Rick Waller

<p>I just noticed that in my reply above, I referred to the Nikon 100-500. Should have been 200-500.</p>

<p>Why not ask Nikon directly?</p>

<p>I have always been told that the mirror has a very fragile coating and to never touch it for any reason. I'm with Dieter - if it does not interfere with the image, do not try to clean it. If the problem is something that you have difficulty ignoring, get it professionally cleaned at Nikon or a Nikon approved service department.</p>

<p>I tend to side with Kent. I own a 70-200/2.8 and I also have a 70-300VR. While the 70-300 is an ok lens, I never use it for portraits. Instead I reach for the 70-200. No comparison between the two for portraits. Only time I carry the 70-300 is for when I know I need the reach and I cannot or do not want to handle the weight/size of the 70-200.<br>

As far as the 105 - if you regularly use the 105 for close up product work, the 105 may be far too important to you to give up. Sure you may be able to get by using other lenses for product work, but if I made my living shooting products, I would never surrender my dedicated macro. Not to mention that the 105 (I shoot FF) is my go to lens for portraits unless I need more reach and then I press the 70-200 into service.</p>

<p>And lastly - for birds, rule #1 is that one never has enough reach. I have used the Tamron 150-600 and also both models of the Sigma 150-600. I rank them (worst to best) as Tamron, Sigma Contemp and Sigma Sport. Since birding is such a specialized use, this is where I like Ken't thinking. Don't cannibalize your current lens set which is apparently providing you with income to buy a lens that is likely to have less use. I have not used the new Nikon 100-500 lens, but I understand it is a great piece of glass for a very reasonable price. I don't do a lot of birding shots, but when I do, I reach for either my 400/2.8 (with or without TC) or my 80-400VR (the new one - the old one is a dog) when carrying the 400/2.8 is too much to handle.</p>

<p>As others have suggested - it is quite difficult to advise another on which lenses are most critical to them. So much depends on what you shoot and how critical you are of the end result. </p>

<p>No argument that the lever is faster, but I have never lost a shot from the delay of turning a big knob. That said - my guess is that RRS sells 10 levers for every knob clamp. Might even be more. I am just old and cranky. I went kicking and screaming from film to digital and I was 20 years younger then.</p>

<p>I prefer the basic BR Curve<br /> http://www.blackrapid.com/products/curve</p>

<p>And this is the RRS clamp that I like if I know I will be connecting/disconnecting the strap often</p>

<p>http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/B2-mAS-38mm-Screw-knob-clamp-with-1-4-20-screw</p>

<p>If you are concerned about weight on the lightweight clamp, there is this one, but I use the above clamp with the 400/2.8 without worry http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/B2-Pro-II-Screw-knob-clamp-with-M6-screw</p>

<p>And one last point - I do NOT use the lever clamps by RRS for any application. I know plenty of my contemporaries swear by the lever release clamps, but there is no way anyone will ever convince me that the screw in clamp is not more secure than a lever. I know there are all sorts of built in safeties with the RRS lever clamp, but I choose to heed the advice I got from the RRS founder Brian Gayer who once told me RRS would never offer a lever due to possibility of the stretching of the necessary spring in a lever. Bryan retired many years ago and RRS is now run by his son-in-law Joe who is great and has expanded the provincial company Bryan ran (no credit cards were accepted) into the amazing full service entity it now is under Joe's care and I am sure Joe has developed a spring that will not stretch and a lever that will not get snagged accidentally, but to my mind, I like the feel of tightening a physical clamp screw.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have not visited LA area often, but the times I have been there, I was quite unsuccessful in shooting landscapes because of the atmospheric haze (or on one visit, the smoke from a wildfire). Are there times of the year when the seemingly everpresent smog does not inhibit good landscape photography? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Shun - I owned a Kirk strap like you have for some time and used it to carry a 300/2.8. but when the BR sling strap became my favorite method to carry other gear with a strap, I simply bought a RRS clamp and screwed the BR stud into the RRS clamp and voila, instant QR version of BR.</p>

<p>I use this QR modified strap on occasion with other lens/body combos if I will be connecting and disconnecting it often. After all is said and done though, why wouldn't the OP just screw a BR strap (without the QR clamp) into the tripod mount on the 80-400 lens? If I am not disconnecting often, that is what I do. </p>

<p>Just download the Adobe DNG converter. Free and while a pain in the *ss to have to convert files before opening in PS, it does work. Otherwise, you need to buy Adobe CC to open the raw D500 files. I ran into the same problem</p>

<p>I have not shot sports indoors with my new D500 yet, but outdoors the body is a beast for sports. AF is blazingly fast and the 10fps is a plus (just have BIG capacity cards). And it write faster to the card and has way bigger buffer. I find that the camera does well at 2500 in terms of noise, but haven't had chance to test it above that.</p>

