The cameras are not really comparable in size and weight, so a lot depends on whether you want a pocket camera (LX2) or a handbag camera (G7). The LX2 images above 100 are very noisy, so night and no-flash interiors are a serious problem. If the shop has one look at the Nikon P5000 as well...

I have the LX2 and like it a lot, especially for hiking trips when my dSLR is too large..

It's performance at high ISOs is certainly not good, but for vacation/outdoors it is very good, with it's 28mm lens, sensor and screen, plus fully manual operation if needed, and RAW..

It certainly gives you time to advance and grow into it. Well made and fits into a jacket pocket (though not a trouser pocket like the FX models)..

Get a pocket tripod as well for any longer exposures of landscapes at night etc..

Most of these shots were taken with it:.

Http://alexandjustine.smugmug.com/.../gallery/2002575/7/102586139#102352861.

Alex..

Thanks so much for the replies. If I have the ISO at a low setting, would the Panasonic be ideal to take pictures indoors and at night? That is important for me as well..

I'm still learning about ISO, noise, wide angles, etc...this is all new to me..

Thanks again!..

One more thing. Would I be able to do something like the colour accent feature with the Panasonic (where the whole pic is in monochrome and the focus is in colour)? If the camera doesn't have that feature, would I be able to do that with Photoshop with the same quality ?

Oceania wrote:.

Thanks so much for the replies. If I have the ISO at a low setting,would the Panasonic be ideal to take pictures indoors and at night?That is important for me as well..

If you mean static subjects, then yes with a tripod or resting it on a table etc - all cameras in low light need time for enough light to get into the camera, so a slow shutter speed is required..

This shot on my page above of Sorrento at night was a 15 sec exposure with the camera sat on a wall:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

If you mean parties or restaurant interiors etc, then only with flash, otherwise motion blur from the subjects will spoil the shot. For that specific type of photography the Fuji F31fd is king among the small cameras..

The LX2 won't excel indoors, it's much better outdoors..

On your other question, you would have to do that in Photoshop, fairly easily though..

Alex.

Http://akiralx.smugmug.com/..

I was speaking with one of my co-workers and he's urging me to get the Canon EOS Digital Rebel. He said it's a good entry level SLR if I want to get serious about photography. It's quite pricey but fortunately my employer will be paying for it so I'm seriously considering it. I just find all of this really overwhelming especially since I have short window to buy this..

What are your thoughts on the Canon EOS Digital Rebel? My main issue is the size of it the Panasonic would easily fit into a pocket but he says I should stick with Nikon, Canon or Olympus because they have a higher quality lens whereas Panasonic lens is inferior...

Oceania wrote:.

I was speaking with one of my co-workers and he's urging me to getthe Canon EOS Digital Rebel. He said it's a good entry level SLR ifI want to get serious about photography. It's quite pricey butfortunately my employer will be paying for it so I'm seriouslyconsidering it. I just find all of this really overwhelmingespecially since I have short window to buy this..

What are your thoughts on the Canon EOS Digital Rebel? My main issueis the size of it the Panasonic would easily fit into a pocket buthe says I should stick with Nikon, Canon or Olympus because they havea higher quality lens whereas Panasonic lens is inferior..

He's right - if you are serious about photography you will want an DSLR eventually so buying another non-DSLR may be an unnecessary expense..

But it's probably most worth it if you know a little bit about the relationship between shutter speeds, apertures, ISOs etc. But you can use base DSLRs on Auto for a while, no problem..

Any of the Canon Rebel, Nikon D40 or 40x (both slightly smaller and lighter than the Canon), Pentax K100D or the base Olympus will be fine, just make sure you go to a store and handle them to see which you like from an ergonomics point of view..

I'm a Nikon shooter so may favour the D40, especially as they've a rebate on it till the end of August, for Nikon's 90th anniversary. The D40 is 6Mp, the 40x is 10Mp, but the former will be fine. A friend has the Canon, it's very nice also, though the Nikon kit lens is probably better. The D40 can give great photos straight out of the camera, no doubt about it - read the reviews on this site:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/.

Quote from the last page of the review:.

'In everyday use the D40 is just what it set out to be, a very capable, compact, lightweight and easy to use camera which makes a perfect first step for anyone wanting to get into digital SLR photography. It provides enough control and a large enough range of manual settings to enable you to experiment and learn but also helps you to take great pictures in the process. It's one of those cameras you can just pick up and start shooting without fuss, that you can hand to a friend who's never used an SLR and know they'll be able to do the same. All of this and a pretty decent kit lens for $600, I'd say it's a bit of a bargain.'.

