>Well, I read the area suggested by Vlad. Carefully. Very >Carefully. > >I noticed something. > >On compact DSLR, the Tamron's performance was stellar. Strong >approval. On midsize or full frame DSLR, performance was >mediocre to poor, with softness and autofocus problems. > >Those that loved it, loved it. Those that hated it, hated it, >and we had one fence-sitter. > >One camera, mentioned several times as being a winner when >coupled with the 18-270 was the d5100. > >Checking Amazon, the Nikon costs, today, USED, about $100 more >than the Tamron, USED. Nikon NEW about $850. Tamron NEW about >$450. > >Ahhhhh. If I were made o' money... > >The reason it's taking me so long to decide is once I buy, >that's it. I keep it, I learn it, I use it, whatever its >warts. > >DigitalRev did a couple of videos with long time camera pros >using cheapo, lousy cameras. It was amazing the pictures they >took. > >I may buy a 50, and, later, something extravagant. But my >initial purchase is to last a year. > >I really appreciate all your advice, and I am listening, >closely.
John, i'm not an expert of any kind in dslr cameras, but please make sure you are comparing apples to apples. i'm afraid there is no such thing as small DSLR.
i'll speculate that what you had read, applies to lower resolution sensors 6, 10 and 12MPix. those sensors are more forgiven to slight out of focus and motion blur situations. That's why people with higher resolution sensors did not like non-Nikon lenses