trent_dietsche

<p>I agree 100% with Andy. Do not burn bridges and go on a rampage of legal proportions. Just send a polite email explaining your position and see what they say. You may even be surprised if they offer to pay you for the usage. Right now you have a happy customer. If you go off half cocked and threaten to bring in a lawyer with no warning, your customer will no longer be so happy. Honest mistakes happen, and honest people are usually willing to try to correct the mistake.</p>

<p>Watchman is a good bet for several times of day. If my memory serves me right, Watchman itself is good at sunset, and the valley(view from on top of watchman) is good for sunrise (or watching the sun set over the cliffs to the west from on top of Watchman). Also the view looking north down the virgin river a few hours before sunset (1-2ish hours) is very nice, at least in June. Also the view of city lights of Springdale from atop watchman at night is pretty neat, just be sure to take a good headlamp.</p>

<p>If you think you'll want TCs in the future, I'd get the Af-s. I like my AF-S 300 with TC-17 combo, and I think it was worth the extra money. I was in the same boat as you, and from what I saw I liked the quality of the AF-S better, particularily with TCs. Also, for any kind of wildlife, a faster focusing lens is a better bet every time. I'm not sure how fast the AF is in the old version, but even in only decent light, my AF-S focuses fast and accurately.</p>

<p>Overall, the AF-S is the better bet IMO, and you'll definitely appreciate the extra reach as opposed to the 70-200s you are looking at(I have the VR1 and if I didn't do editorial shooting I would have sold it, as it is often far too short for wildlife.)</p>

<p>I planned on doing the same trip two years ago, and ended up hiking across(made it a two day trip with a stay in the bright angel campground), saying the hell with it and took a shuttle back to the north rim(Best $90 I've ever spent after sore legs). I would highly recommend this plan, as it was fun, and I still had the juice to do more hiking and seeing more in the extra free time. You can make the decision for yourself after getting to the top, as long as you get there before the shuttle takes off. If you know that you're doing the 45 miles for sure, then I would recommend collapsible bottles(I like 32 oz playtypus, took 3) as well as a 100 oz bladder. I went through about 170 oz the first day(refilled at camp) with a mid 30's lb pack(way too much stuff btw, even for overnight, and could've hiked straight across with a camelbak if I wouldn't have stayed overnight).</p>

<p>As far as camera gear, I took a D300, 70-200 2.8(would not take again) and a 16-35(very useful). Looking back, I would also take a 50mm along given another chance. I struggled with the tripod decision, and ended up leaving it(though it would have been nice for some of my twilight shots). I cannot imagine adding yet another 4-5 lbs to my already heavy pack, but I suppose I would've lived. That is best left up to you, as I certainly would have loved to take some star shots by the Colorado, but upon thinking of hauling the extra weight my romantic view of the tripod quickly dissolves.</p>

<p>I would definitely recommend taking the 14mm and 28-80, both will come in handy. I didn't take as many pictures on the way back up as I thought I would mostly because I was so tired, but had my camera in hand most of the way down to camp. It's a very cool trail, and I know you'll enjoy it whatever you take. Just realize that no amount of training(unless you live out there or in the mountains) will prepare you for the 6-7 hour ascent. There's nothing like it, period. I remember saying "Whatever, I'll be fine" and trained a good amount, but once you get there you'll see. That said, it was one of the greatest hikes I've done, and would jump at the chance to do it again(one day trip across, though, I'm done with heavy packs for a while :)) PM me if you have any questions about the hike, I know this post is probably more than you wanted to know, but if not, feel free to ask. Have fun!</p>

<p>PS: take a polarizer and a grad ND, you'll need them.</p>

<p>I have bought refurbished gear in the past and have had only good experiences. If it is Nikon refurbished, I would be confident that they have replaced the parts that needed replacing, contrary to what some have said on here, they would not give you a flash with a tube that has an excessive amount of use.<br>

I have an SB-900, and like the amount of power it provides, but it is definitely bigger. I really like the menu on the SB-900, but this is probably very similar to the SB-700's menu as well. </p>