<p>I never use my D810 for sports. Always preferred the D3s because of incredible hi ISO capability and faster frame rate. Now - I expect that the D500 will be the go to sports camera. For field sports, the DX crop factor doesn't hurt either.</p>

<p>Regarding my post of above, I just looked on the Nikon website and this is what I found.<br>

<strong>Part I - Proper Care and Storage of Equipment</strong><br>

<strong>Storage</strong><br>

<strong><em>Do not store the camera or lens in excessive heat such as the inside of a vehicle during the summer or near a heater. This can result in damage to the sensor or CPU’s internally in the camera or lens.</em></strong><br>

Looks like it is unwise to store in a hot car, but I have been lucky so far. </p>

<p>I don't claim to be an expert on camera storage, but two things I will point out to those who argue against leaving a camera in a hot car -</p>

<p>First - when your camera was shipped over to the US from Japan (or wherever it was manufactured), do you think that the gear was shipped in an air conditioned shipboard container? Seems to me it would have been shipped on a container ship for a couple of weeks locked in a metal container and passed through some tropical zones. </p>

<p>Second - perhaps I lead a charmed life, but once I stopped shooting film (which had little tolerance for extreme heat), I have never worried about leaving my gear in a hot car trunk and I have traveled the world with my gear. <br>

Just saying.......</p>

 

<p>"The 7200 and 750 are both excellent alternatives to the 3300"</p>

<p>Isn't the 7200 a DX body?</p>

<p>Why not ask them directly? Other thing to consider is that film camera bodies are incredibly inexpensive these days. You might find the cost of buying a "new" camera (used F5 or F6) less expensive than the repair of yours.</p>

<p>For example, I kept one of my 3 F5's when I hung up my film, just in case. It is barely used, in spectacular shape and I would be lucky to get $250 for it if I sold it. (I am not, so not suggesting you buy mine).</p>

<p>Just saying..........</p>

<p>I imagine that you have gathered from your own experience and the comments above that there really is no ideal solution to shooting sports in low light. For example, I shoot sideline sports with a D3S (and as of last week with a D500) on a 400/2.8 and unless you are shooting in a pro or D1 college stadium, night games under the lights or games in late afternoon/early evenings will still be a problem. And remember that the D3S can handle ridiculously high ISO's. That said, in some venues even shooting at ISO 6400 at f2.8, you will get heavy grain. <br>

The 70-200/2.8 will result in the same general issues as the 400/2.8 and of course is substantially shorter. I use a 70-200 on my second body while the 400/2.8 is on the monopod. That focal length is useful in situations where the action is close to the sideline where you are, but the majority of my keepers are at 400mm. 200mm is quite short to use as a main lens shooting field sports.<br>

Unfortunate fact of life is due to the laws of physics, if you shoot in less than ideal light, you have to accept some grain. I can shoot all day long with the D3S's at ISO 6400 and still produce excellent images if the shutter speed is high enough. When I stray north of 6400 ISO, the results are hit and miss. I find that for fast moving sports like soccer or football, anything less than 1/1000 is pretty much a waste of time and I generally prefer at least 1/1500th. So the choice for me in poor lighting is to shoot at f/2.8 and crank the ISO up as high as I dare. If I "need" the shots, I find it far preferable to use high shutter speed and get more noise than to reduce ISO and the shutter speed. I can deal with grain in post (I like Define2) and often salvage something usable, but an out of focus shot due to insufficient shutter speed is nothing but trash. I own a new version of 80-400 and wouldn't think of using it for sports, but then I have the luxury of owning 2.8 glass. I imagine that the 80-400 can work, but the loss of so many stops would make the needed ISO beyond the truly useful range of any Nikon body other than perhaps the D4 or D5. I have never shot with either to comment on the images above 6400. <br>

Other solution is to shoot only during good light which is regrettably not always viable. </p>

 

<p>I own a D810 (similar to the 750) and just got a D500. i bought the D500 to use primarily for wildlife and sports to take advantage of the incredible AF speed, the 10 fps shutter and the DX crop factor. The D810 is unbeatable for situations where dynamic range is paramount, but it does not cut it for wildlife and action. FPS are just too slow and while AF speed is excellent, it can't touch that of the 500. I was using a pair of D3's's for action shooting and while they are great, the 500 has the amazing AF speed, the faster fps rate and the crop factor. It was a no brainer for me at $2k.<br>

