glenn_cummings1

Shot at 400mm. Mt Rainier over Gig Harbor

 

Early September sunrise on Mt Rainier.

<p>A sincere thank you to all for the detailed responses.</p>

<p>This will all help me to make an informed decision. Weight reduction is one of my main reasons for switching, however I need to be able to make quality prints up to 16x24 and that's the dilemma I face. EVF vs. OVF is also a concern as I have never used anything other than OVF's.</p>

<p>I like the look and feel of the Fuji XT1, reminds me of my original Nikon FM. I'm also considering the Olympus EM1 but am very concerned about Micro 4/3's format and the ability to print up to 16x24.</p>

<p>Again, thanks for everyone's input. I've got some serious research to do and decisions to make.</p>

<p>Thank you all for the replies. Sony doesn't interest me much due to the overall size of their lenses, which equate to pretty much the same as what I currently have.</p>

<p>I rarely print larger than 16x24, so a crop sensor shouldn't be an issue, even with landscapes. In fact, perhaps MFT's could even be an option with Olympus. However, all the research I have already done leads me to the Fuji X system with their stellar lenses.</p>

<p>I really want to pull the trigger, I'm just so concerned that I will regret it later with the quality I am accustomed to.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone!</p>

<p>As always, I've come to Photo.net for some excellent advice.</p>

<p>I'm considering the move to mirrorless from Canon full frame, primarily for the reduction in weight. Currently, I shoot with the 5D3 and four "L" lenses...17-40, 24-105, 100 Macro and 100-400. This setup is ideal for what I normally shoot, landscapes and nature.</p>

<p>I'm currently looking at the new Fuji XT-2 body with comparable lenses to what I now have.</p>

<p>Am I crazy or does this possible switch seem to make sense to those of you utilizing the mirrorless system? Will I miss the resolution of FF or be completely satisfied with the move. I'm not really interested in the Sony system.</p>

<p>Any and all responses are appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Glenn</p>

<p>I have an N90 where I replaced the camera back with a brand new one (original Nikon equipment). Have never used the camera since replacing the back. If you're interested...let me know.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Puppy Face...Thanks for the input, however I have never used my 5D3 for video and don't intend to. It's a feature that I never needed or wanted. As you mentioned, I don't know if I could handle the noise and distractions to myself and those around me. Aloha! </p>

<p>Thanks everyone! I managed a few test shots today and the images were nothing short of amazing.</p>

<p>I just recently purchased a 70-200 f/4 IS and am somewhat concerned with the noise of the IS system. I understand that the "gyro" noise is normal for up to two seconds even after releasing the shutter button according to the manual.</p>

<p>My concern is more of the continuous noise if the shutter button is depressed halfway for an extended length of time. Say I want to focus and recompose...as I hold down the shutter button halfway and recompose for any length of time the noise continues until I release the shutter. It will continue to make the "whirring" noise for as long as I hold the shutter button down halfway.</p>

<p>Please tell me this is normal and I have nothing to worry about. I've researched the web and cannot find any answers relating to extended length of time with the shutter button depressed halfway.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Glenn</p>

<p>What Niels said...can almost guarantee it's the batteries.</p>

<p>I agree with Michael. You can pick up a Nikonos for a song these days. I'm referring to the earlier models such as the Nikonos II or III, which were the simplest with no electronics.</p>

<p>When the vacation is over, you can still use it in torrential downpours or sell it for what you bought it for.</p>

<p>Bob...actually I probably would use the 100-400 for wildlife as well as landscapes.</p>

<p>Jaime...the 70-200 f/4 IS is precisely the one I was thinking about.</p>

<p>Thought I would ask the experienced photographers on photo.net to help with a decision. </p>

<p>I need a telephoto zoom to accompany the 24-105 I currently have. I shoot full frame and the lens will be used primarily for landscapes. I've been debating between the 70-200 (any version) or the 100-400. I realize there is some overlap with the 70-200, however I owned one of those in the past and absolutely loved it for landscapes.</p>

