dan_mccarty1

August 9, 2013

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=189330">Dan Brown</a>, Aug 09, 2013; 09:24 a.m.

</blockquote>

Smart phones are the new way everybody is taking pictures. It's never going to go back to the way it was.

Connectivity is where it's at. Nikon had better get wireless connectivity in every single camera product.

</blockquote>

This is exactly right. I don't understand the camera companies making anything less than a DSLR or DSLR like camera. Back in the film days, most prints were 4x6 or less. Today the 4x6 print is an image posted on a website or sent by email. The camera in my phone is perfectly capable of taking those images. WHY would anyone buy another camera to carry around the duplicates the cell phone camera? It makes no sense to me and I don't know of anyone in my extended family that owns a dedicated camera. Not one. They all use their cell phones or iPods. A B17 flew into an airport near me least summer. I went to get a tour and take photos. It was a hoot watching people with iPads video taping the B17.

Nikon needs to have internet connectivity in EVERY phone. Not as an expensive add on. DSLR's need to be able to snap a photo and send it at the push of a button. Yes, I will still download my images and tweek them, but sometimes I just want a quick snap to send. This cost is minimal.

Consumer grade cameras are following film into non existence.

Later,

Dan

August 8, 2013

I would not by a lens that had a known issue, unless the price was very low and even then, I don't think I would buy.

The 35-70mm is a bit short but still usable. I bought my 35-70mm/F2.8 back in the mid 90's to go with an N70, then it was on my F100, D200, D700 and know D800. I like to use the 35-70mm/F2.8 as a travel lens and sometimes just carry it on the camera with a 24mm/F2.8 in a pocket. I would love to have a 28-70mm/F2.8 lens but I can not justify the price difference.

Later,

Dan

July 23, 2013

Thom Hogan has a long review of this lens including the use of TCs, http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm

His summary on TC's is,

Mostly TC-phobic. Not a lens that tolerates all teleconverters well. You can get by with a TC-14E only (emphasis on the "get by"), and the TC-20E III operates well optically. All other TCs are suspect.

</blockquote>

The article is very interesting about the lens as well as how it handles TCs.

Later,

Dan

July 18, 2013

I bought a Lenovo 530 a few months back specifically to process D800 RAW files. My old system was a tower and simply to old and slow to handle D800 RAW file sizes. At the time, The 530 could be installed with Windows 7.

The Lenovo 530 can be configured with a screen color calibrator which is very nice. When it is time to calibrate, you click a few things, close the lid, wait for the finish beep/light and you are done. So much easier than my old calibration process.

The Lenovo 530 can handle four external monitors with a docking station.

I put in a large SSD drive to help speed up photo processing. The SSD drive is very nice. I did not buy one from Lenovo but installed one myself.

Later, Dan

July 1, 2013

Thom Hogan has a nice and detailed review of the Nikon 200-400 including interesting comments about using teleconverters. http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-200-400mm-lensreview.htm

Mostly TC-phobic. Not a lens that tolerates all teleconverters well. You can get by with a TC-14E only (emphasis on the "get by"), and the TC-20E III operates well optically. All other TCs are suspect.

</blockquote>

Later,

Dan

June 26, 2013

I bought a 50mm/F1.4 years ago for low light situations. In hindsight I should have bought the 1.8 and saved the difference in price. The DOF at 1.4 is so small. I had a D200 at the time and the low light performance keeps getting better and better.

The reading I have done on the 85mm 1.4 vs 1.8 makes me lean to the 1.8 version but I really don't need an 85mm so I have never bought one.

I like the 24mm/F2.8D. It works and it is affordable. Some time I want/need a wider lens and wonder about the 20mm but I has what I has. I have found that the 24mm is a good lens for travel use in grounds. You can get close to a subject to keep people from walking in between you and the subject. Many times on vacation I carry a small holster bag that simply protects the camera and mounted lens. If the lens is a small prime like the 24mm or 50mm, I can have one on the camera and the other in the small bag. Light, easy to carry, unobtrusive, and effective. Tis completely different than when I am carrying the camera back pack. :)

Later,

Dan

June 25, 2013

I bought a 35-70/F2.8 back in the mid to late 90's for around $650 for use on an N70 and F100. Great lens. I remember one photo I took at a basketball game for young kids where the lens was at F2.8 and towards the 35mm end of the lens that was a bit soft. I don't normally shoot with the lens at 2.8 but I noticed that image was a bit soft. Still good though. That is the only bad thing I can say about the quality of the lens.

