vincent_p

<p>Hi Andrea,<br>

If you are not quite into photographing birds and wild animals, then you won't quite miss much of your 70-300. You mgiht need it if you go on your sight-seeing/cultural trips there. For the other shots e.g. locals, use your feet. I was there a few years ago and carried a standard kit lens zoom plus a long zoom but hardly used the long zoom (which I used only for the wild animals and birds plus zooming in to teh top of the mountains and some trees).<br>

I didn't bring the tripod - what I did for night shots was to prod myself on rocks, poles, bags etc - get creative.<br>

I recently went for the Annapurna base camp. This time, I brought my all-in-one 18-200 VR which I bought 2 months before the trip, as I wanted to minimise on the weight, even though I still hired porter for the other stuff. The VR helped a lot, but drained my battery faster. So do bring spare batteries as not every location has the "luxury" of charging. (in this recent Annapurna hike, the lodge somehow toasted my charger...thankfully it was just a few days before finishing my trip and my other 2 batteries had been fully charged.)<br>

As Jose mentioned, do bring plastic to protect your gears but do dispose responsibly. Unfortunately there have been far too many irresponsible hikers that has been spoiling such beautiful places. If you can bring it back with you - apparently they do not have proper recycling available there.<br>

Hope this helps.<br>

Vincent</p>

<p>Hi Gary,<br>

Like Scott, I also use the D300 as a backup for my D700. As what others have mentioned, there are many similiarities, which really helped. When shooting for clients, I sometimes bring both and interchange usage on the spot. Having similar buttons and setup process on both really helps with speed. I tried a friend's D90 and I found it rather slow for me to change settings. Also, my battery charger got fried when I was in Nepal recently and I am really glad that my D700 uses the same battery/charger. <br>

To keep the cost down after buying my D700, I bought my D300 2nd hand. IQ wise, I really have no complaints on the D300, even on a long zoom. I have not tried it with a TC14.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I live in in SEAsia and have not experienced what you mentioned. Drybox is a must but if you're travelling, maybe you can use the sealed box with plenty of silica. When not in use, my D700 is in the drybox but my previous Oly was never in a drybox and didn't have any problems like that.<br />Please also note that our perspiration could also contribute esp if it was not cleaned off properly.</p>

<p>Philip,<br>

Like you I have both bodies but not your exact lens combi. The 18-200 on the D300 would make it a versatile combination but as others have said, you may not get the best IQ but sure beats changing lenses or the 24-70's weight and range. Generally when I travel, I use the D300 for it's slightly lighter body and 18-200 for the range. If my travels are holidays, I'm at leisure plus wanting to travel light, it is good enough for me. But if I am travelling on assignment, it's definitely D700 with 24-70 plus 70-200.<br>

If you are going to travel with 14-24, 24-70, forget the 18-200 - you're having overlaps here and not getting the best combination - get a better tele lens instead. But if you want it light and simple and dont mind compromising, just the 18-200/D300 would do.<br>

Rgds.</p>

 

<p>Hi Donna,<br>

Unless you are absolutely sure, I would suggest that you get the D90. Use the spare cash to get good lenses. D300 is over 200g heavier at almost a Kg and I sometimes wish I have the lighter D90 to bring with me on my travels. Though it has the 51 focus points, you can still manage very nicely with the D90's 11 point.<br>

Here's a side by side comparison for you..http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d90%2Cnikon_d300&show=all<br>

Rgds.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Donna,<br>

Unless you are absolutely sure, I would suggest that you get the D90. Use the spare cash to get good lenses. D300 is over 200g heavier at almost a Kg and I sometimes wish I have the lighter D90 to bring with me on my travels. Though it has the 51 focus points, you can still manage very nicely with the D90's 11 point.<br>

Here's a side by side comparison for you..http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d90%2Cnikon_d300&show=all<br>

Rgds.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In addition to those already mentioned, please also check sensor to see if there are any dust or scratches. Dust can be cleaned but scratches will cost you. Some users try cleaning it on their own and accidently scratch it and then try dumping it on someone else.</p>