<p>I got a call from my shop, and they were able to remove what they described as a stubborn piece of debris. I guess it just took a bit more work to get off than they expected. Thanks everyone for taking a look and helping!</p>

<p>In this photo you can see how the halo has grown with a larger aperture and is visible in the lower right hand corner of the shot. Easily cloned out but still irksome. Elliot, have sent an email to the shop, probably a few days for a response. It was actually cleaned this week, just picked it up. I only noticed the spot on my photos recently, which is why I had it cleaned. Jerry, thanks, will see what my shop says first, just in case they can save me some money by redoing the cleaning.</p><div></div>

<p>Darn image posting difficulties, let's try this again...</p>

<p>That is a large crop, the full size image is below, and the halo becomes larger and less concentrated at normal apertures(F8-11). Still visible at apertures larger than F8 too, but less intrusive.</p>

<p>Sorry, you beat me to finding my test shots;) Will see if this works...</p><div></div>

<p>Hello,<br>

I noticed a large halo on my images dating back a few months, and just got my camera back from a sensor cleaning at a local shop. The other dust is gone, but the halo remains. I am afraid it may be between the sensor and the glass filter in front of the sensor. What do you think? Should I send it off to Nikon, and what do you think it will cost?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Trent</p>

<p>I know this is quite outdated now, but if anyone is looking at doing the same this year, I have some advice. First, the weather for early June was great, although surprisingly cold at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. Had to buy an extra blanket from the visitor store there. We hiked rim to rim, which was a great experience, but had we known we were going to do so, we would have left the 40+ pound backpacks up top and just hiked across in one day. Our original plan was to hike down to phantom ranch and back the next day, but when we got to the bottom with our heavy packs, I think our sentiments were more along the lines of "he$$ with that."</p>

<p>Zion was probably my favorite park, and we were lucky enough to get a permit for hiking the Subway, which in my opinion was the coolest hike of the trip. We lost the trail so many times and it took us 5 hrs one way, but crossing boulders in the middle of the river was pretty fun. I had my D300 w/ 16-35 swaying around my neck the whole time, and I definately agree about having a hood on all the time; I slipped and caught myself but the camera went flying into a rock, but I was lucky to have only a cracked $10 hood.</p>

<p>If you go that early in the year, the rivers are high, and while we got about .5 miles into the narrows, we turned around because of the water level(and the coldness), which was probably about thigh high. Very cool to see though if the water is lower. I spent most nights at Zion and arches shooting night scenes till 2-3 am, perfect for seeing the Milky way.<br>

If you stay at Arches that time of year, do what I did and rent a cabin a few miles outside of the park. The cheapo air conditioner in there was my friend from 10am-4pm, so just plan your hikes for the morning or afternoon. One really neat hike to do is delicate arch just before sunset, and then stay and watch the stars come out. Very overwhelming sense of isolation and solitude. Just make sure you bring a bright light to find your way back!<br>

There were TONS of mosquitos at in the Rockies, and every time I got out of the car to take a shot of an elk off of the road, I would get attacked and have to quickly run back to my car. Not much of an issue on the high elevation hikes, though, just in the valleys. Keep in mkind that if you want to do any summit climbs, you'll have to stay below ~12,000 feet. I tried mt Ida but was knee high in snow before long, and there are plenty of mt lake trails to hike that weren't.</p>

<p>Awesome trip, key was planning way ahead(january-march for permits/reservations) and lots of training beforehand for a lot of hiking. The gear I ended up taking was as follows<br>

D300 gripped, 70-200 VR1, 1.7x tc, 16-35 F4, Gitzo explorer 2531ex w/ cheap manfrotto ballhead, Nikon polarizer and B+W ND grads. The 70-200 got amazingly heavy after a while, as did the tripod, and both got in the way while climbing around, but I ended up using both a lot. I got some nice shots of a stellar's jay and western tanager on the hike that I almost didn't bring it, and got so close to getting a Kaibab squirrel, but he was too quick for me. :) <br>

Overall, very glad with the equipment I took, the hikes were amazing. If anyone wants any advice on which trails to see while out there I'd be happy to share my experiences.<br>

