marcus_andrewes

<p>Hi</p>

<p>I have a 4 week trip coming up, the majority of which will be in India. Travel will be by plane, train, automobile (sadly not with Steve Martin and John Candy!) and Shanks' Pony.<br>

This is what I want to carry:<br>

1 D3<br>

1 D2Xs<br>

1 70-200 2.8 VR<br>

1 17-35 2.8<br>

1 85 1.4<br>

1 50 1.4<br>

1 SB 800<br>

1 TC 17 E<br>

3 EN EL4A<br>

Charger & odds & ends</p>

<p>I don't want to check any of the camera gear in so it must go in the overhead as carry on when I fly.<br>

I don't want a carry solution that screams "camera bag" when I am out. I also want to carry personal stuff (iPod, book, pens, passport etc)<br>

I need to be able to work out of what bag I take and it must survive the dirt, dust etc etc. Also I don't like working out of backpacks in environments like that because you must put them down to get gear out which risks them being snatched and missed shots.</p>

<p>I am leaning towards the Think Tank Retrospective 30 at the moment as none of my existing bags (two Billinghams, a TT roller, a tenba Messenger and a Pelican roller) fit the bill really.<br>

I wondered if anyone out there had any other suggestions?</p>

<p>I don't know what receiver they are using in the GP1.</p>

<p>Most should be accurate IF they have acquired enough satellites before being required to determine position.<br>

The portable Garmin unit I have (not connected to the camera) says:<br>

"Today's GPS receivers are extremely accurate, thanks to their parallel multi-channel design. Certain atmospheric factors and other sources of error can affect the accuracy of GPS receivers. Garmin® GPS receivers are accurate to within 15 meters (49 feet) 95% of the time. Generally, users will see accuracy within 5 to 10 meters (16 to 33 feet) under normal conditions."<br>

It is a 2008 model so the receivers are probably better now; However who knows whether Nikon opted for cutting edge receivers in their product? I somehow doubt it.</p>

<p>Thanks Ilkka - very helpful.</p>

<p>I just found out this morning that there is next to no Nikon stock - of anything - in NZ at the moment due to a dispute between Nikon and their agents, apparently. Zero D3s, zero 70-200 etc etc!</p>

<p>There are suggestions that the dispute might bring NZ pricing in line with RoW pricing, which would be nice - the 70-200 VR II here is NZ$1,000 more expensive than the B&H price converted to NZ$!</p>

<p>Many thanks for your thoughts.<br>

Is the new 70-200 VR really such an improvement then?<br>

I was sad to see the loss of the focus lock buttons which can be handy and the reviews I have read have been varied in whether you should buy the new one if you have the old one already.<br>

I don't doubt it's quality of course - and it certainly looks better than the old one cosmetically which I always thought was an ugly lens (not that that really matters but form follows function etc!). Also there have been many comments about the field of view change although I am not sure that would make too much practical difference in the real world.<br>

Anyone had both?</p>

<p>Hi</p>

<p>Here's a strange question.</p>

<p>I own a 300 2.8 VR I Nikkor which I like a lot. It produces great results and is very well made.</p>

<p>However I do not use it as often as I should for something that costs NZ$10,000! This is mainly because I find it awkward to handhold for any length of time and although I do use a monopod (and sometimes a tripod) it is not always appropriate/possible when I am working.<br /> I am wondering whether to change it for a 200 f2 VR which despite being the same weight (in fact, slightly heavier according to the official specs - 2.9kg against 2.87kg for the the 300) is physically shorter by nearly 7 cm and so more easily carried and deployed.<br /> For reach I have 1.4 and 1.7 version II TC's and could add the new v III TC 20.</p>

<p>Is there anyone out there with experience of both? I use them professionally for public (press) event coverage, private event coverage, portraits, wildlife and sometimes sports.<br /> I'm off to India in September and will be leaving 300 at home, instead taking the 70-200 VR I and a TC 1.7. If I had the 200 by then I could be tempted to take it though!</p>

<p>I use one on a D3 and it's excellent.</p>

<p>In fact, I sold a 24-70 2.8 Nikkor and bought this. I find the ergonomics better. Hated the 24-70 feel although it works fine.</p>

