Get serious . . . on a budget

[HarveyMushman]

Let's say a person is contemplating a new Canon 300D, or maybe a Nikon D70. What do the experts here have to say about outfitting that dSLR with lenses from a company like Sigma, or Tamron, or . . . . ? These lenses tend to be considerably less expensive than their Canon and Nikon counterparts. Is there a performance price to be paid? Keep in mind that our shopper is not a pro by any means, just an enthusiastic amateur.

[gus]

I was reading a while back that it was similar to putting retreads on a Ferrari. You will limit your expensive camera.

I dont know enough about it myself.

[wxwax]

I have the same question myself. The closest I heard to an answer is that they're never as good as Canon or Nikon lenses, but that some are closer than others.

In other words, it depends upon the specific lens you're looking at. I guess the next step for me is to figure out what lenses I would most use, then find out if Sigma or Tamron made highly thought of versions of those lenses.

[HarveyMushman]

I have the same question myself. The closest I heard to an answer is that they're never as good as Canon or Nikon lenses, but that some are closer than others.

In other words, it depends upon the specific lens you're looking at. I guess the next step for me is to figure out what lenses I would most use, then find out if Sigma or Tamron made highly thought of versions of those lenses.
That's what I thought. I have a decent Nikkor 35 - 80 lens (1:4 - 5.6) from my film SLR and I could probably talk my brother out of his Nikkor 50mm (1.8) lens :D , so I'd probably be shopping for a telezoom, maybe 70 -300mm.

[fish]

I have a contrarian opinion (big surprise, huh?). I think it depends on the lens. Some of the Tamrons and Sigmas have gotten very good reviews. So if you compare a good Sigma with a cheapo Nikon, the Sigma's going to be better. duh.

Besides...it's the photographer, not the camera. A good photographer can take excellent photos with a cheapo camera, but a bad photographer...well he's just gonna be bad no matter what. :1drink

That said, I've been buying Canon gear, but so far only one L lens. I'm trying to keep an open mind, tho.

[pathfinder]

I have a contrarian opinion (big surprise, huh?). I think it depends on the lens. Some of the Tamrons and Sigmas have gotten very good reviews. So if you compare a good Sigma with a cheapo Nikon, the Sigma's going to be better. duh.

Besides...it's the photographer, not the camera. A good photographer can take excellent photos with a cheapo camera, but a bad photographer...we'll he's just gonna be bad no matter what. :1drink

That said, I've been buying Canon gear, but so far only one L lens. I'm trying to keep an open mind, tho.
Fish has heard my opinion before and essentially restated it - Tamron and Sigma would not stay in business long if they did not satisfy some customers.

Read the reviews of the lenses in Shutterbug and Pop Photography or at Photodo.net. Tamron and Sigma make some very nice lenses and some that are not as well thought of. Are all Chevys great? No of course not - but most of us would not refuse a ride in a Corvette and would turn our noses up at a Vega.
WHICH specific lens whether made by Canon, or Nikon or Sigma or Tamron is the real question. Tamron and Sigma both get good reviews for their macro lenses. And they are half the price of Canon lenses. Are they as mechanicaly solidly built as the Canon L glass - no they are not - but that does not mean that they are inferior optically. Some of the expense of the L lenses is in the robust mechnical housings - they are built tough for the use pros put them through - Think how many frames a Sports Illustrated Photog will shoot in one afternoon at an NFL game - thousands Saturday and turn around and do it again Sunday - that means the mechanical parts must be very robust. The D10 shutter is estimated to be good for ~150,000 frames - how long will it take for most of us to shoot that many frames? Some pros will do it in a season of football journalism......
As Fish knows - I own several L lenses and like them a great deal - but I did buy a Tamron 28-75 F2.8 Di lens and have been highly pleased with it - it is sharp and a very nice small compact lens - MUCH smaller than the Canon or Sigma equivalent - I will post a picture Fish has seen before that I believe will demonstrate the optical quality you can expect from this lens. I was surprised because this lens is on my D10 more often than my Canon 17-40L or my 70-200 L F2.8 IS. It is a nice length indoors and out.
This is a frame that was shot with the 28-75 Di Tamron
Tamron also makes a 28-300 mm zoom but it is not thought as highly of - very big zoom ranges are always suspect.http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/1666538-M.jpg

[wxwax]

Like I said....

