nick_r

<p>I was in the same situation with a D200 I've had for a while and wanted to get a better high ISO performing camera. Just bought a D7000- seems fine but haven't had the chance to put it through it's paces. I have configured the camera however, and wanted to go through some of the functional issues:<br>

1. AF-On can be moved to the AE-L/AF-L button to the right of the viewfinder which operates identically to how I use my D200. I don't have any more problems hitting this button on the D7000 than I did on the D200<br>

2. There is a function button next to the lens on the right- I have this configured for AE-L. <br>

3. The DOF Preview button is about where my pinky is on the right below the lens. I left this as DOF preview<br>

All of these buttons seem to be able to be reconfigured quite extensively. I like how it handles so far. The camera seems quite solid and remarkably light.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for all the help. I am back now and had a good time, not nearly enough time at the parks. Ended up at Zion and Bryce, had to deal with a change of plans so couldn't make it to Death Valley as I had planned.</p>

<p>I found getting places for sunrise at this time of year is a bit tricky at Zion as the mandatory shuttle doesn't start running until 6:45, after the sun is already up. Later in the summer the shuttle starts at 5:45 which might be better. I would say the thijng to do is to drive to the museum or Canyon Junction, depending on where you want to shoot. The view from the museum was quite nice. I think Court of the Patriarchs would be pretty at sunrise, and I think it's close enough to Canyon Junction. If you don't have a bike, I think it would be hard to get down to the Temple of Sinawava for sunrise. Not sure you'd necessarily want to, though. </p>

<p>I thought the main area of Zion got into shadows farily early in the afternoon, and I think the Kolob Canyon area was more impressive at sunset. Bryce was amazing..</p>

<p>Thanks for the advice. I have a feeling my pictures might be better if I stuck to one park, but going to all 3 would be a useful scouting trip. And I do really like Valley of Fire.</p>

<p>Hey,<br>

I am taking a trip to Las Vegas in early May, and will have 4 days, May 4th-8th, which I would like to spend at some lanscape locale before my trip back from Vegas. I've been to Red Rock and Valley of Fire multiple times, and hiked down to Havasu falls years and years ago. I was wondering what people recommended? <br>

Initially I was planning on spending 4 days at Zion, but then it started looking like this time period is the edge of acceptable in Death Valley? Would people recommend two days at Death Valley and two days at Zion? 3 days at Zion, 1 day at Bryce? Stick to the initial plan and just go to Zion?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

Did you go the the link I sent you to? The 24-120 does not reach the limits of the D200 sensor. Check out other lens reviews to see what I meean.

No, the issue is the sensor is able to outresolve mediocre lenses, and makes them look bad. For instance this Nikkor 24-120 can't even outresolve the D200 sensor:, http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/243-nikkor-af-24-120mm-f35-56d-if-review--test-report?start=1, I have a hard time believing 35mm film is ahead of digital at this point if a lens that was fine on film is lacking on a 10 megapixel D-SLR.

The 17-55 and 70-300 VR is a good combo for me.

Some of this stuff doesn't quite compute. If film resolution is higher than digital, what is the explanation for

cameras like the new Canon 50d and the 1DSIII and Sony A900 requiring good lenses because otherwise the sensor

outresolves the lens? Why wouldn't this phenomenon scale up to digital medium format? And if it does scale to

digital medium format, isn't it just a matter of time as prices continue to drop?

I would buy the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D Autofocus Lens with Tripod Collar, imported or USA, for a few dollars (gray) to $100 (USA) more than the Sigma versions.

So would you recommend not bothering learing medium format at this point if you weren't heavily into it before, Ellis?

Interesting stuff. Knowing the Imac can drive an external monitor is nice, thanks. So it sounds like the reason to own a Mac is because they are more elegant and are less frustrating to get things done with... How long do you expect the Mac to last before it needs replacing? Do they remain viable for longer than a Windows box?

To be clear, I am not making this switch because of a horrible experience with this Dell. It's been running for 4 years- I've put in a bigger hard drive, maxed the memory, and a blown power supply is the only thing that I've had to fix. However, I do wait for it as it cranks trying to save photoshop files, and I am running out of storage with its two HD slots, so I'm thinking about replacing it. In fact, for the last 9 years the only real problems I've had with any of my PCs has been blown power supplies. I've not had any real Windows horror stories, but Macs are supposedly easier and the thing for photography.

My Dell is getting a little long in the tooth, and I bought it before I got into

digital photography so it only has 2 internal drives and a daisy chain of

external drives. I am thinking about moving to a Mac... I have 2 monitors, a 24

inch Dell from a couple years ago and a generic 17 inch LCD that's quite poor.

It seems to me if I want to keep using my monitors, the cheapest thing I can buy

is the stripper Mac Pro for $2300, with no options. At an internet parts dealer

that rhymes with leg, I priced a PC I could build with an Intel Quad Core

processor, 8 GB of Ram and 2.3 Terabytes of storage for $1600, including the OS.

If I tried to configure the Mac with identical aftermarket parts, I would be

well past $3000. Can it really be worth a nearly 100 percent premium? Can I

limp by with a Mac mini or something (I assume I can't have 2 monitors in that

case?). People are really just paying this difference because the OS is much

better?

I use Nikon DSLRs and have an old Canon A80 that I have taken snorkeling many times. I use the Canon case, which was something like $150. It's built very well, and has never leaked on me. You can operate all camera functions. It's brutally hard to see the A80 LCD in sunlight underwater, however, but oh well. I have a rider policy on my renters policy that says they will cover water damage from a leaking case, but have never had to use it.

 

 

The camera itself broke down within 2 years but was fixed by Amex extended warranty. I know 2 other people with various further generations of the A80 line of cameras, and they both had issues with the camera breaking on them, so I won't be buying a Canon P&S again, personally. I would look into Olympus, I believe they have their own underwater cases which also look well built.

I am in a similar boat, wondering about long lenses for Alaska. I am going on an Alaska cruise in July. I have a D70 with Sigma 10-20mm, various primes, the 18-70mm and the 70-210 F4 AF blast from the past which seems to work fine. I don't really shoot telephoto much at all; the 10-20mm lens is quickly becoming my most used lens since I bought it.

 

Anyway, if you were me, what would you do? VR would seem to be very useful, and I do have a monopod I can bring with me. I can rent a 80-400 VR Nikon out of Adorama for $210+, I could probably buy one and sell it when I get back, or do the same with the 80-400mm OS Sigma as I have better things to spend $1000 on. I could get a cheaper 400mm zoom without VR, KEH seems to have some for a few hundred dollars.

 

Or I could go with the 210mm focal length- am I going to dislike myself when I am out there and wishing for a longer lens?

 

Thanks,

Nick

"Companies like this and Ferrari are like children- they GROW. I

think kid Leica is doing great.

 

<p>

 

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), February 24, 2002."

 

<p>

 

"A Leica like a Rolls Royce is DIFFERENT - sure it is 'old fashioned'

to have a cloth shutter and mechanical components, just like hand

stitched leather seats, a walnut dash and a 100 man-hour brazed

radiator is old fashioned - but these things are appreciated by many

of us.

 

<p>

 

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 24, 2002."

 

<p>

 

Ahh. Rolls Royce and Ferrari. Two storied marques, just like

Leica. Two marques that have had great tradition, and great

traditional craftsmanship, just like Leica. Two marques who failed

to adapt to the times and ended up gobbled up by major conglomerates

who had more of a clue as to making money. I see a pattern...

 

Nick

I spoke with one of the Rollei Reps at Photo Expo East at the Javits Center. He confirmed there was a 6X6 AF model coming.