Short-term Travel but Long-term Goals

<p>Agree with Bill above about backup body. It's going to cost me a TON of money to get to Iceland. What would I do if I dropped my D300 off a cliff photo'ing puffins the first day? No way I want to go without a backup body, and potentially have to buy something local (extreme taxes/duties) if it's even available. As for 300mm on a D700, I just don't see that being anywhere near long enough for wildlife unless you are either in a zoo or photo'ing dead animals. On a D90, it would at least be a good place to start.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>Having traveled with both systems, here's my Top Ten List.</p>

<p>(1) Wide angle - I don't own Nikon's 16-35 f/4 VRII. I wanted to rush out an buy one, but the barrel distortion that I saw in demo photos dissuaded me. Yes, you can correct distortion in post-processing, but you have to anticipate the correction as you shoot, because you're going to lose a significant chunk of each photo (around the edges) during lens correction.</p>

<p>Canon's 17-40 is problematic in its own ways on full-frame cameras (soft corners) and doesn't have VR/IS. Canon's 16-35 f/2.8 is larger and heavier as is the older Nikon 17-35 f/2.8. Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 is superb optically, but it has it's limitations. (Advantage: None)</p>

<p>(2) 50 mm. The Nikon isn't the be-all-and-end-all of 50 mm lenses, but Canon's 50 mm lenses are notorious for poor construction. (Advantage: Nikon)</p>

<p>(3) 70-200 mm. Canon has an f/4 IS model that's far smaller and lighter than either brand's f/2.8 models. Nikon's 70-300 VRII is even smaller and lighter, but I don't know how well its optics compare to the faster lenses. (Slight advantage: Canon)</p>

<p>(4) Body weight and size. (Advantage: Canon)</p>

<p>(5) Body ruggedness and weather resistance. (Clear Advantage: Nikon)</p>

<p>(6) High ISO noise and dynamic range. (Clear Advantage: Nikon)</p>

<p>(7) Low ISO IQ and HD video. (Clear Advantage: Canon)</p>

<p>(8) Viewfinder. (Advantage: Canon)</p>

<p>(9) Ergonomics. Both have their advantages, but both systems are easy to use once you customize them to your preferences. (Advantage: None)</p>

<p>(10) 24-???. Canon's 24-105 f/4 IS lens is an ideal walk-around lens. Light and sharp with stabilization. It's Achilles heel is distortion (usually pincushion, but sometimes a more complex mess). I'm hoping for the quick arrival of Lightroom 3 so I can finally rescue my 24-105 images from the distortion monster.</p>

<p>Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8 is big and heavy and lacks VR, but it's a solid performer optically. There's some distortion at all focal lengthsbut nowhere near as much as Nikon's 16-35 f/4 or Canon's 24-105. I don't know where you heard that the 24-70 was "weak at 24 mm," but I find that claim incredulous. (Advantage: Pick your poison. Both are sharp. One is heavy with no VR while the other has IS but distortion problems.)</p>

<p>Everyone's responses are fantastic and I appreciate them. I won't respond individually, since a few people said the same things...</p>

<p>I am strongly considering the D90 ONLY - no D700. This would save on weight, cost, and get me extra reach. I could also easily replace this in one of the many large cities we'll be visiting, if something happens to it. It seems like my main restriction with the D90 (for this trip) will be lack of full frame. </p>

<p> Can someone suggest a good DX WA (prime or zoom) that would get the (effective) 20-24 range? Sigma 10-20?</p>

<p>As an alternative to buying a WA lens, I could just use my LX3 as my sole WA, backup camera, and discreet light weight body when I need it. With the wide angle converter it's a Leica-made f/2.0 capable of 16-60 mm and decent results at ISO 400. It's about the size of the 16-35 mm Nikon lens. It's slow to zoom, but if I keep to the wide end, maybe that's not a big deal. I guess I wanted to improve my wide angle image quality for some fantastic 20 x 30 landscape prints using the D700 and some amazing WA holy lens... But - to be honest - if I take my time with the LX3 it can make some sharp, vivid landscapes that I should be able to print up to 11 x 14, if not 20 x 30.</p>

<p>LX3 landscapes, for example:<br>

w/ tripod, long exposure<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jazzandlee/3697144946/in/set-72157621046480738/<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jazzandlee/3904940082/in/set-72157621046480738/</p>