[pathfinder]

Like I said.... But frequently people get caught up in OPTICAL quality and forget that Mechanical quality can differ as well - and that MAY be more important to you or NOT -
I will never wear out the iris on my Tamron 180 macro and it is Sharp. Is the Canon iris more robust - I suspect it is - but that is not that important to me - It certainly might be to an aspiring entomologist who shoots macros of insect all day long.
Much of Nikons success with photournalists in the 60s was the mechanical superiority of the Nikon bodies and lenses - not the optical superiority of their lenses. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

[wxwax]

OK, I understand. Good point, thanks for clarifying -- optically some lenses may be equal, but in construction/engineering they may not be.

[zero-zero]

I'm with fish on this one. There are different levels of quality in every brand, and I'd much rather have a Tokina ATX :thumb than a Nikon cheapie zoom. :puke1

I have a lot of glass in my studio, many Nikon lenses, but also a bunch of non-Nikon stuff. Some because Nikon did not have an equivalent at the time (28-70 2.8, for instance), some because I use them so sparingly that I can't justify paying over twice as much for an itty bitty edge in quality (no 105 Micro here), and some because I actually preferred a different brand after shooting a few rolls (like that horrid two-touch 80-200 2.8 of yore).

I always have a lens on loan for a while before I buy it, or even a couple to do a shootout before I decide. When I can't detect which is which under the loupe, I know I'll spring for the cheaper one, or the one that pleases me most mechanically, but the brand is not going to be a factor. I'm too old and have too big an investment to even care about brand snobs that won't use anything else without ever actually doing a comprehensive test. :wxwax

[cletus]

This is probably just re-hashing what's already been said, but Sigma and Tamron make some very nice lenses. On the other hand, Nikon has been known to make some real dogs now and again.

Your original question though was, how to outfit your new DSLR with a lens on the cheap. I know that Nikon is planning a package of the D70 with a zoom lens (and I think a memory card) for not much more money than the D70 itself.

Another thought is think about something like a 50mm f1.8. Sure it's not going to be the most flexible lens in the world, but either Canon or Nikon's 50 1.8 would be very good optically, pretty solid mechanically and inexpensive. One of my buddies used to joke that the Nikon 50 1.8 was cheaper than a genuine Nikon body cap.

[HarveyMushman]

This is probably just re-hashing what's already been said, but Sigma and Tamron make some very nice lenses. On the other hand, Nikon has been known to make some real dogs now and again.

Your original question though was, how to outfit your new DSLR with a lens on the cheap. I know that Nikon is planning a package of the D70 with a zoom lens (and I think a memory card) for not much more money than the D70 itself.

Another thought is think about something like a 50mm f1.8. Sure it's not going to be the most flexible lens in the world, but either Canon or Nikon's 50 1.8 would be very good optically, pretty solid mechanically and inexpensive. One of my buddies used to joke that the Nikon 50 1.8 was cheaper than a genuine Nikon body cap.


Thanks everyone for your replies.

Cletus, I already have a 35 - 80 (4 - 5.6) Nikon zoom, and I could probably get my brother's 50mm (1.8), so I have the "body cap" basics covered.

Looks like a Sigma or Tamron lens would be fine for my purposes, as long as I shop carefully and select some of their nicer glass. I think spending pro-class money is just wasteful pretention for someone like me, who's just trying to learn.

[zero-zero]

Gentlemen...

I'm hearing a lot of "Sigma & Tamron". You're forgetting the maker of some of the most exciting lenses in its market. Tokina makes great stuff in its ATX Pro range, and I know many pros that use them, specially in journalism. Check them out.

[cletus]

Cletus, I already have a 35 - 80 (4 - 5.6) Nikon zoom, and I could probably get my brother's 50mm (1.8), so I have the "body cap" basics covered.
Sorry 'bout that. I read your post, and then by the time I started writing my post I forgot... duhhhh

Anywhooo,

Zero-Zero is right. Tokina makes some very nice stuff as well, so don't rule them out.

[HarveyMushman]

Gentlemen...

I'm hearing a lot of "Sigma & Tamron". You're forgetting the maker of some of the most exciting lenses in its market. Tokina makes great stuff in its ATX Pro range, and I know many pros that use them, specially in journalism. Check them out.
Yessir, I will.

