eric_arnold

<blockquote> <p> there aren't many direct flights to the UK from Jackson (or anywhere nearer Yellowstone).</p> </blockquote> <p>you may have to route through a hub like Chicago or Denver.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I like the size and image quality of the 70-200 f/4. Would another stop be worth an extra 2 pounds and $1500? We'll see.</p> </blockquote> <p>idk, for me, f/4 is too slow for shooting stage or low light. i have a 70-200/2.8 but sometimes forego it for the 85/1.4.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Most likely, the mountains were named first and then French trappers simply called the Indians there "Sioux of the Tetons."</p> </blockquote> <p>from what i understand, Teton is a Sioux tribe which is part of the Lakota nation. The name Teton itself is a contraction of a Lakota word meaning plains inhabitants. Therefore, its highly unlikely the tribe were named after the mountains. Also if Lewis & Clark encountered the Teton elsewhere on the plains, it stands to reason the tribal name precedes the French colloquialism.<br> from wikipedia: </p> <blockquote> <p> <br> The <strong>Lakȟóta people</strong> (pronounced <a title="Help:IPA" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA">[laˈkˣota]</a>; also known as <strong>Teton</strong>, <strong>Thítȟuŋwaŋ</strong> ("prairie dwellers"),<sup id="cite_ref-p329_1-2" ><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakota_people#cite_note-p329-1">[1]</a></sup> and <strong>Teton Sioux</strong> are part of a confederation of seven related <a title="Sioux" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sioux">Sioux</a> tribes, the <a title="Oceti Sakowin" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceti_Sakowin">Očhéthi Šakówiŋ</a> or seven council fires, and as such one of the <a title="Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Great_Plains">indigenous peoples of the Great Plains</a> of <a title="North America" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America">North America</a>. They speak the <a title="Lakota language" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakota_language">Lakota</a>, the westernmost of the three <a title="Siouan language" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siouan_language">Siouan language</a> groups, occupying lands in both <a title="North Dakota" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota">North</a> and <a title="South Dakota" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota">South Dakota</a>.</p> </blockquote>

<blockquote> <p>Could "Grand Tetons" be named for big breasted Indians in the mountains?</p> </blockquote> <p>that might be a bit of a stretch. my sense is that the region was originally named for the Sioux people and later, over time, took on a less culturally-specific meaning and perhaps passed into slang as the indigenous peoples diminished. it makes no sense to name a mountain range off of big breasted native Americans, IMO. The Tetons, so to speak, would have had to have been quite remarkable. </p>

<p>interesting, Dieter, but what are the odds that a French colloquialism would coincide with the name of an indigenous tribe which lived in that region? The Tetons were not dissimilar to the Lakota (the more well-known Sioux tribe), and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/lewisandclark/native/tet.html">actually interacted with Lewis and Clark</a>.<br> from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton">Wikipedia</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>The origin of the name is disputed. The most common explanation is that "Grand Teton" means "large <a title="Breast" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast">teat</a>" in French, named by either <a title="French-Canadian" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French-Canadian">French-Canadian</a> or <a title="Iroquois" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois">Iroquois</a> members of an expedition led by <a title="Donald McKenzie (explorer)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_McKenzie_(explorer)">Donald McKenzie</a> of the <a title="North West Company" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_West_Company">North West Company</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-5" ><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton#cite_note-5">[5]</a></sup> However, other historians disagree, and claim that the mountain was named after the <a title="Lakota people" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakota_people">Teton Sioux</a> tribe of <a title="Native Americans in the United States" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States">Native Americans</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-6" ><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton#cite_note-6">[6]</a></sup></p> </blockquote>

<p>just a wild guess, but 25,600 ISO could overexpose with stage lighting if you're shooting a spotlighted face or something. if you had a faster lens, you could shoot at a lower ISO. i shoot dim nightclubs with a 35/1.4 and 85/1.4, sometimes at around f/2. that way i'm able to keep the ISO manageable, at 6400 or under. i can go higher on my D3s, but uneven stage lighting can result in overexposed main subjects at super-high ISOs. </p>

<p>not sure how it is with Sony FF, but Nikon bodies can get wacky with red gels or red stage lighting. i've had focus lock issues too, especially at wide apertures, depending on direction and distance of the lighting. looks like you found a workaround, but you may also want to cycle through WB settings to see if one works better. </p>

<p>2016 is a <a href="http://www.photokina.com/photokina/index-9.php">Photokina</a> year, so if there were a d810 replacement, it would probably appear around September.</p>

