eric_bowles

<p>I have a D300 and a D7000 on order. The D7000 is for my wife who is moving from a D300.<br>

The advantages of the D7000 over the D300s include improved ISO performance which you said is very important. We don't know the details, but every release seems to tweak or significantly improve ISO performance. Since this is a new larger sensor, I would expect to see the best DX camera performance yet, but not matching your D3.<br>

The D7000 is a great light weight camera - 780 grams which makes it 140 grams lighter than the D300s. If you need a light weight kit, this is a good option and compliments your D3. <br>

DX cameras will provide you with a bit of extra effective reach due to the crop factor. I like the idea of a DX camera for a backup.<br>

Since you have a D3, both options involve a different battery. The D7000 battery is inconvenient but not a show stopper. Likewise since the D7000 does not have a 10 pin connector, the cable release, GPS connector, and remote are all different. <br>

The D7000 uses SD cards. That is kind of a nuisance, but would be an advantage if you intend to post images from the field via iPhone or other device. The two slots would be an advantage but both the D300s and D7000 have that feature.<br>

AF system is similar in both cameras with a probable small edge to the D300s. It has more focus points and probably will focus faster.<br>

Each camera has slightly different user controls. The D300s has more programable features, but the D7000 has programmable modes on the control wheel. This provides access without going into menus. I could see new modes as a plus for Auto ISO or High ISO use.<br>

The other consideration is the D300s is getting a bit old. No doubt a new generation will be announced before long. Does it make sense to get the first of the new generation - a D7000 - or wait for the D400, D800, or D4?</p>

<p>It's back in stock now at Adorama, Amazon, and B&H.<br>

Looks like normal variation that a new shipment resolved. I would not be surprised to see a VR version of the 24-70 at the next upgrade, but it is a great lens as is.</p>

<p>I also find the Nikon 300 f/4 and the TC 14E II and TC 17E II teleconverters makes a great combination. The Nikon 200-400 is an excellent lens, but probably not much better than the 300 f/4 if you are adding a teleconverter.<br>

My experience is anything in the 500m range or longer requires a tripod - or at least a monopod. With great technique you can hand hold, but that still will only represent a small percentage of your keepers compared to using a tripod.<br>

On a budget, the Tamron 200-500mm lens is a good option. It is much lighter and less expensive than other combinations, but produces nice images inside 100 feet and 450mm. For birding, that should do the job. <br>

For large wildlife, a 300 f/4 is terrific. The teleconverters add flexibility and reach. If you are investing in teleconverters, keep in mind the best results are matching lenses and teleconverters with the same manufacturer. <br>

I find whatever you have is not enough for birds. If you have a 500mm f/4, you'll want to add a teleconverter. Probably a better move is to go with something moderately priced and learn to use it. If you still want more reach, you can sell the lens and upgrade.</p>

<p>I'd second the suggestion of the National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole. You may also have some good luck in Grand Teton National Park - particularly off Antelope Flats Road. You should have plenty of bison, elk, and probably moose. Also look for Bald Eagles near water - they are relatively common in the area. There are a number of good overlooks for wildlife - Willow Flats is my favorite but I am not sure how it will be in winter.</p>

<p>My approach is a bit different. I have the Nikon 18-200 as well as the 24-70, 70-200, and many other options.</p>

<p>Scott Kelby probably put it best - the best glass in the world does not do you any good if you are not carrying it with you when you need it. Scott's lament was about carrying great glass on a trip to a new place, and it was always the wrong lens for the shot at hand. His comment was that next time he would just carry the 18-200 because in spite of any image questions, it provided incredible flexibility without lugging 30 pounds of gear.</p>

<p>If you are going to a place you know with the idea of getting the best possible images, by all means take the 1-2 lenses that are best for the situation. Then compliment that if necessary with an all purpose lens for everything else. Yesterday I was shooting sandhill cranes and eagles. My kit was my D300, 300 f/4 and two teleconverters. My one lens lit for business travel is the D70 with the 18-200 lens because of its light weight and flexibility. My light kit for hiking is a D300, 18-70, and 70-300 ED with the Nikon 5T, 6T and extension tubes because it covers everything from landscapes to wildlife and close ups. If I am going to Yosemite or Yellowstone for a serious trip, I bring 2-3 camera bodies and highest quality lenses like the 12-24, 24-70, 70-200, 105 Macro, 300mm plus the teleconverters, tubes, and close up diopters.</p>

