chris_duim

<p>Jerry, I realized the 300 mm might be too heavy. But per chance the 24-70 might be something that is lighter and can be handled by the clip.<br>

I asked for the experience of people who may have tried this as I found the straps being difficult on the neck or shoulder (much less if one uses the R strap but it is still a heavy load). In case the clip has been shown to fail, then maybe I shouldn't even try it with the 24-70.</p>

<p>Hi. I just came across an item in one of the shops here in Southeast Asia (Philippines, Singapore) that claims it can carry a reasonable heavy camera plus lens (to a maximum of 18 pounds). It's called the B-grip camera belt clip.<br>

I have a D3S and the 80-200/24-70/300 f 2.8s. I realize this is a heavy combination (camera and any of the lenses) and I was wondering if I would be risking my camera and lens with the use of this belt clip.<br>

I have a Black Rapid R-strap I use and find very useful but sometimes the swinging motion of the camera when hooked to the strap becomes cumbersome.<br>

Does anyone have expererience with this clip? I apologize for plaing this on the Nikon Forum but I figured having the D3s and a heavy lens on such a clip requires I post this on this forum.</p>

<p>Harvey, I understand your situation. As a doctor I would strongly advise against your risking your recovery/health by going through your planned trip. No matter if it's the "light" D90 or the heavier FF camera, the stress placed on your prosthesis and the surrounding tissues will complicate your recovery. Even as a healthy individual, I have had to struggle bringing along the D3s, SB600, normal zoom/wideangle zoom, let alone someone recovering from hip replacement.</p>

<p>I'll be very interested to see the response to your question, as I had posted one query prior on any feedback regarding the Sigma lens you are considering. To say the least, it was a mixed reaction and judging by the volume of the response to the my question before, the Sigma seems to have very few photographers who had tried it before.<br>

i still have not purchased the Sigma, as I had reservations about quality issues for Sigma in general. THe one experience I had with a Sigma (18-200 with OS) for my Nikon cropped sensor camera before had me experiencing back focus issues and communication problems with the camera. But my interest in the 120-300 continues as it looks to be a good lens for the focal length range I use, not to mention the not so pleasant prospect of lugging along a heavy Nikkor 300/2.8 prime attached to an already heavy D3s.</p>

 

<p>Luis, I'd like help on finding out more about building a tropical cabinet. If you could point me where or provide a link so that I can access the information on "PN cabinets" I would greatly appreciate the gesture.<br>

Just for my curiosity, how frequently does one have to "cook" the silica gel? I have no idea when I should either replace the gel or cook them to maintain their absorbing capacity. Is there any physical sign I should look for in the gel to signal that they need to be exposed to the sun or baked/cooked in an oven? Sorry for the basic questions but I am new to this whole lot of photography.<br>

By the way, I have seen a lot of friends try the lens dry box (again with silica gel inside). Are they unnecessarily exposing their equipment to something that is ineffective for mold prevention? Also, they are wondering if there are any suffiiciently sized lens dry boxes for bigger lenses like my telephoto zoom.</p>

 

<p>I just recently bought a Pelican watertight case (with foam) to store my camera and lenses. I put in a couple of packets of silica gel. While I did receive advise before that a dry cabinet plugged to an outlet with a hydrometer was the best solution for storage and preventing fungal growth, I felt that a "portable" dry box was a better option for me. I had also thought of a lens dry box but couldn't find suitable sizes for my 24-70/2.8 and 80-200/2.8. Is this set-up (Pelican case plus silica gel) acceptable in preventing fungi growing on my lenses/camera? i must admit I like the portability of the set-up although I let the whole set up stay in my room most of the time.<br>

By the way I live in Southeast Asia where it can get pretty hot and humid most days of the year.</p>

<p>Michael, return policies in Asia are practically non-existent. Which is why I posed the question in this forum, hoping to find some practical advice from those who have tried the third party lenses.<br>

Your photo posted looks very nice and it makes me kind of willing to try the 120-300/2.8 of Sigma.<br>

