tombest

<p>Thanks for the nod, Laura.</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>There were a team of 3 hummingbirds working the feeders on the porch of a cabin we were staying at a couple of months ago in South Carolina. It rained almost the whole time we were there but fortunately the hummingbirds would still hang around and even light from time to time within reach of my 70-200. This was a dreary day and the falling rain just emphasizes the mood.</p> <p>Tom</p><div></div>

<p>Not a lot of backstory here. Just a dog-day afternoon in the Carolinas. Sun on my face... a scratch behind the ears... life is good.</p> <p>Tom</p><div></div>

<p>Late to the party. Sorry. Tools of a lost art? This is one of the tools used by Ed Leedskalnin to build a stone monument in Miami Fl for a woman who didn't return his love. He used over 1000 tons of coral rock to build his 'palace' without the use of any modern tools or machinery. Impressive.</p> <p>Tom</p><div></div>

<p>Dieter, I assume you are referring to the Grand Series Stealth or what Induro calls their Modular tripods with an interchangeable top plate? Those have no center column and would presumably be more rigid. They certainly are rated higher as a 2-series is rated at 44# and a 3-series at 55#.<br> My concern with my current CT214 is that when I grip the camera or the spider and twist, I can see leg deflection. If you push straight down, it's solid. And that deflection translates into a slight wiggle, or can. I don't know if it's a function of it being a 2-series diameter leg or a 4-section leg. I love the weight but hate the lack of rigidity. And if I would move to a 3-series, 4-section Induro Modular, I'm sure I'd have all the rigidity I'm looking for but the carry weight goes up to 4.6#, 4.5# for a 3-section. I see I have some more research to do. Thanks for the advice.<br> Tom<br> </p>

<p>So, you're thinking a Systematic may work better for the interchangeability I'm looking for? I'm 5'7" so I need a standard sized tripod. I'll have to look into those. Also, the spider width is something I hadn't considered. That's a pretty significant difference. Thanks for the tip.</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>I currently have two tripods and am considering merging to only one. I have an Induro C413 with a Nest carbon fiber, gimbal head on it that I use for birding and such. It's a little overkill for the D7200 + 70-200 VR & TC1.4 I mount on it but a 200-500 Nikon lens is on my short list. I also have an Induro CT214 that I bought to travel with. I have an Acratech GV2 mounted on that one. The CT214 packs well and is light but IMHO, isn't as stable as I'd like. The C413 is huge and heavy but very stable. My thoughts lean towards a Gitzo GT3542 or GT3532. I'd prefer the 4-section for its ability to fit in a carry-on suitcase but if there is a difference in stability, I'll choose stability over packing ease. The Gitzo's have a considerably higher rated capacity (46#) than either of my Induros (both @ 25#). My thought is to purchase an additional stem to mount my 2nd head on and interchange the stem/head as needed. The weight of the 3-series Gitzos is only a pound more than my CT214 and two pounds less than the C413, so with exception to the sticker shock, it seems like a perfect fit. Either 3-series Gitzo seems well suited for the gimbal head, and light enough to drag around all day if I need to with the Acratech.</p> <p>I guess I'd like to hear from anyone who might have either of these Gitzos and your thoughts on the 3 vs 4 section options. A friend has an older 1-series Gitzo that is stiffer and more resistant to rotational movement than my 2-series Induro. It's not as stiff as the C413 but that thing is a beast. Right now and through the end of December, Gitzo is offering rebates bringing the price down to a more reasonable point and I'd offset the price by selling the two Induros I have. Any thoughts?</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>Shun, nice shot of the Warbler. I've been waiting to hear how the 200-500 worked for you and am anxious to hear a full report. Sound like a great lens for S Florida though. Which camera did you have the 200-500 mounted on for the Warbler shot?</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>Two weeks ago in South Carolina, the leaves were just barely showing some color change but mostly things were just green. This is Yellow Branch falls near Walhalla SC. Since I live in Florida, it's a treat to see and experience a waterfall. There are sights and sounds and smells and misty goodness in the air. All good.</p> <p>Taken with a Nikon D7200 and my trusty Tokina 12-24 f4.0.</p> <p>-Christoph... very enchanting photo. Love it.</p> <p>Tom</p><div></div>