<p>Sam has the right idea.</p>

<p>In essence, once this stuff becomes tools for making a living, you have to adjust your view of it. I do not dream of one badge or another - I can take pictures for my clients with either and frankly both produce stunning results in 90% of situations, with perhaps one having a slight edge over the other in the other 10% of situations. Both are built well and are reliable.</p>

<p>The question is very much a long term cost one: If I buy one Nikon pro body every 3 years for say the next 21 years, at current prices I will pay between NZ$66,000 and NZ$122,000. (using D3 and D3x prices)<br>

The same Canon bodies (ignoring the EOS5D Mk2) would cost between NZ$48,000 and NZ$85,000. (EOS 1D Mk3 and EOS 1Ds Mk3)<br>

Switching now to Canon would therefore save between NZ$18,000 and NZ$37,000 over that 21 year period.</p>

<p>Of course, I have ignored pricing and technology changes over the 21 years - but I have no way to account for those! Based on current pricing, you can see that Canon is much cheaper to buy, will run just as well and take just as good images.<br>

Yes, I will loose money (which can be written off as a business cost) when I sell or trade the gear (which is in great order, btw) but what I am wrestling with now is a long term business decision as much as it is anything else.</p>

<p>Thanks all. Yes, Sarah - I too am astonished! However, Nikon prices have just gone up at least 10% in the last 2 months and they have rarely if ever fallen. I just think that the market here is so small that Nikon are prepared to take whatever they can get on the grounds that it is not worth the marketing effort to secure more customers - there are, after all, only 4 million people living here and probably only a fraction of a percent of those are in the professional body buying segment.<br>

I agree with Shun that buying from the US or Canada is not a bad plan - until your camera goes wrong and you have to send it there for repair due to the protectionist warranty system Nikon have. With no NPS in NZ, there is no gear to borrow whilst yours is repaired and so on. If Nikon had a positive attitude to the customers outside the USA who buy their gear - offering 5 year warranties and NPS, that would obviously be a plus point for them.<br>

One of the dealers here has sold their entire allocation of D3x's already, which amazes me given the price.<br>

For me it is becoming an issue of price. I can't be the first person in NZ to think this, as Canon NZ actually have a dedicated staff member to assist photographers thinking of switching!<br>

Part of the problem may be that there is no "Nikon NZ" - it is all done through a distributor. Australia does have Nikon Australia and I know that gear is cheaper there.<br>

When the D3x was announced, the price in NZ was NZ$21,500 until it was pointed out to them that we could buy it in Australia for NZ$15,500! It is still way too high as an ongoing commitment though, I think.</p>

<p>Thanks Scot.<br>

I actually would prefer not to - but I am starting to question whether I can afford not to in the long term view. Buying 3 1Ds Mk3 level bodies at current pricing over the next 10 years would save me over NZ$15,000 in comparison to the D3x.<br>

That is enough to buy a Canon 800mm, another body or a new Mac! Or even a new car!</p>

<p>The only alternative is to buy overseas - and Nikon only have themselves to blame if we all start doing that. Their draconian warranty terms try and prevent this by only covering DSLR bodies in the country of purchase rather than worldwide, so they are obviously aware of what they are doing. They still cover film bodies world-wide, rather strangely.<br>

In the USA, Nikon stuff gets a 5 year warranty - in NZ, 12 months. Even the pro bodies are not internationally covered, so if your gear fails whilst overseas on a shoot, you are just stuffed.<br>

Not really very good service.</p>

<p>The primary reason for changing is an on-going cost issue.</p>

<p>Nikon prices in NZ are unreasonable - always too much. For example</p>

<p>D3x NZ$17,500<br>

1 Ds Mk3 NZ$12,150</p>

<p>D3 NZ$9,590<br>

1D Mk 3 NZ$6,850</p>

<p>D700 NZ$6,850<br>

5D Mk2 NZ$4,590</p>

<p>Thus, every time I want to upgrade my bodies, I need to find at least 30% extra cash if I stay with Nikon. Photography is not an easy way to make a living and is hardly the best paid occupation one might pick - so the cost is a very serious consideration.<br>

