dan_wolfgang

<p>In addition to Yellowstone, Grand Tetons, and Jackson Hole, there's just a lot of that area that is beautiful that is not specifically designated as a National Park. You can also go south a bit to Moab, Utah for Arches NP and Canyonlands NP.</p>

<p>My experience is similar in that I found a 50mm f1.8 on a D300 to be near-perfect for indoor basketball in a small gym. Replacing that with the G might be a good step for you. However, what I would have found more helpful regularly is something a little wider -- the 35mm f1.8 would have been helpful for me. Perhaps a good move for you, too.</p>

<p>An f2.8 zoom sounds good, but personally, I was often shooting at f2-2.8 at ISO 1600 to get fast enough shutter speeds -- so, a prime lens was essential. The 85 was too long for full-body shots as well as too long to include more than one head in the frame.</p>

<p>In your situation, personally, I would have bought the 35 1.8 and an SB-910.</p>

<p>A few points that jump out to me:</p>

<ul>

<li>You don't want to use tripod or flash. That's fine, but when you are comparing your Canon-shooting friend's results, are those shots also without flash and tripods?</li>

<li>It sounds like there are some equipment differences that might be responsible for some of the differences. The D7000 is going to be less capable in low light against a 5D III, for sure, and probably a 5D II because of the sensor size difference. (And maybe an original 5D, too?) You don't say what version of the 80-200 2.8 you're using, but comparing it to the latest offering from Canon (or Nikon) is likely going to be a little disappointing.</li>

</ul>

<p>Having jumped from Nikon to Canon and back to Nikon, I'm comfortable saying image quality isn't a reason to switch. An example of a reason to switch, silly as it sounds: I could not adapt to Canon's "backwards" zoom and focus rings.</p>

<p>I use the Trigger Trap, though mostly just as a remote release. I've fiddled with some of the other trigger capabilities -- and they're fun and work -- but those features aren't something I have much use of beyond for playing.</p>

<p>Trigger Trap can trigger flashes, too, according to them: https://triggertrap.com/shop/tt-flash/. I haven't tried it.</p>

<p>I'll go against what others have said: Nikon is better, in at least three areas:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon zoom and focus rings turn the correct way. (For whatever reason, I simply can't get used to the backwards way of Canon and Sigma. It just doesn't "click" for me.)</li>

<li>Nikon places the power switch around or near the shutter release. (Turning the camera on is a one-handed operation, which is particularly important when you want the other hand on the lens, or if you're carrying, say, a kid in the other hand.)</li>

<li>Nikon's grip ergonomics are superior to Canon's.</li>

</ul>

<p>Ok, so these might be personal preferences, but this is exactly what it comes down to. Nikon and Canon both make great gear, but they are so very different in many ways. Being able to recognize the differences and what makes one suit you better is how you'll determine which is the best.</p>

<p>D800, 24 1.4, 85 1.4, 2 x SB-900. With the rest I should be able to buy a pair of memory cards, an extra battery for the D800, and some AAs for the SB-900s.</p>

<p>I may switch out the 85 1.4 for the 1.8, though, which would let me get a bag, tripod, ballhead, remote release, a few light shapers and some other minor goodies.</p>

<p>I also vote 24-35-85. The 24 1.4G is absolutely phenomenal. </p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.guragear.com/kiboko-30l/">Gura Gear Kiboko 30L</a> is 8.5 inches deep, and being soft and flexible it may accommodate some 9" lenses.</p>

<p>I'm kind of surprised to hear you even found out what version of the software was on the CD. That is, I would never even bother to stick it in the CD drive -- I assume that the web site will have the newest version of the software, and that's very likely newer than is on the CD.</p>

<p>The biggest thing you need to consider is the butterfly design: if you like this, you'll love the bag. If you want a single big flap, just look elsewhere.</p>

<p>Flap design aside, it's an amazing bag of the utmost quality. The sailcloth exterior is super tough, the padding is adequate, the smaller pockets are useful. The backpack harness is good as well, and I love that it packs away. The details are great, though: in particular, the zipper pulls are a great advance because I can open the bag with my gloved hand, a feature I wish I had on my other backpacks. </p>