If your employer is buying I say go for it as it will give you more to grow into..

Alex..

Thanks so much Alex, you're just confirming what my co-worker has been saying so it's nice to hear...he also mentioned the Nikon D40.

I'm actually leaning more towards the Nikon D40 because the excellent reviews and it seems to be exactly what I'm looking for, but also because it takes SD memory instead of compact flash the Canon uses. As a newbie, I don't see much difference between Nikon D40 and D40x except for the mega pixes which you pointed out ...but 6MP should be fine for blowing a pic to 8 x 11, right?.

I'm assuming it pretty fast (little delays)...compared with my Nikon Coolpix which is unbelievably slow, that I miss most shots...it is a few years old though..

I'll definitely be trying them out at the store..

Can't tell you how much I appreciate your help!..

If it's for traveling, a compact would be a better choice. I have an LX2 and it is a joy to use, you just have to learn to not pixel peep, you won't get DSLR quality on any high MP compact. The ergonomics are great and it has adjustments for nearly everything plus the full set of Auto, Program, Aperture priority, Shutter priority and manual plus others as well. The G7 is a much bigger camera and doesn't have the great wide angle lens that the LX2 has which is a definite plus when traveling (and the G7 is now obsolete!). Another wide angle quipped compact with full control to consider is the Ricoh GX100 which is quite good but a bit pricey. I also have a DSLR and just took it hiking in the Alps, but it can be a bind lugging around a camera/lens that weighs over a kilo.

There are times when you may not want the camera to be very obvious or where you will be told not to take photos because the DSLR is seen by some as a pro camera..

If you are really sold on a DSLR, look at all the manufacturers, there isn't a duff DSLR made at present. It's usual for suggestions to be for only Canon or Nikon cameras but you should look at the excellent DSLR's from Sony (Alpha 100), Pentax (K100D, K10D), Samsung (GX10), Olympus (E410, E510). They will all take pictures just as well as DSLR's from Canon or Nikon and have lens availability and accessories that will fulfill any beginner/amateur. You should choose on features and handling. For me, the current standout feature is in body image stabilisation which stabilises all your lenses, works well and is not found on Canon and Nikon cameras forcing you to buy stabilised lenses rather from being able to benefit from the huge amount of second hand lenses available..

Ask ten DSLR users which DSLR to go for and you will get ten different answers. A DSLR system is a large initial and future investment and I wouldn't rush into it without doing the appropriate research first.Malcy.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/malcy/setshttp://picasaweb.google.com/lumachrome..

Thanks for your input it is very appreciated and I have definitely considered all these points you brought up..

I have been wanting to pursue this for a while and have been putting it off. I have a budget of $900 from work so this is a great opportunity to purchase a SLR camera since they are so costly. Many owners have also taken SLR them on their trips so I'm not too worried about that. I always take a disposable with me as well..

I have asked 2 people who know me fairly well, that are camera enthusiast. In addition, consulting this site (very helpful) - there seems to be a consensus that the Nikon D40 and Canon EOS DR are very comparable and the best option for entry level DSR - even if I decide not pursue this hobby, it definitely will not go to waste because I still will able to use the camera and take quality pictures..

With all that in mind, I have decided to go for the SLR and feel pretty confident/good about the decision...

Well, don't listen to him any more. The LX2 has a Leica lens, and the superiority of that lens is one of it's main attractions...

Oceania, I can't help feeling that the last thing you need is DSLR..

You started out looking at the Pany LX2 and Canon SD800, something that would slide easily into any pocket and a camera that you didn't have to mess around with something that would give you good pictures on auto pilot..

In another one of your threads, I suggested that you also look at the Ricoh R6 because of it's similar size, 28 wide, good IQ and the fact that noise doesn't really rear it's ugly head until you hit 800 ISO. You didn't seem terribly interested, which was fine, but you've been all over the map and you really should talk to a qualified salesperson who cares about his/her customers. You gotta slow down..

Take a few minutes and write down the key attributes you've looking for in a camera...serious requirements. Take the list with you to the camera shop and don't let them push you in a direction you don't want to pursue. If you get the feeling that the salesperson's interests are more important than yours, walk out..

