jim_meyer1

This answer is coming late to the thread, but things have changed since 1998, so here is another suggestion. I use a Gitzo 1127 Mountaineer carbon-fiber tripod with a Really Right Stuff B25 pro ballhead. This rig will comfortably support loads up to about 8-10 lbs, and the tripod and head weigh only about 2.7 lbs. The tripod can be extended almost to eye-level (I am about 6-3), or splayed flat to be just above ground level. For the latter, I purchased a short column from Adorama for about $35. Very nice setup, once you use a Gitzo CF you will never go back to aluminum - it is worth the extra money!

I have faced a similar situation. I already have a Nikon film camera and some nice lenses. A couple of years ago, I decided to take the plunge into digital, but didn't want to get an SLR because I didn't think that digital SLRs were "ready for prime time." The other hesitation I had was that because they are evolving so fast, whatever you buy today would be obsolete in a couple of years. That has proved to be true.

 

Instead of a DSLR, I bought a Sony DSC-F828, the predecessor to the R1. I knew it had some limitations, namely the slower response times and the difficulty of looking through an electronic viewfinder (EVF). The F828 has a 28-200 equivalent lens with a 2.0-2.4 maximum aperture, quite a nice lens really. Some of the other limitations are: Noisy above 100 ISO due to the small sensor; lack of interchangeable lenses.

 

However, it has proven to be a great camera for what I do, which is landscape work. I always use a tripod and shoot non-moving subjects, so shooting at ISO 64 is not a problem. I will probably get the R1 because of the larger sensor and because the lens covers the range I need. It is nice to use in the field because it is lightweight and you never have to worry about dust getting inside. On the other hand, if you want to shoot wildlife or sports, the lens doesn't have the range.

 

If I wanted to "do everything" camera, I would get either a Canon Digital Rebel and their nicer kit lens, or a Nikon D50 or D70s and their better kit lens. Then you can add lenses as necessary to cover the range you need. These DSLRs are very good now, and any improvements will be marginal - plus they are cheap, so even if they become obsolete, you aren't out too much money. Plus you still have your lenses. By the way, don't be cheap with lenses if you are serious about photography. I bought a couple of cheap lenses early on, and after buying some pro lenses later, I never use the cheaper ones anymore (this advice applies mainly to zooms).

Like everyone else, I am eager to see the imaging tests for the new Sony. I had just about made up my mind to get an F717 when this baby was announced. If the lens is as good as its predecessor, then this camera should be a killer. I would be willing to bet Sony has figured out a way to control the noise. I have observered one thing about electronics, going all the way back to the 70's when Dolby developed its first cassette noise reduction system to eliminate tape hiss. That is, almost any electronic/data problem can be solved through clever engineering and programming. The F717 had good noise measurements - I would be amazed if Sony would put so much into their new flagship camera and neglect this important issue.

 

One other thing: Sony has designed, built and marketed more digital still cameras than any other manufacturer. They also have quite a bit of experience with ultra high-end high-definition movie cameras. Most people don't think of Sony as a camera company, but I believe that is going to change as we get more and more into digital. This new model should go a long way toward building that image.

I use an F100 with a 180 2.8 AF, a 35-70 2.8D AF, and an 80-200 2.8D AF. I really don't think I will sell them anytime soon, because they produce such great images. I also have a couple of smaller lenses that I hardly ever use any more, since I got the 2.8's: a 28-105 3.5(?) AF and a 70-300 4.5 AF. I am very tempted to sell these, but then I think of how light and versatile they are - what if I wanted to travel light? It really is hard to part with these, even though I probably should. I am not currently in the market for any new lenses because I want to go digital, and I'm waiting to see how the Nikon digital SLR's shake out. There is a lot of change going on now in the digital realm - no one knows whether we will end up with a full-frame sensor or the smaller one Nikon is using now. With the announcement of a new DX series of lenses, it looks like Nikon will be supporting the smaller sensor for some time, although it is possible they also could develop a line of full-frame SLR's. We probably won't know for another year or two. Until I know for sure, I ain't getting rid of anything or buying any new lenses.

I finally decided to splurge about a year ago and got a Gitzo 1227. Originally, I didn't think I would like the twist-locks on the legs, but now that I have gotten used to them, I love them! It only takes about a quarter of a turn to loosen or tighten them, and they are VERY solid when tightened. The tripod is super-light, but rock-steady, easy to carry, easy to use, just wonderful. If you want to save some money, you can get this tripod from Robert White, a British company, for about $450, as I recall. Much less than anyplace in the states, even with the shipping and duties.

I for one welcome the new DX lens concept. As a couple of people have said before, it will allow for smaller, lighter lenses and cameras. What a relief it will be to carry 2 lbs of gear instead of 5, to be able to get the same shots! (And a smaller tripod and head to go with them).

 

Having worked in the computer industry for 7 years, I can tell you what is going to happen here with digital cameras. First, technology will insure that as many pixels as necessary can be crammed onto any size of sensor. Second, there are other technologies besides CMOS and CCD - witness the Foveon sensor: imperfect so far, but with great promise at only 3 megapixels.

 

The new lenses are not designed for older cameras, so why all the fuss about them not working on the FM series? You already have the 17-35. These lenses are designed to work on digital camera bodies, which are basically all-electronic. These bodies DEMAND a new type of lens, to maximize their effectiveness. That's why Olympus etal. are trying to develop a new standard.

 

If Nikon can develop new lenses to work on their new cameras, and if those lenses can be optically as good as the old ones, while at the same time being lighter, smaller, cheaper and faster - then I think that is a boon to everyone who is willing to evolve with the technology. No one said that photography would be cheap. Anyway, you can always use your older lenses and still get great results.

 

My 2c - having seen what has been going on with computers for the last 10 years or so.

 

Jim

There are some sample photos taken with the (last?) pre-production Sigma SD-9 at Photokina. Check them out at www.dpreview.com.

I have been using a Bogen 3205S (a short black version of the 3001). It is OK for shooting flowers because usually I have to get down low anyway, but I would like to get a taller tripod, since I am over 6'. I am thinking of the 3021. I have tried it in the store, and even though I would have to bend down, I wouldn't have to get on one knee as I do now.

 

As for the ballhead, I have a Bogen 3262QR. This is OK for smaller lenses such as the 28-105 3.5 or a 70-300 4.5. Recently I got a 180 2.8 which is heavier, and when you lock the ball, it tends to sag a little bit before it steadies out, so I have to compensate for that. I am planning to get a Giotto large ball head for about $110 from B&H. Reports are that it is well-made, much more solid than the 3262, AND it can accept an Arca-Swiss style clamp (available from Really Right Stuff).