<p>ISO 16000. It was early in the morning and had been raining. Very overcast. I use/was using Auto ISO and chose the shutter speed and f-stop. Camera chose the ISO.</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>Thanks Renee. Love the colors of the fall in your shot. Dieter - exceptional photo.</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>Late contribution. Bits and pieces... Well, this is a bit of this and a piece of that. Mailbox I ran across while on a recent trip to S Carolina. I shot this with a D7200 and my new Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens. I used the 'Miniature' setting in the <em>Effects</em> menu to get the strange coloring and depth of field. Very unique mailbox and picturesque setting.</p> <p>Tom</p><div></div>

<p>Crop.</p><div></div>

<p>For giggles, I thought I would include a picture of what the D7200 and the Sigma are capable of. This shot was taken at ISO 16000, during the day. F2.0 @ 125th/second and shot with the 1.3 crop factor turned on. This was converted in NX-D with no alterations to sharpening or noise, etc. I'll send two pictures to show clarity and depth of field and ISO/noise. The 1st is the complete capture and the 2nd a 100% crop. The depth of field is extremely shallow. With the 1.3 crop this comes in @ 38mm although taken at 19mm. BTW, using crop factor in the D7200 @ 35 = 68mm.</p> <p>Tom</p><div></div>

<p>Dave, it's very hard to predict what lenses you will find most useful because you have a wide variety of activities listed, so no real recommendations on that. However, I do own a D7200 and the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and <em>can</em> comment on that. The Sigma on the D7200 is an incredible combo. I recently took it 'waterfalling' in South Carolina and am blown away by the beauty and sharpness of this lens on this camera. For me, it's every bit as good as the best reports I read about it. It focuses fast (enough) for just about anything and I think you would be <em>very</em> impressed with the IQ. Easily the sharpest lens in my bag, including the 50 f1.8 Nikon.<br> Something you need to know about the Sigma though... it <em>IS</em> a bit of a beast. Think, 1.78# soda can attached to your D7200. Solid as a brick and built like a tank, but small it is not. Or light. I don't care about that so it's not an issue for me but it may to you. And as with any of the Art lenses, I highly recommend that if you do decide on 18-35 lens, buy the Sigma lens dock to go with it. Mine needed correction just about everywhere to bring out its best. It was well worth the asking price.<br> You asked about subject isolation? Be careful what you ask for. Depth of field can be paper thin at f1.8 so focus placement can get critical but... the Sigma is tack sharp at f1.8 at any of the focal lengths and it would give you slightly more separation than a 2.8. And from all I've read, the 17-50s don't really come into their own until 4.0. (I don't own one so I'm only going on what I've read but we might be splitting hairs for you application). The 17-50 <em>is</em> a more versatile focal length, though. <br> About the lack of VR on the 18-35... I have been using my D7200 in 'Auto ISO' and allow it up to ISO16000 if it needs to be there. I haven't needed VR or missed it so far. With either DxO Optics Pro or Nikon's Capture NX-D, noise can be easily dealt with if the ISO gets in the stratosphere. IMHO, both outperform Photoshop CC for high ISO RAW conversions even when using Topaz DeNoise.<br> In all honesty the 17-50 and either 50-150 or 70-200 combo would probably do all you need it to do but I can't get over how amazing the Sigma is. No matter what else I might add to the bag, the Sigma stays. And for the record, I have owned the 18-70 and 18-105 Nikons (and sold them both to get the Sigma) but after having f1.8 constant at my disposal, I would never go back to a slow lens. All that being said, I currently own 4 lenses... The Tokina 12-24 f4.0 (early version), the Sigma 18-35 f1.8, a Nikon 50 f1.8 and the 1st generation 70-200VR (with a TC14-E teleconverter). I felt the gap between 35 and 70 was pretty big, hence the 50 but the 50 is probably the least used lens in my bag... And the 18-35 Sigma is on my camera most of the time.</p> <p>I hope some of my ramblings are helpful.</p> <p>Tom</p> <p> </p>