<p> handheld shortly after sunrise<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jazzandlee/4002900203/in/set-72157621046480738/</p>

<p> while being driven by a crazy Indian driver along a mountain road (lol, not perfect, but pretty darn good)<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jazzandlee/4283360872/in/set-72157621046480738/</p>

<p>In addition, I would have the D90 with the 70-300 (105-450 f/4.5-5.6) OR 70-200 (105-300 f/2.8) with the option of a TC, for a mind boggling 145-420 to 205-600 (f/3.X or f/4.X??). I would be skeptical about that combo but then I ran across this thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00W3k2 and this guy's images: http://www.amoghavarsha.com/ With or without the TC on his D80 those are some good shots. So... Do I get greedy and go for the heavy lens? If I've got a light body.....</p>

<p>I could then get the 60 f/2.8 Macro, which would be 90 mm. Good for portraits and macro work. As well as a prime in the 24-35 range (36-53) with a f/1.4.</p>

<p> Question - How would the 60 f/2.8 Macro do for bokeh and portraits on the DX? I assume it would be just as good as on an FX?</p>

<p>I loose a stop or so from the D700, but given my shots from India with the LX3 at 2.0 and ISO 400, I probably don't "need" that extra stop. I could work around it, especially if I have a f/1.4 prime in the 24-35 range. In return I gain telephoto (which is something I sorely missed in India. I got tired of the WA...), a lighter and cheaper kit, and a body that I can eventually use as a backup whenever I upgrade (sometime after the trip) to the D700.</p>

<p>Some one mentioned I should buy a Leica? Hm. I have an M3 w/ 35 f/2 Summicron Canada, 50 f/2 Summicron (macro??), and 135 f/4 Tele-Elmar. I bet that will create some discussion! I have thought about using those on the new Nikon, by getting a mount from http://www.leitax.com/ but I didn't see my models listed. They would also just be manual (though the CZ are manual...) and I don't know if metering would work. They are good quality and small though, and the mount would be a cheap solution. If anyone wants to comment on this option, I've posted images of the lenses to my flickr site. I'll follow up with Leitax tomorrow... The camera and lenses were given to me two years ago, they were my grandfathers. I would hate to loose these traveling, but to be honest I don't shoot with the Leica because it's film, and I would rather use them than have them sitting on a shelf.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When you travel, you don't know exactly where you will stand and exactly what focal length you will need. Because of this, imho, zooms are a must. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p >I've traveled with medium- and large-format systems where prime lenses were all that was available. If you KNOW YOUR GENERAL SHOOTING PREFERENCES you can get most of the shots that you'll ever want with a handful of primes. Four to six lenses will cover just about everything. My average was five lenses, and it was rare that I ever felt that I needed additional focal lengths.</p>

 

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >When you shoot with primes, you tend to look for compositions that work with a given focal length rather than endlessly twiddling with a zoom ring as you compose. Granted, you have to know your own shooting style well or you'll end up with a bag full of lenses that aren't compatible with your vision. I recommend that you stick with zooms unless you have a VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING of what focal lengths work for you.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >If I wanted to shoot with all primes with and FX body, I'd carry the following focal lengths. This is a PERSONAL CHOICE based on MY shooting preferences. Everyone's list would be different. Note, for instance, that I haven't included a 50 mm lens.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >24mm PC or TS</p>

<p >35mm</p>

<p >45mm PC or TS</p>

<p >55mm</p>

<p >105mm macro</p>

 

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >(optional depending on my objectives)</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p > </p>

<p >17mm TS</p>

<p >300mm w/ 1.4x teleconverter</p>

 

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >That said, modern zooms have a lot of advantages: nano-coatings, vibration reduction, extremely sharp optics. Add to that the advantage of flexible focal lengths and the fact that two or three zoom lenses can cover the focal lengths of six or more primes. It's more economical, but it's still not the same experience as shooting with prime lenses.</p>

<p > </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am strongly considering the D90 ONLY - no D700.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In that case, consider Nikon's 10-24 mm wide-angle zoom. It's better than the 3rd party versions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can someone suggest a good DX WA (prime or zoom) that would get the (effective) 20-24 range? Sigma 10-20?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tokina 12-24mm seems to be the sharpest and most durable in most reviews. The Sigma 10-20mm is very popular, but seems to have complex distortion. I have the Tamron 10-24, it is generally criticized for bad corner sharpness and CA. The Sigma has an HSM motor, if that matters.</p>

