michaelbrochstein

<p>I think the short answer is YES, you can easily use your SB-800 as your main off-camera flash. Obviously you'll need a basic light stand (6-8 feet tall), umbrella (white, about 43" or so in diameter with a removable black cover), and an Adorama Universal Swivel Holder (SKU: LTUSH) or equivalent. These three items might run you under $100. I'd suggest you also consider a 32" or 42" circular collapsible disc white disc reflector for fill.</p>

<p>For synchronization you can use the Nikon CLS (assuming you have a Nikon SLR), a cheap long sync cord, or a radio slave. If you have a Nikon DSLR then CLS is probably the easiest way to go as you own it already and it is fairly simple to use.</p>

<p>Alien Bee's or White Lightnings (same company makes both and they share most assessories). White Lighnings are considered more robust in construction and to be able to endure heavier duty use. That having been said, it sounds like Alien Bee's would be a better choice for your needs. </p>

<p>I used to use various Gary Fong Lightspheres and have also used the SB-800/900 style diffusers. The key, IMO, is to get the flash off camera or to bounce most of the light so you don't get the classic on-shoe flash look. The Stofen diffusers, if indeed they function like the Nikon SB-800/900 ones I have used many times, are small and fairly effective. I use a Really Right Stiff Wedding Pro bracket and angle the flash (more vertical than horizontal) so that most of the light is bounce light. In a recent de-cluttering act, I got rid of my Gary Fong diffusers not because they didn't work but because their bulk were usually the reason they never made it into the field with me too many times. Their bulk also made it more difficult to keep them on the flash (they occassionally would slip). Another alternative to consider are the various Lumniquest accessories (i.e. Big Bounce or 80-20).</p>

<p>That's right, you're supposed to close the eyepiece shutter before removing the screw-off optical eyepice (it's in the Nikon user manual). After you put the new eyepiece on then you can open the shutter.</p>

<p>To find part numbers do a seach in the search box of www.bhphoto.com for "diopter d700" and you will get back all the relevant part #'s.</p>

<p>Art, care to share who insures your equipment, the service you received sounds excellent!</p>

<p>My 0.02 is that a basic kit of two Alien Bee's (one B800 and one B1600), two light stands, two umbrellas and one folding 42" white reflector should go a long way in getting her started and keep you under budget. Alien Bee does offer some kits that might lower your costs. In any case buying AB's are a well proven path to reliability and good value.  The only item left out for budget reasons is a flash meter (Sekonic L358 if you can afford it).</p>

<p>I had a Nikon 12-24, used it for a few years and then sold it when I bought a Sigma 10-20 and haven't looked back since - I'm happy quite happy with the Sigma and highly recommend it (but I recommend buying a pair of Nikon front and rear lens caps as the Sigma caps are more awkward to use).</p>

<p>You can theoretically use either light as your main light with the obvious difference being the quantity of light and therefore the exposure (aperture) you'll be able to use. The Alien Bee probably has the power of four(?) SB-800's.  The other difference is the portability of the two systems with the SB-800 based system being battery powered and much lighter and smaller than any AC powered studio-flash system. My suggestion is to try borrowing / renting the various options and see which you prefer. One other issue is how you would prefer to work, using the CLS system or manual studio flash. </p><br>

<p>The website The Strobist - http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/ - might be worth reading to get ideas about lightweight / low cost setups.</p>

<p>I used to own two D200's (now own a D300 and D700) and was always very very happy with the D200's. I had upgraded from a D70 and there was no doubt that the upgrade was worth it. Enjoy!</p>

<p>I think Craig's advice is on target. If you have transportation for an Alien Bee setup then that is a setup that will last you a long time. Their modeling lights and greater power as well as their ability to take all the lighting modifiers that any professional studio flash system can use are solid advantages. FWIW, Pocket Wizards are great and you can add them whenever you like. If the need to be able to carry everything on your back is paramount then Craig's advice is also on target - buy a shoe-mount flash, a stand adapter, a compact light stand, an umbrella etc and go from there. If money is an issue then optical or cord slaving is much cheaper than a Pocket Wizard solution (which is an excellent long term investment).</p>

