Rick Waller

<p>Rodeo photo - "I know what would have made it better (yes, it would have been a very expensive lens)."<br /> <br /> Sorry to be so harsh, but no lens known to man would make that posted shot better. It is out of focus and out of focus with a great lens is still out of focus. Seems pretty obvious that the shot is not focused due to a too slow shutter speed and a great lens will not necessarily cure that, unless the extra couple of stops of speed you get by shooting at say 2.8 bumps up the shutter speed enough to where it is sufficient to stop a moving subject. Not clear what aperture you were shooting at in this photo, but the motion blur looks bad enough to NOT be cured by a 2.8 lens. Would love to have seen that shot had you cranked up the ISO to say 1/1000 or higher. Yes - it would be "noisy", but I will take a sharp noisy shot anyday over a smooth out of focus shot.<br /> </p> <p>Just looked again at the shot and not only is ther serious motion blur due to too slow a shutter speed, but it looks like you were shooting whatever lens you were using wide open based on the background bokeh. Of course had you stopped down to improve the depth of field between cowboys, horses and sterr, your shutter speed would have dropped as well. I see no cure to your problem other than faster shutter speed.</p> <p> Just out of curiosity, were you using continuous focus on the camera? If not, that too may have contributed greatly to the lack of sharpness. </p>

<p>I should have mentioned the sling strap as an option. If I have my DSLR gear with me and need to use astrap, it is the R Strap. Best way I know of spreading the weight of the rig. Much better than a shoulder strap which is a killer these days for me. </p>

<p>Regarding my earlier reply, here are 2 examples from the Sony NEX7 and Zeiss 16-70/4. Russian church is printed 16x24 and has no filtering and minimal post work. White balance, exposure and sharpening. The neighbor's cat shot using the Nissin flash that I love.<br /> <img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5l7icffUG5wVMSI-6dnDPgiJmxnXwU5KjBiz3Jz_zdU=w449-h674-no" alt="" /><br> <img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/j_5tkstJ67ERQpdoo8YhGJM49y2xdbaKxBVmJGw18eM=w482-h674-no" alt="" width="481" height="674" /></p>

<p>Asking a broad, subjective question as you did will get you exactly the wide range of replies you received. All of the replies so far make excellent points, but the fact is that no one answer is the "correct" one. Too much depends, as others have mentioned, on your expectations, your wallet, and what you will be shooting.<br> Just a few random comments from my perspective.<br> <strong><em>"Since you are accustomed to using a viewfinder and interchangeable lenses, you will be looking among DSLRs and can dismiss all the point and shoots."</em> </strong> This ignores the mirrorless bodies that do have viewfinders. Most can operate as P&S, but they can do much more, much better<br> <em><strong>"I really like having quick and easy access to change all of the settings, not sure how easy that is on a smaller camera"</strong></em><br> Very easy to change the settings, etc on my mirrorless, but there IS the question of muscle memory that needs to be relearned over time with a new camera. Same as it would be if you went from a Canon DSLR to a Nikon DSLR. Both will allow you to change settings, but you will not do so effortlessly until you retrain your brain.</p> <p><em><strong>"I just tried out some mirrorless and micro sensor cameras. ....It was strange looking at a screen through the viewfinder.......... It just felt too...artificial. ...... this makes me feel like an old timer trying to hang on to ancient technology"</strong></em><br> <strong><em><br /></em></strong>Exactly my reaction when I first tried a Sony mirrorless, but read on because my opinions have changed dramatically.</p> <p>I am 67 years old and find that if traveling for pleasure, I often do not want to lug my DSLR Nikon gear. It is just too heavy. A couple of years ago, I bought a Sony NEX-7 (currently the A6000) and couple of good Sony lenses and now, if I am going somewhere where photography is personal, I won't hesitate to grab my Sony kit and leave the Nikon's home. The Sony camera is remarkable. Yes, it takes time to get accustomed to the electronic view finder, but I now actually like it since it affords you a view of what any changed you make look like. Not to mention the histogram that is visible. Any change I make is instantly visible in the finder. </p> <p>Yes I had to learn how to use it. First times out with it, I couldn't remember how to change anything. But I learned fast and I now have 2 sets of muscle memory. I can go back and forth between the Sony and Nikon without missing a beat.<br> The sensor on the Sony is spectacular and in terms of how large one can print - answer is pretty much as large as you want assuming you used good glass and good technique. I have printed numerous poster sized prints using the NEX7 and the Sony/Zeiss 16-70/4 lens. That lens is expensive, but just a great performer and with the 150% "crop factor", it is my walk around lens on the Sony.</p> <p>ISO - here is where the DSLR blows away the mirrorless. I shoot my D3S's at 6400 (or higher when necessary) often when necessary and have virtually no grain issues (assuming I expose correctly). The Sony? I wouldn't want to go much higher than ISO 640 unless no choice. If noise is present in a photo, software can clean it up quite well, but no way the small sensor can compete with the hi Iso ability of the DSLR. At least not yet.....<br> Another factor has to do with focal lengths. I do a lot of sports and critter photography where I use big glass. I have not found a Sony lens that will take me out very far with the same kind of sharpness that I want. I have the 18-200, but frankly at 200mm, it is only so/so and I seldom carry it. (by the way, that lens is relatively heavy). I have not shot with the new 55-210. So if I know that I am going somewhere where I would expect to need long reach, I reach for the Nikon and my long glass. You mention Glacier NP - if I were going to Glacier again, I would have long glass with me.<br> I just returned a couple of weeks ago from a 2 week personal trip in Europe and on a Rhine cruise. I decided that the lightweight, small size benefits of the Sony far outweighed the need for long glass. I was completely satified with the choice of the 16-70/4 and the 10-18/f4. My camera body, both lenses, a Nissin i40 flash (great small, light weight, powerful, full functioned and inexpensive flash that is Sony TTL compatible), a flash cord and a polo filter with spare memory cards fit into a very small Think Tank bag that in total weighed less than my D3s and 24-70/2.8. Yes I missed a shot of an eagle fishing in the Rhine, but the trade off of being able to have the bag on my shoulder for 12 hours/day with no effort was well worth it.</p> <p>Long winded way of saying that there are decisions and compromised that only you can make. But do not rule out the mirroless genre as a kneejerk reaction. The good ones allow for DSLR type control and can produce outstanding shots. This technology is a game changer and I don't doubt that the lack of long glass issues will be overcome. Hey - I can mount my Nikon 400/2.8 on my Sony by using an adapter now albeit sacrificing some important auto functions.</p> <p>Good luck.</p>

