BernardMiller

<p>I've had the experience of actually handling one of these--briefly. I got on the train last weekend in South London, and the fellow next to me pulled one out of his bag with the beastly zoom lens on the front of it. So of course I couldn't resist chatting him up and showing him the M6/50 Summilux I was carrying in my coat pocket. Turns out he teaches in the Leica Akademie here, and so Leica gives him new things to try out.</p> <p>The lens is kind of monstrous, as the photos have indicated--but it's not as heavy as you might expect. The camera body feels really nice, though--it's *not* quite as huge as you may have imagined. t's very light but has a feeling of being extremely solid (it was fairly smaller, and felt much more precisely engineered than a Nikon F3 + MD-4--although it strongly reminded me of that combination in tactile feel) and comfortable in the hand. The viewfinder really is stunning, and the simplicity of the controls is reassuring.</p> <p>The gentleman in possession of it, who'd been using it for nearly two weeks, was quite enamoured of it. He said he'd started out shooting on film Ms, had moved on to the M9 and 240, and that he'd been most favourably impressed indeed with the capabilities and the usability of the camera, both in the studio and out. He said he had the adapter for M lenses, and that they worked quite well on the camera (although he didn't have any of that with him at the time, as he'd just finished a studio shoot with the one lens currently available for the SL).</p> <p>In the very short time I handled it, I was quite impressed. I'm not sure I'd go for the 24-90 lens, as it was more the size of my Nikon 80-200 (it was smaller--but only just), but if you've got a lot of R lenses sitting around and want to put them to use on a digital body, it would have to be a very attractive possibility indeed. </p>

This is an ancient thread, but I figured I'd chime in in case anyone is researching this camera. I acquired one for a song not too long ago, because it needed a bit of work on a rear shutter curtain. But since I figured it could use a CLA anyway, I just had it all done at once. And I'm loving the camera! It gets loads of use in the studio, supplanting my beloved 500CM for nearly everything there. A mate of mine bought one, too, but to use his digital back on it primarily - a Phase One P30. He doesn't seem to have needed to get the camera adjusted - the results he's getting are brilliant, including backstage at fashion shows and shooting live music (on stage with pretty raucous acts which drown out the camera's, ahhhh, unsubtle clanging and whirring). This camera and the Phase One backs are a killer combination, particularly as you can simply pop the back off and rotate it to switch between portrait and landscape orientation. It's definitely making me long for the day I can afford to get a digital back. With the 553ELX, you can have the best of both the analogue and digital worlds. The 553ELX is a big, heavy, noisy beast as others have pointed out. But it is majorly fun to shoot, it impresses the hell out of your clients, and it is just a *sexy* piece of kit that looks as wonderful as it handles. It's something that makes you want to grab it and go do amazing things with it. It won't make great images on its own of course, even with the great Zeiss glass on it (my friend and I both have the CF 50 FLE which more than any other lens just seems to mate automatically with it), but as it urges you to up your game, inspires you to go out and search for things to use it on, and is as fun to play as certain guitars, it's a fair bet you'll end up doing good work with it. (Mine's most recent adventure came Halloween evening when I loaded up black and white film, slapped on a Metz flash to take advantage of the TTL capability, and walked around my part of South London photographing partygoers on the street.)

<div></div>

<p>And Demetrius, David is too humble to mention it, but he happens to be one of the most trusted Hasselblad servicemen in the country. You could do far worse than sending your back to him, and letting him practice his excellent and reasonably priced service upon it--I've benefited greatly from his expertise and quality work.</p> <p>May I suggest that as the wisest course of action, so you can begin enjoying your wonderful 500CM fully. Best of luck with it!</p>

<p>One other thing: as Tony said, the Zeiss folders do have quite a reputation for producing quality images. However, even with them--as with all folders--you have to hope that the lens is properly aligned and that the standards have never taken a bump. With medium format, even a slight lens misalignment will produce visible unsharpness in areas of the image.</p> <p>The other problem with the Zeiss folders is that you can have to pay for that quality. I got my Baldax for somewhere around £20, and I think I recall the fellow threw in the Watameter. I've seen rangefinder Agifolds going for a little under £100 for the later versions, occasionally a bit more. Some of the most highly-desired Zeiss folders (especially the 6x9 models) will run you up to £200 or even more in good working condition. At those prices, you're possibly better off buying a camera that's a little easier to use and probably more robust, and which may actually produce better images than the Zeiss even.</p> <p>Still, folders are fun to play with--and under appreciated. If you find one you like at a good price, grab it and have fun, and accept that the results may and frequently will surprise you--for better or worse.</p>