There are also some other valid reasons I think:</p>

<p>CPS - Nikon offers no additional pro support here, Canon do<br>

Availability of hire gear - Canon is more widely available worldwide</p>

<p>Given that DSLR's are evolving at a rate where they are obsolete within 2 to 3 years (at current rates, I predict a 50MP DSLR by 2015 at the latest) it is just more sensible to save the equivalent cash of a new lens or a new Mac each time you upgrade the body. I think! <br>

The D3 is a brilliant machine - the battery life is stunning and when it works well it is awesome. Nikon's ergonomics trump Canon's too, I think. After all - what on earth would an alien think a "Tv" setting on a camera was for?!</p>

<p>I do agree that Canon need to play catch up a bit - and I am sure that they will fairly soon; I look forward to seeing that product and hope it will be priced right.<br>

I might start with a 5D Mk2 and one lens and see how I go....</p>

<p>For various reasons, primarily because Nikon overcharge too much here in NZ, I am thinking of switching wholesale to Canon. A 1Ds 3 here is some NZ$5,000 cheaper than a D3x, for example.</p>

<p>My present kit is</p>

<p>D3<br>

D200<br>

F5<br>

24-70 2.8<br>

70-200 2.8 VR<br>

200-400 4.0 VR<br>

105 2.8 Macro<br>

SB800 speedlight</p>

<p>Body-wise I would probably go with a 1D 3 (not 's') and a 5D mk2 - I am a professional and need at least one very fast body for sports and action and high MP's would be useful for portrait and landscape stuff. I do not really need to replace the film body. I do love the high ISO capability of the Nikon D3, which I use a good deal shooting indoor sports.</p>

<p>Not being familiar with Canon lenses (I did have an AE1 Program in about 1984 though..!) I would be interested to see what choices people might recommend to cover the sort of range I have in Nikon. The 200-400 is a very expensive lens and I would actually prefer a 300mm 2.8 tele instead - but that is hardly cheaper.<br>

I am talking with Canon about borrowing some gear for a while from CPS, but will take all the advice I can get (even "don't do it!" if you have a good reason!)<br>

Ta</p>

<p>Stephen you have the right idea - although have you tried to get warranty service from Nikon Australia on any of the stuff you bought like that?<br>

I am not entirely sure I want a D3x (certainly not at $21,000 anyway!) but it is just really an illustration. For example, I have the Nikkor 200-400. The list cost here in NZ is the equivalent of US$6,500 and the same lens at Adorama is US$4,999 - yet the 300 2.8 is more or less the same as the US - but cheaper in Canada than both!</p>

<p>I would like to see consistency of net price and warranty - a customer in one location should be treated the same in another, not as a lesser being who is not deserving of the same pricing and warranty length.</p>

<p>Hans - full version of Photoshop here in NZ is NZ$1700 (US$975)</p>

<p>To put the $21,000 price into local context, the average annual salary in NZ is apparently $45,000, so the camera is 50% of the average annual wage!!</p>

<p>Hi Ross</p>

<p>Your Trade Me idea is intriguing, but I am never sure exactly how reliable and/or trustworthy that solution is! Your other comments are noted and concurred with!</p>

<p>Frankie - No, Canon seems largely in line with the USA. The EOS 1Ds Mk3 is about NZ$12,500 (US$7200) so closer in price to the USA.</p>

<p>It seems that the D3x and the 1Ds Mk3 are competing in the same market area - so why Nikon would choose to sell their product at almost double the price of the Canon offering I am unsure as well.<br>

Yes, the D3x is probably the better camera (on paper at least) and I know that there have been some problems with focussing on the EOS cameras - I think a part is being replaced foc. Yet I doubt it is genuinely worth double the price.</p>

<p>I have seriously toyed with swapping to Canon but their customer service here in NZ is rumoured to be poor (although they do offer CPS here and Nikon offer no pro backup program) with one case of a large telephoto allegedly taking 18 months to get repaired with two trips to Japan!</p>

<p>I think that Nikon are in danger of pushing consumers into the grey market that they so hope to avoid. Additionally, of course, I believe that US and Canada warranties are 5 years - in NZ, despite the high prices, we only get 12 months! At least if the warranty was 5 years you might feel that you were getting something in return.</p>