<p>If you are going someplace new, and photography is not the primary objective, take a kit that is flexible. VR helps a great deal. You'll need both wide and long. And light weight is relevant.</p>

<p>Your original idea of using the D70 more often resonates with me as well. I bought an 87C filter and used my D70 for IR until I converted a D200. The D70 has a weak IR filter on the sensor and permits pretty good IR images with an 87C filter and exposure times ranging from 1-15 seconds. You'll have to use a tripod, manually focus, and not all lenses work for IR, but it opens up a new genre for those middle of the day times when nothing conventional works.</p>

<p>Redbud trees tend to bloom a week or so earlier than dogwoods, so while there is some overlap, you may need to use elevation to find the sweetspot with both. I think your timing is perfect. In 2007 there was a hard freeze in early April. I was there April 5, 2008 and found the dogwoods just starting to bloom at the lowest elevations. I am planning a week at the end of April for this year.<br>

<br />Near Townsend, the Tremont area is probably the best. You could easily spend the day along the stream. Also try the Rich Mountain Road out of Cades Cove. You should find a large number of dogwoods along the road.<br>

<br />There are also some good locations along Little River Road between Townsend and Gatlinburg. The trail from the parking area near the Townsend entrance is known for wildflowers.<br>

<br />The other great location would be the Greenbrier area. Follow the fork to the left along the Middle Prong for the best locations.<br>

<br />Dogwoods have been impacted by disease and drought. They may not be as plentiful as in the past, but you should have a good show.<br>

<br />Don't forget wildflowers. The wildflowers during April and May are the best of the year in the Smokies.<br />The Campbell/Simmons book is the best guide to Smokies photography. I have a well worn copy.</p>

You can probably add the Sigma 15-30 and 12-24 to your consideration. Both are ultrawide angle lenses that work on both FX and DX bodies. The 15-30 has a rear filter, but also has a front lens cap that turns into a filter ring that would allow extra wide filters.

 

My experience is you need at least 12mm for DX bodies to provide something wide enough for landscapes. On FX bodies this translates into 17-18mm. The need for filters is certainly important for leandscape, so generally you would stay away from lenses that do not permit filters.

 

I can also confirm that the 24-70 is nowhere near wide enough for wide landscape images on a DX body. On recent trips to Acadia and Yosemite I found the 12-24 needed to be kept handy. If you get a 24-70 lens - which is wonderful - an ultra wide angle lens is mandatory with DX bodies.

My D70 failed within the first 60 days of ownership - due to being dropped - so I can't fault Nikon. My N80, D200, and D300 are all going strong with a cumulative 40,000 images.

 

It's interesting to compare the digital models to film cameras. There are a lot more electrical parts that can fail in the modern digital cameras, along with a lot more user options to create problems. The old film cameras were relatively simple and largely bulletprooof in comparison.

 

Also consider the number of images between failures. I have 1 failure in 40,000 images over 4 years. With my film camera, I probably averaged 1000 images a year or less. So my digital experience is equivalent to more than 40 years of film images.

I have it running on twp Vista PC's and have paid for one version. One license is sufficient. Simply register both copies with the same product key.

Compared to the price of the camera, memory cards are not a significant issue. The biggest problem with both is user error - lost cards, damaged cards, user caused data corruption, etc.

 

One interesting issue with CF - the pins seem to be bent or broken from time to time. Whether this is user error or quality control on black market cards is unknown.

When the D3 was released, Nikon pro Dave Black reported using a D3 on full auto for an entire football game and had great results. That's Auto ISO and Auto AF. He used the Auto ISO because of huge changes in lighting - a running back going from full sun to a shadow on a single play. Rapid changes in shooting conditions - particularly from bight sun to full shade - make Auto ISO an important tool. Black indicated that some of his images would not have been possible without Auto ISO - he simply could not have reacted quickly enough to change camera settings. With full auto, he was able to put his shooting emphasis on framing the shot and getting the "right" image rather than trying to get a proper exposure or focus.

