seancrane

<p>Agree with the last two posts on the DX format. I'm a wildlife guy and I shoot with both a D700 and a D300. I used to shoot with a D200 and I got the D700 to replace that but then added the D300 because I missed the crop factor. Now I do all my long lens shooting with the D300 and the wider and mid range stuff with the D700. Funny how all of a sudden we're talking about the high ISO of the D700 as a liability. Just a year or so ago, it was being hailed for its remarkable high ISO performance. As for me, I'll be waiting for that successor to the D300s.</p>

<p>Craig, if you're referring to my post, I never said or implied that there was "any intention to preclude hunting or fishing as a blanket prohibition." In fact, I acknowledged that hunting and fishing are allowed on many wildlife refuges. My point is that the refuge system's reason for being is the preservation of species and their habitats. Much like Dennis, I don't think anything should infringe upon this reason for being. Fishing line around a spoonbill's beak is a clear infringement. </p>

<p>Really? "Refuges are about preserving wildlife for hunting and fishing." Sounds like some sort of Sarah Palin Saturday Night Live spoof. Although allowed on many refuges (and strictly monitored), hunting and fishing have nothing to do whatsoever with the establishment of the wildlife refuge system.<br>

<br /> According to the system itself "The National Wildlife Refuge System was founded in 1903, under Theodore Roosevelt's leadership, to protect birds from extinction. NWRs are devoted primarily to protecting important animals and bird species and their habitats — and keeping our most important natural lands 'forever wild.' Most of these natural treasure are open to the public and offer unrivaled opportunities for visitors to observe abundant wildlife."</p>

<p>I'm a wildlife guy and have a D700, D300 and D40x. Of these three, I use the D300 the most. Actually, I don't use the D40x at all anymore. I used to carry it as a backup because of its small size but the sensor is clearly not as good as the D300. The reason I reach for the D300 more than the D700 is the crop factor which gets me closer to far off wildlife (which is what I shoot most often). I love the D700, as well, and use it mostly for landscapes and when I'm very close to wildlife or shooting people and require the widest focal lengths. It's also a bit better than the D300 in low light, although the D300 is still excellent. As for the D90, does it have a pin for a remote release? I could be wrong, but I don't think so, which if you want to shoot HDR can be an issue. Also, as for the sensor, I've been reading that the D300s has improved image quality over the D300, which obviously also puts it ahead of the D90. Good luck, I'd go for the D300s if you can swing it.</p>

<p>Couldn't agree with you more Dennis. There are plenty of places to fish, let's keep the wildlife refuges for what they are set up for in the first place — being a refuge for wildlife. This should be the first and only priority. Not recreational fishing. </p>

<p>Here's another shot at 600mm at 1/30th of a second handheld with VR.<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8330633-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="451" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9314021-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="452" />I see this question asked over and over again and every time there seems to be someone who says that IS/VR has no use if the subject is moving. This is untrue. Sure it won't help motion blur if the subject is moving and the shutter speed is too slow to freeze the action, but neither will a tripod. But it will help with the blur that comes from hand/camera movement. You can freeze a moving subject at 1/250th of a second with a 400mm lens but still get blur from camera movement if not on a tripod or if not using IS/VR. VR has completely revolutionized the way I shoot and I'm just shocked that this is still a debate. Yes, if you always take a tripod with you where ever you go and only shoot subjects that wait around long enough for you to set up the tripod, compose and shoot, then you don't need it. Otherwise it's the best thing that happened since the digital sensor. And I don't know how IS works, but with my two Nikon lenses with VR, it doesn't matter if the VR is left on or not while on a tripod. I think it actually helps in instances when I still use my tripod. Also, the split second it takes for VR to engage I hardly even notice. That's not really an issue. Here's a shot I took at 360mm on a D300, so in effect 540mm. The shutter speed was 1/15 of a second. You can see the motion blur from the monkey's hand movement, but the eyes are sharply focused. A second after taking the shot, the monkey was gone</p>