<p>Hi John - the others have given you good advice. <br>

One thing to also note - don't know if this matters to you - the D300 is weather sealed....useful if you use with weather sealed lenses. Will you be shooting outdoors with possible wet weather? I shot before in a drizzle with the D300. No problem. </p>

 

<p>As Albert mentioned, go D700 with excellent lenses and SB900.<br>

I use the D700 for weddings. The higher ISO is really useful. It's sensor cleaning really works - I had a speck which was removed.<br>

So far no complaints from any clients but there have been recommendations from past clients.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your kind replies.<br>

Dennis - yes, I do prefer the D700 too but in this instance, I'm also trying to reduce weight as my next major trip, I'll be tracking Annapurna and every bit counts. So it's a weight-vs-right gear struggle. And I surely do not want to end up in anything like a sand storm...hahaha. Yes, I agree with you that the FF is more damanding on lenses, which is also why my reluctance. Thanks for your assurance.</p>

<p>Mihai - yes, I read Bob Atkins review and that's why I was open to this 28-300. However, the versatility is about equalled by the 18-200 on a DX in terms of range. But Lil's review/samples shows that the 18-200 is marginally better. I read in other blog/forums, that some users said that they were happy with theirs whilst others were not. I guess we all have different expectations. Lil's samples were not bad but the samples I saw on pbase were rather disappointing - maybe I didn't look hard enough.</p>

<p>Peter - yes you are right - for travel, I do not expect to print large. I bought my FX due to client requirements and still use it for client shoots. (But I have sold some of my travel shots in the past even though they weren't FX - but those weren't on a all-in-one lens either. )</p>

<p>Shun - I agree with what you said - if I do get the 28-300, it's just occasional use as the 24-70 stays on mostly. Thus I'm reluctant to get the Tammy. And with the AF limitation, all the more I should not get it. Many thanks for your clarification. Appreciate it.<br>

However, since I already have the D300, it's no point in buying a D90 now just for that.</p>

<p>Stephen - noted with thanks. Yes, I'm thinking D300 is good enough for travel. Thus far, I do think it's an amazing camera with great features.</p>

<p> Thank you all once again. Looks like 18-200 it is !</p>

 

<p>Hi guys,<br>

I've read <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00SzJr">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SzJr</a>,<br>

<a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00P8oW">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00P8oW</a>, <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00O5q5">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00O5q5</a>, and <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00N5Yn">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00N5Yn</a> (Lil's comparison does help a lot - thanks a bunch Lil !)<br>

I am considering the 18-200 for general/travel/hike - as such very reluctant to carry 2 lenses as some situations do not quite permit me to change lenses. I have summarised it as follows:<br>

D300 + 18-200 VR combi:<br>

1. Lightweight, compared to the D700 combi<br>

2. A Nikkor should give me a better resale value than the Tammy<br>

-but can't quite use on FX....thus it can only stay on my D300.<br>

D700 + 28-300 VC combi:<br>

1. Better high ISO but heavier<br>

2. Has "macro"<br>

I think I will still keep this D300 for sometime. When shooting for clients, I normally use the 24-70 on my D700 with the 70-200 on my D300, so I do not forsee using 18-200 nor 28-300 for anything other than what I mentioned above. I do have the 24-85 f3.5 which gives me pretty good pics but is too short for travel on the D700 and sometimes too narrow on D300.<br>

Shun did mention not to get anything less than 5.6 due to Nikon autofocus inconsistency issues. (Maybe you could elaborate more?)<br>

Someone did suggest a possible option of using the Nikkor 16-85 f3.5 and crop for the longer end as it is sharper than the 18-200?</p>

<p>Appreciate your thots. Are there other options I should consider? I don't mind if the reach is slightly shorter if the IQ can be much better (24-120's IQ doesn't quite cut it either). I know I will not get 24-70/70-200 IQ on superzooms. I thot of getting a used 28-200 but it was too pricey here.</p>

<p>As such I'll probably get this 18-200. A friend said I'm crazy buying a DX lens since all my lenses are already FX. Am I missing something here?<br>