[wxwax]

So how well do these lenses behave with the Canon cameras (autofocus options, metering?)

[fish]

So after farting around with my Canon 24-85/multi in light shade today, I came to the conclusion that I need a faster mid-range zoom, but I really don't want to pay $1200 for Canon's 24-70/2.8.

Sigma makes a 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for $400, Tamron makes a AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for $320 and a SP AF 28-105mm f/2.8 LD Aspherical IF for $800, and Tokina makes 28-80mm f/2.8 AT-X 280AF Pro for $550.

Does anybody have any direct experience with any of these lenses?

[pathfinder]

So after farting around with my Canon 24-85/multi in light shade today, I came to the conclusion that I need a faster mid-range zoom, but I really don't want to pay $1200 for Canon's 24-70/2.8.

Sigma makes a 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for $400, Tamron makes a AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for $320 and a SP AF 28-105mm f/2.8 LD Aspherical IF for $800, and Tokina makes 28-80mm f/2.8 AT-X 280AF Pro for $550.

Does anybody have any direct experience with any of these lenses?
Tamrons 28-75 f2.8 Di is very small - ~3.6 inches long and 2.9 inches in diameter - it takes a 67mm filter size. The Sigma which my brother just bought is substantially larger in size 4.5 in long and 3.5 in diameter and takes an 82 mm filter size. The barrel assembly of the Sigma is very nicely made but my brothers zoom was slightly stiff - but it may loosen up with times and warmer weather. The Tamron has a lock that prevents barrel extension when carrying the camera around. In a side by side - the Sigma looks almost twice as large for some reason. And as you know I am pleased with my purchase of the Tamron 28-75 Di. The Sigma is a wider angle and that might be very useful - the difference between 24 and 28 mm is bigger than it sounds like.

I have owned the Tamron AF 28-105 f2.8 LD in the Nikon AF mount and always thought it was a little soft especially wide open at f2.8 - Photodo.com agrees with me apparently as they score it 2.4 MTF which is just fair at best. The Canon 28-80 f2.8 L is rated 3.9 for comparison.

From reading individuals posts on dpreview and Luminous Landscape and other photo sites, I suspect that there is some variation between each lens of a type from a single manufacturer - some posters insist on trying the lens they purchase for several days before they agree to keep it - I bet you must have a good relationship with your dealer to get this arrangement - but it might be the best way if you can get this sort of deal.

If you do not HAVE to have a ZOOM - consider a Cannon 50m f1.8 or 50mm f1.4 - The f1.8 is only $70 - pocket change so to speak. The f1.4 is slightly more at $299.95 Photodo gives the f1.4 an MTF of 4.4 - VERY GOOD! Then you can also get the Canon 85mm f1.8 for $329 - It is a very nice lens that doesn't get a lot of hoopla due to the noise its big sister the f1.2 L gets. But the 85 f1.8 is rated at MTF 4.1 which is good also and focuses faster and is much smaller taking a 58mm filter - the same as the 50mmf1.4 . ( The 85 f1.2 gets rated by Photodo at a stellar 4.6 but is costs $1475 - more than the 85 f1.8 the 50 f1.4 and the Tamron or Sigma mid zooms combined! )
Since you already own a 17-40L you will then be set to go..... Just my two cents -
It is funny but I own a 17-40L and a 70-200L IS and a 50 and a 85 - and longer lenses - but the majority of my pictures are taken with the 28-75 Tamron zoom -It is just such a useful zoom range for people and small lanscape details - maybe I should have gotten the Canon since I use it so much of the time...............

[hutchman]

I have spent some time on the internet and will probably buy my first lens(es) from this list. If anyone has any negative comments about any of these lenses or suppliers, please speak up.