The only other issue I have had is that 35mm is not quite wide enough. I was just on the USS North Carolina and I was using the 35-70 lens because it was so handy for that environment. In some places, 24mm was needed and I had to switch over to my 24mm/F2.8.

This lens is my "traveling" lens and for many years my only zoom lens. I have thought about buying a new lens that is 24mm or 28mm on the wide end but I can't justify spending the money.

The lens has taken worked just fine on the N70, F100, D200, D700, and now a D800. Pretty danged good bang for the buck after almost 20 years of usage.

Later,

Dan

June 7, 2013

Last year I was waiting for my D800 to arrive. One day I was out taking photos with my D700 when the camera store called and said the D800 had arrived! Woo HOO!

I was using a rented 300mm/F4 lens which is "slow" according to the reviews and it certainly is slower than my 70-200mm/F2.8 VRII lens. I took the 300mm/F4 off the D700 put it on the D800, with a TC 1.4, and focused on something in the dark store. BAM. The thing was in focus. I then focused on a car across the street. BAM. That car was in focus. The difference in focus speeds between the D700 and the D800 was very apparent. Having said that, the D700 was fast enough. The body can help speed up AF on "slow" lenses.

Not sure I would switch systems because a body wore out. The lenses are what is important, a new and better body will be out Real Soon Now but lenses don't really change that often. Canon seems to have a better selection of lenses in the mid range of prices compared to Nikon. I say this after starting with Canon in the 80's when the changed lens mounts and force me to change systems. I did and went to Nikon. If you only have one lens then a system change is not too painful but if you have a bunch of lenses, changing system could get painful money wise.

Later,

Dan

June 4, 2013

Thom Hogan had a blog entry about this topic that I thought was right on the money, See the June 2 post, http://www.bythom.com/index.htm

Thom makes some brilliant comments about companies trying to do more with less, a deliberate focus on good enough vs producing quality products, and bad decisions by management.

The quality of what the media has been producing has been declining for decades and loosing money as a result. The idea that a newspaper should be producing video is absurd. I do not click on links that are video for news unless the video will present information better than the printed word. One annoyance, that seems to be increasing, is the playing of video commercials on web pages. When this happens to me, I immediately backspace off the page. Video is a slow way to convey information on most/many subjects and I avoid it like the plague. Yet, the Sun things this will be the future.... Ah, No. If I want video I will go to the TV station that has been providing video for decades not a print media. I go to print media to READ not watch a video...

Later,

Dan

June 3, 2013

My photography addiction started in South FLA. I had a decent SLR and a 50mm and 24mm lenses that I think were a F1.8 and F2.8 respectively. I bought a cheap Velbro tripod and remote release to photograph sunrises and sunsets. I still have that cheap banged up Velbro that I use for other things. The nice things about FLA is that it is flat and you can get out to the water management areas aka the Everglades and get sunset photos. Sunrise photos on the beach of course.

I tried to get bird shots up in Loxahatchee but the only "long" lens I could afford was a POS Quantarry 70-200 or some such. If I lived in South FLA today, I would be renting at least a 300mm/F4 and heading to the birding sites including Loxahatchee. There are sooo many birding sites in FLA compared to where I live now.

A big bang for the photographic dollar is a micro lens to take photos of bugs and flowers. I would guess for most of the 90's and 2000s, most of the photos were taken with a 105mm/F2.8 lens. There can be many "small" things right around you and that require no travel what so ever.

When there are thunderstorms you can go after the big clouds at the end of the day.

Lots of things to keep one busy with a camera in South FLA. Not sure which is more dangerous though, the gator in the duck weed at Loxahatchee trying to catch birds or the extremely abundant male homo sapiens trying to catch birds on the beach....

Later,

Dan

May 31, 2013

What John said,

But be concerned with the ONE frame in action. Usually in sport, especially gymnastics, there's one peak action moment. That's a single-frame moment.