Many thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Alex is right. If the equipment was to be blamed, either one would have closed-shop ages ago. One of the reasons I switched camp to Nikon is because of the CLS system. Canon only came out with similar system with the 7D. Ask what is it about Canon or Nikon or Pentax or Oly that you like and dislike - ergonomis/feel/layout/quick access/menu etc. Go for the one that suits you best. <br>

I believe all pro photographers have managed to adapt and make the best of the gear and not just long for what they do not have. Sure there will always be some that will switch camp due to some frustration or another. What frustrates me may not frustrate you. If in Canon camp, learn from other Canon users who have produced excellent pix.</p>

 

<p>Thanks a lot Brian & Bela. I was reluctant in case I break something. A little brute force did the job!<br>

And I don't intend to use a polariser with this. Just making some attempts into birding. my 70-200 is too short. Thanks once again.</p>

<p>Hi Guys,<br>

I just got the Tammy 200-500mm, unfortunately without any manual. My question is how do I remove the Detachable Filter Effect Control ? I read somewhere that it's supposed to be screwed on but unsure how to remove. I have turned it anti-clockwise and it moved some turns but it doesn't move anymore after that - should I use a bit more force?<br>

Thanks.</p>

 

<p>Agree with Dieter. make sure the camera is in good working order. If you're not familiar, then bring someone else with you. Taking Kent's note, I am assuming that this is the camera you're looking for. The D300 is one fine camera. I bought mine pre-owned too, but cost me more than what you're paying.</p>

<p>not loose nor rattle for mine too. But on reverse it's a bit too easy to unlock.</p>

<p>Hi Marco - I think you've received more than enough replies on discontinued bodies. I use one too. My thot on the matter ? Let the gearheads be. Let them chase the latest models and let us concentrate on making great pics. Actually I'm happy with them chasing new models because I bought some cameras and lenses from these fellas who "upgraded" and saved me some $$$....ha ha<br>

And if the comment is from a non-photographer, it doesn't affect me as the comment did not come from someone who knows what he is talking about.<br>

Cheers.</p>

<p>Hi James,<br>

I use the 24-85 f3.5 quite a lot and I really like it, but I bought it 2nd hand. It's much lighter than my 24-70. Maybe you can test out the 24-85 f2.8?<br>

 </p>

<p>Hi Patrick,<br>

I left Oly about 2 years ago. I was using the E500 then which I really liked, but I had to switch due to needs - I had clients that required me to shoot in very low light situations which Oly really lost out on. This forced me to consider either Canon or Nikon but eventually decided on Nikon. And now after switching, I do miss some of the Oly benefits, some of which has been pointed out by others - Oly has 2x crop thus reduces the weight of equipment/zoom lenses. Cost is another. Oly's anti-dust is also better. The 50mm macro is really very sharp. And since you like outdoors like skiing, the E3 is really great in weatherproofing. One of my friends tested it by literally taking a shower with it. Another used it in heavy rain. Somehow I don't have the same confidence even though my Nikon is weather sealed/magnesium alloy body...haha.<br>

I've not tried the D5000 but I guess it should be able to handle iso 400 or 640 pretty well. But since you are open for the D300, it is definitely better as it can handle even 1600 and weather sealed too. And since future upgrades is in your mind, Nikon caters for you here. I'm disappointed that the E3 is the best Oly has.<br>

Though my gears are now much heavier, and have spent a lot more that I originally wanted, I'm very happy with what I have and the images it produces. No regrets.<br>

Rgds.</p>

<p>I think you can get this by using a smaller aperture (bigger f number).</p>

<p>Hi Kevin - I think you already have your answer in your post, and this has been supported by the responses given. You probably have to ask yourself how "low light" do you shoot. And since you are shooting street, nature and family - how often do those situations are in low light ? are they often enought to justify the extra $$ (including lenses)? I use both my D700 and D300 a lot but primarily depends on the assignment I'm going for. The lenses I use are FF only thus the weight does not make much of a difference (as what Oskar has pointed out). It does look like the D300 will serve your purpose (I guess) and the DX lenses will not weigh as much as the FF ones (like 24-70 or 70-200), nor as bulky, thus giving you more opportunities to "blend-in" for street shooting.<br>

Both are great cameras, though I prefer my D700 more.</p>