New Twist on an Old Question.

[mark_haydon]

<p>I appreciate everyone's input.<br>

I don't know why so many have a hard time with the concept of this thread. I am not asking for you to help me. (Again - that might sound like I don't need the help ... thats not the case)<br>

I was interested in hearing people's thoughts about what they would do. And - yes - I am sure I am way to caught up in the GEAR more than is needed. Thanks to the couple of posters who answered as intended !!<br>

I liked Joel's answer the best 'buy a ticket to someplace I'd always wanted to go and see' ... made me smile even if it didn't make anyone else smile.<br>

Ken - your comment about harsh light may well be the root of my issue. I live in Arizona and I think 90% of my photos have been in full sun and not in the warm morning or evening light. Obviously there's more to it than that - and I need to learn and get better working with whatever I have to work with.<br>

- - - If anyone is interested, I have (based on the first post I made the other day) decided to buy a good tripod - and finaly get some software. I may be getting a free copy of Nikon's 'Capture' ... If that isn't sufficient (or intuative) I will purchase Elements 9.... Obviously I need to do a whole lot of research if I am splashing out $500 or so on the tripod. I had thought I was going to get a Silk Pro 500 HD at about $150 - it gets great reviews but I also found Tom's article on Tripods <a href="http://www.bythom.com/support.htm">http://www.bythom.com/support.htm</a> and need to make sure i get this right! The other thing I am going to do over the next week or 2 is test out all my current lenses and see where they are crisp and if/where they are soft.<br>

Shun - sorry if I didn't give you a specific answer on the other thread. I did mention that your thread was a helpful. My issue with photos is Light - many images are too pale and I need to look at the WB and custom options/settings on my D80 before giving up on it. Not all images are affected - but more than I like to see. Also with the 18-180 lens many images are seem soft. Great when I am taking portraits of my daughter - not what I am looking for on the landscape, streetscape or wildlife photos.</p>

[breogan_gomez]

<p>But Mark, you said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Lex... appreciate you answering the question in the spirit in which it was intended! Your budget does not need to cover the flash!! I didn't list it but I do have the SB800!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That mean that you expect the answers to be realated with your current gear/situation.</p>

<p>In my particular case, if I would had 2K, I would buy a Nikon 12-24/4 and keep the rest in the bank waiting for my next purchase. Being an amateur doesn't force me to buy all the stuff at the same time.</p>

 

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Well if I had 2200 euros to spend on camera gear I would buy the used Zeiss Ikon or an M6 plus a 35mm Biogon 2.8C or a Collapsible 50mm Elmar and spend the rest on TriX or a used enlarger.<br>

Now as this is the Nikon forum and you really want to know about digital cameras, I have a D80 and I don't like it as a camera, sure at low ISO the image quality is great but in all honestly I prefer my D1h in terms of camera body. I have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 and that lens suits me fine, so as far as digital cameras go I would just buy a used D300 put my 28-75 on it and be happy. Maybe I would even settle with a used D200 and have more money to spend somewhere else.</p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>I looked at your sample shots (80mm/120mm equiv, 135mm/202 equiv and 50mm/75mm equiv). I have looked at what you have in the way of lenses.<br>

I would buy the 70-200 VR II. It is a <em>best-in-class</em> lens and is a lens that I have no trouble hand holding over a full day (but you need to check this out for yourself).<br>

I shoot sport, and if I can do it handholding a lens, that will always be <em>my preference</em>. It's my style (and preference) when shooting sport. The reason I have told a bit about what I shoot is so that you can appreciate my personal bias. I need lenses that can blur backgrounds.</p>

<p> </p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>This shot taken yesterday is what I mean by bluring the background.</p><div></div>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>The above shot was at 380 mm, but if the play was close enough for me to shoot with my 70-200 VR II the bluring of the background would have been even more.<br>

The comment that Shun made "<em>Your money is better spent on classes, workshops, and training</em>" will always hold true over time. My needs are very specific and my choices of lenses limited for what I shoot. But any system that would allow me to shoot lighter, without loss of image quality and over a wider zoom range will always be of interest to me. But everything in photography involves compromise and when you are buying equipment it is your job to optimise these comprimises in accordance with what you shoot and how you shoot. And every link in the path needs to be quality matched with respect to lens, camera body, editing software and final output (be it on digital screen or printed).<br>

So getting back to your question and if I had your gear (and not mine) ...<br>

The 70-200 VR II is what I would buy (<em>for me</em>).</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Mark,<br>

What I'd do with $2200.... hmmmm....<br>

1. AF-S 35mm f/1.8 or Sigma 30mm f/1.4.<br>

2. Tokina 12-24mm f/4.<br>

3. Sell the 18-135 and get the 16-85VR instead; not really needed but I like the 2 extra wide millimeters and there is plenty of budget to waste!<br>

4. Capture NX2.<br>

That would fill the gaps that to me would be annoying me most and basically get the majority of photos I make - but for sure compared to my current bag, I'd miss some pieces. Since I left a lot of money in the budget untouched.....the reviews I saw of the Sigma 120-400 are not that stellar, so I might slowly consider upgrading there. But I never used the lens myself, hence I'd keep this a bit open ended.</p>

<p><em>(side note: quite often questions are phrased as you do "what would you do with x amount of money if you have camera Y and lens Z, and typically those are questions for help. So I do understand many interpret this thread differently; maybe your question would have worked better in the Casual Photo Conversations)</em></p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Just to answer the question and not discuss gear philosophy.</p>

