donald_weston1

I have this lens, and others, that are sharper. Yes, the 70-300mmVR, 70-200mmVR, and many others are sharper. But what do you want to carry? There are times and places for all of them. The 18-200VR is a good lens if you get a sharp copy of it. I bought one early on, first batch, and was not impressed and sold it. I recently bought it again and this time have what I would consider an excellent copy. I am comfortable printing images that are in good light, not necessarily bright daytime light, and am comfortable printing up to 24x36 inches. When I am looking for a good do all lens, this fits the bill nicely. There are other times when I will bring out the other glass for specific needs but this can be a very useful lens. YMMV...

Any particular reason you did not test the lens before you left? In simiilar conditions ideally, but even a simple shooting test might have revealed the issue and you might have had a chance to deal with it, instead of being supprised upon return and not having valuable images you thought you would have. :-)If the lens is tight, no loose elements, check for LTM/M adapter being bent or other issue, dust or fog in lens?

Maybe because 8GB was the biggest size commonly available when the D200 was produced. All cameras made then and since should be able to use FAT32 compatible cards, so 16GB+ should work. Maybe someone else would know a specific reason why it would not work in the D200 camera.

As others have said, really apples and oranges. Your whole Leica kit, assuming you have more then a 50mm, weighs less then just the D3 body, and if just M7 and lens, weighs a lot less. Maybe this is an issue or not, only you can tell. I guess I would ask what the M7 is not doing for you? What you want to accomplish? Do you own any Nikkor lenses, old or new? All reasonable questions.

 

I once sold my M6 kit to go up format to a Hassy kit. For me it was the right change at the time. 15-20 years later[and older] have both an M8 and dslrs. Some folk just go with their gut, others need to find some specific need to add equipment...YMMV...

I would totally concur about the 18-200VR. It is a great travel lens, sort of what it is made for. There are always better lenses, for this or that, you can spend more or a lot more, but in the end this lens does fine. I add lenses when I have a specific need to do so. If I expect wildlife, a longer zoom, if I need more closeup, maybe a macro lens. A small fast 50mm is hard to beat anytime and you will never regret buying one. I have the 1.4 but for many here, the 1.8 is sufficient. Unless you are going on photo business trips, rarely are the trips better by carrying more gear. For self portraits, mayabe bring a Point and Shoot, I hate handing off my better cameras to someone and a small backup P&S is easy and not intimidating to almost anyone, where any dslr can be. Also not so worried if they cut and run, but common sense and a gut feeling about who you ask goes a long way on that score....have a great trip. BTW it is possible to get a lemon in any lens today, but inherently there is nothing wrong with this wide range zoom. Don

The sharpest lens is the lens you have with you......do you want to carry 3-4 lbs of lenses all the time. I have had all three at different times, at present I have the 18-200VR on my D300. I add other lenses depending on what I will do that day. I have made sharp prints up to 30 inches from any of them. The other issue is what are you going to do with the images, if not make extremely large prints, this size of larger MORE EXPENSIVE GLASS, you may not need the extra lens horsepower. Do you carry a tripod, or shoot handheld. If you shoot handheld, even the Vr in the 18-200 may be of value over the 17-55. If you shoot stopped down on a tripod at F8 or F11, the extra cost may not be needed either. One does not always need the most expensive lenses. I would take the 70-200VR if I shot outdoor sports or car racing, if the focal lengths worked for me. When I need longer I take a 70-300VR and a Tammy 17-50mm for wider. If I need macro, then a 105mm macro, if I am shooting indoors, a couple of small fast primes....basically I use the 18-200VR as a Swiss army knife...and add what I need for when I need it. YMMV....Don

With Adobe ACR, I have had issues of another kind with my D300 and that is if I don't keep the NR on low setting even at ISO 1250 or so, it smushes out a good amount of detail. My needs are to make 24x30inch posters, so noise is an issue but preserving detail is also very important. FYI....This is shooting with fast primes and no flash. Noise is most likely seen in shadown areas that are underexposed relatively to the rest of the scene.

agreed, and often a faster prime is better still, like a 85mm 1.8 or 1.4 on a crop body or even a 135/2....flash ruins the ambience and can distract the musicians, and in some venues is just not allowed.