<p>I just returned from a Rhine River cruise last week and I carried the equivalent of 24 to 300mm in 3 separate zooms. You might want to look at this thread where I posted some comments that are relevant to your question. </p> <p>http://www.photo.net/travel-photography-forum/00dJPP?start=10<br> Dave Henderson and I differ on our views (in both this thread and the other one) about the "ideal" lens for such a trip. He favors longer glass while my preference is wide to mid range. He doesn't favor his wide lenses shooting from the ship. I shot a lot of images using wide lenses since I like to occasionally include parts of the ship in scenic shots for scale. Obviously there is no right answer - it really depends on your style so read everyone's comments and decide what is best for your needs. Only thing I can tell you with any degree of certainty is that carrying a lot a equipment on day long walks at ports can interfere with your comfort. When I was younger, I carried way more gear than I now do. Physical limitations (just getting too old to haul everything just in case) has necessitated careful packing. One thing I do recommend is taking a flash with you. The nature of tours is that you will often be at locations at time of poor light (think noon) and having a flash for fill if shooting people is gimme.</p> <p>By the way - while I am an experienced traveler and have done many cruises, this was my first river cruise and I enjoyed it a lot. </p>

<p>Incidentally, I am not a Canon shooter so I am unfamiliar with the available mp's in your sensor, but one of the big advantages of the newer bodies is that with giant mp sensors, assuming that you have good glass and excellent technique, you can often crop in tight on a loose shot and create the illusion that you were using a much longer focal length.</p> <p>Example from my recent trip. Shot this at 105mm and cropped the hell out of it. Before and after.<br> <img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-a9jZVJxIOLo/VWnvKw634HI/AAAAAAAAGao/dnn6HxH6X0g/w405-h567-no/DSC01794%2B-%2BCopy.jpg" alt="" width="405" height="567" /></p> <p><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vx4a04ljhm8/VWnvKvaBq5I/AAAAAAAAGao/ifBSp9fCFQk/w405-h567-no/DSC01794%2B-%2Btight.jpg" alt="" width="405" height="567" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>I think the biggest takeaways that you will get from the replies here are that the 2 most important considerations in deciding what focal lengths to bring are your shooting style and strength of your shoulder. David H indicated that he used his 70-200 for most of his shooting so for him the 70-200 is clearly the "correct" choice. I returned this past Monday from a 2 week trip to Germany and found that while I carried 3 zooms ranging from 14mm to 300mm, I see that the mid range 24-105 was used in something close to 95% of my shooting. I used the long lens for exactly 3 shots the first week, so in the second week it seldom left the hotel room due to weight considerations</p> <p>I do strongly recommend a small, lightweight <strong>tabletop</strong> tripod for interiors and night shooting. I find that my f4 lenses (at a mid aperture) on a tiny tripod outperform my superfast primes since I have found that shooting at 1.8 or 1.4 too often creates DOF problems. I have seldom encountered a situation where I could not prop my small table top tripod against a column, wall, church pew, lamppost, parked car roof, tree, railing, etc and due to the tiny size, have never had a problem entering "no tripod" zones. Problem is that cheapo table top legs are worse than just leaning your shoulder and/or camera against the same supports. And of course a good set of legs and small head are expensive. (Look at the Really Right Stuff legs and smallest head - excellent, but not inexpensive).