<p>I agree with Geoff. Everyone thinks that IS or VR only helps at very slow shutter speeds, but it also helps at 1/250 second when shooting with a 300mm lens and so on. Yes it doesn't help freeze a moving subject, but it freezes your hand's movement on the shutter release which could potentially ruin a shot of a moving subject. I shoot with a Nikon 200-400 VR handheld all the time as I stalk creatures through forests (I'm a fairly big guy and this is about as big a lens as I'd attempt to use handheld). I used to use a tripod to do the same thing with an equivalent non VR lens. By the time you set the tripod, aim and shoot, the moment is often times gone. VR has completely revolutionized the way I shoot and I get way more keepers these days. That being said, I still use a tripod when I have the luxury of time and am shooting somewhere where I don't have to hike for hours, or if using slow shutter speeds for landscapes.</p>

<p>The Nikon 70-200 is hardly "a dog wide open." Still won't necessarily give you better photos over the equivalent Canon but it's a great lens.</p>

<p>I agree with David Hensler that this was an attempt to get people to look at your site, but that being said, I looked at your site. And I liked it quite a bit. I especially like the ring lit shots of the children. Some real nice stuff in there. As for the comments of things being soft, I don't see much of a problem. In some instances I like the softness and in others, it could be the nature of your site build. I notice that the photo resizes based on the browser window. If not looking at the native resolution it can definitely add softness, perceptual and otherwise. As for the actual question, I shoot with Nikon and am quite happy with it but because of the ergonomics, not the image quality. Good luck.</p>

<p>Dieter mentioned that "two 500GB notebooks cost about one-fifth" the cost of two HyperDrives. Only if you buy them off the back of a truck somewhere. The cheapest 500gig notebook I can find is $600 and most with that amount of capacity are in the $800 to $1,000 range. He also commented that a notebook is "about the same size or a bit smaller" than a hyperdrive. A 500 gig hyperdrive is 5 inches by 3 inches by an inch. A 500 gig notebook is 15 inches by 10 inches by 1.5.</p>

<p>Phil has stated that he wants to avoid bringing a computer and is looking for advice on portable hard drives/viewers. The portable hard drives by Sanho, Jobo, etc. come in bigger storage capacity sizes than the average netbook or even notebook computers (without also bringing some sort of additional external hard drive). 40 gigs is on the low end for the portable viewer devices. They go up to 500 gigs and are small (about 5 x 3 x 1 inches). I'm assuming that he either isn't concerned with internet connectivity, or has a phone that handles that need, and doesn't need to edit images while away and view them on a large screen. My vote on the portable stand alone devices is Sanho HyperDrive Colorspace UDMA (which come in 120 to 500 gig sizes). It seems several other people like these devices as well. The well reviewed Epsons are nice but way more expensive.</p>

<p>This is an area that I've done a lot of trial and error on over the years. I agree that carrying along a laptop is inconvenient (and doesn't have the storage space of a lot of the portable/handheld hard drive viewers if you don't also carry portable hard drives). If you plan to do some editing (other than deleting) on the go then by all means, a laptop is essential, but if not why take it.<br>

A few years back I bought an Epson P-3000. I loved it at first, but then it failed on me (of course, this is possible with any hard drive, but it was enough for me to get rid of it, especially because as others have noted, it is way over priced compared to the competition). Some might say that there isn't any competition. Certainly the Epson seems to have the best screen but the screen on the Hyperdrive Colorsapce UDMA isn't bad at all and quite sufficient for checking photos and deleting obvious rejects on the fly. It's also faster than the Epson (at least the P-3000 series) at downloading images. And it works with raw images. Price wise the two aren't even close, which brings me to my next point.<br>

I've lost images in the past from an entire trip and now I do all I can so it won't happen again. So for about the price of one Epson I can get two of the Colorspace units and keep one in my suitcase and one in my backpack just to be safe. I also keep a copy of everything on multiple 16 gig memory cards. As for worrying about running out of space, this is another area where the HyperDrive (and other units like the Joba) have the Epson beat. I believe that the Epsons only go up to 120 gigs whereas the others come in 500 gig sizes. I don't think I would ever need much more than 120 gigs for one trip but you never know.<br>

Bottom line, if I had money to burn and only needed up to 120 gigs, the Epson is probably the best unit, but for much less money I can get the faster downloading Colorspace HyperDrive UDMA which has a nice color screen to preview and edit raw images.</p>