<blockquote> <p> the story I've always heard is that "grand tetons" is French for "big titties." Used to be a lot of lonely French fur trappers out in the area ~200 years ago. Don't know if that's just a story.</p> </blockquote> <p>ha ha, no. actually, "<a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Teton">Teton</a>" is the name of one of the Sioux tribes who lived in the Great Plains. The equivalent French word for "titties" would be "boules" or ""nichons."</p> <blockquote> <table id="wn"> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>Noun</strong></td> <td><strong>1.</strong></td> <td><strong>Teton</strong> - a member of the large western branch of Sioux people which was made up of several groups that lived onthe plains</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p> </blockquote>

<p>I know a guy, Brad Evans (also a P.Net member), who's been doing street photography in SF for like 20 years; if you have any questions, contacting him would be a good idea. His website is <a href="http://www.citysnaps.net/">here</a>. </p>

<blockquote> <p>if one is now converting between systems, one should at least plan for a future FX camera<br> Otherwise, stay with the current system until you are ready to go FX</p> </blockquote> <p>why? there's nothing wrong with DX. and acquiring FX lenses when you have a DX camera isn't always a smart idea. the idea that there is a future FX camera in every DX user's future might make Nikon's marketing department happy, but it's not borne out by actual use/sales. </p>

<blockquote> <p>The income gap has absolutely nothing to do with the increase in crime.</p> </blockquote> <p>you are 100% wrong here, but you are welcome to attempt to prove your argument by citing relevant stats or studies showing conclusively there is no causal link. crime is actually down in california over a five-year period, but up in SF. it's not coincidental that median incomes and rents have risen considerably during that same period. Like i said, i live in Oakland, so stories about people getting priced out of SF are extremely common. </p>

<blockquote> <p> I was last there in 2012, and have photos of guys pooping on the sidewalks and numerous syringes/needles lying about the downtown parks.</p> </blockquote> <p>So what? Are you actually implying that this doesnt happen in other cities? As far as car break-ins go, the fact of the matter is that SF has an income gap, and crimes of opportunity are part of the result of the cost of living being pushed higher and higher. Also, and this would be obvious to a Bay Area resident, but it depends on where you go in SF. you're probably more likely to find "sidewalk poopers" in the lower Mission than in, say, Pacific Heights. In any event, I wouldnt say it's a situation where alarm bells need to be raised and/or rubber galoshes worn at all times. I was just there yesterday and i didn't encounter a single instance of sidewalk poop or syringes.<br> <br> Also, I have to laugh at the "aggressive bums" comment. If you've ever been overseas, you've probably been followed by panhandlers, sometimes local children, who target tourists and ask for "baksheesh." Again, the notion that somehow this only happens in SF or that SF is somehow worse than other cities is naive. One easy solution is to not look like a tourist. They're pretty easy to spot. </p>

<blockquote> <p>The city government has actively encouraged drug addicts and bums to live there, and marijuana is legal.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sorry, but neither of these things are true. I live in the Bay Area, Oakland to be exact, which is across the Bay from SF, which is still the USA's #1 tourist destination. i dont really see the need to slander it or make hyperbolic and paranoid claims about crime. I was just in SF yesterday and not a single person asked/demanded money from me. Am i doing something wrong, Kent?<br> <br> If anything, SF has been gentrified and taken over by the tech industry, and a lot of local landmarks are no longer there. So see it while it still has some charm. IMO a bigger concern than mendicants is the outrageous parking fees, which can be $20/hour or more. Sure, it's a good idea not to leave valuables in a parked car, but that would be true in any major city in the world.</p>

<p>to explain further, like Edward said, Sony's APS-C lens line is a bit neglected overall, although there are now a few 3rd party options from Sigma, Tamron, and Zeiss. Before buying into that system, i would make sure the lens selection meets your approval, and that you wouldn't be better-served elsewhere. It also won't hurt you to think about how far you want to go into the system. People i know who have an A6000 have either bought just the 16-50 kit lens or one of the available primes for it. If you're not planning on building a lens arsenal, the Panasonic LX100, Sony RX100, or Fuji and Ricoh fixed-focal compacts are also worth considering.</p> <p>One thing i probably wouldnt do is buy something like the 16-35 for an A6k series body. That lens alone costs 2x the price of an A6000 body, and somewhat defeats the purpose of having a smallish, compact camera kit. The reason to get a 16-35 is to use it on a full-frame camera where it can take advantage of the corner performance. But it's not particularly wide on APS-C and the zoom range is truncated compared to the kit lens and the 16-70/4. If i wanted an ultrawide for an A6K series body, i would pay $500 less for the 10-18 and get a truly wide zoom range while saving more than 50% of the weight.</p>

