chanh_nguyen1

<p>My little backpackers</p><div></div>

<p>From a recent backpacking trip</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Janet,<br>

If you are happy with the size and weight of your D600, the 70-200 f4 VR (Dan South's suggestion too) would complete your kit with the versatility for most things. It's a very good portrait lens too, more versatile than the 105 unless you are really into macro.<br>

For sheer convenience, I'm very happy with the 24-120 f4 VR. It's on my D800 most of the time. I don't shoot fast moving things, and with the high ISO capability of today sensors, I would prefer this cheaper lens over the 24-70. But neither would add any thing significantly more to what you already have IMHO.<br>

I love the D800 and its lenses, but I often feel awkward (psychologically speaking) carrying it around with me in social settings. These days I only take them with me on backpacking trips or for specific photo outings. I almost always have the X-E1 with me in my briefcase or a small canvas bag. Its IQ is very good, not far off the D800. I think the X100s has just as good if not better IQ, but it is a fixed lens camera which I feel too limiting for my needs.<br>

I envy you having this tough dilemma :-)</p>

<p>Very interesting discussions. Many people are going in the opposite direction with their new gear. A lot Fuji X-trans (APS-C) shooters are saying they are shelving or ditching their FF DSLR. Many claim the quality is comparable or at least close enough and the small size and weight of the X cameras help them shoot more and be more "connected" with photography.<br>

I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. When I first saw Richard's picture of the young boy, I was attracted to it by the tone and the light, didn't even think about the "rules of thirds violation" but wondering about the legs cut off by the frame. The more I look at it, the more I like it, and I can't see how I can compose it more attractively (to me).</p>

<p>Nikkor lens and Fuji X-trans sensor</p><div></div>

<p>"It was a valuable lesson and a good demonstration that great images come out of the brain of the photographer, than from the camera and lenses."<br /> Very true and often said. But I must admit I try to get the "best" lenses I can afford if I can see the difference in color, contrast, and sharpness. It's part of the fun. The only down side for me, besides the obvious financial one, is that I feel embarrassed using nice gear as an absolute rank amateur, knowing others have made far better images with lesser gear. I love my 85 mm f1.4 D.</p>

<p>A cooler Tuesday evening (yesterday)</p><div></div>

<p>A very hot Sunday evening in Southern California</p>

<div></div>

<p>Storm clearing out at home</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Ismail, I have both the 16-35 mm and 24-120 mm f/4. I couldn't tell the difference in IQ between the two on the D800 in their overlapping range. Both are excellent (better than my skills, I suppose)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What have you replaced the D200 with? For shooting landscapes, can your replacement do a better job than the D200?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Robert, Your second question was also mine, but not any more. The D800 outperforms the D200 by a wide margin, unfortunately (or fortunately depending on personal perspective:-). I had planned to return it if I didn't find it to be much better for what I like to do. I felt a bit irresponsible in paying for such a camera as an amateur, but having used it for a few days now, it's one of the most enjoyable ways to blow $3K.<br>

Even ignoring the resolution, the DR alone is wonderful. Holding the highlight, I can pull out a huge amount of shadow details that I never could with the D200.</p>

<p>Thank you for your thoughts. I was wondering if someone would respond that it's what's behind the camera... a la KR. But this is indeed a very nice group of photographers.<br />I first thought about giving it away as a gift. But everyone I know is either a very casual snapper or an aspiring one willing and able to spend at least $1K for their photography. The first type wouldn't want a DSLR. For the second, my D200 is of doubtful value given the choices available today. (I was impressed with the IQ of the D5100, not to mention the extras and the price). If I had a relative or a friend who is into photography and regularly uses a D80 or older DSLR but would not upgrade then making my beloved D200 a gift would be an easy and great choice.<br />As an amateur, keeping it as a backup probably means it will mostly sit on the shelf. I have never had more than one camera with me. I love backpacking and don't mind a little extra weight (lenses, tripod) for better pictures, but carry two DSLRs would be too much for me especially when the chances of the prosumer camera failing are very small.<br />Using it in hazardous-for-camera situations sounds great (thanks, Michael).</p>

<p>It was a fine camera for me when I bought it years and thousands of pictures ago, and it still works just as well now. But somewhat afflicted by NAS, I wasn't strong enough to resist being blown away by the recent crop of cameras. That raises the question what to do with the D200.<br />The practical side of me says put it up for sale, but even ignoring its sentimental value, I don't think I can get much for selling it. Do you still keep your older DSLRs and why?</p>

<p>I can see that different formats have different compromises among speed, convenience, cost, etc. But for sheer photographic quality, isn't a bigger sensor always better for the same technology generation?<br>

For extra reach, can I just crop an FX image? I suppose a DX equivalent from the D800 would be at least as good as the same picture taken with my D200. That's not a fair FX/DX comparison, but L G also mentioned above that his cropped D800E is as good as D7000.<br>

Why is FX a loser? It's not that much bigger, heavier than DX, unlike larger formats. I would venture that it strikes a good balance between convenience and quality. As technology moves on, improving IQ while keeping the same "bulk" is always welcome.<br>