<p>If you were happy with ISO 800 on a D200 then I believe that ISO 1200 on the D700 is a no-brainer and that ISO 1600 is extremely worth trying as I believe it will be about the same (or better) as ISO 800 on a D200. Also, (obviously) RAW will produce better results than JPG.</p>

<p>In regards to focal length the 17-55 is not going to be much different from that you have so if that is the issue then save your money and don't buy the 17-55. If you do want a wider lens then the Sigma 10-20 is a very good choice. Your current (18-200) lens should be good for most portrait work. An (Kenko automatic) extension tube is a cheap / high quality way to use non-mcaro lens for macro work.</p>

<p>The "problem" with lenses is that size/weight, aperture speed, quality and cost are the four main issues. Your 18-200 is a great "travel" lens in that it is quite versatile and in that category it is quite good (it is the best one with an 18-200 range, an 11:1 ratio). As you get to zoom lenses with less of a range (1.e. 17-55 which is about 3:1) it is easier for the quality to be better as the lens is now optimized for a smaller range. As you get larger apertures then the lens will be heavier, larger and more expensive.</p>

<p>Your 18-200 is a very nice lens (I own one) and I agree with the previous poster that you should shoot with that one for a while to see if, in actual use, you are indeed happy with your results. If you sense a limitation on your work and can trace it back to the lens (and nothing else such as needing a tripod or better exposure control or focusing) only then consider other lenses.</p>

<p>As you get (if ever) more specialized then certain lenses are better for certain subjects but not for others. The Sigma 10-20 is not generally used for portraits, it is used typically for landscapes and other type of subjects. A mild telephoto is typically used for portraits etc etc.</p>

<p>BTW, You can sometimes find used RRS camera and lens plates on Ebay for significant savings over buying new. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with a used ballhead but plates would be a safer bet on ebay.</p>

<p>The RRS BH-40 is an excellent choice. The Lever Release version is quick and easy to use. You will need RRS or Wimberely camera and lens plates to match up with the RRS Arca-Swiss style QR. I have used the BH-40 for a few years and love it. It will last you a long long time.<br>

The best article / must read on tripods and heads is by Thom Hogan and is located at http://www.bythom.com/support.htm I highly recommend you read it before you make your purchases (BTW, he does use the BH-40 himself).</p>

 

<p>On a DX body like your D90; The 17-55/2.8 is my most used lens and it is excellent in image quality. For landscapes the Sigma 10-20 may be my most used lens.  My 28-70 is almost never used other than for portraits as 28 is not wide enough for most uses on a DX body (as mentioned by another poster above) and the 17-55 was a far better event / casual-use lens because of its 17-27 range which the 28-70 does not have. If you want a light travel lens then look at the 16-85 as I found its 16-17 range to be more useful than the 86-200 of your 18-200 (which I also own but barely use now that i have the 16-85). My advise is to go for a (used?) 17-55 instead of a 28-70 on a DX body UNLESS your application is portraits and only then is the 28-70 more useful on a DX body IMHO.</p><br>

<p>On a FX body the 28-70 is a better range of focal lengths (with the 24-70 being obviously better).</p>

<p>I own both TT and LowePro backpacks as well as the TT speed belt. The zippers on the TT backpacks open/slide more easily that the zippers on the bigger LP backpacks (i.e. Nature and Photo Trekkers) but both work reliably in my experience. The raincover on the LowePro's are more integrated (better) but both work fine. For most belt pouches/assessories, the TT system is fast to configure, use, and put-on. For reasons of airline carry-on restrictions I have migrated from using the bigger LP backpacks to the using the smalledt TT backpacks and have not had any problems.</p>