</p> <p>On a slightly off topic note, keep in mind that when traveling on a vavation tour bus with a large group, Murphy's Law dictates that you will arrive at the choicest shooting locales at midday with terrible light or will arrive at a west facing photo op at 4-5pm. Unfortunate fact of life when traveling on a group tour. And of course, the bus will not stay there while you wait for a cloud to pass or for the light to improve. Most folks just pile off the bus, point their cam phones at the noted site and snap away holding the phone in one hand at arms length and jump back on the bus satisfied that they "got the shot". Difficult to do quality photography with a group of 30 unless you are on a dedicated photo tour.</p>

<p>I don't have much to add about the D700/D7200 choice, but I was intrigued by your comment that you tried mirrorless and didn't like it. I would love to hear what it was that turned you away from mirrorless.</p> <p>I picked up a Sony NEX7 back when it was first introduced in order to use when my "real gear" was too large/heavy to be practical. I love the mirrorless, but there are things that a DSLR does much better so I most often carry my D3S regardless of the weight. However, one area that I found the mirrorless Sony to excel in is street photography. Of course you need great glass in front of the body, but I found the combination of tiny size, near silent action and incredibly detailed sensor to be compelling. <br /> I figure if Eisenstadt, Cartier-Bresson and Ms. Burke-White managed with a mirrorless, I should be able to as well. (ok - so my Sony is NOT a Leica, my lenses are not Leica and I cannot hold those people's lunch when it comes to photographic talent, I did manage to get some very pleasing results). And - remember that I actually could mount a Leica lens on my Sony, if I had a $3 or $4 thousand to spend on a 35mm or 28mm lens.</p>

<p>Hard to go wrong with the D800 + lenses. Other than a weight issue, you are giving up nothing. As far as Sony - the NEX is a crop sensor camera; when I bought mine when it first came out, it was the only game in town. If I were buying today, I would go for the newer FF models like you mention, especially since the remaining Sony cropped cameras don't have a viewfinder. But no way am I going to start all over again with new lenses.</p> <p>I picked up the Sony for the sole purpose of reducing the strain on my back and shoulders when shooting for my own use. Makes a great snap shot rig. While one could theoretically use the Sony for studio work and other "real" jobs, I have not taken that step. When shooting "for real", I reach for my Nikons. </p>

<p>Couple of examples from NEX-7 - first time shooting with the camera. took it on a vacation - purely record shots for my use only.<br> Cat and bird are cropped images and the canal boat is only slightly processed in post. Primarily sharpening. The colors are as they were - no polarizer was used. Just lucked into a spectacularly well lit scene.</p> <p><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-pEzVkgC5FoY/UCE9_bbsjQI/AAAAAAAACOs/I4tJgKnrZwc/w779-h557-no/_DSC0676.jpg" alt="" width="779" height="556" /><br> <img src="https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/100615462260390986184/albums/5773963352817991665/5773963601145531666?authkey=CP65k93T6IeO8AE&pid=5773963601145531666&oid=100615462260390986184" alt="" /><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Qi-wpntLSMI/UCE9TbBQjRI/AAAAAAAAFbE/ewzwxtjnjIg/w696-h557-no/_DSC0361.jpg" alt="" /><br> <img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ciSUbnEP2ls/UCE9bwuRu-I/AAAAAAAAEa0/VZQYhgdL37E/w598-h897-no/_DSC0422.jpg" alt="" width="598" height="897" /></p>

<p>The dynamic range of my Sony NEX 7 is nothing short of extraordinary. there are many reasons, some of which I mentioned above, why I would choose my D800 or D3s over the NEX if I had a choice, but improvement in DR is not one of them</p>