<p>The rangefinder versions tend to have a good reputation--if you want an Agifold, that's the one to go for. (Caveat: I've never owned one myself. I have done a bit of research on them though, because they were once made in the grand town of Croydon <sarcasm> where I now live, and so I've always thought it would be nice to have one.)</p> <p>With old folders, the lenses won't be quite up to Hasselblad standards, as I'm sure you're aware, and how sharp the images you see online are will depend on how careful the user was in focusing--did they estimate focus, or did they use a rangefinder to determine the distance? (I have an old Baldax folder with an auxiliary Watameter rangefinder that I use to measure distance before dialling it in on the lens, which helps.) If you're looking at something where someone estimated the distance and then shot at F8 or larger, the resulting image may simply be out of focus, as with medium format you're not going to get a lot of depth of field at that aperture, especially if you're fairly close to what you're shooting. And then of course, how did they scan the negatives? That will play a part, too.</p> <p>Based on my experience with the folding Baldax, if you measure the distance carefully and dial it in on the lens accurately, you'll get <em>reasonably</em> sharp shots. Because you are shooting medium format with a three- or four-element consumer lens, which is probably uncoated or at most single-coated, your images will have a bit of, aaaah, character, which you simply have to accept as part of the package with shooting this kind of camera. If you're wanting <strong>sharp</strong> images in 6x6, you really probably need to move up to something like a Yashicamat or a Mamiya TLR, as they'll give you some of the best quality at the cheapest prices in medium format. You're <em>not</em> going to get that consistently with a folding camera.</p>

<p>Hi, Gerald. Not sure where you live, but I'm using Speedotron gear in London. Fortunately, it has performed extremely reliably overall, even on a heavy-duty transformer.</p> <p>The one time it did fail on me, I tried practically every flash sales/service outlet in the UK. Not one of them was willing to service it. Some worked only on one particular brand and were unwilling to work on any others, those who advertised they serviced multiple brands flatly refused to work on Speedotrons, as they are almost unheard of in Britain and they are not familiar with them. One technician told me that because of the voltages in the capacitors, it is possible to die if one makes a mistake while working on the power packs, and so they only worked on models they knew thoroughly. </p> <p>I ended up hauling it back to the US when I returned for a holiday and sending it off to Chicago for a factory repair.</p> <p>Hope you have better luck than I did, but be prepared for a lot of refusals.</p>

<p>I am very sorry to tell you that Sam Kennedy, who *was* Dasaga Photographic, passed away suddenly a few months back. I regularly sent Norman gear to him for service--he was great, and always very helpful--but when I tried to contact him back in August for some repair work, his wife informed me of his passing. A real shame, sadly.</p> <p>Fortunately, there is what seems a very good Norman resource still--contact Brent Hollister at hollyflash.com (brent@hollyflash.com, 1-800-988-7111). </p> <p>Sam's widow said she was referring all his former business to them, as they had enjoyed a good relationship, and Brent was very patient and helpful when I got in touch with him, talking me through several options--and recommending the cheapest and in his opinion best--even though it meant I wouldn't end up sending work to him after all. I was well pleased, and I will definitely send things his way when they do indeed need servicing.</p> <p>Hope that helps!</p>

<p>I think you've been given lots of good advice above. Personally, having lived in Britain for over a decade now, I'd probably refer them to the reply given in the case of <a href="http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08/arkell-v-pressdram.html">Arkell v. Pressdram.</a></p>

<p>There are two things I'm not sure about: (1) how frequently just the adapter ring comes up for sale and (2) whether the adapter ring is the same as the one used for the G2 hood, which I own. It doesn't look quite the same as mine in photos I could find, so you'll want to make sure any 77mm adapter ring offered for Mamiya hoods will fit your G3.</p> <p>Depending on how much you paid for the hood, you might want to return it, and just buy another with everything included. There are a few listed on eBay right now that have at least the hood and ring--they seem to be more common and cheaper from Japan. (I've bought a few RZ lenses from reputable sellers in Japan, and have had no problems.) I didn't see the adapter ring offered for sale by itself on eBay, but there is at least one gel filter holder listed.</p> <p>Or, KEH has some listed right now in more complete condition: </p> <p>https://www.keh.com/235702/mamiya-rz-blws-hood-g3</p> <p>You could also try ringing B&H's used department. They'll quite likely have it--the website is down for maintenance right now, so I can't check.</p>