 

The D3 and D700 have much better high ISO performance than the D300. I do use my D300 with Auto ISO, but you don't have the latitude to shoot at the extremely high ISO levels of the D3/D700.

 

I'm not sure you can put your camera in Point and Shoot Mode and forget it completely, but that is a viable option that is getting better.

The 70-300 VR works fine with the 5T and 6T. There is no vignetting. It also works fine with the Kenko extension tubes.

 

You are correct that the lack of a tripod collar can cause some problems, but good technique will solve most of the issue.

 

This lens along with the close up diopters and extension tubes makes a great light weight kit.

Whatever you get it won't be long enough. :) That's just the way it is with birding.

 

You did not mention your budget. It might provide some added clarity. As far as the basics - the longer the better,

the faster the better, and without good image quality it does not matter. A faster lens and good low light performance

are important because a great deal of bird photography is done in the early morning or around dusk.

 

I agree with the recommendation on the 300 f/4 AF-S with the TC 14E II teleconverter. I would add the TC 17E II

teleconverter as well, but you will need reasonably good light for AF to work. I have this combination and love it.

That gives you an effective 300-510 f/4-6.3 AF-S. The Nikon teleconverters will also work nicely with other lenses

such as the 70-200 and the 400mm /500mm primes.

 

The Tamron 200-500 and Sigma 50-500 are additional alternatives under $1000. You clearly are not going to get the

image quality of a 400 or 500 prime - but you are looking at a fraction of the cost. With both of these lenses you

need to stop down slightly.

 

I have the Tamron 200-500 but not the Sigma. I have tested it side by side against the Nikon 300 f/4 with

teleconverters. The Nikon is a little sharper - but almost double the cost. The Tamron is more demanding of

technique because of its length. The lens itself is 9 inches long, but zoomed to 500mm it extends to around 16

inches. It also has a lens hood nearly 7 inches long, so you end up with a 23 inch lens and hood. That length

makes it much more susceptible to vibration when the mirror flips up. With good long lens technique, that problem

virtually disappears and the images are very close in quality ot the 300mm and 1.7 teleconverter. The other benefit of

the Tamron 200-500 is that it is very light weight (43.6 ounces) - especially in comparison to the 400 and 500mm

primes. I do find the Tamron to be very sharp for targets inside 50 feet - covering the normal range for birding. It gets

a little softer outside of 100 feet but is still acceptable. And it can be hand held.

The impact of polarization depends on the angle of the sun. The maximum effect is at 90 degrees to the sun. That means if you have the sun at your back or you are shooting toward the sun there will be little impact.

 

The CP cuts the light, but as others have mentioned the camerea takes the reduction in light into consideration in calculating the exposure. Set at minimum polarization, you lose almost a stop. At full polarization you lose about 2 stops. This means you can use your CP as a mild neutral density filter.

 

Auto WB should still work without adjustment. This assumes your CP is of sufficient quality to be neutral in color. Some filters introduce a slight tint, and the camera would try to overcome that with white balance changes. It is possible you get some reflections that could impact white balance, so a manual white balance is an alternative. Generally the Auto WB is pretty good but it is an area that Nikon continues to refine.

The Nikon extension tubes do not have electrical contacts, so they so not transmit AF and metering information to

between your lens and camera. This issue applies to any camera and lens combination.

 

Kenko extension tubes (a set including 12mm, 20mm, and 36mm tubes costing around $170) do have electrical

contacts and let your lens function normally in most respects. The Kenko tubes work well with the Nikon 70-300 VR

and 70-200 VR, so I expect they will work on the 18-200.

 

VR is a problem with close-up photography. I have the 105 f/2.8 VR lens which has VR and is specifically designed

for macro work. Nikon advises that within 3 feet, you should turn off VR as it is not effective. The 18-200 has a

minimum focus point within 2 feet, so my expectation is that VR will have little value. The bigger problem with macro

photography - particularly high magnification - is the impact of small movements closer or farther from the subject.