</blockquote>

Exactly. One needs to be able to anticipate the shot, not machine gun off a bunch of frames. Back in the 90's I took photos at a few college level gymnastic events with the lenses I still use today, a 105mm/F2.8 and 35-70mm/F2.8, on a N70 and F100 bodies. I did have floor access so that made things a bit easier since I could move around to frame the shot. One of the gyms was old and very dark. I was shooting wide open and pushing 800 speed film two stops to get the shutter speed that was required. The images stunk, not because of the lack of frames, but because of the film grain caused by the need to push the film to 3200 ISO. The shots on B&W slide film were not bad but not what I wanted either.

Some of the competitions were at a brand new facility, and the lighting was better, but the film speed, aka ISO speed, was the real problem. If I could go back with the same lenses and my D800 I would be able to get some awesome photo because of the high ISO performance on the 800 or my old D700.

You almost certainly will have to use an ISO of 3200 or even 6400. The camera that offers the best image quality at those ISO settings is what you need. And you will need to be shooting near F2.8 on the lenses. DOF can be a problem though. With the vault, one can prefocus on the horse and wait for the shot. One can do the same with parallel bars and balance beam events. Floor exercise is a bit harder because they gymnast can be all over the place but you can still make a good guess as to what they are going to do next. I had to prefocus because an N70 certain stunk at AF. the F100 was better but nothing like a D700 or D800.

Pay attention to the background in the shots as well. Not only because of distracting stuff in the background but beware of dark paints, banners, etc. A school gym I photograph in has one wall that is light colored and the other end is dark green. Shooting with the dark green wall in the background lowers my shutter speed because of the dark color. Shooting with the light colored wall in the background gives me a much higher shutter speed.

Sometimes going to spot metering helps. Shooting a fast action sport like gymnastics, in what is low light or almost no light, really is about getting the highest ISO speed you can get to allow fast shutter speeds to stop the action. A fast 2.8 lens is needed too but wide open can be a problem with DOF.

Since you don't have floor access you will have to move around in the public areas to get the angles you need. Certainly the 70-200mm/F2.8 is most likely the best lens for that setup. I use my 70-200 for basketball from the stands. If you are really far away then a 300mm might help.

Good Luck,

Dan

May 30, 2013

I have been renting from LensRental and they ship the equipment all over the US. They certainly have a great selection of lenses and cameras at least for Nikon. I would be shocked if their Canon inventory is not as good. I am sure there are other rental places but I don't know of any.

I don't see the usefulness of a zoom for birds for the most part. Almost always the subject is far away and too often too far away. I have been renting a 300mm/F4 lens to use with my TC 1.4. The 300mm is often not long enough but it is lighter than other lenses and given I can be walking miles with the camera equipment in the woods with a heavy tripod the lighter 300mm/F4 helps.

Even if money was not an issue, and it is an issue, renting the 500mm/F4 is what I want but I don't want to carry. :) One really has to compromise between somewhat easy to carry and hand hold vs much harder to carry and hand hold. Not to mention the heavier lens requires a very good tripod and head. If you want good and light then you get to pay more money.

I just wish Nikon would go ahead a release an updated 300mm/F4 so I could buy instead of renting. :)

Later,

Dan

May 24, 2013

I struggled with NX2 until I read both Ben Long's Nikon Capture NX 2 book and Jason Odell's The Photographers Guide to Capture NX 2. Odell's book is online,<a href="/nikon-camera-forum/"> http://www.luminescentphoto.com/nx2guide.html.</a>

Usually, I slightly adjust the Quickfix histogram, maybe straighten, crop, drop in an unsharp mask followed by sharpening. Some images I might make a B&W or sepia. Seldomly I use the uPoints and other adjustments. Most images take me about 20-30 seconds to edit. I will batch up the jobs to generate JPGs. Because NX 2 does not have a good way to just save a JPG at a given size/resolution I have another program for that job as well as adding watermarks.

Later,

Dan

May 23, 2013

Since you are on a budget and need light weight then that means primes.

The 24mm/F2.8 is a good, cheap and light lens perfect of carrying around. Nothing wrong with the Nikon 50mm lenses either.

I learned along time ago when I was a student trying to fund my photography addiction, that it was better to buy a good lens than buy a cheap lens and later buy the good lens. Good lenses last decades. Camera bodies not so much especially with digital cameras. There will always be a new camera that one wants/needs but I am still using lenses I bought back in the 90's. Frankly I would still be using lenses I bought in the 80's but I bought Canon and they changed the lens mounts for AF which required me to buy a new camera system. I did. I bought Nikon.