<p>Did it come with the adapter ring? There is an aluminum ring with 77mm threads at one end, which screw into the lens, and a ring at the other to attach the hood to.</p> <p>You can see a (very small) photo of the hood, adapter and gel filter holder here:</p> <p>http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5705/21045389062_c8468e2f71_m.jpg</p> <p> </p>

<p>It's called unrestrained--indiscriminate and clumsily unsubtle--use of the Surface Blur filter. I make it clear to people that I am *not* going to make them look like they have plastic/reptilian skin. I explain that (a) as a professional I use sharp lenses, and I'm not going to make their results look like they came from some crappy rubbish and (b) I *like* skin texture, scars and flaws--they are what gives us character, individuality and a history. That keeps me from getting some commissions--but I don't give a flying-you-know-what. They wanna pay for that crap, they can go find someone--cheap--who'll do it for them.<br> <br /> (My policy when doing portfolio shoots for people is that if it's a temporary thing--a pimple or something--I'll retouch it. But if it's a permanent feature, it's gonna stay...although I might ameliorate the prominence of it, just a bit.)<br /> <br />My hero is a certain obstinate West Coast American photographer who once hung a sign in his studio window which read, "Edward Weston, Photographer, Unretouched Portraits."</p>

<p>I've used my 2.8F occasionally out in the street in London, and as several people have already said above, generally folks don't mind you shooting them with it, some who would probably baulk at a DSLR are actually willing to let you if you use such an ancient camera, and you'll probably get several people who are fascinated by the camera (and may even know something about them) and will want to chat with you about it.</p> <p>Go for it! You should have great fun.</p>

<p>I’ve been propositioned about the use of my photos which is a little beyond my experience, so I’m hoping someone can give me some good information and advice—for which I would be most grateful.</p> <p>I’ve been approached by the producers of a television series—not a major network, but it will be seen over the entire U.S. and is by an established, successful company which has a very popular niche market—who want to use some of my boxing photos to decorate the walls of a gym set that will be used in a number of episodes during the upcoming series. It won’t feature in every episode, but will probably be used in up to a half-dozen of them, maybe a bit more.</p> <p>Most of the shots involved are action shots, a few are of fighters posing after fights, some are training shots from various gyms—basically, the kind of thing you’d find on the walls of any proper boxing gym, in order to give the set a bit of “authenticity.”</p> <p>Here’s what I need to know: would I need to track down and get releases from the people in the photos themselves? I’d think not, as these would be used for “artistic” rather than commercial purposes in the sense of endorsing products or implying the endorsement of same, but surely there is someone here who knows the actual legal view of this under U.S. law, and could tell me what is required.</p> <p>Also, what should I think about charging, and *how* should I charge? What kind of usage terms should I be looking at for this sort of thing? I’ve sold plenty of photos to print outlets and provided promotional photos for musicians and dancers, so I know how all that works, but I’ve never sold images for something like this, and I would really appreciate any info and suggestions anyone would be generous enough to provide. I do intend to research Getty’s prices to see if they have some similar situation covered and use that as a baseline, but I’d definitely like any other information that would help me figure out how to proceed, perhaps from someone who has done this sort of thing before.</p> <p>Cheers!</p>