<p>You're comparing a lot of features that are minimally different. It's very likely that the areas Canon edges out the Nikon, Nikon's next generation of camera will make up for; likewise the areas that Nikon edges out Canon, Canon's next gen cameras will make up for. It's a leap-frog game. Are you planning to switch again in a year or two or whenever the next gen cameras come out? Of course not. In that regard, just stick with Canon.</p>

<p>The ergonomics difference is a big one, though. The camera needs to suit your hands and way of thinking. You need to be comfortable with it to really be successful. Personally, I found using Canons difficult; something about them just doesn't fit me. For example, the focus and zoom rings just work backwards on Canon lenses; after about four years of use I was unable to force myself to learn which direction to turn a ring. Switching to Nikon was a great move for me because so much about Nikon cameras just fits me better. I always turn the focus and zoom rings exactly the direction I intend. Silly but true.</p>

 

<p>Photography from a kayak is a surprisingly difficult task.<br /> <br /> The kayak choice itself is going to greatly impact what/how you can shoot. A wide recreational kayak with a flat bottom will be most stable on flat water when not moving (known as primary stability), however wind and current can drag it anywhere because it has no keel and its large size catches wind/current easily. A light touring kayak with a clear keel will be most stable while moving (known as secondary stability); when not moving it's notably less stable but wind and current will not catch it as much. The shape of the hull (on any type of kayak) will affect the type of stability it has, and that shape varies from model and manufacturer even within the same class of kayak -- really, it just comes down to trying different ones and choosing what suits you best.<br /><br />Since you're just looking into a kayak, I'm going to venture to guess that you don't have a lot of experience in them. I highly recommend you think about gaining some skill with a paddle before you consider throwing photography into the mix. Don't underestimate the amount of skill and effort needed to get to your location, in addition to the amount of coordination required to also keep your balance with your camera gear.<br /><br />Having tried quite a few rec and light touring kayaks, I'm happy I went with a touring one. I have many years of experience on the water and quickly acclimated to keeping my balance while using my p-n-s waterproof camera. I've never taken my DSLR out in the kayak, and likely never will -- there's just not that much room in the cockpit for me to have easy access to shoot with it *and* to have some waterproof way to store it. I've never used a monopod on the water, however a Gorillapod has been useful to help prop the camera on the shore or on a rock outcropping or similar.<br /><br />I have a pretty big Pelican case that I use for my DSLR when out canoeing. The canoe is very stable (I often stand up in it), my gear is well protected, and if somebody else is with me then we have an easy time maintaining or adjusting position to help get the shot. I am sure it's possible to use a DSLR to shoot from a kayak, however if the DSLR is required I would definitely choose to take the canoe out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>4.) I like the analog backup of film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I choose digital specifically for this reason. If my house burns down and all my slides are destroyed, I still know that my digital photos are safe because they are backed-up off-site. (Sure, I could have the slides duped and stored elsewhere, but that's nowhere near as easy as copying a file to one more location.)</p>

 

<p>I'll disagree with the other posters and say that you don't want to do a long exposure (because it looks like you're using a DSLR). A single long exposure will make your sensor get hot, introduce lots of noise, and the result will be terrible.<br>

What I have been doing is taking many short exposures and using a Photoshop action to merge them together (Google for "photoshop action merge star trail" and you'll find a few options). The Nikon D300 has a built-in interval timer so I have used that to capture hundreds of 3-5 second exposures. After importing I use the PS action and a while later I've got some nice trails.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I like anything that doesn't scream<br>

<em>"Hey, guess how much expensive stuff is in here?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand this POV at all. Maybe it's because I know what a camera bag looks like and what an expensive camera looks like, but I have trouble believing that a thief doesn't know what they're looking for/at. Sure, some bags look more or less like a camera bag, but if you're walking around with SLR in-hand, I know that bag slung over your shoulder almost definitely has more equipment in it regardless of what it looks like.</p>

 

<p>If you're putting together a home studio and you want camera support specifically for the studio space, you don't want a tripod; you want a camera stand.<br>

Tripods are great outside: different leg lengths for uneven terrain, adjustable legs to get low, a center column to get high. But of course, you don't need to deal with that in a studio. A camera stand will let you slide the camera down low or up high, roll into place, and lock where you need it--and take up much less floor space.<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Camera-Stands/ci/415/N/4294538423</p>