 

<p>A DX and FX combo with 3-4 lenses would increase your lens efficiency for traveling light. It would also serve you well if something awful happens to one body. If you don't want to mess with films, forget the M3. Traveling light is ultra important to me. Forget the 2.8 tele zoom and have fun!</p>

 

<p>Not at all sure why you think you have to have D700 for wide angle. I use Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on my D300 and it's PLENTY wide! Distortion is fairly low and I have f2.8 speed. It's a superb lens. My Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 is also excellent at the wide end and is pro caliber. Never had a shot rejected from any magazine because of problems with either lens.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Earlier in this thread I suggested the D90 with Tokina 11-16/2.8, Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 HSM OS (that's the equivalent to AF-S and VR) and the 70-300 VR. Add the 35/1.8 DX, a SB-600, and take your tripod along. The whole enchilada for around $3K. Take that LX3 along as a backup.</p>

<p>Your M lenses cannot be adapted to a Nikon DSLR; the leitax option is for R lenses.</p>

<p>Lee, your M lenses will not mount to a Nikon. The M lenses are normal lenses, where the Nikon lenses are retrofocus lenses. They have to be to allow for the mirror movement of the SLR. But is there a specific reason why you need to shoot autofocus? As Dan alluded to, we are all going to offer suggestions based on our own preferences, and my suggestion on the Leica was based on owning and using the M series, and a Nikon D200, D2x, and D3. I have travelled with the D200 and an MP, and your choice will largely depend on how much you want your cameras to tie you down. When I travel, I don't even want to think about my camera, I don't want a heap of camera gear to dictate what I can and can't do, and that includes dealing with the elements. your leica would provide you with not only the smallest package, but the best image quality and freedom from associated equipment - batteries, charger, laptop et al. </p>

<p>Lee,<br>

The way I see such a trip as yours is one of it being the trip of a lifetime where unnecessary compromises are to be avoided at all costs. I - personally- really wouldn't go down the DX route as it cuts you off from using lenses like the ZFs or any of the more exotic pro zooms in the way they are designed to be used. The increased low light performance and better viewfinder of the D700 are significant advantages too. If you have any ambitions of taking shots at night the D700 will be better. DX gives you the telephoto advantage though of course.<br>

I will second what Dan South just said about primes - a lesson I learned lugging Hasselblad primes around as well. You need to understand what focal lengths you use most and buy primes accordingly. As I said earlier, although I own and love the 21mm Distagon - it is the most extraordinary lens - I don't use it much. The 18mm I would use even less. I am lucky enough to own the 21mm, 25mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm f1.4 and 100mm ZFs and the outstanding 24mm PC-E too. If I was going on a big trip like yours I would have:<br>

D700 (with Katzeye split image screen), F6 backup (again with split image screen), 21mm, 25mm, 35mm, Nikkor 50mm f1.4 G for shooting things that move fast and the superlative 100mm ZF (maybe 70-200mm VRII instead if I owned it). Lee filters, memory cards/storage, laptop, RVP and the best of my four tripods.<br>

Don't skimp on the tripod if you use tripods frequently. More money is wasted on crap tripods than anything else. As I do very long exposures at night in windy places I have a big Gitzo 3540XLS and it is one of my best ever purchases - but it could easily be overkill to others. Needs vary.</p>

<p> Part of the problem in keeping things light is that Lee wants lenses for "shooting... Landscapes, Photojournalism (street, events, etc.), Nature, Architectural, Portraits, and Macro."</p>

<p> Realistically speaking, that kind of omnivorous capability does not translate into a light weight pack. Lee seems to travel quite a bit, so this trip may not have the urgency of "trip of a lifetime" that it may have to others. He is also traveling with his wife, and sharing the enjoyment of such a trip with one's life partner is far more important than any photography ops that may present themselves.</p>

<p> Gearing up for a thing like this -- in terms of a backpacking trip -- is a matter of compromise. Maybe Lee could rate all the things he mentions wanting to shoot in terms of priority?</p>

<p> Will photographing wildlife be an emphasis on this entire trip? Or just part of it? Maybe Lee could Fed Ex his long lens back home when that part is done?</p>