Canon 24-70 F2.8 L USM AF 1084.99 Abes of Maine

Canon 17-40mm F4.0 L USM AF EF Lens 678.99 Abes of Maine

Canon 70-200 F4.0 L USM Lens 554.99 Abes of Maine

Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro USM Lens 427.00 PCvideoOnline





Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DF AF 299.99 Abes of Maine/Ritz

Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX Macro 1:1 Autofocus Lens349.99 Abes of Maine

Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX APO IF HSM Autofocus Lens 629.99 Wells Digital

Sigma 24mm f1.8 EX DG Aspherical Macro AF Lens279.99 Abes of Maine





Tamron 17-35MM F/2.8-4 DI LD Super Wide Angle Zoom 479.99 Abes of Maine

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm 2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical [IF] Zoom 329.94 Canoga Cam

Tamron 28-105mm f/2.8 Auto Focus Lens 714.99 Abes of Maine







Tokina 28-80 f/2.8 ATX Auto Focus Lens 429.99 Abes of Maine

Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 AT-X 828 AF PRO 519.99 Abes of Maine BACKORDER

A lot of my photography is done from a motorcycle, so I am concerned with durability. My understanding of the Canon L line is that it is built to take more "misuse." My inclanation is to buy Canon unless someone can tell me another brand will be as durable and take quality images.

Hutch

[wxwax]

:dunno I see an empty space. Something didn't make it into yer post.

[cmr164]

I have spent some time on the internet and will probably buy my first lens(es) from this list. If anyone has any negative comments about any of these lenses or suppliers, please speak up.

Abes of Maine
I sure as heck would not trust my money or credit with these guys! Do some googling and or check with BBB & the state atty general's office. Not that being from Brooklyn is an indictment by itself but do be aware that Abes
of Maine is a NY store.

the 2 places that consistantly get top ratings in reliability and honesty
are http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ & http://www.adorama.com/

[hutchman]

I left some space between brands, maybe too much, it's all there.

[fish]

I sure as heck would not trust my money or credit with these guys! Do some googling and or check with BBB & the state atty general's office. Not that being from Brooklyn is an indictment by itself but do be aware that Abes
of Maine is a NY store.

the 2 places that consistantly get top ratings in reliability and honesty
are http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ & http://www.adorama.com/
Agreed. Stay away from those idiots. If you buy online, choice #1 is bhphoto.com, choice #2 is Adorama. I've bought a bunch of stuff from bhphoto, and they are great. Honest, good website, accurate stocking info, and good with returns. If I crave instant gratification, like I did today, I run down to San Jose Camera, which is priced within 10% of mailorder, but I have to pay sales tax.

In Atlanta, Peach Street Photo prices well, but I'm leery of their mailorder biz.

[fish]

I left some space between brands, maybe too much, it's all there.
waxy is always looking for conspiracies. :rofl

[cmr164]

I left some space between brands, maybe too much, it's all there. No, it's just when you wave a huge flag like "Abe's..." don't expect folks to comment on other stuff until the important part gets cleared up.

As for the lenses... I am firmly in the Canon camp.

I have/had ......................................will have

17-35 2.8L ......................................14mm 2.8L

28-70 2.8L .....................................17-35 2.8L (but give me an excuse for the 16-35L)

50 1.8 ...........................................50 1.8

85 1.2L .........................................85 1.2L

100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS .......................70-200 2.8L IS

...................................................400mm f4.0 DO IS

...................................................1.4x II

Sold 28-70 2.8L ... will sell 100-400 IS L

[wxwax]

I left some space between brands, maybe too much, it's all there.

I figured it out. I'm using the white background. I'm learning that white fonts don't show-up well against a white background. :doh

[hutchman]

No, it's just when you wave a huge flag like "Abe's..." don't expect folks to comment on other stuff until the important part gets cleared up.


I guess this is why we ask. I am a noob and did not have any knowledge of Abes rep. I will steer clear.

Thanks,

Hutch

[wxwax]

Hey Hutch, there's a thread for tips on not getting ripped off when you buy cameras on the internet. It's mostly aimed at point-and-shoot cameras, but some of it's valid for all electronics/photography purchases. Here's the link. (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=374)

[pathfinder]

So after farting around with my Canon 24-85/multi in light shade today, I came to the conclusion that I need a faster mid-range zoom, but I really don't want to pay $1200 for Canon's 24-70/2.8.

Sigma makes a 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for $400, Tamron makes a AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for $320 and a SP AF 28-105mm f/2.8 LD Aspherical IF for $800, and Tokina makes 28-80mm f/2.8 AT-X 280AF Pro for $550.

Does anybody have any direct experience with any of these lenses?
Fish

Here is a link to my image from the Tamron 28-75 Di -pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/2196039-O.jpg

I also have the same image taken with a 70-200f2.8 IS L for comparison at smugmug. Can you see significant differences? These were handheld so the Tamron does not benefit from IS of course.