Create your lens list and buy the ones you can afford when you have the money which is what I did. I wanted an 80-200/F2.8 lens for over a decade but I could never justify the money. Eventually I bought the 70-200F2.8 VRII and that lens is worth every painful penny but I made do for years with 24mm/F2.8, 105mm/F2.8, 35-70mm/2.8 and a 180mm/F2.8. Eventually I bought a 50mm/F1.4 but that was only five or so years ago. I sold that 180mm/F2.8 because it was not being used because of the 70-200 but there was nothing wrong with that 180mm lens. Hated to sell it because it was small and light compared to the 70-200 and I go some great low light photos with it over the years.

The 24mm, 105mm, and 35-70mm I still use all of the time even though I bought them for use on a N70 and a F100. Those lenses have worked find on a D200, D700 and now a D800. The only new lenses I have bought have been the 50mm/F1.4, the 70200/F2.8 and a TC1.4. If Nikon ever releases an updated 300mm/F4.0 my REASONABLE lens list will be filled. I have been wanted/needing the 300mm/F4 for decades. A PC lens wouldbe nice to have as would the 500mm/F4 but I don't think I will be getting either. :)

I sometimes wish the 35-70 was a 24-70. MOST of the time 35 is wide enough but there are times when a 24-70 would be more useful. This happens just enough to be annoying but not often enough for me to trade in the 35-70 and buy a different lens. :)

Spend money on glass then worry about the body.

Later,

Dan

May 9, 2013

I have been using View NX2 and Capture NX2, as well as their previous versions for years. There is no right or wrong on a work flow, one uses what works for them. I use View NX2 to transfer images from the camera to computer. View NX2 also allows one to group and rate images very quickly. I view the images in View, rate and group them or erase. View allows you to magnify the image easily and see if you really got the image you expected. I also use view to move images to different directories as needed.

Capture NX2 is for photo editing. It took reading a couple of books to get the most out of Capture NX2.

Camera Control Pro and the old Capture would be useful in a studio setup.

Later,

Dan

May 6, 2013

Bob said,

Nikon has long and IMHO impressive history of maintaining some degree of backward compatibility to its SLR lenses - think of how many Canon lenses have been rendered obsolete if a user wants to take advantage of modern camera design. If you have a Canon lens that you loved and used in the early 1970s, it can't even be mounted on a current generation Canon SLR body. But every one of my Nikon lenses from that era will fit and work on my 3 Nikon bodies.

</blockquote>

I started taking photos with a Canon system in the mid 80's with a T70 and some very nice primes. Auto focus started coming on the market and eventually matured to a point that I wanted to buy a new AF camera. The problem was that Canon was not backward compatible and forced me to buy a new camera SYSTEM.

Since I had to buy a new camera system to get AF, I did so by buying a Nikon N70. Kinda ironic how the camera model numbers worked out and that is a lesson to camera companies. If you force people to move to a new system, they will, but it might not be YOUR system.

I am still using lenses I bought for the N70. Those lenses have worked just fine on the N70, F100, D200, D700, and now a D800.

Later,

Dan

</blockquote>

March 28, 2013

My first reaction was to avoid touching the camera and lens. When I use a tripod, I use a remote shutter release so I don't have to touch the setup. Touching the tripod, camera, or lens is asking to for movement transfer which is defeating the purpose of the tripod.

Thom Hogan has this to say in his review of this lens:

If the 500mm has any real weaknesses, it would be again at infinity focus and converters. The infinity focus problem seems typical of the whole Nikon exotic line. While the 500mm remains pretty good at infinity, it's just not as snappy as it is at 100 yards or 200 yards or wherever else you've focused that's not infinity. This isn't the same as the problem I note on the 200-400mm: the 500mm f/4G doesn't get weak on anything past 100 meters as the 200-400mm does. But it is slightly weaker at infinity than it is at 200 meters. Typically, though, you're not shooting at infinity (heat waves make that impossible much of the time, anyway).

The big issue for me is teleconverters. I definitely feel you have to stop down one stop with the TC-14E (that would put you at ~700mm f/8). The TC-17E is marginal at best with the 500mm. Sometimes it will focus, sometimes it won't, but it'll always focus slower, and the optical results aren't quite as clean as I'd like. The TC-20E III is only usable in manual focus, and again, you need to be stopping down (so you're at f/11 best case, which gets you into the diffraction zone on a D3x or D7000).