<p>The 100-400 seems to compliment the 24-105 better, I guess I'm just uncertain as to the quality of the images with this lens compared to the legendary 70-200.</p>

<p>Any insight would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Glenn</p>

<p>If your referring to deleting all of the images on the card, quite simple really. Format the card in the camera, this will erase all data on the card.</p>

<p>I can only surmise that these lenses are either stolen or inherited. Four excellent and expensive lenses with not a clue what their purposes are.</p>

<p>Funny you brought this up. I recently sold my D300 and upon inspecting it prior to the sale, I noticed those streaks as well. The camera was pristine in every other way, and only had approximately 8,000 shutter actuations.</p>

<p>I cleaned the LCD repeatedly and could not remove the streaks, they were on the underside of the glass and unable to be removed. You could only see them while the camera or LCD were turned off.</p>

<p>Not sure what causes this, however I'm sure it's more widespread than people might imagine.</p>

<p>Depends greatly on the age of the players. I shot images of my sons playing from ages 7 through 18. When they were younger, an f4 lens was more than adequate with the slower speed of play. However, as they grew older, stronger and most importantly, faster; an f2.8 lens was invaluable.</p>

<p>As you are well aware, the lighting in non-pro rinks is dismal at best. As they progress in their skills and the speed of the game increases, you will find that shutter speeds of anything less than 1/400 will not cut it. Therefore IS really doesn't come into play as it will not help freeze the action of the players. 90% of my successful shots were iso 1600, 1/400 at f2.8</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. Guess I should have formatted the card initially so that I started with an accurate shutter count. Not a problem really, I will just format it now and auto-reset to begin at "0".</p>

<p>I was just concerned that perhaps there were actually 7,000 plus images already taken with this new body. Obviously not the case.</p>

<p>Thanks again,<br>

Glenn</p>

<p>I just received my new 5dlll. I inserted an old CF card and took a couple of test shots without formatting the card. To my amazement the file indicated that it was image 7,200!</p>

<p>Did this happen because I did not format the card prior to shooting? Can the shutter count truly be that high? The camera was purchased new from B&H, so I can't imagine this happening.</p>

<p>Any advise would be appreciated.<br>

Glenn</p>

<p>Thanks William. I was thinking that 24mm would in fact be wide enough for most landscapes, in fact I used a 24mm prime for many years with film. Just want to be sure that the 24-105 is optically up to the challenge. </p>

<p>Will probably research longer lenses for different types of landscape as well as sports, hence the reference to the 70-200mm or perhaps the 100-400.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Glenn</p>

<p>Again...thanks everyone for your contributions. I've decided to go with the 5Dlll and the 24-105. As Peter stated I will go with the best body and methodically build my lenses.</p>

<p>In the past as my two boys were playing ice hockey, I needed the 70-200 f2.8 to successfully capture those images in poorly lit arenas. I no longer need that lens immediately. I'll use the 24-105 as my everyday lens and look for something primarily for landscapes in the near future. Suggestions?</p>

<p>Thank you all for your insightful input. Looks as though I have a tough decision ahead of me. </p>

<p>I've shot with Canon in the past as well as Nikon currently. I don't have a lot invested in lenses at this time so changing systems is not a major concern. Personally I prefer the ergonomics and handling of the "prosumer" Canons such as the 5D. </p>

<p>Perhaps I will look at other lenses as well. I really like the idea of the 24-105 as an all-purpose walk around lens.</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>

<p>Shortly I will be making the leap to full frame. After handling the 6D and the Nikon D600, I really do not like the small size and lack of controls on the bodies themselves. I have decided to go for the 5Dll or the 5Dlll, do not need the 36 megapixels of the Nikon D800.</p>

<p>I'm looking to the knowledgable contributors on Photo.net to help me make the decision listed in my header. For approximately the same price, I can either pick up a 5Dll with 24-105 and a 70-200 non IS or go for the 5Dlll with only the 24-105. Do you think the advantages of the newer 5Dlll are worth the extra cost or would it be wiser to invest in the 2 lenses instead?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your replies.</p>

 

<p>Gloomy day in the Harbor.</p><div></div>