SInce there has not been much said about the said lens, I will ask some of friends who take to photography for a living as see if anyone of them has ever tried this lens. A good number of them are routine SIgma users and swear by its value for money. Looking at the photo link you posted has me hopeful I will finally find the lens that will fulfill my need at the long end for my photographic needs.<br>

Thank you to all who contributed to this thread.</p>

 

<p>Unfortunately where I reside (Asia), there are no loaners available locally where I can try the lens. For my associates who have tried the Sigma 18-200, all of the lenses they tried had either back or front focus issues which was never corrected either by Sigma or by replacement lenses provided by the stores. That has me concerned about third party lenses as I know these photographers to be of considerable experience to warrant respect in terms of their opinion. To date they have no experience with the 120-300.<br>

I've seen issues raised in fora about softness of focus, problems of left focus versus right soft focus, etc. about the 120-300 which has me worried. I do not do test chart shooting and would thus be unable to pick up this issue until well underway to probably months of use of the lens before I would take notice.<br>

The 100-300/4.0 is also available here and seems to be reasonably priced and covers the FL I want for one lens. But then again I would want to have some more feedback on this before I buy the lens.<br>

As to Tokina, I dont have a particular lens in mind but would appreciate any feedback if any of the lenses from this manufacturer also covers the range I need. But so far, I have not seen any response as to the general reputation of Tokina lenses in terms of IQ, quality, etc.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>I have recently upgraded to a D3s from the D700 and have the 24-70/2.8 and the 80-200/2.8. I mainly shoot people photos and routinely use the 24-70 during my travel (I do quite a bit of traveling). However I would like to do some sports photography, mainly of my boys doing basketball in the gym. Therefore I am looking to the 300 mm f/2.8. Recently I came across the Sigma 120-300 mm f/2.8 APO DG HSM (no VR) while I was in a shop and have seriously considered this third party lens as my one lens that nicely fits my shooting needs/style. That's quite a long reach (I find the 80-200 mm a bit short for sports) for a lens with reasonable cost. While adding a 300/2.8 will essentially complete my lens collection, doing so will mean my using 2 lenses to cover that useful range (for my style of shooting), not to mention that it will cost me a leg to acquire this lens (I just bought the D3s). Therefore the question is, will this Sigma 120-300/2.8 make a nice compromise for me?<br />I know that lenses should take priority over the camera, but I never figured on meeting the Sigma 120-300/2.8 while I was saving up for the Nikon 300/2.8. I suddenly realized that some third party lenses cover focal lengths not seen in Nikon line-up, which makes them very attractive options. I have not seen much review or feedback on the net re the Sigma lens, but note the seeming consensus that you take risk on quality for third party lenses. Copy variation is a significant issue with third party lenses. I have friends who tried the Tokina and swear that the Tokina is better in terms of sharpness but not in terms of AF speed. I have never used third party lenses and am wondering if anyone can give proper advise for the focal lengths I need to cover (2 good Nikon lenses versus one "cheap" third party lens). Am i risking myself by going to non-Nikon lenses for the range?<br />Regards,</p>

<p>Paul, I posed a question along the lines of upgrading from a D700 and got good input from some of the people who have chimed in this thread. At that time they remarked that a jump to the D3s made more sense than a jump to the D3 (what was I thinking then). I have since acquired the D3s and can say it handles high ISOs very well, better than D700. Of course it came with a cost but I think it was well worth the ability to shoot in low light to produce photos with very good IQ.</p>

<p>If I can chime in, that looks like a nasty fall from some height. I've known of a friend who dropped his D700 and 80-200/2.8 from about 3 feet with damage to the hot shoe and just the UV filter. Everything else worked fine after replacement of the hot shoe. But then again, the lens and the body of the camera did not show any dent or scratch from that height. So if there is this significant fall from a much greater height to show itself as so, the cost of repair and acquisition relative to the price of a new set maybe much more than what headache you may encounter later on when the electronics start blinking in your camera.</p>

