bruce_margolis

<p>Beautiful shots, Lil and others. Mine this morning is a sunrise at sea...</p>

<div></div>

<p>Beautiful shot, Lil and others. This morning's shot is a sunrise at sea....</p>

<p>I don't know about "experienced Nikonians" but there certainly is more displeasure with the 18-200VR lens here than on other forums.</p>

<p>To me, the autofocus is fine in general light. In low light, especially at the long end, it can hunt but frankly, that will happen with any lens when your widest aperture is f/5.6.</p>

<p>Obviously there is no comparison between the 18-200 and Nikon's f/2.8 zooms. In some cases, losing a couple stops could mean the difference between getting/not getting a shot. If you want the convenience of one lens, the 18-200 is hard to beat because of VR and its incredible range.</p>

<p>Look at the Panasonic LX3. I believe the wide angle is 24mm and I know it uses a superfast f/2 lens.</p>

<p>Obviously the market for lenses like you mentioned is very small compared to the consumer zooms. Nikon knows that and has made a decision -- right or wrong -- to avoid designing lenses that they feel will have a limited return. </p>

<p>That said, I share your frustration at times.</p>

<p>Isaac, I was in Europe a couple months ago and honestly, I couldn't imagine not having 200mm with the D300. I know, easy for me to say since I hardly 'travel light' but I used the long end enough that I would seriously have missed it if the lens wasn't included.</p>

<p>You have some state-of-the-art glass for what I guess is a once-in-a-lifetime journey. Me, I would pack the 70-200 without thinking about it. However, if you really want to go light, leave it home and pack the rest. </p>

<p>BTW, most of my shots were in the 18-50mm range. There is no right or wrong here, just personal preference.</p>

<p>Ali, you can achieve what you want but it will be much more expensive, heavier, and will require at least a couple lenses. </p>

<p>Personally I am not into this 'future proofing' stuff but for those that are, look at the 17-35 and 35-70 zooms. It will cost you a lot more, weigh a lot more, and require that you change lenses much more frequently, maybe even missing some shots because of it. But if this 'sharpness' is what you want, this is the way to go.</p>

<p>Rohit, if you are saying the lens is losing sharpness to you around 135mm, an ultra-wide like the 10-24mm zoom won't help you get sharper images at 135mm. Neat wide angle lens, but only if you also want to go real wide.</p>

<p>I don't find that my copy of the 18-200VR is soft at 135mm or even at 200mm. Well okay, not as crisp as other lenses I have but more than good enough to get a great shot. But if you want something in that 135-150mm range that is real sharp, consider an f/2.8 prime. Those extra couple stops can be real helpful.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also has anyone compared it to the Tamron equivalent...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ken, there is no Tamron -- or Sigma or anything else -- equivalent. Third party lenses certainly cost less but then, they have fewer features too. The Nikon [and Canon] versions include image stabalization, weather sealing, etc.</p>

<p>Yeah, Tamron makes some excellent lenses but in this range, Nikon rules.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The answer depends on...</p>

<p>* The size of the venue<br>

* How close you are to the band<br>

* Whether you are trying to get full band shots or closeups</p>

<p>That means pack all of them and have a ball!</p>

<p>Paul, I also have a 300mm f/2.8 but it didn't make the trip when I went to Costa Rica. I love the lens but its limited focal range and weight told me to leave it behind. </p>

<p>I used an 80-400 zoom instead (you could use your 70-300). Zooms are very practical in Costa Rica, both for landscape and wildlife. While most of my wildlife stuff was at 400mm, much of it wasn't. The zoom allowed me to get shots I otherwise would have missed but then, I didn't have a second DSLR with me.</p>

<p>I can see where the SB-800 can be useful but unless you have a lot of time to get set up, the other lighting gear may be overkill.</p>

<p>If it were me -- and of course everyone's different -- I would pack the two bodies, SB-800 which can be used off-camera, 10-20 zoom, 18-200 zoom, 70-300 zoom, and the 105 macro. I took a tripod and monopod but YMMV. I am not a big fan of using t/c's on zooms unless they are no slower than f/4 so I would pack the 1.4x only if it is going to be used on the macro.</p>

<p>Another thing to consider........ it can get pretty wet there. BTW, I did get to try out the AW cover on the MiniTrekker and son of a gun, it sure does work. However, you might not have much notice so be prepared.</p>