Thanks to everyone here for all the fantastic advice.</p>

<p>I agree with Marios. Some of the best shots can be captured with the 2.8 lenses you want to take. I have a D300 with grip, 70-200 2.8 and 16-35 F4 and 50 1.4 along with a sb-900 flash. I easily fit all of this(minus the camera with the 16-35 around my neck)easily into my backpack(Osprey Atmos 65) and if you buy a pack with a good support structure and a frame, you should be set. If you take the slower prosumer lenses, you may miss shots and be disappointed. In my opinion, with a good framed backpack and a LOT of hiking before hand as training, you will be just fine. BTW, don't know what you're all going to be packing, but the Atmos 65 holds my lenses and camera plus tripod, La Fuma sleeping bag, Eos 1 tent, and cocoon pillow(all of which are very small and designed for packing) plus clothes and about 3 dried meals with a gas stove and plenty of water. If you'll be needing to bring along more, consider getting a begger pack. Get the pack well before your trip, load it up, and hike a lot, because you will need a lot of miles on your legs beforehand with the pack to avoid feeling sluggish after several days. Hope this helps.</p>

<p>The 18-200 is a nice walk around lens, as Peter says, but, having never owned one, I can't assess its optical quality campared to others. As far as the teleconverter goes, I spent a long time looking at the various models, and ultimately ended up with the tc 17E ii. The tc 14E ii is supposed to be the least image degrading of all the nikon tcs, but I felt I needed the extra reach of the 17. IMO, I don't see noticeable image degredation using the tc 17, and the reach was invaluable.</p>

<p>I had a 70-300 VR for about a year, and overall it was a nice lens. More often than not, though, I found that it focused a little more slowly than I would have liked, especially for birds and other animals on the move. I finally saved the money for a 70-200 2.8 VR and tc-17E ii this january and have been very pleased with the results. While the magnification isn't much greater, the sharpness and focusing speed are much better, and the 2.8 aperture helps out a lot if you're going to be shooting wildlife in the morning or before dark. I would also strongly consider a 300 F4 if you don't want to drop 2000+ on a 70-200 +tc, and you would still have a fast and sharp piece of glass. Just a heads up, the 70-200 2.8 is a G lens, not that it matters much, just no aperture ring. I would go for the 70-200, and get an imported tc to save a few bucks, (don't buy import lens though). As far as vignetting, on a crop sensor like the D60, you probably will never have an issue, since you only see the center of the frame. On a fixed lens, you are stuck at one focal length, so yes your frame is somewhat limited. Also, you would not want to put a tc on the 55-200 or 70-300. Not only are there compatability issues, but the lens would be very slow and probably not perform very well. I would check with Nikon, but I'm pretty sure those lense don't work with the nikon tcs. Hope this helps.</p>

<p>-Trent</p>

<p>What about the Manfrotto 468MGRC2 Magnesium Hydrostatic Ballhead, reviews look good, and the weight is low but still supports 22 lbs. Read the Benro review on their heads and decided against it, even though the price looks good. Thanks for the heads up.</p>

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

I recently decided on a gitzo explorer GT2531/41 ex until I read some reviews that basically said it was a hassle to set up and get shots off in a hurry. I shoot landscape and macro about equally, and also do a few birding trips per year. Therefore, the equipment I use on it will vary greatly, and I only want to buy one tripod to "do it all." I don't think a 70-200 2.8 VR with a tc on a D300, which for now is likely to be the heaviest load I would put on it, would really strain the explorer, but is it true that the explorer is hard to set up? Should I be looking at the mountaineer, or even other brands like Feisol or Benbo for what I want to use it for? My maximum budget for the tripod legs is about 750, and even that is hard for me to swallow for the gitzo, but I was also considering the Benro B-2 head, any opinions on that? Thank you!</p>

<p>It's incredible how much input can come in over the course of two days. :) Thank you all. I would try older nikon film cameras, but sadly I have all G lenses and cannot use them with the older models. I think I will pick up an F5 to alleviate my NAS and keep doing most of my shooting with my D300. Shooting panos will help me to not need the FX size sensor and save some money. Robert, that gigapan is amazing, but I don't think I can justify $900 for a robotic pano head. I will try the PTgui software and start practicing! Thank you all again.</p>