<p>Lex, your opinion on the (non)applicability of the Zone system to digital photography does seem to make real sense. Given the little reading I had of Ansel Adams work and those on other fora, there seems to be no universal acceptance on the general applicability of Ansel's system to digital.<br>

All these point to mastering priciples of exposure/sensitometry with vigorous application in actual photography. I had hopes of improving my skills with an understanding of the Zone system (my first encounter was the article by Ken Rockwell) but now I realize there is much more to all these. Indeed practice makes perfect.<br>

I have accessed the links provided here by you and others who have chimed in. They are full of principles that I need to digest and hopefully make sense of so that I can apply them.<br>

In case I falter (again), you will be sure to hear from me (again).<br>

Thanks to all.</p>

<p>I am reading stuff that seems to point out significant differences between digital and film and how the Zone and ETTR/HDR are also different. I am able to catch most of what is written, despite my being new to the hobby.<br>

On a practical note then, for high contrast situations, is it advisable to use the spot over matrix (I am using a D700) over the presumed middle gray and shoot from there. This may mean some use of Manual setting of A and S in some situations, but that is something that I will have to learn.<br>

I do have Thom Hogan's D700 guide, and his advise for the most part was that matrix metering does a pretty good job in most instances (I think even in high contrast situations but he did have some cautionary words about these photo situations). WHile my experience with the D700 in such situations do agree with his, as written in his guide, I do find a minority of shots that had blown highlights and lost dark detail in some situations. THis is what triggered my query on whether learning the ZOne System and applying such in these situations would make more sense than relying on matrix metering to do the trick.</p>

 

<p>Let me try to summarize what has been written on this post - it is useful tool but may have limitations. What is also apparent is the importance of post-processing, something that I will have to put some learning effort too.<br>

I will look into the links provided and see how my practice will make this system workable. I will have to realize the imitations and adjust accordingly in terms of technique, equipment (handheld light meter and gray card?) and expectations.<br>

Thank you and hope to see my photos improve with the said advise.</p>

<p>I am a bit unsure about how to apply the Zone System in terms of metering/exposure for digital photography. From what I understand from my reading photography books, you find the mid-tones in a scene (after identifying the extreme ends in terms of tone), meter from there and fire away. But would your using a dSLR (such as the D700) with spot metering be acceptable in this situation? Or should one rely on a handheld meter (that would again necessitate another learning curve, not to mention added steps in photography). I am thinking of the high contrast situations where there is a bright area on the frame, some dark areas and a subject who understably will have to be treated as the middle gray in exposure.<br>

Can I have some bit of help as I find such scenes very difficult to expose properly (an example would be shooting a person at night with the Eiffel Tower lit in the background).</p>

 

<p>My mistake. It's the D3x (I had to take a second look).<br>

Made up my mind to stay put and wait for the next big thing.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. As I had to be sure of any major investment, I had to consult the experts in the forum to have some sense of whether this all just the itch for the next thing or I am making good sense of (any) significant difference in getting the D3. From the opinion of most everyone, it seems the more prudent thing is wait for the next major offering from Nikon and see if there is any big jump in either quality or feature afforded by the new model.</p>

<p>As to Thom's review, he did come out with his official review of the D3s and it was actually his second review already. His first review was based on a first body that he bought and which he concluded was a sample variability (or something like that). His second body (which formed the basis for his second review) produced better shots but overall his rating was still lower than that for the D3. I think he had some issues with the ISO handling being a little better for the D3 than the D3s, but that overall the D3s still handled higher ISOs nicely (you can check out his website). His conclusion was that the value afforded by the D3s could not be justified by the stiff price tag. I might be mistaken but this is my take of his review.</p>

<p>I will have to back off from getting the D3 at this time, considering that there is no added benefit to it over the D700. I agree that working on my technique at this time might be the better idea and wait for the next "better" FF camera from Nikon.</p>