<p>RickM - I am not a moderator, I do not personally know Shun and I am not a Nikon fan boy. I have been a Nikon shooter for 45 years and I am an NPS member. My exepriences with Nikon service has nothing to do with this thread. I am not here to defend or criticize.<br> I have to tell you that your continuous rant about Nikon is growing real old. Whether Nikon service is good or bad is totally irrelevant to this conversation. It is one thing to write a post explaining your Nikon serviceexperiences (good or bad) so that others may be made aware of what happens in the real world. This is what the forum is for. It is quite another to go on a crusade to insist that "Nikon Is Bad" and to stamp your feet and denigrate anyone who dares to disagree with your conclusion. <br> You come across as fanatical with your expressions of deep seeded hatred for Nikon and apparently you will not be satisfied until everyone else in the forum affirms that you are right. Suggesting that you should perhaps switch to Canon is not tolerated by you. Shun may be constrained by position as moderator and therefore "pulling his punches" in his replies, but I am not burdened with that handicap. <br> I can tell you that this continuous rant is becoming completely obnoxious and serves little purpose on this forum. I repeat that has nothing to do with a review of Nikon service. Some have had terrible experiences, others have had satisfactory ones. You threaten that you will not be renewing your Photo.net subscription as a result of the perceived insult. I doubt anyone will care if you take your soapbox to another locale.<br /> Give it a rest.</p>

<p>"guides are guides and usually not photographers"<br> <br> Harvey - Original poster wanted opinions as to whether to take along a tripod even if the guide recommended not to. I just want to add that in my experience, guides in exotic locales are frequently very well versed in photography. I have had guides that have actually recommended what lens to mount on my camera and what fstop and/or shutter speed before turning round the bend. And even if the guide is not a photographer, I expect that he knows what a tripod is and is undoubtedly recommending against one based on experiences he has had with previous tourists/photogs who have struggled with their gear.<br> <br> A guide makes his living keeping his charges happy - if a customer has an unpleasant experience because of the difficulty dragging along a tripod or oversized backpack or whatever, it reflects badly on him and his pocketbook when it is time to tip. No-one in the hospitality business would risk alienating a customer by suggesting that he leaves something home without a good reason to do so. <br> <br> And regarding the noise from high ISO - I would much rather have a noisy shot than miss the shot because I was too tired to set up the tripod when action arose. That is why God invented Noise Ninja, Define etc. You can fix noise; you can't fix "I missed the shot."<br> <br> It will be interesting to hear how AllenG makes out with his trip and whether or not he did bring along the legs.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I'd go with a tripod myself. In Costa Rica.... <br> <br> And contradict the clear suggestion of the guide? I don't see how that will be a smart move. While I agree that there is no substitute for a tripod (especially if you are, as you say, planning night shots and other low light shooting) - ignoring your guide is probably a dumb move. If all else fails - jack the ISO.</p> </blockquote>

<p>Seems to me that any hotel concierge in the city should be able to advise you about good locations.</p>

<p>Please let us know if the grunge grows back. </p>

<p>Would love to hear how it worked out. From everything I have ever read, even pro repair shops have difficulty successfully removing mold since it nearly impossible to kill the unseen spores and the visible mold often grows back.</p> <p>If your fix works long term, it would be nice to hear that it can be done, What did you use to mitigate the mold? I can understand that it may not be hard to disassemble and reassemble a lens mechanically, but cleaning off the mold is something I know nothing about.</p>

<p>".... for me, is making use of mirrorless cameras. Sony is already producing some very capable models, that some pros are using for their travel photography."<br> If you look in one of my earlier replies, you will notice that I often use a Sony mirrorless if I do not need the things that the DSLR does that the Sony does not. (Like faster autofocus and follow focus, more frames per second and better high ISO ability.)</p>

<p>Slightly off topic, but the way this thread is playing out speaks volumes for the great way B&H treats its customers. Many of us already know that BH is the way to go when buying gear (I began with them when they were a tiny little shop on 17th Street) and the quick response by Henry Posner to a potentially negative comment about B&H in a forum goes a long way toward enhancing the store's reputation (which of course is why Henry lurks around on various photo forums looking to set things straight if they pertain to B&H experiences or to just help out with advice on photography gear).<br />I have personally reached out directly to Henry on several occasions for help in resolving issues or to get his advice and he is always available via his store email.<br />Kudos to B&H (and Henry in particular) for actively working to protect its well earned excellent reputation.</p>