Les and a few others in your threads are right: the Panasonic/Leica lenses are very good. Your buddy wasn't doing you a favour by suggesting otherwise..

All things considered, the LX2 is probably the camera that would best serve you now, and in the near future, simply because it will grow with you. If you do decide to spend a lot of time with photography as a main hobby, a DSLR could be in your future. That is then, *this* is now..

Mike marshallFZ50..

Mikemarshall wrote:.

Oceania, I can't help feeling that the last thing you need is DSLR..

You started out looking at the Pany LX2 and Canon SD800, somethingthat would slide easily into any pocket and a camera that you didn'thave to mess around with something that would give you goodpictures on auto pilot..

In another one of your threads, I suggested that you also look at theRicoh R6 because of it's similar size, 28 wide, good IQ and the factthat noise doesn't really rear it's ugly head until you hit 800 ISO.You didn't seem terribly interested, which was fine, but you've beenall over the map and you really should talk to a qualifiedsalesperson who cares about his/her customers. You gotta slow down..

Take a few minutes and write down the key attributes you've lookingfor in a camera...serious requirements. Take the list with you to thecamera shop and don't let them push you in a direction you don't wantto pursue. If you get the feeling that the salesperson's interestsare more important than yours, walk out..

Les and a few others in your threads are right: the Panasonic/Leicalenses are very good. Your buddy wasn't doing you a favour bysuggesting otherwise..

All things considered, the LX2 is probably the camera that would bestserve you now, and in the near future, simply because it will growwith you. If you do decide to spend a lot of time with photography asa main hobby, a DSLR could be in your future. That is then, *this* isnow..

Mike marshallFZ50.

Not sure I agree - the LX2 is a nice camera, I've got one, but it has limitations like most P&S..

Nothing wrong with it or the others you mention, but a dSLR will give most for Oceania to grow into, which is quite an important point as her employer is paying for it. I say that because it means it will last her a long time, giving value for money to the employer..

But trying out say the D40 and others in a store will allow her to see which she feels comfortable handling..

Alex..

In another one of your threads, I suggested that you also look at theRicoh R6 because of it's similar size, 28 wide, good IQ and the factthat noise doesn't really rear it's ugly head until you hit 800 ISO.You didn't seem terribly interested, which was fine, but you've beenall over the map.

I can't find any place around here that sells the Ricoh, I did look at that. Yes I have been all over the place because I have been listening to different people with different opinions! I suppose that is part of my research process..

I didn't feel comfortable or confident with the other cameras I mentioned, that's why I have been asking on here but I feel really good about the Nikon D40. It's too bad that you and some others don't feel that's best for me despite my reason for buying one, but I trust the judgment of the 2 people I know they take magnificent shots one has had pictures published in magazines, the other, I would seriously considering her as my wedding photographer even though she's technically not a professional. I probably should have gone to them first..

And you really should talk to a qualifiedsalesperson who cares about his/her customers. You gotta slow down..

Ideally, yes but it's rare to find someone like that. My friend has suggested someone, going there today..

Take a few minutes and write down the key attributes you've lookingfor in a camera...serious requirements..

Yup I have done that, I know what I want now and what to look for..

Thanks for the input, much appreciated...

Oceania wrote:.

It's too bad that you and some othersdon't feel that's best for me despite my reason for buying one.

All anybody can do here is make a judgment call on what you say you want, based on your stated level of expertise and where that may be headed, then make suggestions. What I saw was (paraphrasing) "small, P&S, a camera that didn't require much input from you but one that offered features that would grow with you, *if* and when you *might* get more serious about photography." A compact and a DSLR are two different animals. We can only hope that what you choose *is* right for you, knowing that it will be your camera and your decision. *You* have to feel comfortable with the final choice or it will sit, gathering dust..

Thanks for the input, much appreciated..

You're welcome. Let us know what you buy, OK?..

After speaking to a qualified sales person about my goals/wants (who is a professional photographer as well), he suggested the Nikon D40 or D40x right off the bat (I didn't tell him which ones I was looking at). So I bought the D40 (I already had my mind pretty much made up by this point) and I couldn't be more pleased! I also got a 5 year warranty with it..

I actually took it to a family party last night and I got some pretty good shots considering I just took it out of the box (of course charging the battery)! Everyone was really impressed with my new "toy"...I was a little over-protective as everyone wanted to play with it..

