eajames

It's clear - a more square format on a sensor larger than 36X24 would require a dedicated line of lenses. If I could have

such a system I would want prime lenses.

I acknowledge - it's a bit of a pipe dream. So is the FM4FX, but I'm hanging on to my AIS lenses just in case.

Thank you gentlemen.

Very informative responses. Bjorn shoots down the idea with his explanation, and then the rest of you convince me that

the existing FX system is adequate for cropping all the way down to 24X24mm square - without hesitation.

Now if we could just get Nikon to light up the 1x1, 2X3, 5X7, and 6.5X8.5 frames in an FX viewfinder.

I've been thinking about how great it would be for Nikon to offer a DX body designed to capture an image with a different aspect ratio.

Using the limits of the DX lens line's image circle, the camera's sensor would be larger and more square. Personally, I favor a less

rectangular aspect ratio, like 5X7 or 3X4. Nikon could offer the same for their lens line covering the FX sensor - an FX body with a larger,

squarer sensor.

Why must 35mm film size and dimensions continue to influence Nikon dSLR design? Any thoughts?

I'm in the DX camp when in comes to the three kings. The 14-24 provides a preferred field of view range for me on DX; the

24-70mm (though I don't own one) is a stellar walk-around lens for candid portraiture and landscapes; and the 70-200mm on

DX is a legendary lens in it's own time. If I shot with an FX body I don't believe that these lenses would offer the same

utility - at least for my photography, the three kings are best on DX.

I love using the lens for canine candids. I'm using a D300 so I don't run into corner sharpness problems. Have others

noticed the "swirley bokeh" of the 70-200mm?

Well said Benny - a few years from now the D700 will be out-classed (if not obsolete) by newer dSLRs, but the F6 will still

be a state-of-the-art rig. Open that box Wenhan, give the camera a thorough inspection, and then engrave your name on

the prism!

I just returned from a week shooting in Alaska - I tried one of the Ex Officio Buzz Off shirts and it worked very well.

http://outside.away.com/outside/gear/gearguy/200311/20031121.html

The annual road lottery is a safer way to take chances in the Park. A bean bag on

your rental car's window frame and you're good to go. BTW, the D300 would make a

great "tele-converter" for the 600mm f4.

http://www.denali.national-park.com/cal.htm Scroll down for info about the lottery.

I'll be in the park next week and I would pay good money to never see a bear - I'm

hoping that the bears conform to the same 300 yd rule.

I can't help you with SU info but I've heard good things about PCNW:

http://www.pcnw.org/

I was shopping for a Readyload holder recently and was told by a salesman that the

failure rate of Quickloads in a Readyload holder is ~2%; conversely, the failure rate of

Readyloads in a Quickload holder is ~10%.

As the founding member of Camera Cases Anonymous, I am probably the last

person you should take advice from, but let me enable you.

As your original post indicates, you understand the two fundamentally different

approaches: camera pack or backpack. The LowePro packs are adjustable and

fairly comfortable - their greatest advantage lies in their facilitation of quick access

to everything. They are also heavier and bulkier than a suitable backpack. I use a

LowePro packs for my dSLR and 35mm gear. I carry my 4X5 camera in a water-

tight Arcteyrx Bora 55. It carries much better than my LowePro packs, but set up is

much slower. When I shoot 4X5 I am always hoping to make a masterpiece, so the

slow, contemplative approach is consistent with carrying the gear in a more

comfortable pack, albeit slower to work with. When I carry my dSLR or 35mm gear

my approach required the advantages inherent to a panel-loading camera pack.

So ask yourself: which pack will best fit your shooting style on this trip?

If you go with a backpack, one person's great fit may prove to be your nightmare, so

I hesitate to recommend a particular model, but Dana, Gregory, Arteryx, and Osprey

brands are winners. Make sure that you choose a pack that will have room for a

little food water and extra clothing; and consider how you will attach your tripod -

strapping a heavy tripod on the side of an otherwise comfortable pack will result in a

pack that does not carry as well as it could.

I appreciate your input. Curt, I've read of this concern elsewhere. What I don't

understand is: if the GND filter (or car windshield) is polarizing light to some degree,

why would the order of filters matter? FWIW, I see no artifacts with my polarizers and

GND filters, no matter the order (but angle and intensity of light may matter). Alan -

that is a good point; one that is pushing me toward the 105mm polarizer. My primary

reason for switching from Cokin P-sized grads to the 100X150mm system is to avoid

vignetting. I'm worried that I'll end up where I started if I stack a screw-in warming filter

atop a screw-in polarizer, and then attach the Lee adaptor and hood. Thanks again.

I have recently invested in the Lee filter system for their 100X150mm rectangular filters -

specifically their GND filters. I have a lot invested in screw-in polarizing filters and would like to

avoid the purchase of a 105mm polarizer. Can you enlighten me as to the ideal order for the

placement of a graduated neutral density filter and a polarizing filter? Should the polarizer be

furthest from the outer lens element, as with the Lee 105mm approach, or should the polarizing

filter be closest to the lens? Thanks for your input.

Contact Hugo Zhang via www.largeformatphotography.info - he is the importer/dealer

for the US. Register on the site, then go to the members list under H for Hugo and

send him a personal message.

Kerry Thalmann's personal website may be helpful. Here is a link to his lightweight lens

page:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lightwei.htm

I have been casually looking for one of the Congo 90mm lenses - I shoot with the Nikon

90mm f8, but notice the size difference between the two! I also use the Fuji 240mm f9 A -

it's about the size of your 150mm Sironar S.

"Is there a way to tell if that filter is still there..."

One way to do this Greg is to jerk other people around - for example: sending emails to others who are selling the lens; suggesting that you are interesting in purchasing their lens; and then dropping the matter all together once you troll/spam an answer out of them.

That's a beautiful shot, Joseph. It took me a bit to find the Newton

Rings. That's, Denali?

To the OP - you can use an upsidedown GND filter to hold back city lights; or an over-exposed igloo in aurora/sky shot foregrounds.