<p>Thank you for all of the responses. I think I will defenately look into the stitching software and try to get some practice in with that. What gear do you need to do pano work like what Scott had done. Do you need a special tripod pano head, or will a standard rotating head work. What software do you prefer? I think I will pick up an F5 to alleviate my NAS and keep doing most of my shooting with my D300. Shooting panos will help me to not need the FX size sensor and save some money.</p>

<p>I am currently debating upon whether or not I should buy a new D700 or an F5. I have a D300 and 70-200 VR and 16-35 VR and 50 1.8. I would like to have a 35mm equivalent format for landscape, and cannot decide between the two. Does film still have better color rendition and ability to print at larger sizes, or does the D700 and modern dslr cameras close that gap? The F5 with a film scanner will likely run me less than 1000 dollars, while the d700 will be 2000+. If your vote is for the F5, what film scanner would you reccomend?</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I have a Osprey 65 pack and will be doing extensive backpacking this summer. My longest mileage per day is going to be between 14-17 miles and my pack is pretty much full. For those of you who are going to say "clean out some of the things in your pack" no can do. I have the pack almost full with a lightweight lafuma sleeping bag, marmot eos 1 tent, stove, camelbak resevoir and food. I have seen other posts that are either ten years old or apply to only one body. I want to carry a D700 and 16-35 lens, along with a D300 and 70-200 lens. I looked at the cotton carrier system and while kind of dorky, if it works, why not. Has anyone used one of these in conjunction with a backpack? What other solutions do I have? Thank you.</p>

<p>I guess if the 14-24 is about the same price(didn't catch that), then that would seem to be better. I just was more concerned with spending more money on a range that ovelaps a lot. I have heard great things about the 14-24, but I thought the 17-35 would be a more versatile landscape lens. Thank you everyone for your posts. I looked at the 16-35, but for close to the same price, and considering a lot of my work is on a tripod and I might jump into weddings soon, the faster lens is more important to me than VR. Thank you all for your posts. I guess there are more 14-24 shooters that actually do use their lens than I thought.=)</p>

<p>Is this a good combo on a D300/D700 setup for wide-angle use? I have heard great things about the 17-35 , but am not familiar with the 14mm 2.8. I did some soul searching and decided the 14-24 was not for me. I do want to have the 14mm range though, and I think if the 14mm prime was good, that would be a golden setup. What do you think?</p>

<p>yes it does, with a little modification. The cokin x filter kit with universal adapter ring allows you to use square glass filters, including circular polarizers, on the 14-24. There is no vignetting on dx format, and on fx, there is none past 18mm. So, as I said, filters are a non-issue. I considered the tokina 11-16, as I will keep the d300 when I get a d700/d3, but I wanted the d700/d3 to be my wide angle setup, so dx wide angles are kind of useless when I upgrade. I have tried the nikon 10-24 and 12-24. The quality does not match the 14-24, especially not in lower light like sunrise/sunset. I guess more than anything I was looking for a few people who had this setup, and it looks like nilo has it and likes it. I thought about primes, but the iq of the 14-24 is supposed to parallel prime territory, as hard as that is to believe.</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I am in the process of preparing to buy either a 14-24 2.8 with Cokin X Pro filter kit or a 24-70 2.8. I am going on a trip in June and will likely be able to afford only one of these two great lenses. I don't want a dx lens, primarily because I will be purchasing a d700 or d3 later this year. I will still be keeping the d300 for wildlife as I love the crop factor with my 70-200 and tc-14. With filters not being an issue on dx at any focal length of the 14-24 on the d300, would you get the 14-24, or a 24-70 for landscape/nature use. I know the 14-24 on the dx will still be wide on the d300, not ultra wide, but enough I suppose, and certainly wider than the 24-70. My dilemma is that there are certain locations in which a wide lens is going to be desirable, like the subway in zion and antelope canyon. I have considered using the 70-200 for landscape and stitching shots for panos. I just don't know if the 24-70 is going to be wide enough on dx format. What do you think?</p>