<p> What camera gear is the wife taking?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have travelled for six weeks before with just a Leica M3 and 50mm no tripod. I just finished a week trip with a D700, 24mm PC-E, Tamron 28-75mm and 400mm f5.6 and two tripods, one very light for hiking. I was happy each time with the shots I made. You will have to decide between weight and versatility. The D700 is heavy. The 16-35mm is large but can weigh less than two great primes. IMHO you need to decide how you work, what your expectations are and what you are willing to carry. Travelling light can be a godsend. Not having the right equipment can be frustrating. I have been to both places. At this point I will not leave without a good tripod and two filters, GND and CP. I can be happy with a 28mm, 50mm and 105mm plus long tele, still I might miss a shot. I have had good success and bad images using a TC. Most of the time I leave the TC on the one lens I purchased it for. Each of us will have a different suggestion from our own experience. I suggest you spend time thinking about what you want and what you have missed on past trips then purchase based on this. I have only printed up to 12x18 so far and am pleased with the results.</p>

Lee. I think this discussion is hopelessly confusing. First of all you are not extending range with a crop body, you are merely cropping the image as it enters the camera rather than doing it in photoshop. That's why they call it a 1.5 crop body. The issues to me are simple. You need to decide first on the body whether it be full frame or crop as that determines your lens selection. Then you need to decide what focal length range you want to cover and at what quality. Then choose the lenses you want to cover that range. IMO you need a backup body much the same as I used backups for my weddings and press work. It would be sad if your body failed halfway through the trip as did a number of Canon 5D2s did on an arctic trip because of moisture. There are a great number of lens options available that will give you 20x30 prints including 1.6 crop bodies although my preference is full frame for that size print. In all my travels I took what I needed in one carry on bag that I could keep under the seat or on the overhead (with maybe a backup body stuffed in my luggage). . I never had anyone ever question whether I used a zoom or a prime lens With my current kit I carry two zooms (usually a choice between 17-40, 24 105 f4 IS , 70-200 or 100-400), extenders, a flash, and the usual accessories. I use zooms because I don't want change lenses when shooting moving wildlife as sometimes you can get very close. When I used medium format I did the same thing except with a couple of primes. I zoomed with my feet using those. IMHO opinion getting fixated on equipment defies the real purpose of taking pictures and that is useful images. I have had your inexpensive 28-105 that I bought new for 210 dollars. I have used it on a decent body and I think it is the best, most well made zoom made in the 200 dollar range and I have made professionally used paid for pictures with it when I needed to go light. It is the photographer not all the expensive paraphenalia that he or she carries around. In my former business we carefully laid out our requirements without equipment in mind and then after we knew exactly what performance, durabiltiy and producability we needed we then bought equipment that fit those requirements. Good luck. It sounds like a great trip no matter what you carry. And no matter what you carry It is your ability as a photographer that will do the most to give you the pictures you want.

<p>Lee, my recommendation for a wide angle tavel zoom for a DX body is the Nikon 16-85mm f 3.5-5.6 G VR II. It is my "normal zoom" lens for my D 300s. My travel lite kit is usually two DX bodies, one prime (20mm, 35mm or 50mm), the 16-85mm, my older and lighter 70-210mm AF, a tripod, a pocket tripod from Ultramar, and two Hyperdrives or one hyperdrive and a laptop and an external hard drive. If I know that indoor flash is going to be needed, I take my SB-800 flash as the pop up flash works well as the lens hood does not block the flash! Joe Smith</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think this discussion is hopelessly confusing. First of all you are not extending range with a crop body, you are merely cropping the image as it enters the camera rather than doing it in photoshop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only if you disregard the fact that a DX crop on a D700 is about 5MP whereas the same image taken with a D300 has 12MP; you'd need a D3X to get as nearly as many pixels into the crop. Fact is that the FOV for a given focal length is 1.5x narrower on a DX body. I would not trade my D300 for a D700 for my bird photography unless someone is willing to throw a lens with a 1.5x longer focal length into the bargain.</p>

<p><strong>All</strong>,</p>

<p>I realize I have to make this decision myself based on my needs. All of your comments and thoughts have helped me reconsider and refine my needs in combination with the realities of travel. As <strong>Luis </strong>says, I am trying to do it all... Here are the questions I need to answer:</p>