Due to the tiny depth of field, any movement will throw your subject out of focus. So the normal approach is to use a

tripod. If you are looking at abstracts or low magnification, a tripod might not be necessary as long as your shutter

speed is fast enough. And of course, you can use a flash to reduce the need for a tripod.

 

I tend to agree that thet 18-200 is not a great candidate for extension tubes. The benefit of extension tubes is related

to the focal length. At 18-50mm you will be exceptionally close to the subject if you can achieve focus at all. At

longer focal lengths I think it will work much better.

 

The 50 f/1.4 and the 105 f/2.8 should work great with extension tubes. In fact, they are ideal. The 50mm lens will

probably use a 25 or 27mm tube to get around 1:1 magnification. The disadvantage is you will be within a couple of

inches of your subject, but for static subjects on a tripod, you will be fine.. The 105 lens is probably the ideal lens for

extension tubes as you get a little more working distance. Extension tubes are proportional to the focal length of the

lens, so 20mm of extension makes more difference in magnification for a 50mm lens than a 105mm lens. There is a

balance between working distance and magnification, and most people prefer to have as much working distance as

possible for a given level of magnification.

 

A couple of added thoughts. Extension tubes reduce the light to the point where AF may not be possible. Hunting

is common and will quickly drain a battery. So in practice, manual focus may be necessary. In fact, Kenko says

their lenses do not AF with AF-S lenses. Manual focus is also useful to achieve the precise focus required for high

magnification.

 

Extension tubes are not just for macro. One of my favorite uses is with butterflies. I have a larger subject but need

to be closer to fill the frame. A 20 mm extension tube on a 70-200 lens reduces the minimum focus distance from

nearly 5 feet to around 3 feet, enabling me to fill the frame while still giving the subject room to not scare it away.

The same approach can be used for large flowers like roses. My wife has some wonderful images with the 70-300

VR lens using a 20mm extension tube.

 

Extension tubes are a very good all purpose tool. I do recommend you give them a try.

What's not to like? Image quality is slightly better than its predecessor - the 28-70. The only disadvantage I see is

with IR where there is an intermittant hotspot.

 

I got the 24-70 as an upgrade from the 18-70. The choice of FX vs. DX was a matter of future-proofing - not against

Nikon but against my desire for a D700 or something similar in the future. My main camera body at this point is a

D300.

 

On a DX body, I find there is a much greater need for an ultrawide lens to compliment the 24-70. I have the Tokina

12-24. On a recent trip, I found myself carrying both lenses with me when shooting landscapes.

 

Eric

It's well worth it to spend the extra $100 to get the ED version of this lens. I'd stay away ffrom the G version due to the build and image quality characteristics.

 

John Shaw reported the ED version as part of his light weight kit. It pairs well with extension tubes, close-up lenses, and both DX and FX bodies. No teleconverters with this lens and keep it stopped down if possible above 200mm.

Hans is correct - you need the pop-up flash or similar transmitter to create the pre-flashes that provide communication with your off camera flash. There are about a dozen pre-flashes occuring at the speed of light before the actual flash occurs. By turning off the pop-up flash, you can eliminate the flash in the image, but you still need the pre-flashes for operation of the off camera flash unit. In some rare circumstances, the pre-flashes will impact your image and in those rare circumstances, limiting the flash to IR wavelength provides an alternative.

I use NX2 almost exclusively for my edits. While it does not have "layers", the selection control points can be used to create masks and many of the effects of layers without the added time and file size.

 

Vincent Versace has a great DVD on NX2. Jason Odell has what I would regard as the best book on how the software works. Versace describes the tools as follows: View NX is an organizer, Capture NX2 is an image editor to adjust the details in the images you captured in-camera, and CS3 is a bitmap editor that can actually change the image by cloning, etc.

 

I find that the healing function and selection editing functions in NX2 handle most of my needs much more quickly than CS3 - and in a non-destructive manner. I am working with the in-camera settings of an image and those settings can be changed after the fact in NX2 using Picture Control. The one place I need Photoshop is for changing the image. Examples might be copying part of the image or combining multiple images as in HDR processing.

