you are asking us which lenses to buy, you should include several private lessons focusing on the areas of photography you're interested in, at the very least, but you probably should find a professional photographer.  As for the 24-70, I haven't taken it off my camera, very often, since I bought it. 

The only ergonomic difference between the D810 and D500 is the location of the ISO button. I remapped mine to the red button so it appears Nikon agree with me and that is a better place to locate it.

 

Bit off topic but my guess for the D810 replacement will be the 42mp sensor (used in A7Rii), plus focus system and auto calibration from the D5/D500. I am willing to be they will ditch the flash too in favour of GPS and Wifi, which would be good. These would make me want to upgrade for sure.

Make me a good deal on your D810 when you upgrade .  

Thanks for the feedback I'll b doing more research and look foward to your help and feedback tom

No problem, if I can suggest, look at the lenses you want first and make the camera your secondary concern.  Then buy what you can afford.

I know it's a big purchase, but I think you're overthinking it.  Any Nikon camera will be able to do what you've listed here.  White balance is easily adjusted in post processing if you get it wrong.  Your first image is very warm, it would be easy to adjust with a D3200 or a D7200.  The D7200 will give you a higher quality raw image than the D3200, with 14bit, but the difference is marginal.  Getting a D500 or a D750 will nab you a better camera, with a better interface and better AF, a larger buffer, but they aren't necessary to take a good picture.  Saving money for lenses and a good tripod isn't a bad idea, if you aren't shooting fast action and dynamic settings.  

For the second picture, all you need is a tripod and a longer exposure.  

You didn't originally mention sports...The D500 or D750 would be better for sports.  I shot sports with a D7000 and D600 - now shooting a D4.  I chose the D600 over the D800 at the time due to several factors considering that I was primarily shooting sports.  For sports, of the cameras you mentioned, I would pick the D500 or D750 for sure.  I would lean towards the D500 for sports and wildlife and the D750 for trains and landscapes.  Of course, both can shoot all of the above very well.  I know several people who shoot sports regularly with a D750.  It really depends on your preference.  I don't think I'd let the flare issue stop me from going with the D750.  Perhaps you should rent each of them for a weekend or a week and see which suits you best.  I'd rent them both at the same time and plan on shooting (roughly) the same images with each to see which works best for you.

TBonz is our sport photography expert.  I'd listen to him, but, TBonz, don't you think a D810 would work better for sports than a 750?  I have never used a D750, but the D810 has that huge buffer.  It works way better for birding than my D600, which I struggle with, but still get good shots with.  I was very pleased to hold and use a D810 from a fellow birder.  Shooting lossless 12bit, you can shoot almost twice as many photos with the D810 than the D750 and the D750 only shoots 1.5 more FPS.  I think the D750 is certainly better than the D800 for sports, but the 810 was also under consideration.

looking at d 7200 now any suggestions ? thanks for feedback

The D7200 is a good mid range crop camera.  It has a decent sized buffer, about the same as a D750 or D600.  It won't be an amazing sporting camera, but you can make it work for just about anything you want to do.  With a good wide angle, those train shots won't be a problem. 

The D800 has bulb mode.  You set it to manual and then change the shutter setting to bulb.  Also, the D810 is the best, reasonably priced, birding camera Nikon made until the D500.  It shoots 5 frames per second and has a much bigger buffer than the D750.  I'd say it's a much better sport camera than the D750(because of the buffer), but the D810 is going to cost you at least 2200 dollars.  Another plus, when you shoot in cropped mode, the D800 series cameras still have high pixel density, 16mpx vs 10mpx.  Whatever you end up with will be a great camera, but don't discount the D800 series if they'll work for you.  

And KEH has a 6 month warranty on cameras. You may even consider the bargain 800e.  It is cheap, and if it's all working who cares if it has blemishes?

It sounds like you're going to want to shoot wide angle, for the trains and scapes.  I'd definitely go full frame.  Why don't you look into getting a D800 or D800e?  You'll get a lot more detail on those trains.

These are two very different cameras.  If you plan on using it for sports or birding I'd pick the D500, otherwise I'd pick the D750.  The D500 is a professional crop sensor camera, and the D750 is a mid range full frame sensor camera.  The D500 has a great buffer and AF system, and the Crop factor is useful when birding.  The D750 will have a slightly better image quality and cleaner images at high ISO.  Nikon's best glass is Full Frame, and the industry is pushing towards Full Frame, in general.

It sounds nice, and I bet it will be a great lens, but at 105, F/2 is already razor thin.  The applications will be very specialized for this lens wide open, if it's even good wide open.  It's just not worth the money for me, but that's up to you to decide.  

Adam isn't a camera snob, he runs the most popular Pentax camera forum on the internet as well(for what it's worth).

Well I sold the SIgma 150 OS Macro, so only three primes in my bag now.  I really liked the 150, but for the hand held "macro" work I do, it was just too much lens.  Bug and heavy, and I wasn't really seeing the results that made me want to go to it over my Tamron 90.  So I sold it for a fair piece more than I what I paid for it, also sold my Tamron 90, and picked up the newest Tamron 90 (F0017).  Metal body, good weather sealing, and optically every bit as good as the previous 90 I had.  No reason to buy it other than an itch I wanted to scratch.  I used the cash from the sale of the 150 and older 90 to buy the new 90, and the Tamron 45.  I am loving the 45.  Great colors, and that little extra width makes it even more useful for me.  So I'm running with a 45, 85 1.8G, and the 90 macro.  I've been thinking about a wide prime, but I want to see how much I enjoy the 16-35 F4 when we go to Kauai next week.  My buddy shoots a Sony 16-35 F4, and gets great results with it. 

Have fun in Hawaii, we'll look forward to your pics and the review of the 16-35.