<p>1. Do I need more than 300 mm? It sounds like for most wildlife, yes. For people, I can probably walk the difference. <strong>My Gut: </strong>I will want the reach</p>

<p>2. Do I need a fast, low-light capable telephoto? For wildlife in dawn / dusk, I am guessing the 70-300 on the D90 might struggle, and force me to use 3,200-6,400 ISO, which doesn't look great on the D90. On the D700, I would be limited to 300 mm but gain an additional 2-stops of ISO, 51 AF points and 3D tracking. <strong>Question </strong>- Sounds like the consensus is that the D90 would do just fine. <strong>My Gut: </strong> Use the D90, have the D700 available for low-light</p>

<p>3. I want quality wide angle for 20 x 30 landscape prints. <strong>Questions </strong>- Will the WA DX lenses on the D90 give me this? Sounds like it will. Will the D700 14-bit RAW vs D90 12-bit RAW be of significant value for PP shadows and highlights? One of my favorite photographers, Andy Mumford, shot a lot of his original images with a D80 and Sigma 10-20. <strong>My Gut:</strong> Have the D700 with the 16-35. </p>

<p>Based on this I am leaning towards the following:</p>

<p>D700 & D90<br>

16-35 f/4 VRII<br>

50 f/1.4<br>

70-300 f/4.5-5.6</p>

<p>Cost: $5,769 Weight: 7.5 lbs</p>

<p>This would give me A LOT of flexibility. I could put the 50 f/1.4 on the D90 for a super light evening kit. 70-300 on D700 for low light OR on the D90 for reach. 16-35 on the D90 for a small walk around 24-53. </p>

<p><strong>Question</strong>s - It seems like the D700 only gives me the advantage of speed (it will give me better speed during the day because it will have better noise at mid-ISO daylight as well), additional AF points, and 14-bit RAW. The Tokina on the D90 would probably do just as well as the D700 with proper exposure, focus, and GND filters. If I can live with the ISO, AF, and RAW, I could ditch the D700 and get a 21,24,28 prime. So - just go with the <strong>D90 alone</strong>? Is there value for choosing the <strong>D300(s)</strong> then instead of the D90? Granted it is more expensive and larger, but should that be considered?</p>

<p><strong>Note</strong> - By getting a D90 and D700 I could get the $300-$400 rebates twice, LOL. </p>

<p><strong>Dick</strong>,</p>

<p>My understanding is that the DX sensor gives you 1.5x the "zoom" of an FX at the same MP count. How is that cropping if you get the same size image? You say this as if the image quality is degraded on a DX camera, but from everything I read the only issue with image quality is the ISO...</p>

<p><strong>FYI </strong>- I want to make a decision by early August. I'm leaving for Ireland/Scotland for 2 weeks at the end of August. Our 6-month trip is at least 6-12 months away, so I have plenty of time to think through this issue. I will likely buy one of these kits at a local shop, test it, and return it to get a feel for the focal ranges and speeds. I am also curious to see if a D700 update is released and what it brings.</p>

 

<p>To answer a few more questions:</p>

<p>The trip will be "once in a lifetime" in that we will be covering a ton of countries during a point in our lives before we have kids, traveling together for 6 months. We'll probably meet up with a friend here or there as well. These are also the countries we are most interested in visiting.</p>

<p>However, we do travel a lot when we can. We're also planning to move abroad after the trip, either to South America, Australia, or Europe. So there will be opportunities to get back to some of these places if I just fall in love (Patagonia??). My wife and I are both 29 and are full-time working professionals, no kids yet. Combined, we've been to Mexico, Guatemala, Canada, US (we live in Chicago), Germany, France, Austria, New Zealand, and India. So it's likely that we'll be traveling again very soon, though for not such a long period (2-3 weeks). We will have the chance to live abroad in a location where a short weekend flight or drive can get me to stunning landscapes and wildlife. We both rank traveling as a priority in our lives, so I will always have opportunities (unless we loose our jobs and have a kid at the same time!). </p>

<p>I am really leaning towards to two bodies and three lenses. The more I think about it, for short-term travel and my long-term goals, it makes a lot of sense. </p>