 

Eric

While the new lenses allow close focus without them, tubes are still useful to reduce the minimum focus distance of

lenses like the 70-200. And sometimes you want to go beyond 1:1.

 

It does seem that Nikon is missing an opportunity. While I have the Kenko tubes and they work fine, I would readily

pay more to have the more robust build of Nikon tubes including metering and AF.

 

It's interesting that Nikon also discontinued close-up lenses. The 5T and 6T work wonderfully with the 105 lens, but

are no longer produced.

 

Eric

You can download the full version of NX2 from the Nikon site for a 30 day trial. The version you download is specific to Windows or Mac OS. Your product key code should work to activate both versions - the code does not specify operating system.

 

Eric

Let me share a couple of additions to the comments above.

 

Extension tubes work proportionately to the focal length of your lens. That means 25mm of extension on a 50mm

lens helps a great deal, but the same 25mm on a 200mm lens makes relatively little difference in your quest for

higher magnification. The Kenko tube set may have a small amount of play in it, but not enough to adversely affect

image quality. Most macro images are taken from a tripod due to the precise focus requirements, so a small

amount of play will not affect your images. A large amount of play would be a manufacturing or design defect. I find

it is helpful to have the metering and AF provided by the Kenko tubes.

 

The extension tubes may be extremely helpful to reduce the minimum focus distance. I was using my 70-200 lens

to shoot butterflies recently and added an extension tube to allow a closer minimum focus. For butterflies, I did not

want 1:1 magnification or anything like it.

 

The close up diopters or close up lenses that screw onto the front of your lens are another way to increase

magnification. Quality varies a great deal so stick with the Nikon and Canon brands. The Nikon 1T, 2T, and 3T are

for lenses with a 52mm filter while the 4T, 5T, and 6T are for lenses with a 62mm filter size. Canon makes a 250D

and 500D close up lens that comes in a variety of filter ring sizes and is not specific to Canon gear. The Canon and

Nikon versions both contain high quality glass - stay away from the others. For added magnification, you can stack

close up lenses. Most people today buy the Canon versions because the Nikon versions are very hard to find.

 

Eric

As mentioned above, the D300 is ineffective for IR. Even converted, Bjorn Rorslett was dissatisfied with IR performance and got rid of it in favor of his converted D200.

 

The D200, D80, and D40 - as well as the D2 series - have strong IR blocking and require conversion. You may get false IR with a weak filter like the R72 and some light leakage. If you get an IR effect, it is generally weak. My experience with the unconverted D200 and the 87C filter was exposure times of 20 seconds or more in bight sun.

 

The D70/D70s, D100, and D1 perfom pretty well for IR with a filter like the R72 for weak IR and the 87C for a strong IR effect. Unconverted, exposure times are long and require pre-focusing before the IR filter is attached. Focus and exposure times must be handled manually. I have a D70 and find exposure times are in the 2-4 second range with the 87C filter in full sun. An unconverted D70 is a great way to get started with IR.

 

Converted, the camera behaves just like any other DSLR. It will both autofocus and meter. Exposure times are similar to normal exposures. I have a D200 converted for IR and it is terrific. Given the price of the used D200, it is probably the best bet for conversion today.

I agree - 500mm x 700mm is pretty close to 20x30 inches and should be easily achieved with the D300.

I just got the 24-70 for my D300. It's a wonderful lens - very sharp, no vignietting at any focal length, and nice crisp color rendition. It works well at f/2.8 resulting in a nice shallow depth of field when you need it. The lens is wonderful for portraits, small groups and press photo.

 

Bjorn Rorslett rates the lens a 5 out of 5 - and indicates it is an improvement over the 28-70 which is quite good.

 

There are two minor disadvantages to the lens. For IR, there is an occasional hotspot. I am still experimenting with the conditions that generate a hotspot on my converted D200, but Bjorn originally rated it a 5 for IR and is adjusting his rating/comments. The other issue - not really a problem - is that 24mm is a bit restrictive on a DX camera, so you will use your 12-24 regularly. I just got back from Acadia and found I was using my 12-24 much more often now that I have a 24-70. As you mentioned, you have a 12-24 so this is not a problem.

 

It's a great lens - possibly one of the best Nikon produces today.