I do plan to take a photography course to learn the manual settings...I wanted to wait at least a year before getting the additional lenses but I don't think I'll be able to wait that long...without them, it can be pretty limiting even as a novice. On the other hand, I can totally see this being a life long hobby so I think it's totally worth the investment (purchase and training wise)..

Thanks to everyone!! Maybe down the road I will post a review..

Mike, I totally understand where you're coming from, especially because I was all over the place. But I'm positive now that this was the right choice because it is a camera I can grow and expand with it - and that's exactly what I want to do. I was a little cautious about taking it on trips because it might get stolen (hence I wanted something small and compact) but that's a chance I'm willing to take, especially now that I can see the difference between my Nikon Coolpix and D40 - wow is all I can say!.

I'm also going to learn the more advanced features of Photoshop as well..

Many congratulations, I hope you enjoy your new camera and get years of pleasure from it..

However you will soon start to suffer from NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome...).

Visit the D40 forum here with any queries!.

Look forward to seeing your first shots, though you will have to host them on a website like smugmug etc..

Best regards.

Alex (fellow Nikon shooter)...

Mike, I totally understand where you're coming from, especially because I was all over the place. But I'm positive now that this was the right choice because it is a camera I can grow and expand with it - and that's exactly what I want to do. I was a little cautious about taking it on trips because it might get stolen (hence I wanted something small and compact) but that's a chance I'm willing to take, especially now that I can see the difference between my Nikon Coolpix and D40 - wow is all I can say!.

That's great, oceania, because it's obviously a camera that feels right for you and that's the most important thing. I'll be sure to check the Nikon forum every week to see if you're posting some of your work. Take lots of pics. It's a wonderful hobby and the digital era cameras offer a lot of instant gratification. Enjoy!.

All my best, mike marshall..

Thanks Alex and Mike! Is there a particular spot to put up pics? Here's the ones I took this past weekend. They probably aren't that great as I think they are but remember this was right out of the box with automatic settings so please be gentle!.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Could you also recommend what lens I should get first? Is it a good idea for me to get older/used lens? As you can probably tell I don't have much patience ...I'm pretty eager to one in a few months or is it better for me to wait longer?..

Nice pics. Gives you an idea what the D40 will go indoors. You'll be OK..

I take it that's the 18-55 kit lens. I think there's a 55-200 AF-S that also comes with one of the kits. That's probably all you'd need in the near future but Alex would know much more. Happy shooting!.

Mike..

Yes it's the 18-55 lens kit but I think it would have been better if I bought the 55-200 lens as well...

Yes it's the 18-55 lens kit but I think it would have been better if I bought the 55-200 lens as well..

Oceania, if you feel strongly about having the second lens, don't be afraid to go back with your bill and ask your salesperson if (I think you said) he will give it to you for the two-lens-kit price. He probably will and the extra cost to you should be 150-160 backs + tax...

Sounds like the Nikon Acquisition Syndrome has kicked in earlier than I thought....

Yep, the 55-200VR is a nice new lens, especially for the money, and it is getting good reviews..

The VR means Vibration Reduction, which compensates for camera shake to allow you to use slower shutter speeds without blurring. But it can't do anything for subject motion..

The other option would be the 70-300 VR for more reach, but you'd have a small gap from 55-70 which might not be too significant..

Depends what you're shooting: for sports *outdoors* they should be OK but for wildlife like small birds you'd perhaps need more reach and maybe more speed (i.e. a wider maximum aperture). The king in that regard is the great (and expensive) 70-200 VR with a constant f/2.8 aperture..

Take note of a lens's max aperture, those f/ numbers are important: compare the cost of the 55-200 and 70-200..

If you fancy going wider than 18mm for landscapes etc, the Sigma 10-20 is quite a nice lens, I've used it on my D200 recently:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Alex.

Http://akiralx.smugmug.com/..

Alex Leach wrote:.

Sounds like the Nikon Acquisition Syndrome has kicked in earlier thanI thought....

Haha...ok I'm glad it's a known thing...I thought it was just me!.

The other option would be the 70-300 VR for more reach, but you'dhave a small gap from 55-70 which might not be too significant..

This is the one I'm thinking about it, I think for my needs (candid, portrait, travel - no sports/animals), it would be more suitable...what do you think?.

Take note of a lens's max aperture, those f/ numbers are important:compare the cost of the 55-200 and 70-200..