<p>Olympus still makes Stylus-branded cameras as their enthusiast compact line. the problem is they all have small (1 2/3" or 1 1/7") sensors, at price points where larger sensors are available. at base and low ISOs, they are capable of decent IQ, but at ISOs above 800, they'll have higher noise than their larger-sensored peers, especially at large print sizes. you can get an RX100 v.1 for about the same price as an SH2, and the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00V3RJETC/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687722&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00FZEJ3XG&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0VZDQSEAGKN67TSV5P11">Stylus 1s</a> edges into entry-level DSLR/mirrorless ILC territory. the plus of the 1s would be a high-mag zoom with a constant 2.8 aperture out to 300m--which might help keep the ISO low, in a compact size. With Nikon and Canon joining Sony in using 1" sensors, you have to wonder, though, how much longer this line can maintain its price point. If you have a personal connection with Olympus cameras, the Stylii could be a good match, but... if you can hold off on buying now, the price may drop toward the end of the year. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Get a used Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 HSM OS. Fast enough for portraits, very sharp, and plentiful used.</p> </blockquote> <p>i have this lens too. it is sharp. i use it for events/reportage/street. IMO it wouldnt be what i would choose for the OP as a primary lens. 2.8 constant aperture is nice to have if you are covering events or doing PJ work. but that zoom range is really too short for everyday walkaround use. it may not end up simplifying things, since you'll probably want some telephoto coverage if you get this. OTOH, the 18-140's range is such that it replaces two lenses in the bag (standard zoom/telephoto), and covers the entire portrait range (approx 55-85mm on DX). sure, it has a variable aperture and is slowish on the long end, but you can always just use a flash. another reason why i wouldnt suggest a 2.8 zoom for the OP at this time is that 2.8 is sometimes not fast enough for available-light, and doesn't provide all that much shallow DoF on DX at that focal length. being able to shoot at f/2 or 2.2 with a 1.8 lens gives you a whole 'nother stop over a 2.8 and 1 1/2 stops from the 3.5 max aperture of the 18-140 (at 18mm). that's the difference between ISO 1600 and ISO 5000, as well as additional subject-isolation capabilities.</p>

<p>do <strong>not</strong> buy an 18-200 for use on a 24mp sensor like a d7100. nice things were only said about that lens when sensors were 6mp. the 18-140 is the updated version. you lose some reach but gain more acuity with high-mp cameras. it's perfect as a walkaround lens on DX, a little slow but the range makes up for it. i had, actually still have, a tokina 12-24/4. love the contrastiness stopped down to about 6.3-8 but if i was buying today, i'd look at the tokina 11-20/2.8 or 12-28/4. we havent discussed wide angles on this thread yet, and that wouldnt be my first lens purchase with a new camera. i'm saying, cover the basics first -- all-purpose zoom and low-light lens. that's it for 6 months. after that, you'll have a better idea of what you might want to add. </p>

<p>you didnt say you had a 17-55 already in your initial post, Barry. in that case, it's a little bit different conversation. which then becomes, is the 16-80 so much optically better that it's worth swapping? not a whole lot of reviews out there of the 16-80 , and the ones which are out suggest mixed results -- which may indicate sample variation might be the determinant between subpar and acceptable corner performance. also the 16-80 has VR but is mostly plastic. if you're satisfied with the 17-55 i'd probably spend that $1000 elsewhere. </p>

<blockquote> <p>if you shoot a head and shoulders portrait with the 35, you will be too close to your subject<br> If you shoot it in low light you'll frame 2 people but have one of them out of focus. - with a 50mm you are more likely able to frame a portrait. </p> </blockquote> <p>there is no rule that one <em>has</em> to shoot a H&S portrait with a 35mm. also no rule one <em>has</em> to shoot a 2-person low-light shot. the reason i suggested a 35mm was because the OP has a young child. They tend to move around a bit and may not even sit still long enough for a formal portrait. the 35mm focal length gives a little wiggle room and is more natural for candids on DX than a 50mm, which IMO is just a bit too short for H&S portraits, though some people like that FL. The other obvious point is that you can do full-body shots or frame 2 people with a 35 on DX. A 50 on DX is more of a one-subject length.</p> <blockquote> <p>35mms are a usually never entirely right compromise. </p> </blockquote> <p>not in my experience. i have a 50 and a 35/1.8, i use the 35 wayyyy more on DX. Indoors, a 50 is gonna be a bit tight for many scenes, but a 35 works. you can always scoop a 50 or 60 later on, but i would start with a 35 for that reason.</p>