</blockquote>

The full review is here -> <a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-500mm-f4-lens-review.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-500mm-f4-lens-review.htm</a>

Later,

Dan

February 21, 2013

I have been renting the 300/F 4.0 lens over the last year while waiting for the long rumored VR version. The lens is excellent even with the TC 1.4. I REALLY want to buy the lens with VR. MOST of the time, I don't need the VR but sometimes I do. I do hand hold the lens and VR would be very helpful.

I found a bunch of answers when researching when the lens might be upgraded to VR. The answer is the next big photo show or in time for XMAS. The problem is these answers were as far back as 2009 or 2010.

There was a Nikon patent from last year about upgrading the lens so maybe the lens will get upgraded RSN(Real Soon Now) or by the next big photo show or XMAS. lol

Later,

Dan

October 1, 2012

I have a 5-6 year old PC that worked fine with D200 and D700 files in NX2. When I got the D800 I was worried I would have to buy a new system to process the larger NEF files. I did have to add 4GB of memory to have a total of 8GB but the system is working good enough for now. I also tweeked the cache size to handle the larger D800 files which helped quite a bit. I never had a problem with the way the images looked, only the speed, or lack there of, in processing files. The extra memory and cache setting changes drastically improved the system performance with NX 2 and D800 files.

When hardware goes on sale during the holidays I will might build a new system. Maybe.

Try to download the files again, sounds like they did not download correctly or you go the wrong version.

Later, Dan

August 16, 2012

I thought for years on which TC to buy. Eventually, I decided that the TC 1.4 is the best compromise for me since the TC 1.7 and TC 2.0 decrease image quality too much as well as the loss of light. I have used the TC 1.4 on my 70-200mm/2.8 VR II and a rented 300mm/F4.0 with a D700. Remember, that AF on a D700 needs F5.6 or better. Having said that, I often used F8.0 which works most of the time.

I used the TC 1.4 and 300mm/F4.0 on both a D700 and D800. The lens is slow focusing. It is slower with the TC 1.4. What I did noticed is that the D800 focuses much faster than the D700.

For wildlife, butterflies, bugs, birds, etc, the 300mm/F4.0 with a TC is much better than the 70-200mm/2.8 VRII and TC 1.4. Better meaning more magnification. I captured some great images with the 300mm/F4.0 and TC 1.4. I will buy the 300mm/F4.0 when it has VR, in the mean time, I will rent the lens. On the rumors website there is a conversation about when the VR version of the 300mm/F4.0 will be available. It is supposed to be announced in a photo show in the fall or by XMAS. Of 2010! lol lol lol

So maybe the lens will be available in the fall or XMAS of 2012! lol lol lol

Later, Dan

August 11, 2012

I have a 24mm/F2.8 D lens that I bought decades ago to use with my film cameras. I have used it on my traded in D700 and new D800. It works like always. Funny thing though, reviews I read over the years mentioned that flare can be a problem, but it was never an issue with my usage. Even when taking photos in strong sun light.

Until recently. lol I was using the 24mm/F2.8 trying to photograph a few trees in the forest and that flare really showed up. First time I have ever had a problem with flare with that lens, which I thought was odd, because of the location and overcast conditions.

Later,

Dan

August 10, 2012

I moved from a D700 to a D800. I have not seen a need to change how I use a camera. When the situation allows, I use a tripod and remote release but I shoot hand held as well.

I use NX2 and I did have to go from 4GB of RAM to 8GB. The extra memory and tweeking NX2 cache values has made the system usable but it IS slower. I think the system is CPU and disk bound at this point but it is usable. I would not want to have to process hundreds of images in an evening on the system though. The system is at least six years old, a Q6600 Quad Core, so it will get replaced in the next year or so.

Too much emphasis is being placed on the idea that the only reason to get a D800 is to print large. There are other reasons to move from a D700 to a D800 beside 36MP and printing large.

I waited about three months for my D800 to arrive. It was a long wait and I wanted to use the D800 for two projects I was working on. One project was soccer but the season ended before the camera arrived. Yes, I will use a D800 for sports and it will work just fine for me. I never used the D700's full FPS rate and I won't be limited by the D800's "slow" FPS. I was out taking photos for the other projects when the store called and told me the D800 was here! Woo Hoo!