[fish]

Fish

Here is a link to my image from the Tamron 28-75 Di -pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/2196039-O.jpg

I also have the same image taken with a 70-200f2.8 IS L for comparison at smugmug. Can you see significant differences? These were handheld so the Tamron does not benefit from IS of course.
A little warmer with the 70-200, but resolution looks very similar.

[pathfinder]

A little warmer with the 70-200, but resolution looks very similar.
I don't remember the exposure data for these two images but they were probably very similar - Both lenses were used at ~ 70mm - both were shot RAW and brought into PS about the same way.
We used to see the EXIF data on smugmug - but I do not see it for these two pictures even tho it is authorized for this gallery. Has this been changed in smugmug for some reason?

[cmr164]

I don't remember the exposure data for these two images but they were probably very similar - Both lenses were used at ~ 70mm - both were shot RAW and brought into PS about the same way.
We used to see the EXIF data on smugmug - but I do not see it for these two pictures even tho it is authorized for this gallery. Has this been changed in smugmug for some reason?
Well the one at pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/2196039-O.jpg

ISO 100
1/180
f8
+9 Saturation
25 Sharpness
+25 Contrast
+.2 ev exposure compensation
75mm focal length
28-75 Lens

What is the location of the other one?

[pathfinder]

Well the one at pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/2196039-O.jpg

ISO 100
1/180
f8
+9 Saturation
25 Sharpness
+25 Contrast
+.2 ev exposure compensation
75mm focal length
28-75 Lens

What is the location of the other one?
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/2196043-L.jpg This is an original frame taken with a Canon 70-200F2.8 IS L at ~70 mm - and is almost a duplicate of the frame whose exif data you listed above.
There used to be a button on my Smugmug Gallery that gave the EXIF data - but it is no longer there - I presume you used your own Exif reader program for that information about the Tamron 28-75mm lens. There were two almost identical pictures - one with the Tamron 28-75 at 70mm and one with the Canon 70-200f2.8 at ~70mm - for comparison. Thank you for the exif data above.

[fish]

There used to be a button on my Smugmug Gallery that gave the EXIF data - but it is no longer there
That's pretty weird. The link is on some of the other photos in that gallery, such as this one: http://Pathfinder.smugmug.com/gallery/20559/1/704484/Medium

[cmr164]

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/2196043-L.jpg This is an original frame taken with a Canon 70-200F2.8 IS L at ~70 mm - and is almost a duplicate of the frame whose exif data you listed above.
There used to be a button on my Smugmug Gallery that gave the EXIF data - but it is no longer there - I presume you used your own Exif reader program for that information about the Tamron 28-75mm lens. There were two almost identical pictures - one with the Tamron 28-75 at 70mm and one with the Canon 70-200f2.8 at ~70mm - for comparison. Thank you for the exif data above. I guess you meant ../2196043-O.jpg and no I did not use an exif reader. I manually examined the embedded text using the UNIX command 'strings 2196043-O.jpg | more'

ISO 100
1/350
f8
90mm focal length
70-200mm lens
exposure Bias = -1
noise reduction 25
sharpness 25
saturation +10
contrast +25
brightness +50
exposure +1.10

Looks like the camera was set 1 stop under and you added in 1.1 in the conversion from raw and the 'shopped in increases in brightness, saturation and contrast.

The data I actually see is:

<crs:Version>2.0</crs:Version>
<crs:RawFileName>CRW_4376.CRW</crs:RawFileName>
<crs:WhiteBalance>As Shot</crs:WhiteBalance>
<crs:Exposure>+1.10</crs:Exposure>
<crs:Shadows>15</crs:Shadows>
<crs:Brightness>50</crs:Brightness>
<crs:Contrast>+25</crs:Contrast>
<crs:Saturation>+10</crs:Saturation>
<crs:Sharpness>25</crs:Sharpness>
<crs:LuminanceSmoothing>0</crs:LuminanceSmoothing>
<crs:ColorNoiseReduction>25</crs:ColorNoiseReduction>
<crs:ChromaticAberrationR>0</crs:ChromaticAberrationR>
<crs:ChromaticAberrationB>0</crs:ChromaticAberrationB>
<crs:VignetteAmount>0</crs:VignetteAmount>
<crs:ShadowTint>0</crs:ShadowTint>
<crs:RedHue>0</crs:RedHue>
<crs:RedSaturation>0</crs:RedSaturation>
<crs:GreenHue>0</crs:GreenHue>
<crs:GreenSaturation>0</crs:GreenSaturation>
<crs:BlueHue>0</crs:BlueHue>
<crs:BlueSaturation>0</crs:BlueSaturation>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about='uuid:52f61efa-5217-11d8-b0cf-bbe58a8c29eb'
xmlns:exif='http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/'>
<exif:ExposureTime>1/350</exif:ExposureTime>
<exif:ShutterSpeedValue>8451211/1000000</exif:ShutterSpeedValue>
<exif:FNumber>8/1</exif:FNumber>
<exif:ApertureValue>6/1</exif:ApertureValue>
<exif:ExposureProgram>3</exif:ExposureProgram>
<exif:ISOSpeedRatings>
<rdf:Seq>
<rdf:li>100</rdf:li>
</rdf:Seq>
</exif:ISOSpeedRatings>
<exif:DateTimeOriginal>2004-01-28T16:18:02Z</exif:DateTimeOriginal>
<exif:ExposureBiasValue>-1/1</exif:ExposureBiasValue>
<exif:MeteringMode>5</exif:MeteringMode>
<exif:Flash rdf:parseType='Resource'>
<exif:Fired>False</exif:Fired>
<exif:Return>0</exif:Return>
</exif:Flash>
<exif:FocalLength>90/1</exif:FocalLength>
<exif:ColorSpace>4294967295</exif:ColorSpace>
<exif:PixelXDimension>2980</exif:PixelXDimension>
<exif:PixelYDimension>1796</exif:PixelYDimension>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about='uuid:52f61efa-5217-11d8-b0cf-bbe58a8c29eb'
xmlns:aux='http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/aux/'>
<aux:SerialNumber>0520214059</aux:SerialNumber>
<aux:Lens>70.0-200.0 mm</aux:Lens>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about='uuid:52f61efa-5217-11d8-b0cf-bbe58a8c29eb'
xmlns:pdf='http://ns.adobe.com/pdf/1.3/'>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about='uuid:52f61efa-5217-11d8-b0cf-bbe58a8c29eb'
xmlns:photoshop='http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/'>
<photoshop:History></photoshop:History>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about='uuid:52f61efa-5217-11d8-b0cf-bbe58a8c29eb'
xmlns:tiff='http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/'>
<tiff:Make>Canon</tiff:Make>
<tiff:Model>Canon EOS 10D</tiff:Model>

[pathfinder]

I guess you meant ../2196043-O.jpg and no I did not use an exif reader. I manually examined the embedded text using the UNIX command 'strings 2196043-O.jpg | more'

You're using a Linux box or a Mac then? Unix commands won't work on my XP machine I don't think, will they?

Pathfinder

[pathfinder]

That's pretty weird. The link is on some of the other photos in that gallery, such as this one: http://Pathfinder.smugmug.com/gallery/20559/1/704484/Medium
I know - I just looked at my Americana Gallery and some of the pictures have the "More photo details" button immediately to the right of the "Taken with a --------" directly underneath the picture - but some do not.
I think it is the more recent pictures that do not have the button - but some of them do have it !!!! .... What gives? I am perplexed or confused or both eg "cornplexed or perfused" hah!!

[cmr164]

You're using a Linux box or a Mac then? Unix commands won't work on my XP machine I don't think, will they?

Pathfinder
I use MacOSX, Tru64, Solaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD ... in a declining order. You can probably open the jpg in the XP's texteditor or do a 'type xxxx.jpg|more' in a command window.

[fish]

I know - I just looked at my Americana Gallery and some of the pictures have the "More photo details" button immediately to the right of the "Taken with a --------" directly underneath the picture - but some do not.
I think it is the more recent pictures that do not have the button - but some of them do have it !!!! .... What gives? I am perplexed or confused or both eg "cornplexed or perfused" hah!!
I recommend you ask help@smugmug.com.

[pathfinder]

I recommend you ask help@smugmug.com.

Thanks - will do just that.