<blockquote> <p> shirt pocket or purse camera. What is like that now?</p> </blockquote> <p>we are now in the age of the high-end compacts. in terms of shirt-pocketability, you're looking at the Sony RX100 line, maybe the Fuji X100 line, Ricoh GR. anything with interchangeable lenses is gonna be more pokey, but there are some smallish options, from 1" sensors to APC-C all the way to ff mirrorless. I agree with edward that if you're talking about throwing $1500 into Sony, you'd at least want to consider the A7 series, as a long-term investment. in the short term, an RX100 would blow the socks off any early-2000s P&S. Olympus still makes a stylus, but now its a 12mp, 10x zoom mini-dslr body with a hotshoe. personally, i wouldnt spend that much on a tiny sensor cam, but YMMV. </p>

<p>probably not. the thing is, back in 2003 when the 17-55 was released, Nikon only had 6mp sensors. so it stands to reason a modern update would have been formulated for today's 24mp sensors. also, we may need to clarify "better" and what that means, exactly: sharper in the center? corner to corner? at distance? these are two entirely different optical designs and somewhat designed for different purposes.</p>

<p>well, i'm thoroughly confused now. so, have we abandoned the idea of a coach tour, then? that seems like a plan worth jettisoning if it means 5 hours on a bus, 2 hours of harsh midday shooting, and then 5 hours back on a bus. in any event, Andrew seems to be figuring out his route on paper, at least. good advice on discounts -- some online travel sites do have deals on car rentals, even if you don't also book a flight with them, and at this point, what's another few hours spent scouring for deals? if area hotels are booked you can also look for accommodations on air bnb. there's lots of stuff on there that isn't advertised elsewhere.</p> <p>after all, this, i'm kinda hoping Andrew will blog his journey so we can find out how everything went. good luck!</p>

<blockquote> <p>I'd wait on the 35 f/1.8 until you sense the actual need.</p> </blockquote> <p>i wouldn't. i'd get this right away; the need will be apparent the minute you need to take an indoor shot in available light and you realize the 18-140 is a bit slowish. since the lens is only $200, it doesnt really make sense NOT to have a low-light option. while it is true that modern digital bodies have pretty good high ISO performance, i'd suggest not relying purely on raising ISO, and practicing working with shallow DoF; with a fast lens, it's easier to separate the backgrounds to make the subject 'pop.' The reason i suggested the 18-140+35/1.8 combo is because it covers probably 85-90% of the basics with just two relatively inexpensive lenses. The 35 is also particularly good for kid pics and casual candids because of its compact size and general unobtrusiveness. it's not likely to intimidate or draw undue attention due to its size.</p> <blockquote> <p>35mm might be short sometimes</p> </blockquote> <p>this is true, but the wider options -- 24/1.8, 20/1.8 -- are a lot more expensive and a bit less ubiquitous focal lengths, especially for a newbie to Nikon. when you're just learning a new camera, you don't need to cover every possible photographic situation, you just need a few reasonably versatile options.</p>

<blockquote> <p>It is the comparison of features versus cost between the 6300 and the 6000 that is of interest.</p> </blockquote> <p>fancy-schmancy AF system and 4k video are the main differences. Hard to say from here whether that's worth the cost differential for you.</p> <blockquote> <p>Usage? Initially just family snaps in the Rockies this June. </p> </blockquote> <p>my question may have been misread. what i meant to say was, why the A6000 over another camera? Seems like a lot of possibilities could suffice for 'family snaps,' at potentially lower cost, or better IQ for the same cost. The problem with the A6000 is the body is fairly inexpensive, but the kit lens doesnt do the sensor justice. Which means you're looking at a better lens, which doubles the cost. and do you care about video at all? if not, i would consider a Fuji XT10+18-55/2.8-4. if you just want something compact for hiking, i would look at the Sony RX100 line or even a Panasonic LX100. What i'm saying is that in buying an A6000, you're buying into Sony's E-mount system. So be sure that's what you really want, and more importantly, carefully research lens options and cost/benefit.</p>