<p>You can get some stunning Grand Canyon vistas with panorama shots and you can use your 50mm lens. Shoot the panorama in portrait, not landscape. That eliminates some of the problem with ultra-wide panos. Of course, a tripod is highly recommended but not absolutely necessary. I have seen shots like this done handheld that blow me away.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I saw the setting at the bottom of the page allowing me to select either 16 or 8 bit, and it has to be at 8-bit to save as a JPEG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, you are correct. Sort of.....</p>

<p>When you are in the RAW converter, you can use 16-bit. The only time you have to change to 8-bit is: (1) You want to use a tool that only works in 8-bit or (2) you want to save as a JPEG. To change from 16-bit to 8-bit in the Editor, go to Image/Mode/8-bit.</p>

<p>Not sure why your files sizes are so much smaller with PSE but FWIW, I have seen that PSE JPEG files are smaller than what I get from NX2. You might want to check to make sure you aren't accidentally resizing the image before saving it.</p>

<p>Steve, a couple things come to mind.</p>

<p>First, you can use 16-bit in your conversion from RAW. There is a setting at the bottom of the page when you do your conversion. However, many of PSE's tools only work in 8-bit so it's just a matter of time before you have to change it anyway. In any case, yes you have to change it to 8-bit before saving it as a JPEG.</p>

<p>The quality of JPEG will greatly influence the size. I think they have numbers of something like 2-12 settings, with the highest being the most detail. I suspect your setting is somewhat lower in the range.</p>

<p>Why RAW? Because you have much more latitude to make non-destructive adjustments. However, if you don't make any adjustments to your RAW files and simply save as a JPEG, you are not taking advantage of the greatest benefit. If that's the case, simply shoot JPEG.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I guess the D300 just turns him on but be prepared, there is a real learning curve with this body, even more so if he doesn't have DSLR experience. The good news, there are many options and features with the D300. The bad news, it takes time to learn about what all of them do and even more time to tweak them.</p>

<p>If he insists on a D300, probably best to also pick up one of the many guides out there. I know Magic Lantern has one for the D300 and Amazon probably lists a few more. My preference was Thom Hogan's guide.</p>

<p>Great post, Wayne. The F2 was my first Nikon camera. Oh how I wish I still had it. Hope it gives you as much pleasure as it did for me.</p>

<p>The D90 is a great body but I suspect you will find your current 28mm a bit limiting because of the crop factor. You might want to think about a wider lens to go with the two you have. A few choices include the Nikon 10/24, the new Sigma 10/20 f/3.5, or the Tokina 12/24 f/4.</p>

<p>I was thinking of suggesting this to Josh but since you asked......</p>

<p>I would like to see a photo.net app for the iPhone and other smart phones. By signing in once, it could be customized the way we want to view the forums, photos, etc. Not only would it be nice to keep up with PN during the day but it would bring in many more members.</p>

<p>Yeah I know, Josh, easy for me to say but much harder to do. Just a thought....</p>

<p>Marc, I have one but very rarely use it. For most local adjustments, I find working with a mouse is fine. OTOH, for technical adjustments and real fine tuning, the tablet is really excellent.</p>

<p>Marc, you need to check out Moose Peterson. He often shoots more than that in one day. I seem to recall one of his posts where he said he and a few others blew off 36,000 shots. </p>

<p>The most I've ever done in a day is a couple thousand or so but they were high fps shots. It's not unusual to blow off a couple hundred shots on a moving bird, for example. Multiply that by a day, it's easy to hit a thousand shots.</p>

<p>In the end, it's his camera and his style so he can do whatever he wants. I dunno, doesn't bother me what others choose to do.</p>

<p>When I was in the Sistine Chapel last month, the rule was "no photography." Nevertheless, dozens of people were pointing their P&S cameras at the ceiling with the flash on. Eventually someone came over and told them to stop. Meanwhile, I kept taking photos without flash and got some decent shots even though they were from-the-hip.</p>

<p>Why the no photo rule? Because the Vatican was annoyed that photos were showing up on the net and some were sold. I think the key word is sold. Many of these places (museums, galleries, churches, etc) don't like the fact that tourists are selling photos. Yes, the same tourists who paid a fee to get in. OTOH, these organizations make money by selling their own photos and books so I can see their side. Don't agree with it but I can see it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Oh, one more thing. Make sure auto ISO is turned off. I learned this one the hard way.</p>