Jump to content

peter_wald

Members
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by peter_wald

  1. <p>I second the Feisol 3342 and the Acratech Ultimate Ballhead. Just back from Costa Rica doing photograpy in the rain forest. I was using a D750 and a 300mm PF +TC1.4 and it was rock solid. Looking at the photos they are tack sharp and the rig was pretty easy to carry around</p>
  2. <p>Hi Mark,<br>

    I'm in a similar situation as you in that I'm usually shooting at <200mm (12-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm) on a D200 and now a D7000. I went to Denali a few years ago and really need more reach. I bought an 80-400 and it worked great. Poeple have complained that it is slow but I found it fine for these distant widelife shots. There are a bunch of them available on KEH now in EX or better condition in the $900-1000 range. I don't use this lense much but it's been my go to lens for this range when I need it. I think it's worth the stretch if you can do it</p>

  3. <p>Another satisfied Vista x64 user. I built a machine with a P35 motherboard, quad core Q6600 and 8 GB of ram. Using Capture NX2 for most of my PP work. I've had no problems getting programs to run and drivers were available for everything except my old HP 720. This setup has been rock stable for about a year, and handled the SP! ungrade without problems. PP flies on this setup compared to 32 bit XP Pro with 3 GB</p>
  4. Hi Shun,

    Here's a jpeg crop. I really wasn't able to get the shutter speed up high enough to stop the action. Meanwhile you're right! I don't do this very often so I will carefully ponder if it's worth swithing out the D200 (plus probably the 12-24) for a D700. Thanks<div>00Qtlk-71851784.jpg.ec9ef414ba817d86ccfeb8e8822cb5fd.jpg</div>

  5. Hi All,

     

    I currently have a D200 with 12-24, 24-70, 70-200, 50 and 85 1.4, 20 2.8 and an AF-D 105 macro. I also have an SB-

    800 and a good tripod. I had a lot of older MF glass I've been changing out for these since my manual focus days are

    probably behind me ( the 35 1.4 was the last to go). I am not a professional but have been taking pictures since the

    late 60's. I shoot mostly nature with occasional party/portrait for friends. Here's my quandry. I've been using the D200

    as my first digital camera for about 2 years. I'm really very happy with it, except for low light- last week I was

    shooting bats emerging from a cave around sunset with the 50 and just couldn't get the shoots I wanted. Depending

    on what I am shooting I also need some reach. I've been staying on DX since I was shooting a lot of tele, but got the

    24-70 as insurance for a potential FX switch. Since I only have 1 DX lense I could probably go either way at this

    point, either DX or FX

     

    I feel like I need better high iso performance. I like the D200 form factor so I'd be looking at the D300 or D700, the D3

    is just too big/expensive for my needs. Would it be worth going for the 700 over the 300 in terms of low light

    performance. With what I lose in reach from the D300 could I get an equivalent or better quality in low light with a

    crop from the D700. Thanks for your help

×
×
  • Create New...