I'm not sure what I should be looking for with this f/ numbers :-S.

NIKON 70-300MM/4-5.6 D ED AFPrice: $449.99 (CAD).

NIKON 70-300MM F4-5.6 AF G BLACK **Price: $199.99 (CAD).

NIKON DX NIKKOR AF-S 55-200F4-5.6 G EDPrice: $239.99 (CAD).

NIKON DX VR 55-200 F4-5.6G IF-EDPrice: $339.99 (CAD)..

Mikemarshall wrote:.

Yes it's the 18-55 lens kit but I think it would have been better if I bought the 55-200 lens as well..

Oceania, if you feel strongly about having the second lens, don't beafraid to go back with your bill and ask your salesperson if (I thinkyou said) he will give it to you for the two-lens-kit price. Heprobably will and the extra cost to you should be 150-160 backs + tax..

The prices I quoted above for the 70-300 were not compatible for the D40 apparently...I was wondering why it was cheaper, should've known better!!.

The compatible DX lens was $449 and $669 with VR!! My employer has an agreement with the vendor so I do get a discount but even with the $100 off, I can't justify spending that much money, at least not just yet..

I was able to get 55-200 lens it- I tested both non VR and VR and was able to get the same result/quality so I opted for the non-VR. Definitely for 70-300 you need the VR - I was thoroughly impressed with that one - just way too expensive and big...something definitely to look forward to in the future..

I'm hoping the 55-200 will be sufficient for most of my photography needs (as if I'm such a big shot photographer now!)..

If I were to compare the 55-200 lens, to optical zoom value, what would be? 10x? I just want to get an idea..

Anyways, I'm really happy with my purchase, more so because I don't have to may for majority of it from my own pocket .

Thank you once again!!..

You should have got the guy to show you the 70-200VR, perhaps the best lens produced by Nikon for years - but built like a tank with weight to match! I'm saving for it....

Well done on getting the 55-200, and good luck with it - post some shots soon..

Alex..

Oceania wrote:.

If I were to compare the 55-200 lens, to optical zoom value, whatwould be? 10x? I just want to get an idea..

200/55 = just under 4 x zoom..

Alex..

Alex Leach wrote:.

Oceania wrote:.

If I were to compare the 55-200 lens, to optical zoom value, whatwould be? 10x? I just want to get an idea..

200/55 = just under 4 x zoom..

Alex.

Hmmm and isn't 55/18= 3x zoom? I honestly feel like this lens is not worth it but obviously I don't know much about this stuff yet, maybe I'll better understand once I take some classes and really getting familiar with DSLRs. It's too bad the 300/70 is so expensive ...that would have been my preference...

Oceania wrote:.

Hmmm and isn't 55/18= 3x zoom? I honestly feel like this lens is notworth it but obviously I don't know much about this stuff yet, maybeI'll better understand once I take some classes and really gettingfamiliar with DSLRs. It's too bad the 300/70 is so expensive...that would have been my preference..

I wouldn't get too hung up on zoom factors, I have 4 Nikon lenses and only one zooms above 3x (a 28-105mm) - and 2 don't zoom at all..

Focal length is more important - 200mm is pretty long. Cameras with fixed lenses have to have these long zooms as you can't change the lens - that's not a problem for us!.

And you can console yourself that with DSLR lenses the greater the zoom range the inferior the image quality..

The non-zooms (known as prime or fixed lenses) I have are at 50mm and 85mm, they are my favourite lenses in fact. If I want to zoom I have to walk towards the subject, but they can take good images:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Alex..

Thanks Alex!.

Sometimes you can't walk towards the subject...but I understand the greater the zoom, the lower the quality..

BTW, do you always keep the lens hood on? Which lens do you primarily keep on the camera (or when you can't change it)?.

I'm going to the Sahara desert in October and I don't want to change the lenses if I can help it incase some sand gets in there..

Here's my inspiration for getting into photography and buying the DSLR...I would be on cloud 9 if I can achieve something like this...I'm thinking 18-55 should be ok?:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Looks better on here: http://www.treklens.com/gallery/Africa/Morocco/photo287978.htmhttp://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Africa/Morocco/photo664815.htm..

Nice images. Note that the second one was shot with a 70-300 zoom..

Yes, I generally keep lens hoods on, to prevent stray light entering and to protect the lens. I've never subscribed to the idea of putting clear filters on lenses to protect them, the hood will do fine..