<p>If you like your Yashica, and yet you're wanting to be able to use a range of lenses, I'd definitely consider the Mamiya C220/C330 family. They're really not that heavy at all, particularly when you factor in the lenses--even with the doubled lenses, they're still lighter than some comparable medium format SLR lenses.</p> <p>For example, Here's a comparison between same/similar focal lengths for Hasselblad and Mamiya TLR:</p> <ul> <li>Zeiss 50/F4 CF 800g, Mamiya 55/F4.5 360g</li> <li>Zeiss 60/F3.5 CF 860g, Mamiya 65/F3.5 340g</li> <li>Zeiss 80/F2.8 CF 510g, Mamiya 80/F2.8 310g</li> <li>Zeiss 180/F4.0 CF 1075g, Mamiya 180/F4.5 Super 640g</li> </ul> <p>(Sources: Graham Patterson's Mamiya TLR Summary, mir.com)</p> <p>I would believe a Mamiya TLR body would probably weigh less than a Hasselblad body and back. I'm too lazy at the moment to look up <em>those</em> figures, however. The Mamiya lenses are also super compact--you can throw a body and three or four lenses in a fairly small bag, leaving loads of room for film, meter, etc.--and they are really, really cheap. Plus, you can focus much closer with a Mamiya TLR, if you're doing semi-macro shots in nature, especially if you use a tripod and a paramender. I did some really nice closeups of orchids one time with my TLR, a bit of flash, and the 65mm lens. And you can handhold/use a monopod at slower shutter speeds with the TLR, as you won't have to worry about mirror vibrations. Finally, as the Mamiya TLRs are very simple (especially the C220 versions, as they don't have the automatic shutter cocking mechanism) and quite well built, they tend to work pretty much forever.</p> <p>All that being said, I <em>did</em> trade in my C330f and four lenses (55, 65, 80 and 180--plus a bit of cash, of course) on a Hasselblad system. I had acquired a Rolleiflex, and I decided I needed to keep only one TLR as I'm not a collector--if I'm not using it regularly, it has to go. Because I was able to get a Hasselblad kit (camera, two backs, two lenses), which I'd been lusting after, for fairly cheap (especially so when the dealer gave me a generous trade in allowance on the Mamiya kit, which was in good shape), I decided to go in that direction.</p> <p>As I don't consider it a pain at all to carry around a 'Blad with one lens and a couple of backs in a small bag, I don't think you'd find a complete Mamiya TLR system to be heavy in any way. If the Zeiss lenses are indeed better than the Mamiya lenses, you'll be hard pressed to see it--you'll probably be well happy indeed with the results from the TLR, so if the Hasselblad lenses are actually better, you'd probably be in ecstasy with them. As long as you're prepared to pay the price for them.</p> <p>Overall, if you're looking for great quality, small size/weight, and especially if you are on a budget, the Mamiya TLR system offers some of the best bang-for-buck--maybe, with its versatility, reliability and image quality, the very best in that department--in medium format. I'd bet with careful shopping, you could get a body and three-lens kit, along with some other handy accessories, for less than $600, maybe even cheaper. Leaving more cash for film and processing!</p> <p>Mamiya TLRs also offer some additional advantages over their more expensive rivals. (I won't comment on systems I haven't used, or am not at least pretty familiar with.) I also have an RZ67 (and used to own an RB67), and you're right, it's big, heavy and not fun to carry around on long hikes. Not only is the Mamiya TLR lighter than the 'Blad and doesn't have mirror slap to worry about, Hasselblads have a tendency to be a bit temperamental--they can jam, meaning you might have to carry around the special tool for fixing this problem, and I've got a couple of backs that will do nasty things to film spacing and are prone to scratching the film if you don't watch them. (A service will fix the first of those, when I get around to/can afford it, but the scratch issue I have discovered is caused by a slight design flaw in the backs.) The Mamiya 7 lenses are legendarily good, but they don't focus as close, they can be quite expensive--they're certainly pricier by far than Mamiya TLR lenses--and the camera itself can also be a bit fragile in the field because it's made considerably of plastic. And if your rangefinder is out of whack or out of agreement with a lens (a not uncommon problem with rangefinder cameras in general), you'd probably be totally unaware of this until far too late.</p> <p>Good luck! Several folks have offered really good advice above, I hope that mine is at least somewhat useful in helping you decide what to do.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Actually, the LCD bleed thing is <strong>not</strong> always obvious when you examine the camera.</p> <p>I owned an F4 that when I purchased it, appeared to be perfect. Yet one hot summer day, I pulled it out of the drawer to use and noticed the phenomenon, which had blacked out most of the frame counter readout. But later, on a cooler day, I grabbed the camera again (I was using it only infrequently, which is the main reason I sold it), and the problem seemed to have disappeared.</p> <p>So, I would say that in <em>some</em> cases, the appearance of LCD bleed may be temperature dependent. Your camera might actually have it, but it may only manifest itself visibly on days where the temperature is at the right level for it to show.</p>

<p>I can't swear to it, and as I'm currently in the U.S. at the moment and the back is in London I can't check it, but I do believe 32 seconds is the longest exposure possible. </p> <p>What happens in Sinar CaptureShop 6.1.2 is that there is a slider to choose the exposure time that the back records. This may not necessarily match the shutter speed on the camera--the only thing is that the exposure set in software must be equal to or longer than the actual shutter speed, in order to record everything that comes through the lens while the shutter is open.</p> <p>So, yes, I *think* the longest exposure you can set in the software is 32 seconds. Wish I could confirm, and I'll try to remember to do so when I get back to the UK in a few weeks.</p>

