mightypir

<p>Have you tried a HB-29? It is a petal type (for the VR1) but it is deeper and bigger than what comes with the VR2 as standard. And its a bayonet fit not screwed into the filter thread.</p>

Shun in your back up workflow don't you delete the

shots that are clearly bad (out of focus etc)? If you have

a laptop sorting shouldn't be an issue and you would

save some space (considerably, when shooting at high frame rates).

I recently got an ASUS ZenBook UX305LA. It's super

fast and with an i5 processor and 8GB RAM and a SSD it

can pretty much handle anything. It's super thin and

very very portable, and basically a window version of a

MacBook air. Just need to calibrate the screen before

you use it. There is a newer model with the skylake

hardware that is even better. Check Amazon it should

be in your price range..

Thank you all for your responses. My main concern was that there was some issue with the camera

but that does not seem to be the issue. Some good suggestions re workflow!

<p>Hello. This is a problem I had similar to the one that Shun talked about here: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00akyq I was wondering if there was any update on the reason why it happened. </p>

<p>Three of my images from a brand new San Disk SD Extreme Pro 32GB card (a total of 916 12bit compressed nefs) had the same problem. I was importing them into my Win 7 PC via Bridge (CS6). When I opened Bridge to do the sorting I noticed the issue. Luckily they were not important pics, but nonetheless it was a worrying incident. This morning I went through the import process several times, in Bridge and using the regular file transfer facility in windows. I also used a second card reader and alternative USB port. </p>

<p>The result is that I don't have any more corrupt pics!!! So clearly, my original fear that there was a problem with the camera or the card was unfounded. I have also decided to only transfer using the copy paste method rather than Bridge in the future. </p>

<p>So has anyone else had a similar problem? The D7200 has now got near 10,000 shots on it. I never had any such issues with my older D300. </p>

<p>@joris: adding the grip improves the handling considerably. But it is still not as a good as the D300 with its grip. I think that this (size and handling) has been the biggest let down for me in moving. The shutter is also quieter than that of the D300.</p>

<p>I have used my 7200 along with a 70-200 VR1 (and battery grip) to shoot stage (kids school stuff). Have had excellent results all the way up to ISO 3200. With the D300 I used to try never to go over ISO 800...1600 only in a pinch, but here I have gone to 6400 with very little loss of quality. I've remapped the video button to ISO to make life a bit easier and this worked out well.</p>

<p>No issues with frame rates even when shooting RAW with a fast 90 MB/s SD card at 6fps bursts. Oh and the WiFi is incredibly useful!</p>

<p>I went through a similar decision making process. You need to be clear about what your photographic needs are. If you need reach, then a D7200 is the only real choice. The body will be the cheapest possible upgrade to your D300 and you will have money left over to buy accessories. Don't fret too much about the SD cards, memory is getting cheaper and faster every day...I use a 32GB card which cost the same as the 4GB card I used to use in my D300. </p>

<p>Don't worry too much about the consumer body type, you will adapt to the controls. There will be times when you miss the D300 controls but difference in image quality will more than make up for it, IMO. I found that adding a battery pack made a world of a difference in handling. </p>

<p>If you are inclined towards FX, then logically the D750 is your best choice but will be costly not just for the body but for also new lenses. I wouldn't go for a D800e unless you really need the extra mpx. </p>

<p>All of these three cameras have considerably greater resolution that the D300 and require a bit more care with regard to handling. </p>

<p>Your D300 is working fine, this is normal for the camera. The problem with the later bodies is that the auto ISO boosts the iso level which can lead to some inconsistent results. People either like that or they don't. I prefer the D300 version myself, but that's me. </p>

<p>I've found that its better to leave my D7200 in manual ISO when I use flash. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 24mpx sensor is clearly more demanding of handling than the older 12mpx ones were. When you see images at 100% its more apparent. <br>

Having recently moved from a D300 to a D7200 I too was seeing a lot of unusable images. I find that the smaller camera body doesn't help much either with my larger hands. So have added the battery grip to help, and gone back to the basics...breathing out, bracing as I shoot etc!! :O No issues on a tripod, so its my sloppy form that is at fault. <br>

But, luckily the D7200's ISO performance means that I am also able to keep the shutter speeds on the higher side. This has helped considerably. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Travel with a laptop and back up to the internal hard drive as well as a USB Stick drive rather than a spinning hard drive. Keep everything on your SD cards as well for maximum redundancy. </p>

<p>Ilkka: I have done precisely what you recommend. Have also enabled easy ISO that keeps the ISO visible in the viewfinder.</p>

<p>I've just gone from a D300 to a D7200. I can tell you that the image quality is awesome compared to the older cameras. Dynamic range, noise and colors are all a marked improvement and the removal of the AA filter makes the images bitingly sharp. Images at ISO 3200 are excellent. AF seems to be quite good at least as good as the D300. Its just that the controls are different and will take some time to get used to the AF modes. </p>

<p>What I don't like is the body...its too small for my hands and I've had to get the battery grip. Also the drive mode dial uses a ridiculous locking mechanism that is different from the D300. The other big issue is that the green dot reset resets the Auto ISO parameters (!) which was not the case with the older camera. Very irritating, but I suppose one can program the U1 and U2 settings. The removal of information from the top plate LCD is also an irritant and the lack of ISO in the viewfinder...really, NIKON?</p>

<p>I must be one of the lucky ones though, because the WiFI works perfectly. It really is very nice to be able to transfer photos and remotely control the camera with a smartphone whenever you want. </p>

<p>So yes, on the whole you should find the upgrade from your D7000 pretty good. </p>

<p>Agreed Shun, its not the best or ideal position to lay the lens at but sometimes while changing to another, I have found that its the most convenient position while I attach another. Usually less than a minute, between my feet and then its into the case. </p>