I wonder whether Galen Rowell would run and climb with a D800 or a D7000 or something smaller if he were still around today.</p>

<p>I'm curious, along the line of Dan's question <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00aYft">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aYft</a>, how often you use your DX camera(s) after getting an FX</p>

<p>I know someone who ordered a D800 from B&H on Feb 8 and still has not received his camera or any estimate when he might see it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am sure that the D800 will turn out to be a fine camera. What is insufficient are the many photographers behind those new D800 bodies, but very few people want to hear that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I want to hear. To me it's great to know that I am the limiting factor, not my gear. At least I can concentrate on improving myself without ever doubting the fine quality of the camera.<br />Actually, I never doubt or blame my trusty D200. I know it's noisy (even for me) above ISO800 and I can use better AF. But then I can get better ISO and AF performance than D200 from the current crop of cameras much cheaper than the D800. What do the extra 20 or so megapixels add to my pictures (besides huge prints or tiny crops, which I very rarely need) is the key question?<br />"Nothing" is the party-pooping, but probably realistic, answer from the inimitable Ken. "Hyper-reality" is the enticing prospect I gather from reading Mark Dubovoy of Luminous-Landscape, but I don't know whether the nice images in his article are really a testament of Dubovoy's photographic skills, the sensor size, or sheer MP of his MF Leica (all three would be a useless copout answer ;-). Thom Hogan gives the eminently good, if profoundly obvious, answer: choose more pixels if all else are equal.<br />So, here is my strange thought to myself and my wife: D800 will be the last DSLR camera for me. Don't quite remember if I said the same about the D200.</p>

<p>Bob,<br>

It has been mentioned on here many times that as the pixel density goes up, higher lens resolving power is necessary to make those additional pixels count, so to speak. The D700 has a much lower pixel density than the D7000 and the D800.<br>

I hope the 35-70 2.8 D will not be the sharpness limiting factor for these newer cameras since I too have a copy of it.<br>

Chanh</p>

<p>Probably very few people here have tested the D800, a more appropriate question may be which FX lenses can out-resolve the D7000, assuming support system and skills are up to par.<br>

A search on the site, e.g. <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00ZmXH">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ZmXH</a> , indicates that the 70-200 VRII is good enough. Does anyone have experience with any of the following lenses,<br>

70-200 VR I<br>

80-400 VR<br>

85 1.4 D<br>

18-35 3.5-?? D<br>

35-70 2.8 D<br>

Sigma 50 1.4?<br>

Corner sharpness is less of a concern for me. You can tell I am having a serious fantasy...</p>

<p>Backpacking in the High Sierra</p>

<div></div>

<p>Wouter, I think I probably would. The high ISO noise of the D200 has been bothering me though less now with LR3. Ilkka's response makes me think I will upgrade soon.</p>

<p>Thank you for your answers. The 18-200mm is probably my weakest lens, optically, but I like its convenience a lot. My guess is that the 18-200/D7000 combo won't offer better IQ in good light than my current 18-200/D200. (I always hand hold this lens, and my sharpest real life picture printed at 8x10 was taken with a D100!)<br>

I find the 80-400 mm to be very sharp (more than enough for me and my D200) when I use it with care for stationary things. It has poorer handling and slow AF, though. My hope is that I can get better resolution with the 80-400mm/D7000, but may have to rent a D7k to find out.<br>

Better AF and lower noise at higher ISO are the main reasons I am thinking of upgrading to a D7000. These advantages are of course lens-independent. But it would be a little disappointing to me if all the extra pixels won't give me more resolution because of lens limitations. I hate to pay for extras that I can't use or have to spend even more to use them :-) I still have a slight regret buying the Sigma 50 mm f1.4. It is rather soft wide open compared to my old, second hand Nikkor 85 mm f1.4 D lens, the only other 1.4 lens I have. My wallet tells me it is not a fair comparison, and I have heard that the old lens is pretty good. But still, I end up stopping down the Sigma whenever I use it and always wonder if I should have got a much cheaper 1.8 lens.</p>

 

<p>Are these up to snuff for the D7000?<br>

1. 80-400 mm VR (if yes, woohoo! I can have a poor man super tele zoom by cropping)<br>

2. 18-200 mm VR I (not hopeful, likely to be permanently attached to D200)<br>

3. 35-70 mm f2.8 AFD<br>

4. 12-24 mm f4.0<br>

5. 85 1.4D and 70-200 VR I (if not, I will cry and keep my promise that the D200 would be my last camera)</p>

<p>Thanks, Peter.<br>

I actually have the lens and use it a lot with my D200. I have been thinking about upgrading camera for better high ISO noise. Video capability is also a plus if I can use a 10x lens with AF. I don't do much video to justify a dedicated camcorder.</p>

<p>Has anyone used this lens with the D7000 or D90 for video? What are your impressions?<br>

Does the video AF feature of the D7000 work well with this lens?<br>

Thanks</p>