<p>I envy you.</p>

<p>DAvid Henderson - just guessing that you are a young and fit fellow. Back in the day, when I was so described I carried everything with me as well for the "just in case" moment. At my current age, that no longer happens. When I travel, I pack with an eye toward what I might need most and ruthlessly cull out the just in case gear.<br /> If I expect to use my D3s with a 24-120 lens for 70% of my shooting (as you indicate that you do,) I would rather be able to carry that kit with me at all times with perhaps a wider prime and know that I will have the gear to shoot 70% (90% if I have a 20mm/2.8 in my pocket). Packing all of my gear and having it on my shoulder or back at all times simply does not work for non-paid photography. I have come to grips that there may be shots that my 80-400 might have nailed, but I am not hauling that monster with me for the occasional great op. <br /> I should also add that there is always a flash in my vest (and a second body always in the car or hotel in case of failure of primary), but I have been known to leave full height legs at home unless I am planning to shoot macros, etc. I have found that in deference to my age, I can make do quite nicely with a solid Leica tabletop tripod and ballhead. Will that work as well as my full sized support? Of course not, but generally there is always something nearby upon which I can prop the tabletop. <br /> At the end of the day, what is "best" will depend on individual preferences and what one is willing (or must) give up.</p> <p>Oh - and I have a second system (NEX 7 with 2 small sized zooms covering 24 - 105mm) that is physically quite small and lightweight that I won't hesitate to carry on a vacation trip if I know that the weight of even the D3s and 24-120 will be a problem.</p>

<p>To repeat the good advice that others have mentioned, it really depends on the photographer. I personally would find far more use for a wide to medium zoom in a city environment. Ideally, a wide to moderate zoom in the 20 - 135 range ( I know that zoom does not exist - I mean selecting a lens somewhere in that range). 18-35 would be too short at the long end for me. My 24-120 (I shoot Nikon) is my typical one lens in the city solution. </p> <p>by the way - while I agree that a backpack may be more convenient and more comfortable than a shoulder bag for a full say walking around, do not fail to consider that wearing a backpack in a city is an invitation to be robbed. I live in NY and I would NEVER put my backpack (or shoulder bag) on the ground when shooting unless I had my foot through a strap. Put a bag on the ground and take some time looking up through the lens to frame a shot and there is a fair chance your bag will not be there when you look down. If you have been to Barcelona recently, you will notice that most folks (photographers and ordinary citizens) have taken to wearing their backpacks "backwards" on their chests due to the plague of pickpockets.</p>

<p>"Anything in direct contact with the original screen is going to transmit shock through to it, so offering dubious impact protection."<br> Dubious? The rock broke the protector; the lcd screen was unscathed. It is not dubious to me.<br> The flimsy plastic cover that comes OEM with Nikon is a poor substitute. It is made of plastic which impedes viewing the image, scratches if you breath on it is optically poor and adds distortion and color to a shot, is easily lost and yellows with wear. Most working pros remove those flimsy dust covers.</p>

<p>I respectfully disagree with the idea of sticky film. There are 2 problems - first is that it impedes the view of the image on the LCD screen. The good screen protectors are made from Schott glass. Second problem with the sticky film is that it offers no protection. While the actual Nikon LCD screen is quite robust, I prefer to mount a glass LCD protector on the nikon screens. I had a case last year where I managed to slam my D3 against a rock outcropping that shattered the glass screen protector, but did not penetrate to the actual Nikon LCD screen. Might have just been dumb luck or perhaps the Nikon screen is stronger than the GGS protector, but fact is that I lost the protector and not the actual screen.<br /> Absolutely worth the peace of mind in my opinion to have impact protection, rather than just a piece of film. Not to mention that the glass protector offers a "correct" image and is easy to clean with the same cloths I use to clean lenses. Plastic film like I use on my iphone only offers scratch protection for the underlying screen.<br /> In the past, I used the GGS versions which were around $10. Lately - after my D3 vs. rock incident, I have blown for this one.<br /> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?N=10941731&InitialSearch=yes&sts=pi<br /> Yeah it is $38, but it is protecting my $5k camera bodies, allows me to view the image displayed unimpeded by distortion and is easy to wipe clean of fingerprints, watermarks and anything else. Sorry - it is a no brainer to me.<br> <strong>EDIT</strong> - <em>I did not realize that the Zagg product mentioned in the original post is in fact made of glass. I have no experience with this product, so I cannot compare it to the GGS or the Giotto. However, I stand by my comparison of an optical glass protector (anyone's model) to a piece of sticky film used for an iphone.</em></p>

<p>GGS makes very good ones.</p> <p>http://www.amazon.com/GGS-Optical-Protector-Digital-Cameras/dp/B004KU0RJK</p> <p>or on other sites.</p>