<p>I'd sell the D80 and the 18-135 as a kit.</p>

<p>I'd get a D7000 and Tamron 17-50.</p>

<p>I might do more, as I love Ultra-wide. I don't know if I'd like that Sigma beast, but I know I'd keep the 50 and the 100. I might add a 35mm f1.8 if I liked to shoot low light a lot.</p>

[michael_ryan6]

<p>I'll spend imaginary money.</p>

<p>Given your kit (without selling anything) in rough order of priority:<br>

Lightroom would top the list (< $100 for educators/students)<br>

Monitor calibration ($100)<br>

13" Printer (You can get some huge MIRs on these, so lets say $300)<br>

Light stand/umbrella/etc for your flash ($100)<br>

Photography book (no idea what you already have, but lets say $40)<br>

Wide lens (Sigma 8-16 or Tokina 11-16, $600 ish used)<br>

Faster normal lens (35 f1.8 or Tamron 17-50, depending on how much I liked your current zoom - $200-$400)<br>

Faster tele (80-200 f2.8 - if you shop around (a lot), I've seen them go for $600 used)<br>

A second flash (no idea what they're going for used right now... I'm assuming the price is changing due to recent discontinuations - you'd have more than enough left, though)</p>

<p>Well, now I want to go buy more kit! I think I'll go practice with what I already have, though...</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>On the topic of tripods.... Keep in mind that Thom Hogan is a pro shooter and HIS needs or demands of a tripod may be a lot higher than yours. A D3 with a mega lens in going to weigh a lot more than the lenses and camera you have or may be looking at as an upgrade. He may shoot a lot more as well. So ruggedness and stability are going to be more of an issue. Of course, if you plan on following in his foot steps, so to speak, his advice may be very true. However, if you are NOT, then the general idea of buying a good tripod and head still works, but the LEVEL of that and the costs will not be necessary. My goal is to find out my heaviest setup and then over kill on the specs. I don't want to be near the end of the support weight at any point. If you can get to a real photo store and try out some stuff, that would probably be a BIG help. </p>

<p> </p>

[mark_haydon]

<p>Thanks John ... I agree. At the moment I have found a couple of options in the $150-$170 range that have good reviews and I feel will be more than enough for quite some time. I have no delusions that I am going to turn into a pro any time soon. Just a hobby that I am enthusiastic about.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>One thing that I would look for, since I tend to cart my tripod around a lot is the weight. I have a Slik 700DX Pro and it works well, but, it does weigh me down, toward the end of the day.It weighs 6 pounds.</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/168060-REG/Slik_615_900_700DX_Pro_Tripod_Legs.html</p>

<p>I know a decent carbon fiber one probably comes in at about half that weight, but they also cost 3 times as much and more ! To some, that is a perfectly justifiable increase in cost. As an amateur, it wasn't going to work for me. </p>

<p> </p>

[mark_haydon]

<p>Thanks! Thats one of the tripods that is on the list! Yes its heavier - but I figure that I can live with that. Also on the list is the Slik 500HD ... and the other cobo I was considering was Slik tripod legs with a Giottos MH5001 head. Each option is about 6lbs .. and I am not spending 3x for lighter legs, just not worth it for me. <br>

:)<br>

I didn't want to start asking a question on every piece of equipment I buy so I was working on this myself!</p><div></div>

[russ_albion]

<p>What would I do with $2200 and your equipment list? <br>

I would keep these:</p>

<ol>

<li>D80</li>

<li>18-135mm.</li>

</ol>

<p>and trade in these:</p>

<ul>

<li>50mm 1.8 Nikkor</li>

<li>Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro </li>

<li>Sigma 120-400mm 4.5-5.6 </li>

<li>Proline Aluminium Tripod</li>

</ul>

<p>towards:</p>

<ul>

<li>better IT setup</li>

<li>printer</li>

<li>SB700</li>

<li>40mm micro (better for the small-studio repro work I sometimes do)</li>

<li>70-300 VR (small light lens for birding. 'My' Sig 120-400 was just too much lens ;-) )</li>

<li>tripod, ballhead, softbox, stand, pocket wiz</li>

</ul>

[james_de_h]

<p>Mark - I 'nicked' one of your images as a screensaver - the third posted of the glass 'fronds'. I have learned it is the organic lump behind the lens that makes all the difference, good kit helping but not compensating for skill as you so rightly pointed out. As to my selection, I have a 16-35, 24-105 and 70-200 plus 1.4 convertor. I have a Canon flash - used remotely to help fill with the in-built unit on my EOS 7D and an ancient tripod bought with my Olympus OM10 plus 50mm I had as a student. The latter was great with a manual adaptor fitted, the 7D only now having replaced it and the EOS 10D as my favourite camera bodies. Well done on your pictures. I have a shot taken my then 10 year old son that he took with my 7D plus 70-200 of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. It fills my 27" iMac screen to perfection. Good kit helped him but he had to frame and capture the shot and it is something some of us never really get right! </p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>Tripod Legs?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I love macros and I could shoot flowers all day</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For macro work it's often good to use a tripod with a short minimum height. Check the height specs on the tripods you are considering. What will work for you? -- 25" minimum height, or 2.8" minimum height?</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/504846-REG/Manfrotto_055XB_055XB_Tripod_Legs_Black.html</p>