<p>I went last winter and had a great trip. As a few people mentioned, I didn't need four wheel drive, although getting to the racetrack (one of my favorite places in the park) is on a rough road. I did it in a rented Ford Focus or something like that but you have to take it slow. Death Valley is really an early morning, late afternoon shooting location with great landscape opportunities (Badwater's salt formations are best just after the sun has gone down, or just before it comes up). Not a lot of wildlife, although coyotes and kit foxes can sometimes be seen. I have a few shots from that trip posted in the "single photos" section of my gallery.</p>

<p>Hey Dave, on a couple of the shots it looks like you're going a little red in the shadows (especially the first one, the second couple are fine colorwise). Use curves in photoshop to pull back the red channel. Also, try doing a shadow/highlight adjustment to bring out some detail (but don't over do it). And apply a minimal amount of unsharp masking (once again, don't over do it, and don't try to sharpen areas that are out of focus to begin with).</p>

<p>I don't bring a laptop, I usually bring a portable storage device (I like the Sanho Colorspace UDMA). I actually bring two of them for safety. I've also used the much more expensive Epson and had it fail on me. </p>

<p>Hey Emmanuel, I just posted a response but I don't think it went through, so if it posts twice I apologize. <br>

I've been to Costa Rica several times. Corcovado is a great area. I had the pleasure of photographing a puma there early one morning, as well as several tamandua anteaters. My favorite place, however, is called Tiskita. It's a family owned lodge/fruit orchard that seems to have more animals around than any other place I've been to in the country (perhaps attracted by all the exotic fruit in the orchard). I saw kinkajou, paca, agouti, sloth, howler monkey, squirrel monkey, capuchin, poison dart frogs, hummingbirds, macaws, etc. Plus it's a very pleasant place to stay with nice accommodations. It's in a town called Pavones. You can fly there first and then make your way over to Corcovado. They are both in the south western part of the country. Tortuguero is also a great place, in particular for red eye tree frogs. I've used guides as well as hiked on my own in all these locations. This is probably bad advice, but I always seem to see more animals when I'm on my own. Plus I enjoy the experience more. Check out my Costa Rica gallery on my member page (or the gallery on my website seancrane.com). As for equipment, I always carry two cameras and a 200400 zoom, a 70-200 zoom and a 17-35 (plus plenty of plastic bags in case it rains). VR or IS is definitely helpful as the forest can be dark (or a tripod, of course, although it can be more cumbersome to hike with and set up when all of a sudden a monkey jumps onto a branch right in front of you.) Good luck.</p>

<p>I like version 5 and the one by Kate. I'd keep your name as the only green type. It's a cleaner look and the eye doesn't try to go to two places at the same time.</p>

<p>Hey Kevin,<br>

I have both of these camera and use them equally. I used to use a D200 and picked up a D700 so that my 17-35 would be a 17-35 again. What I didn't count on was missing the extra reach that the DX sensor gave me (I shoot mostly wildlife). Due to this, I dumped the D200, which I had relegated to backup body, and picked up a D300. Both the D300 and D700 have their benefits (and not many weaknesses). As someone else stated, I don't see the DX format as a con. In my case it's very much a positive and the reason for getting the camera in the first place. To get the same reach on an FX body, you'd have to use a 1.4 teleconverter at all times. I'd much rather shoot with a DX sensor than use the teleconverter (not that I don't use the teleconverter from time to time with my D300). I keep the wide angle 17-35 on my D700, unless I put the 70-200 or 200-400 on it when the light gets really low. The high ISO image quality is close between the two cameras, but I still don't like to push the D300 past 800, sometimes 1600, whereas I feel much better about the D700 at 1600.<br>

As for lenses, I prefer quality FX zooms (and sometimes not so quality zooms which can return some very good photos although might not zoom fast enough or let in enough light when you need it). I don't want to state the obvious, but you don't have to use DX lenses on a DX sensor. I use all FX lenses and can use them on either camera (which, of course, you can 't say for DX lenses, which only work to their full ability — without pixel cropping — on a DX camera).<br>

As for size, the D300 is a bit smaller, but it's negligible and they seem about the same to me. Good luck. They're both great options, just depends on what you shoot most.<br>