<p>Gabriel, I don't think the tripod is all that much of an upgrade. Both tripods in question have the same weight capacity so it seems like a lateral switch to me. The head would be an upgrade for sure and the only thing I would consider spending money on of the two items you listed. In all honesty, neither of the units are particularly light weight or suitable for hiking and in order to get that, you would have to spend considerably more money than $200. You have a lot of money tied up in your gear (esp. the 300 f2.8) so, going light on a support system seems counterintuitive. And remember, there is a difference between what a tripod/head combo will support (rated at) and what it will support <em>well</em>. When in doubt, buy more. </p> <p>If money were an object, I would shop for an inexpensive head with about a 25# weight capacity (say, $50) and let that hold you over until you are ready to spend enough to get a carbon fiber travel tripod that weighs less and holds more. The search for a secure, inexpensive travel tripod/head is a deep rabbit hole and one you will spend hours on. Expect sticker shock... what Al said. Good luck,</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>Is grab-and-run theft a potential problem where you are going? If so, it might influence how you carry your camera(s). Just a thought.</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>Renee, there are a lot of ways you could go here and we all have our favorite products and suggestions. I'm sure it's confusing but I'd still like to add my 2 cent's worth. I still have my D7000 with grip (and a new D7200) and shoot frequently with my 70-200 f2.8 (since it's the longest lens I have). I've been through several tripod and head combinations and currently have two tripods, one light weight one for travel and one heavy one for birding (with a gimbal head). <br> I chose an Acratech GV2 ballhead for the lightweight combo and it's plenty of head for the camera and 70-200. The GV2 is worth consideration for a couple of reasons. It uses Arca Swiss-style plates, it's very light for its weight capacity and it is <em>very</em> easy to maintain. Acratech is unique in its open ball design and should it ever get grimy or dusty or dirty, it can be rinsed and cleaned very easily. On top of a 3.5# tripod it remains pretty unobtrusive and keeps the overall weight of your rig down. It also doubles as a poor man's gimbal head due to a crafty design feature that allows for vertical panning. Acratech uses smaller balls than some other competitors but the lockup is still solid. You are looking at premium heads and Acratech is worth a look. It's a good match with my Induro CT214 and your Manfrotto is similar in size and weight. Good luck with your search.</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>Short answer... Yes, it's a good start. Elements is a pretty sophisticated program with many of the tools found in the full Photoshop versions. But... even it can be pretty daunting to get started with, just like any of the other programs mentioned by the other posters. I used Elements for years and was very happy with it. But, Adobe decided to monkey with the RAW editor of some of the later version of Elements making it less appealing to upgrade and I switched to the full CC, subscription version. I now prefer CC to Elements but it was an adjustment.</p> <p>If you do decide to grab Elements or the subscription version of Photoshop, I HIGHLY recommend you budget for a decent 'how-to' book from one of the reputable authors out there. Scott Kelby and his body of work comes to mind but there are others. It will be invaluable in navigating your way through the process of digital. Good luck and welcome to the club.</p> <p>Tom</p>

<p>Chip, I have both a D7000 and a D7200. The D7200 is a slight improvement over the D7000 but it isn't huge. The sculpting is a little different but the grip to lens distance is still tight and the overall height (read that, how many fingers will fit on the protrusion) is the same. </p> <p>I came from a D200 with an MB-D200 grip on it so I was a little lost until I added a grip to the D7000. That helped immensely with overall comfort but added significant weight. I'm OK with the extra heft and will be 're-gripping' the D7200 shortly. With lenses like my Tokina 12-24 F4.0, my knuckles hit the lens on the D7000 without the grip installed. With the battery grip installed, I can relax a bit and not overreach around and towards the lens in order to feel like I've got a good hold on it. It's just the new normal and after a while, it's all I know. Now the D200 feels like a beast.</p> <p>Tom</p>