<p>Let's assume that most potential clients do not set off the alarm bells in your gut the way this potential client has. If this is so then the decision is easy IMHO. If you take the job then make sure you get all the proper paperwork signed and deposits squared away first. Make sure that all all the T's are crossed and all the I's are dotted. If you can't get this done in proper order and within a reasonable deadline then politely let the client know that you can't (for liability reasons or whatever) proceed with the assignment. Then be prepared for a major hassle, to have to bend over backwards a few times to make these clients happy and to use all of the diplomatic skills at your disposal.<br>

If you can live without the income from this client and the percentage of potential clients that scare you like this are small then I agree with the others that the first choice is to politely decline the job (excuse idea assuming you initially told them you were available: a family wedding that you forgot to put down on your work calendar). I would tell them ASAP since the longer you wait then it will be the longer that they think you might be available and the more dissappointed/mad that you turned out not to be available. I would not volunteer to recommend a colleague as it would not be fair to them. The sooner you do this then the sooner this weight will be off your shoulders.</p>

<p>FWIW; My (second hand) understanding is that if you are in the Galapagos and will be using Zodiac's (motorized rafts) or similar to transition between the boat you'll be staying on and land then I've heard that the LowePro Dryzone bags are the ones to have as they are waterproof.</p>

<p>There are so many models that fit your criteria from so many different reputable manufacturers that it is hard to recommend one bag. The biggest two bagmakers are LowePro and Tamrac. Each offers a multiple of options. In addition other reputable bagmakers with various options include Kata, ThinkTank, Crumpler, MountainSmith, Tenba and others. Most of these manufacturers have detailed websites. I don't know what your shopping options will be in Lima but you may find that the camera stores there only carry certain brands and only certain models so if you can contact them ahead of time then you might be able to constrain your pre-trip research to what is actually available in Lima.</p>

<p>There are so many models that fit your criteria from so many different reputable manufacturers that it is hard to recommend one bag. The biggest two bagmakers are LowePro and Tamrac. Each offers a multiple of options. In addition other reputable bagmakers with various options include Kata, ThinkTank, Crumpler, MountainSmith, Tenba and others. Most of these manufacturers have detailed websites. I don't know what your shopping options will be in Lima but you may find that the camera stores there only carry certain brands and only certain models so if you can contact them ahead of time then you might be able to constrain your pre-trip research to what is actually available in Lima.</p>

<p>Assuming you have a relatively modern PC then the internal hard drives probably use a SATA bus for communucations. This SATA bus is much faster than USB 2.0. Given the relatively low cost these days for bare internal hard drives, I would echo what William Kahn wrote and suggest that you install a large SATA drive as your second internal hard drive and store your images there. Use the external USB hard drive for backups.</p>

<p>On a DX camera the 17-55 is my standard "walking-around" / general use lens. I've used it on both a D200 and D300 and have been extremely happy with it. Without considering cost, size and/or weight, there is probably nothing better out there IMHO. I've owned the 18-70 and the 16-85. I sold the 18-70 once I got the 16-85 and now the 16-85 is my lightweight travel / general use lens. I much prefer the 16-85 to the 18-70.<br>

Bottom line, if weight, size and/or cost is an issue then 16-85 is probably the lens for you. If you want the best lens optically in the 18-50 range then the 17-55 is the way to go. I only use the 16-85 when its smaller size/weight is an issue, otherwise the 17-55 is my "normal" lens. I feel very comfortable recommending both of these lenses.</p>

<p>I recently bought a Nikon D700 for $2319 (new, in the US). If you are shooting weddings then you'll need two bodies in order to have a backup if one failed or was broken in an accident. Considering your $4,000 budget then two D700's might work for you.</p>

<p>I agree with Josh's answer except that both Nikon and Canon have a huge system of lenses, flashes and other accessories and Sony has a more limited selection. Also, Nikon and Canon have much more third-party support of their systems. </p>

<p>I also pondered this switch as I was very happy with my D200's. What the other posters have said is true. For me, the reasons to upgrade were ISO 200 instead of 100, the self-cleaning sensor, and the better LCD. I have no regrets regarding my decision to upgrade.</p>