<p>Lee,</p>

<p>This...</p>

<p>D700 & D90<br />16-35 f/4 VRII<br />50 f/1.4<br />70-300 f/4.5-5.6</p>

<p>...is a great kit! I'd only ask whether you want to maybe get an 18-70 (even used) as a "standard snapshot zoom" for the D90. Might not need it till you get home, so maybe you can decide then.</p>

<p>The D300s over the D90 will get you a heavier more robust body and the same external controls as on the D700; it will also use the same CF cards as the D700 does (the D90 is SD). The 51 AF points in the D300 are even more useful then the ones in the D700 (same AF module) since they are spread farther over the focusing screen.<br /> Even a 21 isn't all that wide on a D90/D300 - so I wouldn't consider that option.<br /> Wildlife: look at the traditional wildlife lenses - 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 200-400/4 - all between $5K and $10K and with weights of 5 - 10 lbs. There isn't a single one you would want to carry around on your trip. Even a 300/4 AF-S weighs more than 3 lbs (about the same as a 70-200). The 70-300 definitely is a compromise when it comes to wildlife shooting - which isn't to say that you can't get good images with it.<br /> 14-bit RAW vs 12-bit is a slight advantage but you have to work hard to see it.<br /> As already stated earlier, I think the D700/D90, 16-35, 50, 70-300 is a good choice for the circumstances. Whether or not to exchange the D90 for a D300s is up to you - similar controls and the use of the same cards would be an advantage but the cost is almost double. You could go with a refurbished D300 from adorama or cameta, around $1200 if you don't need the video.</p>

 

Lee. All I meant is that if you mount say a 100 mm full frame lens on my 1.6 body the sensor will only see the center two thirds of the image. That is why lenses made for crop bodies do not generally work on crop bodies. If they do they vignette a lot. On my full frame the sensor sees all of the image. If I make the assumption that the two sensors have the same resolving power then what you see in a 1.6 crop is what the lens delivers hence the illusion that you are extending the range of a lens by actually cropping what the sensor sees. If the sensors are the same except in size I can do the same thing in photoshop to give me an image from a full frame sensor that looks about the same as an image already cropped coming into a crop camera. This never happens in the real world because of all the variables involved. I do not account for differences in sensors and do not know much about Nikon bodies so beyond identically resolving sensors I have no answer. Yes, particularly when you get to 20x30 enlargements there is a quality difference. The distinction is not great but it is there and it is acknowledged in all the research that I have read and as I have both sized sensors I can say, anecdotally it is there. But in most smaller enlargements it is a distinction without a difference, almost. What many in this thread are talking about are distinctions that only apply in very high levels of photography. I did professional work for several years. I consider myself an average photographer and my images have sold but damn, I think splitting hairs around the edges is silly. You can do good work with a crop body, or full frame, and whether you use fixed focus or zoom, or have a little better IQ with one lens or another, just will not show on most images. You should see some of the images I have gotten with your old Canon zoom. I teach some photography and I tell my students shoot lots of pictures and fill the frame because that makes up for a lot of sins. It is how you frame what you see in the viewfinder that counts.

<p>I already have 5 SDHC (4 to 16GB) cards for my LX3 from the India trip, and the video would be fun. If I have the D700, might as well go smaller with the D90 vs D300s. </p>

<p>I agree with your latest selections (two bodies & 16-35, 50, 70-300 VR), though I'd go for a refurbished D300 (not D300s) instead of the D90. Same controls, same AF module, same cards as the D700. That's important.</p>

<p><em>[Duplicate message somehow. Sorry.]</em></p>

<p>Lee, I completely agree with Dieter. For a DX and FX system, the D 300s and D 700 makes so much more sense than a D 90 and D 700 system. Many Nikon owners use these two bodies for FX and DX purposes. I shoot primarily nature so I shoot with two D 300's because I need the 1.5x factor. For wildlife, I almost never take my 1.4x off of my 500mm f 4.0 AFS lens. That means that a 70-300mm even when mounted to a DX body with the 1.5x factor rarely gives you enough effective focal length. Unless you are prepared to carry a large and heavy lens around with you, your 70-300mm will be more of a feature and portrait lens than a wildlife lens. Another nice feature of a D 700 and D 300 system is that they use the same battery pack in case you ever decide to get into fast frames per second shooting. Many nature and sports photographers who have DX and FX needs have D 700 and D 300s bodies in their system for this purpose. Joe Smith </p>