Yakim - i was not suggesting you buy a Nikon as an alternative,:-), but since most macro is done on a tripod, at least for non moveable objects, hehe. either a ZF 100mm macro or a different lens, like a 70-200L IS with HQ macro lens up front? Both things exist, curious what you are using now, that you are not satisfied with? With either option suit you...

without an adapter to convert the software or language issues that may differ between Canon's IS and Nikon's VR and other automated parameters, I would guess there is not a way for this to communicate or work. Not saying it can't be done, but wondering why, you would not just buy an IS lens in the first place. I know there are better[sharper] VR lenses then some that Canon offers but surely there are more fluid methods to achieve this then jury riggin such a device in the first place...just confounded by it all....sort of like using FD lenses on an M8....I mean there are better alternatives, I know you know this Yakim.....

Patrick - just a couple of quick questions, how much did you use the 60mm Macro, as the 18-200VR focuses fairly close? Was the 200mm[=300mm] enough of a telephoto for you? Considering a trip and wondering about other lenses, such as a 16mm instead of a 10-20mm, 50mm 1.4, and 70-300mmVR. size and weight are considerations. Thanks, Don

It all depends on what one likes to shoot. If you do lots of portraits, then the 4:5 is preferable, but alas it would not be too good for landscapes. I used a Hassy for about 15 yrs so my choice would be square, 20-24mp, using the same 35mm image circle. This allows maximum useage of all our lenses without the corner issues. That would give the most and still allow cropping when needed. I would prefer to do all cropping in PP, just like the ol' days. And lastly, no reason to flip the damn camera again on a tripod or any other time. Also, and don't kill me, but an focus confirmation indicator for scenes of difficulty...am sure that there are other things but those come to mind first....Don

....or on my M8, sorry thought that might not be clear...:-)

In fact I get much better flash exposures in A mode with SB 800, sb 24, and old Vivitar and Sunpak flashes then I do in TTL mode with either my Canon or Nikon dslrs...fwiw....Don

Istvan - it would be helpful if we knew how you intend to use the cameras......they both have their strong points and with a newer 5d model on the supposed horizon, the prices on the 5D are very attractive....but only if it fits your needs for the type of shooting you do....jmo...Don

So did my old Canon Pro 1, but by todays standards, images were noisy and camera was SLOW. Still got good images overall for a smallish camera, most likely could get one cheap used somewhere...

Times have changed, two+ decades ago it was 35mm and 4x5 kits, on honeymoon, also 2 decades ago, Leica R and Mamiya 645 kits, last summer trip with just the wife to Paris, no kids, it was an XTI, 2 zooms and a G7....depends on what you want to shoot and what there is to shoot as others have said. You go on this great trip, you want memorable images, we all do, otherwise we would not take a camera period, and we would not be posing the question. Are you going anywhere where there would be no power accessible and need AA conveniences, are you also taking a camcorder, are you shooting wild life, small or large...these are all factors in what to bring or not. We all have too much gear, :-) else we would just take the P&S. Take what you are comfortable carrying when you have to carry it be it an hour or a month+. My wife for better or worse was NEVER a pack animal, so I schlepped it all, that said my gear bags have decreased in size over the years, just can't carry 50+lbs of stuff anymore, and thankfully digital has helped in that regards. I guess carry what you NEED, if you do not think you will use if for more then 5-10% of the images on a long trip, then just maybe you can leave it home. Enjoy the journey....JMHO...Don

What is surprising to me, I was hoping that the D3 had more detail. Not that it should as they all have similar Mp counts, but that alone does not seem to be a reason toward one camera or other. The high ISO lack of noise, high frame rate and 2 CF slots will have to be the reason to go the D3 way. As a D300 owner, I am glad the 3 models are as close as they are at low ISO ratings. Does anyone have any D3 images using older AIS wide angles. I had a 5D and was always disappointed with Canon wides, so just wondering, how these lenses perform on the D3.

I would agree with Robert totally, I find 2.8 zooms less than handy for indoor sports like basketball, unless you can use flash, and that is just not allowed in many gyms. Also I would find this very distracting for the players, to see a bunch of profess. grade on camera flashes going off in my face. I stick with one or two bodies with fast prime lenses, usually a 24mm 1.8 for in close shots near the baskets and either a 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8. I try to shoot these at f2. DOF at this end of the apertures is minimal and high school kids are quick, hehe and being an old foggie I am not so.... Light conditions range from POOR to HORRENDOUS in most gyms, both in quality and type. WB can be tricky, and I just won't shoot in raw, too many images to go through and fine jpegs work fine for most press useage. If you know how to do a custom WB great, if not you might want to learn unless the end use is bw for newspaper or other. There are times I even shoot in manual focus mode and manual exposure is most of the time. Images can be wrecked by an off chanced ceiling light in the field and where it is in the background. It is a lot of fun...