<p>Several people have seemed to imply that the D700 is a "dead" camera at this point. But I beg to differ--depending on what you're doing with it, it's actually much better than anything in Nikon's current lineup for specific purposes.</p> <p>In fact, when my own D300 died a year back I replaced it with--a D700. Why?</p> <p>Because as pointed out above, it takes the same grip as a D300. And with that grip, and the proper battery, you can get 8 frames per second. The full-frame sensor, with its fewer but larger photosites, has (as also pointed out above) an advantage, despite the aged technology, in high ISO performance. Not only that, and for me this is the big objection to the current lineup, the D700 is built like a bloody tank--it's a rugged, fully professional body that can take loads of abuse. None of Nikon's current bodies (except the flagship, super expensive pro bodies) offer this standard of construction and performance combined with a reasonable number of pixels that would keep the frame rate up and not fill up cards excessively quickly.</p> <p>As I shoot loads of professional boxing, live music and clubs, these things are all considerations, important ones, for me--and right now, Nikon has no other body that offers all that in one package. Particularly at the very attractive price D700s are going for nowadays. (I'd love it if they'd put out a body <em>exactly</em> like the D700, with 20 or so megapixels, an identical--or higher--frame rate, and a stop or two improvement in high ISO performance. Alas, I don't think it's coming.) As Leigh is shooting activities that are similarly demanding, it might actually be a good idea for him to consider a D700, especially if he already has the MB-D10 grip.</p> <p>And as far as image quality, I've printed 20 x 30 inches from a D300 (in good light) and they looked quite good. I'm sure prints that size from my D700 would look just as good--or likely even better. How many megapixels do you need for photos that you can't get because the camera won't keep up with what you're shooting?</p> <p>One of these days, I would love to have a D810 for studio work, as it *feels* like a proper camera and produces all the quality you could ask for. (I've rented one, and yes it was fun.) However, I'd never take that to a boxing match with me--the D700, for all its age, is simply quite likely a better tool for that sort of thing, and so it will be earning its keep for a while still with me.</p>

<p>I know this might be too late to perhaps be of use to the original poster, but it may be helpful to anyone researching the topic, so I'll pitch in my two cents.</p> <p>I'm now shooting my RZ67 Pro II digitally--and loving it. I acquired a decade-old Sinarback 54M at a great price, and even though it's "only" 22 megapixels, it's 22 *fantastic* MP.</p> <p>Here's a full-resolution sample--which has been sharpened for print so it may appear over sharpened on screen, but it will indicate the amount of detail present when used with the 180 W-N lens:</p> <p><a href="http://www.presquevu.com/apa071.jpg">Portrait of Ade</a></p> <p>The back has to be shot tethered, but I'm using it in the studio nearly always, so that's not a real problem. And it's old enough that you have to use Sinar's proprietary capture software, it won't work with Lightroom or Capture One (but Sinar's software is quite good, and will run on Yosemite--and it captures as DNG files, so all is well and you *can* use any of the major apps to process the files in post). It does need a wakeup cable connected to the sync terminal on the lens, but with the RZ I just use a radio trigger for my strobes in the hot shoe, so again no problem there. The sensor is 36mm x 48mm, therefore precisely double the size of a full-frame 35mm DSLR.</p> <p>Why would someone use an RZ67 instead of a 645AFD or, say, a Nikon D810? Especially with an older back like mine?</p> <p>First of all, it does slow you down somewhat--although you can fire a frame every 2-3 seconds--and you had *better* make sure that you have focused accurately. And because of the two cables hanging out of the back (the wakeup cable and the Firewire tether cable) I almost always shoot it on a tripod. So it's more the careful kind of MF photography that some of us like better for the discipline--absent the irritating necessity to reload film every 10 shots.</p> <p>It has the rotating back adapter, so no need to rotate the camera to switch between landscape and portrait mode. The larger sensor real estate than on a DSLR gives more of a medium-format character to the photos.</p> <p>Finally, and most importantly, price. I'd never be able to touch one of the newest backs or camera/back combinations. However, I picked up an RZ67 Pro II kit with two lenses--and have added more since, quite cheaply--for the equivalent of $600 (£400 to be exact) and the back cost me less than $1500 (£990). So for less than a D810 would cost without a lens, I'm shooting stuff that has superb image quality--and the fact that it *is* so different from a DSLR is fascinating to my clients. So it's been well worth it. A D810 would of course be a whole lot more versatile, and I'll probably get one (or whatever comes next) at some point. But for what it cost me, my setup has been quite worth it. Oh, and the RZ67 can do one thing the D810 definitely <em>can't</em> do: I can always slap a film back on the camera and shoot analog--I still love shooting/printing black and white--along with my digital!</p>