<p>Tom: Absurd is a good word for it!</p>

<p>I agree; of course it makes warranty repairs a bit more difficult because Nikon refuse to adopt the same international warranty that they provide on the 2 remaining film cameras and the lens range!</p>

<p>Presumably because they are as aware as we are that we can compare prices around the world and it is the only way that they can "force" us to buy in the home market.</p>

<p>I did not buy a 1Ds Mk 3 simply because the $25,000 worth of Nikkor lenses in my bag do not fit it..!</p>

<p>Nikon do not set the retail price - but I know for a fact that Nikon charge a much higher per unit price to the importer in NZ than they supply to Nikon USA or Nikon Australia (where the camera is NZ$5,000 equivalent cheaper than NZ). There is no Nikon New Zealand - we have a private importer - so it is tempting to say that they are reserving cheaper prices for their own distribution businesses....!<br>

The D3 (which I have) now costs NZ8000 (US$4591) which is not too bad, although Nikon lens prices here are just rising by another 10%.</p>

<p>The D3x price in New Zealand has just been announced at NZ$21,200. This is the equivalent of US$ 12,500 at current rates - some US$4,500 higher than the same camera is sold for in the USA. <br>

Additionally, Nikon US offer (I think) a 5 year warranty compared to the 1 year that Nikon offer in NZ.<br>

I know that the US is a bigger market, that there are exchange rate effects and all of that sort of thing.<br>

However, the difference is just so vast that I do not believe that those things alone can explain it. Does anyone else have any ideas what might be causing this?<br>

I will be switching to Canon soon if this apparently unfair pricing continues. The EOS 1Ds is about the same price as the US version - and that is half the cost of the D3x!</p>

It is going to be hard for me to get any more information I think; the seller is retired now and it is hard to press for details.

Also a 800km trip involved to go and view it!

He has said that he has a buyer who would take the 40mm and then he would sell me the remainder at a much reduced

price - I have no idea how useful a 40mm on a Hasselblad would be.

Here in NZ there is not a massive choice of this stuff second hand as there are only 3.5 million people here, not many of

whom buy 'blads! When I tell you that a new H3 costs 50% of the average annual salary here, you'll get an idea why!

I am told that the lenses are:

2.8 Planar 80mm T*

4.0 150mm Sonnar T*

4.0 40mm Distagon T*

5.6 250mm Sonnar (the owner did not add 'T*' after that one.)

The body is 25 yo and is a C/M - he cannot recall which V series it is.

Hi

I have never used MF although I have always wanted to. It would not be for my main photography work but for busman's holidays

shooting portrait and landscape (unless I catch the bug and go for MF digital I guess.)

I have an opportunity to purchase the following:

Hasselblad camera c/m

with

80mm f2.8 planar lens

150mm f4 sonnar lens

250mm f5.6 sonnar lens (seldom used)

40mm f4 distagon lens in own leather case (seldom used)

Two A12 backs

Polaroid back

Metered Prism viewfinder

Proxars 0.5, 1m, 2m

Lenshood

Two Handgrips

Tripod mount

Three Metal slides

All in a Hasselblad leather case.

The gear has provenance (I know the owner) and has been serviced as required although was used professionally. The camera is

approximately 25 years old and the owner is unsure of the model number.

I can buy the lot at the equivalent of US$3000 or the owner can sell the 40mm to someone else and substantially reduce the price of the

remainder.

I have yet to see it and - having never shot MF as I said - I have no real idea if I would need the 40mm anyway. It is too far away for me

to make the trip to see it on a whim so I thought I would try and get a feel from everyone here first.

I would probably shoot B&W mostly; there is a lab where I can get 120/220 developed and scanned not too far away so that is not yet a

concern.

I have a D3 and would love the buffer extension. At 9fps it does not take long to fill it up.

However.....the parts (the modification requires the fitting of a new DG board and other

minor components plus external grips) are apparently only available on special order in New Zealand and the cost is the

equivalent of US$990 rather than US$500!!

If you want to discuss gouging, how's that?! A 100% increase just because you live in NZ!!