I have a D80, and have sold my D200 a few weeks ago, anticipating the D300, which I am told will be to me by early Dec. For you it depends on just what and how you do what you do or what you would like to. I make fairly large prints, take some high school sports shots and can use both the increase in file size [although it is marginal], the better high ISO capability, and speed. These simply are the bigger advantages, but also for me the larger LCD on the back is a plus, being over 50. The ability to put a extra pack or grip if you will and go up to 8 fps from 6fps also is a small advantage. You have to sit down and think about how and what you do and see if the D300 is worth it to you and just how deep you finances are. IF money is an issue, the D200 is an excellent camera and very capable in its own right. I kept the D80 over the D200 for a couple of reasons, first being is it lighter and would be used as a backup, but also the noise I find is far less of an issue at 1000-1600 ISO then with the D200. Hope this helps....Don

I have the Tamron for both my Nikon and Canon dslrs. It is light, fast focusing for a non afs lens, a great value. I had the 17-55mm Nikkor and never saw a large difference in my images. My camera bag is lighter and my images are great.<div></div>

Just a followup question, what harm would it be if it was set to polarize the scene, isn't it the same two stops either way? Don

I think it all comes down to what and how you shoot, period. IF you want the lightest kit, then the 18-200VR is the way to go for most normal shooting. Other lenses are more for special needs, tasks, e.g. wildlife, architecture, weddings or large prints. Just remember those that have a bad time with a particular lens, it is not that the whole model line that is not good, they just got a bad sample, which happens. Some lens models seem more prone to this than others, but it is possible to have a bad copy of any lens. It is always best to buy a particular lens with a return privelege if the store won't let you try before you committ. JMO....

As a past owner of two 5D and 3 17-40mm Canon lenses, I can tell you everything is not so straight forward. It will depend on personal criteria to a certain extent. I gave up after about a yr of trying, resolved with the personal conclusion that to truly get what I expected out of the camera for wide angle work, I would have to invest in manual high end glass. For some this worked, but I wanted AF and none of the Canon or Sigma options seemed to be good enough. I use a 7600 printer. What Nikon has done is great, maybe their microlense designs will be enough with their lenses old and new to make the difference. I await Bjorn's future reviews on this with interest. I can see how a FF camera will appeal to say Wedding, architecture or other field shooters, but many good DX designed lenses exist already. For travel, nature, DX format has its advantages too. So time will tell, there may be surprises as many have said prior, so of the old classic glass that we all wish to use again may or maynot bear fruit with the new cameras, add in sample variation between body and lenses and it can be a serendipitous result or disaster....fwiw. Don

Cammo- I guess it all comes down to what landscapes and portraits you do and how you do them. If you are backpacking the 400D and 17-85mm lens will cover most if not all of what you need for scenics, and save you some weight. If that is important. If you shoot from the road or dayhikes then the durability of the 40D might be needed, or the weight won't matter as much. If you want to make larger prints and pixel peep, then the 17-55mm and a tripod will be needed to maximize this sharpness and detail, but you will most likely need another lens also for any wildlife, that being a telephoto or tele zoom lens. It all comes down to knowing what the use will be for the equipment and your expectations for the final results. If you are just posting pretty images online, at screen resolution, then stick with the lighter body and 17-85mm lens, you will never need the extra durability or sharpness of the 40D or 17-55mm lens. If you plan to or may get more serious in your images and gear then get the best combo you can to start. Either way, most photographers even not the gear heads update their gear far more then they did in film era. You are buying a computer that takes images, and ALL that implies. Portraiture is not so dependent on sharpness as many think unless you are shooting ideal young models. The rest of us look fine with a degree of "unsharpness". If you can figure out your needs and expectations, then you will come to the right decision. Just to throw another idea in the mix, I recently went to Europe with an XTI[400d] and 18-200mm Sigma OS, and this was not only light weight, but offered great sharpness without a lot of gear. I own an Epson 7600 printer and can easily make 24-30 inch prints. Best of Luck, Don W.