<p>I'm a bit late chiming in, but I would <em>highly</em> recommend the 180 for the RZ67. I've got the W-N version, and it's excellent.</p> <p>I'm shooting with a recently-acquired ancient--but still very capable indeed--Sinarback 54M, which I got for a relative song in the medium format digital world. You do have to shoot with it tethered, but as I'm using it almost exclusively in the studio, that's not a problem--and at the price I got it for, it was well worth it.</p> <p>Here's an example of what that back and the 180 will do. (It has been sharpened for print, so viewed full-resolution on screen, it may appear to be a bit over sharpened--but it will show you what you can get out of this combination.)<br> <br> <a href="http://www.presquevu.com/apa071.jpg">Portrait of Ade</a></p>

<p>While I'd love to get my hands on a 210 APO, I must say that the 180 W-N is stunningly sharp for portraits, if you're shooting head shots. Here's one at full resolution from my Sinarback 54M:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.presquevu.com/apa071.jpg">Portrait of Ade</a></p>

<p>This is an old thread, but in case someone runs across it while researching this lens, I want to correct the misinformation in the above two posts.</p> <p>If you have either of the <em>earlier </em>versions of the 65--the Z or W versions, <em>not </em>the M L-A--then those lenses do not have the floating system. The blue ring in that case <em>is</em> only for gauging depth of field.</p> <p>If you have the M L-A version, then the blue ring (which on this lens is ridged all the way around instead of being smooth) controls the floating elements. As some folks above who actually know what they are talking about have <strong>correctly </strong>pointed out, you do the following: (1) focus the lens using the viewfinder, (2) estimate the distance or use the scale on the side of the camera, if you have time, to determine the precise focused distance, and (3) dial in the focused distance on the blue ring using the index mark at the top centre of the lens, which has the number 4 (for maximum aperture) above it.</p> <p>It's pretty easy, really, as long as you have the right information on how to do it.</p>

<p>I recently purchased a second-hand D700 to replace my old D300, which finally died. The D700 perfectly fits *my* needs:</p> <p>It's built to a rugged professional standard. It has a built-in flash, which I frequently use in Commander mode when shooting clubs and things. 12 megapixels is quite sufficient for my purposes--I've printed 20x30 inches from the D300, and those looked very good indeed; at more moderate sizes, 12MP is more than enough--and because the files are not *too* large, I can shoot rapidly--eight frames per second with the MB-D10, which also fit my D300--and not fill up memory cards too quickly. I also shoot a lot of pro boxing ringside for publication, and I need something that's fast, good in low light, and will stand up to abuse. The D700 has an AF motor in the body, meaning I can use it with all my AF lenses, including the pre-AFS lenses, and it will drive either kind rapidly. The D700 has a viewfinder that can be used to focus MF lenses with reasonable facility--and unlike the newer full-frame cameras, you can put a KatzEye screen in it, if you do a lot of that.</p> <p>So yeah, one day I wouldn't mind a D810 for studio stuff, when I want to print *really* large or if I decide I want to shoot video (and I have rented a D800/D810 for both those reasons on occasion). But that would be as a *supplement* to my D700--for 95% of what I do, the D700 works really, really well. And I've had no desire whatsoever for a newer, "better" camera. At current prices, the D700 is really a heck of a bargain.</p>

<p>Don't sell that 24-120 short, Jose--especially if it's the latest, apparently optically improved version of the lens. A couple of years back I went to a talk by Steve McCurry here in London. At the end, during the Q&A part, came the inevitable question about favourite kit.</p> <p>The gear heads perked up, expecting McCurry to rattle off a list of expensive and exotic prime lenses. Instead, he casually responded with "Oh, I generally shoot everything with the 24-120 F4." Noting the shocked expressions on a number of people's faces, he explained, near as I can quote, "It's really sharp, it's got all my favourite focal lengths, it's fast enough for me to shoot in daylight, and I only have to carry around one lens, so yeah, I use that most of the time."</p> <p>I'd <em>hope</em> no one has a problem with his work on technical grounds!</p>

Well, one thing that will trash your camera is if the shutter dies. My D300 is on its fourth. The first two times it died, I had it repaired. The most recent one, they wanted nearly £450 to replace it and you can buy a second hand D300 (no s) for under £300. So it made no economic sense to repair it. As I'd been wanting to move to full frame - I've had most of my lenses forever, so all but a couple were FX - I chose to jump to the D700.