My D200 has the 17-55 f/2.8 on most of the time, the rest it's the 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8..

I've changed lenses outdoors often with no ill effects, as long as you do it quickly and as well protected as you can, it'll fine..

For landscapes like those the 18mm may just be wide enough, but if I was going to the Sahara I might be looking at something wider, maybe the Sigma 10-20? Here is a Nikonians comparison between a few wideangles that are compatible with your camera:.

Http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/review.html.

Sadly the Nikon 12-24 comes at an eyewatering price that some would say is indefensible given the competition..

Alex..

The lady at store convinced me to get the clear lens filters for both lenses. I read after that the hood would protect the lens and I thought to myself, did I really need to get a filter...but they only cost me $5 a piece because of my discount (regular $20) so I can live with that. I will still use the hood though..

No more camera related spending for me...no more spending period! I will have to make due with 18-55 and 55-200....still beats my Nikon Coolpix, right? hahha .

I can totally see this getting out of hand...but I love it!.

BTW, how do you know the second pic is with a 300? Just with experience? Do you reckon I can get some pretty shots with the lenses I've got (obviously a lot has to do with how I take the shot)?..

Oceania wrote:.

The lady at store convinced me to get the clear lens filters for bothlenses. I read after that the hood would protect the lens and Ithought to myself, did I really need to get a filter...but they onlycost me $5 a piece because of my discount (regular $20) so I can livewith that. I will still use the hood though..

Ah, now I must convince you not to do that - put a $5 piece of glass in front of that expensive Nikon lens. Because all the light that enters your lens will have to pass through it, and it will degrade every image you take..

Your 55-200 has 13 glass elements in 9 groups including two elements which are extra low dispersion glass - those lads at Nikon spent a lot of time designing it so don't compromise their efforts!.

The hood will be fine, just use the lenscap judiciously as well - not after every shot but when you're not going to be shooting for a while..

And I'll let you into a secret - a scratch on the front element almost certainly wouldn't show up as a mark on a shot anyway. It might cause flare or other problems but if you fill in a scratch with black paint it should cure it (I'm not making this up)..

It's the rear and inner elements you should protect more, but fortunately they're covered..

BTW, how do you know the second pic is with a 300? Just withexperience? Do you reckon I can get some pretty shots with thelenses I've got (obviously a lot has to do with how I take the shot)?.

I'd love to say it's my expert eye, but it says it's a 70-300 Sigma lens in the blurb underneath, on the website..

Alex..

Alex Leach wrote:.

Ah, now I must convince you not to do that - put a $5 piece of glassin front of that expensive Nikon lens. Because all the light thatenters your lens will have to pass through it, and it will degradeevery image you take..

That's what I kept asking her!! Why would you put a cheap piece of glass over expensive lens. She couldn't answer that question! All she said was that if you accidentally knock the lens, that the filter would break first not the lens. She wasn't that knowledgeable and I would've preferred to speak to the other guy who knew his stuff. I notice a decrease in the quality and clarity of my photo with the filter compared to the ones without..

I also noticed the hood doesn't fit on my 18-55 but it's fine on the 50-200 (the hood came with that lens) - any reason why?.

Your 55-200 has 13 glass elements in 9 groups including two elementswhich are extra low dispersion glass - those lads at Nikon spent alot of time designing it so don't compromise their efforts!.

The hood will be fine, just use the lenscap judiciously as well - notafter every shot but when you're not going to be shooting for a while..

And I'll let you into a secret - a scratch on the front elementalmost certainly wouldn't show up as a mark on a shot anyway. Itmight cause flare or other problems but if you fill in a scratch withblack paint it should cure it (I'm not making this up)..

It's the rear and inner elements you should protect more, butfortunately they're covered..

BTW, how do you know the second pic is with a 300? Just withexperience? Do you reckon I can get some pretty shots with thelenses I've got (obviously a lot has to do with how I take the shot)?.

I'd love to say it's my expert eye, but it says it's a 70-300 Sigmalens in the blurb underneath, on the website..

Alex..

I would have thought each lens came with it's own hood - does the contents/instruction sheet for the 18-55 mention a hood? None of mine are interchangeable..

Alex..

Thanks Alex. I checked the box and no hood was included...maybe because it was a kit? So I guess I will have to buy the hood separately...