<p>You don't <em>need</em> a 70-200 2.8 or 300 2.8 to shoot sports. As with any other subject, the biggest thing is your knowledge of the subject. Then, shoot with a 55-200 or 70-300 f5.6. You'll need to bump the ISO pretty high probably. You'll also probably have to use some of that knowledge to time just the moment to hit the shutter, because you won't be blasting through 8+ fps. You're going to shoot 100, 300, 500 photos at an event, and your going to throw away 90% because they're not quite sharp, 7% because they are cut off, and 2% just miss the perfect moment. And of that remaining 1% of images that are "good," most of them are not going to be aesthetically pleasing.<br>

But you're going to keep doing it like that. And you'll learn the limitations of your equipment, and you'll lust after bugger, faster lenses. And you'll get better, and some shots will be worth showing off, even!<br>

As for affording expensive lenses? Assuming you're not a pro, the answer to that is quite easy. I once heard a hobby described as something you spend large amounts of money on for no justifiable reason. That's exactly what most of us do, whether it's a $200 lens or a $2000+ lens. You don't <em>need</em> it, you <em>want</em> it. And that's ok.</p>

<p>Shawn: for free, check out the app Field Tools. It's actually worth paying for: lets you set/store your lens/camera (sensor size) and provides a good interface for you to interact with.<br>

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/field-tools/id305817254?mt=8</p>

<p>As Dave said, the D300 is a great camera; that's what I use as my primary DSLR. An observation based on my experience with several SLRs and DSLRs: autofocus performance is really important to me. I don't shoot much that taxes the AF on most cameras. I'm sure I could get 90+% of the photos I do with any AF or MF camera. But having a strong and fast AF system (such as the F100 and D300) sure makes using the camera into a better experience. Focus just about always locks fast, the first time. So, as awesome as the D300/D3 AF is, if it gets better, that's awesome!<br>

Their are a few things that would make the D300 better for me</p>

<ul>

<li>The D300 can be a Commander for CLS. That's great. But it'd be awesome if a SU-800-style non-flash commander were also built in. (Yes, I know how unlikely this is to happen, but it'd be nice.)</li>

<li>Swivel LCD. This was by far the best thing about P-n-S cameras, several years back. I loved it. I'm happy to see the feature being added to a few DSLRs now.</li>

<li>A higher ISO and lower noise would be great. When camping with Boy Scouts, I enjoy taking night-time photos. At ISO 6400, f1.4 is sometimes a problem because of shallow DOF. ISO 25600 would be great.</li>

</ul>

<p>There are probably a few other features that I've thought of occasionally that would be nice. All-in-all, however, Nikon will have to make some big improvement to the next generation of cameras to make me upgrade from the D300.</p>

<p>A large part of the reason to go for the great Arca-style clamp is that you can get non-twisting plates, too. Rubber doesn't make a plate non-twisting, either: getting the RRS or Kirk plates that are actually designed to the curves of your equipment will make them not twist. I've used both RRS and Kirk plates with great results (though I have gained a preference for the RRS stuff).</p>

<p>FWIW, I also have one of those universal plates--it's great to have on hand for those times when I'm out with a friend who wants to use a tripod to get a shot. They can then screw that universal plate on and use my tripod/ballhead!</p>

Likely helpful: <a href="http://www.danandsherree.com/2004/0811/scanning_slides_and_.php">Scanning Slides and Negatives: Comparing Film and Flatbed Scanners</a>.

<p>A CoolScan V is basically a Super CoolScan 4000. My comparison details both III and 4000 results, so that should help: <a href="http://www.danandsherree.com/2004/0811/scanning_slides_and_.php">Scanning Slides and Negatives: Comparing Film and Flatbed Scanners</a>.</p>

When you say that you can see the shadow detail on your monitor--how are you looking at it? Are you soft proofing to your 2200? Have you turned on the Gamut Warning? (I'm assuming you're using Photoshop.)

Thanks for the responses. Nikon's SB-30 looks interesting, and that may be what I decide to get.

I'm looking for some small flashes to supplement my Nikon SB-28. I

like the looks of Quantaray's MS-1 (<A

HREF="http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisp

lay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-

1&productId=30235&topCategory=1004&cat1=5849722">here</A>),

primarily because it's small, wireless, and cheap. I don't want to

buy studio lighting for those reasons--small/portable and cheap are

important.

<P>

These would serve as general purpose fill. Likely used for macro,

general area fill, and creative experimentation.

<P>

Can anybody recommend any other good alternatives?