<p>Incidentally, when I first got the lens a few years back I managed to drop it! This was while holding the removable tripod collar (which had not been tightened) and accidentally pulling the trigger. Luckily it was on carpeted floor, and not too great a height, but it is a testament to the outstanding build quality of the lens. </p>

<p>This is an awesome lens and great on DX. Have used it with my D300 indoors extensively for the last 7 years. Mostly for my kids school events. Its tack sharp pretty much all the time. The VR is not as good as the newer Nikon lenses but gets the job done and the lens doesn't have the pesky focus breathing issues that the VR2 does. Also, it comes with a much nicer hood that allows you to set the lens face down with no fear of it toppling over. <br>

It does weigh a ton and you will need to get used to handling it especially if you are going to be using 1/30th of a sec. I do recommend that you add the battery grip to your D7100, it will help balance the combo better. </p>

<p>The SB800 is probably the best for you in terms of size and cost, but you wont be able to get it new. </p>

<p>I supplemented my 800 with a Nissin Di866 II which I would recommend. This is about the same size, takes 4 AA cells and has a bit more power. Importantly, despite the difference UI, it works perfectly with my D300 and has no problem working alongside the SB800 with CLS. There are minor differences but on the whole I have been extremely satisfied with the flash. It has quite a rugged build despite being considerably cheaper.</p>

<p>I have both and they each have different uses. The 2.8 is primarily used as an indoor event lens or for portraits. On occasion as a track and field lens. The 70-300VR is my travel tele zoom. It packs small and light and does the best possible job at zoos etc. Would have actually upgraded this to the 80-400AFS but the latter is too expensive. </p>

<p>So the question is what do you need to do with each lens? </p>

<p>I once dropped my D300 and 70-200VR1. The quick release tripod mount on the lens had not been locked down and it separated from the camera/lens combo when I foolishly picked it up using the mount as a handle. Nothing happened, except that the hood is still slightly bent, but I can tell you the sickening feeling that I had for a few moments was terrible!!! You have all my sympathy!!!</p>

<p>The Nikon VR1 is the best choice for you if you can find it. It is built like a tank, has super fast AFS AF and awesome optics. The downside is that it weighs a ton and the VR is not as good as the later versions and ofcourse the cost. You may find that it does not balance on your D5100 well without a battery pack. I use a D300 with a battery pack with mine and am very happy. The VR2 is a bit better optically and has better VR but I did not like the focus breathing (which you notice when taking portraits) and the new design of the hood which means you cannot stand the lens on end anymore. </p>

<p>If you are concerned about the resale value, I think that the Nikon would have the best of the three options.</p>

<p>for outdoor use, in bright sunlight, the 70-300VR cant be beat. Its filter size also matches my main walk around lens (16-85) and is quite compact and light. And the VR works exceptionally well. <br>

My 70-200 VR1 stays at home unless I need it for indoor use... :(</p>

 

<p>Adam:</p>

<p>If you are going to be on foot most of the time, strongly recommend that you carry as little as possible. I don't know how fit you are, but with the thin air any form of exertion gets pretty intense (though if you are trekking you are probably in good shape). I have been to that part of the world several years ago and I can tell you that it was pretty tough especially with a loaded backpack (not with camera equipment!). Accessing equipment from a backpack while on a trail etc is also a pain. I ended up keeping my FM2 and 28mm around my neck and only used my other lenses when I was a rest house etc. </p>

<p>I would also be wary of keeping expensive equipment not on my person. </p>

<p>Best of luck,</p>

<p>Farooq</p>

<p>I would get a 16-85 as your regular lens instead. The 18-200 has to make a lot of compromises to get that zoom range and you do loose sharpness for convenience. </p>

<p>Another vote for the Nissin 866. It works very well with my D300 and seamlessly with CLS, and has a bit more power than my SB800. I initally bought it as a second flash for use with CLS but it works just fine as a main unit as well. The interface is a little odd at first but once you figure it out its a great flash. The removable battery magazine is a great touch especially if you are using the flash in a heavy usage environment. The overall build quality and finish is not on par with the Nikon SB units but not cheap and quite hardy. </p>

<p>And at half the price its a very good option.</p>

<p>Photoshop's lens correction tool works quite well. You can feed in lens profiles as well as manually adjusting the effect. For copy work suggest you try an old 28-105 D lens unless you need an actual macro lens. This lens is quite sharp and has low distortion. </p>

<p>Adam:<br>

the lenses that you have will be perfect for 90% of the the time. You really don't need anything else, the ultra wides are very rarely used. A hotshoe flash is a very good idea, and the SB800/600700 size is far better than the 900 series and more likely to be carried. I also have a 35 1.8 that works well in low like situations and is wickedly sharp.</p>

<p>A tripod is a great idea for the times when you are shooting landscapes...I have used Slik sprint pro which is stable when not fully extended and quite compact. You should also carry polarizer and ND filters as they will come in handy. Don't forget extra batteries and a remote release!</p>

<p>As far as bags go, how are you traveling around? In a dedicated 4x4? Bus or public transport? Or mostly on foot? That will ultimately decide the kind of bag you should carry. </p>

<p>Last but not least what are you going to be doing to back up your images? I normally carry a netbook that allows me to do some editing on the fly but more importatly, it allows me the facility to carry my images on the HDD as well as copy them on to large capacity flash drives (2) for backup purposes. </p>

<p>Hope you have a great time!!!</p>

<p>Farooq</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you have the cash, go for it. There are always many arguments against getting one, but that it is an outstanding tool and opens up lots of avenues for photography is never in doubt. The worst thing that can happen is that you leave it at home occasionally...but the bottom line is that it will never really depreciate and you can always sell it off if you need cash.</p>