I do a fair amount of "man on the street" photography as well and I generally use an old D700 which is the smallest, least intrusive DSLR body I own. Not clear to me that I would necessarily use the D500 for my street work since I agree that the fps and the AF speed of the D500 are not all that useful in the street. As someone above mentioned, the D700 is hardly a slouch in FPS and AF speed. And more importantly, the crop factor of the D500 might actually be a negative since I often do not want to get in that close (exact opposite of wildlife and sports shooting). My preferred street lenses (on the D700) are the 70-200/2.8 and my beloved 28-105/3.5-4.5 - the 28-105 is not as great on the D800 and the 70-200 is too long at 200 with the D500 crop. So while I won't be using the D500 on the street, I will undoubtedly will begin to lean on the 810 (hard to beat the dynamic range and file size if I do need a crop) with the 700 as backup. And...lately, I have become very happy with the Sony 6000 and the Zeiss 28-105 lens for street work. WAY easier to carry and WAY easier to be discreet with fast AF speed and dynamic range.<br>

It was way less expensive back in the day when a camera was nothing more than a lightproof box that enabled one to wind film past a great piece of glass. Other than AF and metering, my old F2's worked as well as my F5's. </p>

<p>Hector - no argument about the older Nikkors, but those AIS lenses were not AF, did not have 30 elements and did not have VR. And they were made of metal. I agree they were built like tanks, but I know of no lens that bounced or bounces very well. <br>

As long as we are waxing nostalgic, I was always pretty sure I could drive nails with my F2's. </p>

<p>I would be surprised if the minor impact you seem to be describing damaged the lens. But the only way to know for sure is to take shots at different focal lengths using MF and AF and change the diaphragm and see what the results are. You should be able to determine if something is wrong.</p>

<p>I can tell you that while the Nikon "pro lenses" are built well, they do not often survive a fall from one's hands to hard pavement. Done that too many times and the outcome has never once been good. </p>

<p>The group shot of the four is great and circumstances mitigated any need for fill flash.</p>

<p>By the way - I hope you unederstand that I wan't criticizing the shot of the hoodie man - my reply was simply to note the reason that I always carry a flash. I too love random people candids and while better positioning may well have solved the shadow problem, it may also have spoiled the mood of the shot. His lopsided grin and forward arm is what makes the shot. Repositioning is not always convenient so while strolling around a city or market, etc, I ten to leave my flash attached at all times and set one of the function buttons to "flash on/off" so that I can just lift and shoot when I see something I like. </p>

<p>Photo number 1 of the cool dude in the green hoodie is the poster child of why I never leave home without a flash. Lovely composition, great subject with a wonderful grin, excellent isolation, but the eyes lost in shadows translates into "nice snapshot" to me. </p>

<p>Glad to hear that it worked out well for you. </p>

<p>I know nothing about electronics, but I have always heard that tinkering with anything that has a capacitor is a recipe for getting yourself seriously injured. Apparently one has to discharge the capacitor or risk getting badly zapped.</p>

<p>And - it is my understanding that removing the batts beforehand does NOT cure the problem. apparently the capacitor is stores the juice for the next flash. So when a shot is taken, the batts recharge the capacitor and removing the batts does not discharge the saved up power. </p>

<p>Has it dawned on anyone yet that asking a question like that which the OP asked is an exercise in futility since every one who replies (me included) will give an opinion on what is "best" suited for <strong>his/her</strong> circumstances? I am old and advocate carrying light. EJ is older than I and carries heavy gear. I wouldn't leave home without a flash. Several others advocate omitting one. I carry a tabletop tripod; others insist that they need a larger one. Is anyone among us "right"? </p>

<p>I suppose in the end it all comes down to what you are able to do physically (and financially if buying new gear is a suggested option) and what is important to you image wise. </p>

 

<p>EJ - God bless. I cannot do that and I am younger than you.</p>

<p>"How would you feel if you missed that shot you really wanted because you left a 2 lb. item at home?"<br>

Honestly? If it was a personal trip, it would no longer bother me. The exact point of my reply was that as I grow older and less physically able to hump heavy gear, I have learned to make the compromise. The only time the money shot matters to me these days is if there is actually money attached to it.</p>

<p>When I was younger, if I missed <strong>any</strong> shot, even on my own time, I was hysterical and to prevent that, I carried the kitchen sink on my back. No more. Not sure how old you are, but I'd love to hear if you still feel the same way when you are in your late 60's and suffering from arthritis.</p>

<p>Just noticed that you asked about shooting people around a campfire. Unless there was someplace to brace my tabletop tripod mentioned above, I would miss that shot with my travel kit. But is it worth it dragging along a full tripod and head to get an occasional campfire shot? I would prefer not to be saddled with the tripod and work out some attempts at interesting campfire shooting using slow shutter speeds and flash (dragging the shutter) or cranking up the ISO on the 700 and handholding or perhaps interesting fire lit shots or backlit sillhoettes (never could spell that word) or some other non traditional low light shooting. Compromise or work out at the gym before you go.</p>