<p>THanks a lot guys and you have been very helpful (I'm not one to easily ignore an itch but your expert advise did make a lot of practical, technical and financial sense).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for the advise. My fear, though, is that the next one may be priced too far out (as is the case of the D3s which was priced too much with little advantage over the D3). But then again, I do not have a sense of just how much better the next model will be, given the not so favorable reviews I've seen for the newest FF model from Nikon.<br>

I'm wondering if the D3 will last with me as long as the F5 I've had for years (no upgrade despite newer models coming in). It just seems that the digital age has made technology improvements over even the flagship cameras come in faster than we fill up our wallets to save for the next significant purchase. There's that perpetual itch I've never experienced before.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've always been interested in the D3 but had to settle for the D700 sometime early last year. After months of figuring out how to get the best out of the D700, I would have to say that it's one very good camera. My recent trip to the US and Canada was well covered with the D700 and I did get enough photos to satisfy me for a long time.<br>

However, there is always this craving for the D3 that never goes away. I have seen reviews by Thom Hogan of the D700 and the D3 and am wondering if I am missing out on anything in sticking out with the D700. As I now have some spare dollars for the upgrade, is it truly worth the effort to go up the ladder (so to speak). I have the 24-70 and the 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 lenses that I think are enough for my needs at the moment and which I know are also perfect for the D3. The only thing that is probably annoying about the D3 is the lack of a built-in flash (the SB900 is a monster with any DSLR) but the 100% viewfinder is something crucial (I did find the less than 100% view on the D700 an issue as I had some photos with unwanted objects and people in the final frame).<br>

I've seen the review by Thom of the D3s and would have to say that the D3 may be of more use to me than the newer model. In all, could anyone help out?<br>

Thanks.</p>

 

<p>Thank you guys. The information certainly helps me feel secure.<br>

Here's to shooting the family vacation.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Steven and Riley. Just another thought - would the 80-200 mm tolerate the conditions? I'm not sure if this is weather sealed.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi again. I will be travelling to Toronto and then NY in 3 days time (I'm from Southeast Asia) and was told that it has started snowing in Canada and the US. It will be my first time to bring a dSLR (Nikon D700) with the 24-70 mm f2.8 AFS and the 80-200 mm f2.8 ED AF for this trip.<br>

I read that water or rain (from snow) may seep into my camera and lenses but also read some posts that the 24-70 mm and the D700 are weather-sealed (I don't know if the 80-200 mm is weather-sealed). Does this mean I can safely use the camera and the wide-angle safely (without a protective covering) and shoot in the open with snow blowing around? How about my 80-200 mm? Or should I purchase a rain cover for the camera with attached lens and use it while it's snowing?<br>

I've read from the forum also that I can deal with condensation coming in from the cold to a warm environment by use of a ziplock with loads of silica gel. I already have this ready with me.<br>

Any help will be much appreciated.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. I think I would really need to purchase a dry box. It would be a shame losing all the gear in such a manner.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. I live in the tropics (Southeast Asia), particularly Philippines and the room I keep my gear in has the airconditioning on at night. Otherwise it is kept at ambient temperature for most of the day.<br>

I do my shooting mostly during travel, on occasion during breaks on business trips II do travel a lot in Asia and US) and the usual family vacation.<br>

Robert, I see that your cabinet has quite a handful of gear but this wasn't what I have seen from the shops in Asia (they're a lot smaller but I guess my gear will fit). It's sort of the one where temperature is controlled via plug in to an electrical socket.<br>

Given my conditions, would it be alright to store in a bag with dessicant in my room and expect no significant intrusion from fungi?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>I'm owner of a D700 and several pro lenses (14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 mm fixed max apertures f/2.8) and am wondering if it's absolutely essential to store these in a dry cabinet/box. I read somewhere that you can store these in a bag filled with dessicant (silica gel). Is this acceptable or should I purchase a dry box and store all these in the cabinet?<br>

Thanks for those willing to share their thoughts.</p>

<p> </p>