Oh, and one other thing. On these forums I keep seeing people talk somewhat condescendingly about how the camera doesn't matter. It's the person behind the camera and the lenses. This might have been the case in the film days when the camera was just a light box for the lens and film. Of course, the skill and knowledge and vision of the photographer and the lenses obviously matter, but now the film is the camera's sensor, making the choice of camera much more important. So when someone asks a very legitimate question about which camera to get they should be able to get some good advice that doesn't stop at "go learn how to become a better photographer."</p>

<p>I'll second the advice for the D90. Excellent sensor for wildlife allowing you to shoot in lower light at higher ISO numbers. And the crop factor of that camera helps with reach. Whereas in the old days of film I'd agree that the camera isn't nearly as important as the lenses, with digital the camera is also very important because the camera's sensor is the film. It's no longer just a light box for your lens. The 80-400 is a very good lens for the money, but compared to much more expensive lenses it doesn't focus as quickly or accurately and is, of course, a stop or two slower. I shoot with Nikon so can't speak to the Canon camera and lenses you mention, but the D90 with 80-400 is a very good setup for wildlife and good advice from Kent. By the way, great monkey shot.</p>

<p>Ilkka, the clear intent of the "casual shooter" comments were amateu/beginner vs. pro/advanced, not a style of shooting, but so be it.</p>

 

<p>To say that VR is just for casual shooters is ridiculous. As I stated earlier I don't shoot weddings so maybe that's a different thing, but for wildlife photographers it's a great technology no matter what your skill level. I agree with the posters that say that it isn't as useful in shorter focal length lenses, but there's a reason that most expensive long lenses from Canon and Nikon now include it. And a reason that most pros (wildlife pros) use it on their long lenses. When a tripod is practical, by all means, I use one, I but to drag one up a mountain, or through a rainforest for a day can inhibit the shots I get. I just hook the tripod foot of my 200-400 to my belt (allowing me to carry all the weight on my hip) and can hike all day and be ready for whatever happens to come into view. Incidentally, the VR of this particular lens also helps when on a tripod.</p>

<p>Well, VR is certainly not a gimmick as someone else stated. I shoot wildlife not weddings, but it has really changed the way that I shoot. I rarely take a tripod anymore when stalking creatures. And on my 200-400 lens it helps not just at very slow shutter speeds, as I also see mentioned a lot on these forums. Granted you're talking about a 70-200 but at the 400 end of my zoom I could easily get blur from the camera at anything under 1/500th of second on a regular basis if it wasn't for the VR. So even if the subject is moving, the VR still helps. As for how slow the shutter can be, attached is a monkey I shot at 1/15th of a second at the longer end of my zoom (and with the additional reach of the D300's crop factor). The monkey was just there for a second before jumping away. It was the only L'Hoest monkey I saw on a recent trip to Uganda and I wouldn't have gotten a shot without the VR. I also have the 70-200 VR which I use a lot and the VR is very useful to me (even at somewhat faster shutter speeds, the shots just seem sharper).</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9314021-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="452" /></p>

<p>On the road to Seward (which I fourth), just south of Anchorage, is an area where you can pull over to the side of the road and scan the rocks for dall sheep. </p>

<p>For birds on the ground and other small wildlife (or any subjects for that matter), lay on your stomach and place the camera on the ground. Even moving from a very low crouching position to laying on the ground makes a huge difference.<br>

Use the AF/AE button (or AF-On if your camera has it) on the back of the camera for focusing and disable the focus on your shutter release button. Set your focus mode to continuous servo and your focus point select to use all points. By doing this you never have to switch your focus settings. Just focus with AF/AE, remove your finger from the button, then recompose for shots of static subjects. If subject is moving, just keep your finger on the AF/AE button to track. And if you need manual focus just keep your finger off the AF/AE button all together. <br>

I shoot and hike sometimes all day with Nikon's big 200-400 zoom attached to my camera. I replaced the camera strap with a longer one (this also gets rid of the bright yellow logo that screams steal me) and am able to hook the tripod foot to my belt and therefore carry all the weight on my hip so that I never feel the effects of all that weight.</p>