After buying the D800, the first thing I did was to put on the lenses I was using on the D700 and try out the camera. I mounted a TC1.4 and a 300mm/F40 on the D800 and focused at something close by in the store. The 300mm/F4.0 is somewhat slow to focus especially with a TC. The D800 focuses that lens combination MUCH quicker than the D700. I then focused on a car across the street and BAM!, the focus was there. It was very apparent to me that the D800 was focusing much quicker. I knew the D800 would be better but not that much better. I missed a once in a life time photo because the D700 could not focus fast enough. I think the D800 would have gotten the image.

I took the camera right back to where I was taking photos. I have the cameras set up take a photo when the shutter button is pushed regardless of the state of the focus. I noticed that all of the images I had taken that day with the D800 had the focus when I took the photo. That never happened with the D700. Getting the camera that day was interesting in that I was able to take photos, in the same spot, with the same conditions, with the same subjects, with both cameras. This was good and bad....

Here is one image:

And another:

I am pretty sure that this is the same butterfly, on the same Cone flower, in both shots, even though the images were taken hours apart with the D700 and the D800. The first image is from the D700, the second is the D800 and both where hand held with the 300mm/F4.0 and TC1.4.

We printed these images at 12x18 and I could not tell which image was taken with which camera. The image ID was not on the print so I had to look at the images on the PC to figure which camera took which image. I joked with the wife that I needed to return the D800 for my D700. :) Like h...ll I am. :) This was the bad part of the good and bad I mentioned previously. :)

For the project I was working, I had taken some images that just had too much dynamic range for the D700. I will go back and see what happens with the D800. There might be too much DR for the D800 but I am going to give it a shot. :)

The 36MP also gives you the option to digitally zoom. As part of the project I was working, 12MP was just not enough to handle the cropping I sometimes needed to do. Even with the 300/F4.0 and a TC 1.4 I needed more lens, but given I was walking a couple of miles through the woods, with 35 pounds of gear, plus a tripod, haveing more lens, with more weight, costing more money, just was not happening. :) I did not need to crop much but there are/were a couple of images where 36MP would have been real handy. Like this one:

I printed that one at 8x12 and it looks fine but I think I did some post processing to get enough data to print that large. 36 MP would have been real nice to have had that day....

The D800 does have better IQ with higher ISO as well which is very useful to me.

The D800 has not changed how I use a camera. Though by now, I thought I would have shot some video, but I have not had time. There are more reasons to buy a D800 than printing large.

Later, Dan

August 7, 2012

:) I think Lil Judd and I have been taking photographs of the same Dragonfly! lol

July 26, 2012

A very wild guess, could you have twisted the lens/TC combination in between shots that might have caused an issue with the contacts? Kinda hard to believe you did that in the short time frame between shots but possible I suppose...

Or maybe, in that split second gap of time between shots, there was a flash as you were beamed up to a UFO. Do you feel like you have missing memories? Are you sure that the Red-winged Blackbird was actually a Red-winged Blackbird? Maybe the bird was an alien device used to lure the interesting bipedal life form into the zone to be beamed to the mother ship. The aliens were interested in the creature that kept putting a big black object to one of it's visual orbs. Very strange behavior.

Are there MISSING images from your camera?

Just say'n.

:)

Later,

Dan

July 17, 2012

Decisions Decisions Decisions :)

I have a 35-70/F2.8 lens that is old but still works very well on the D800. I thought about upgrading to a new zoom but after looking at the price on the 24-70/F2.8 I decided to keep the 35-70/F2.8. I can use the 35-70/F2.8 and put on the 24/F2.8 when needed.

Upgrading the 70-200/F2.8 VR I to VR II would be worth serious consideration.

In the film days I had two camera bodies and I miss only having one DSLR. Having a second camera is very handy.

Then there is the idea of the 300/F4.0. I rented this lens recently and I REALLY want to buy it. It has been on my buy list of decades but after renting it, I REALLY want the lens. However, I want the lens to have VR. Given that I have found rumors going back to 2010 about the 300/F4.0 getting updated to VR, I will not hold my breath. But it should be here any day now. lol

I would look at the cost of upgrading the 70-200/F2.8 to VRII vs selling the D200 and buying a D800. That is a tough decision.

Later, Dan

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by dan_mccarty1