israel1

<p>Buy a spare battery. </p>

<p>Thanks @Kenneth - I should have it by month's end. <br />@Detlev, I have since adjusted the focus settings for that lens on my D300. Results are now acceptable; however, I never had to do that with any other lens I have owned (except for a really awful zoom I had attached to my K1000 but I replaced that with a GORGEOUS 50mm prime and ...), so I will probably sell it.<br /> As for choosing the 12-24, my reasoning was based around the specs of the lens, @Eric's comment<br /><br />"it's great at rendering detailed, contrasty scenes, as a landscape lens should"<br /><br />as well as wanting something I could use in a number of scenarios:</p>

<ul>

<li>Landscape: 12-24; 55-200 Macro; tripod when needed (next purchase)</li>

<li>Urban: 35/1.8; 12-24 OR 55-200 Macro</li>

<li>Travel: 12-24; 60 Micro OR 55-200 Macro</li>

<li>Events... I suspect I will either plug this gap with a Tamron 17-50 (Mk 1) or Sig 17-50 OS but it's not a priority</li>

<li>Repro / Portrait: the 60 AF-S Micro; SB-700 - but I need a tripod at the end of the day.</li>

</ul>

<p>Guys, I've decided that that Tokina 12-24 is the direction I want to go. Thanks for your help!</p>

<p>Robert, my mistake, I should have written $690. Wishful thinking!!! Anyway, budget wise I may not be able to go over $550 but I have someone in the US who is coming to Israel at the end of the month so that may obviate the $60 shipping fee; not to mention what customs may slap on it.<br /><br />That said, I'm curious to what you may get this weekend if you borrow your friend's copy of the 20-35.<br>

I am coming away from my experience with the 18-105 (I have a Tamron 55-200 Macro w/out VC, that is sharper handheld than the 18-105 with VR. It's just sad. </p>

 

<p>@Kenneth: No plans to go FX. When I do upgrade I will make he move to have better dynamic range and high-ISO capabilities and FX is too expensive for that just now. Either way I want better glass. <br>

I'm not sure about going ultra-wide. I have a Panasonic point n shoot that goes out to a 24mm equivalent which I do enjoy but that's about it.<br /><br />@Detlev: I am less than pleased with the 18-105. Versatile yes: sharp - my copy is not happenign in that arena. Hence my desire for a sharp, well built replacement. <br /><br />@Kent: If the 18-55 was well built I would have no complaints. It's sharp, handles most of my shots, so what's not to like?<br /><br />@Peter, you recommend the Tokina. How sharp is it? I handled their 16-50/2.8 last week at the store and it certainly is well-built; though for some reason I can't find the images I snapped to review it.</p>

<p>Hi everyone! </p>

<br />I'm looking for a replacement to my 18-105 VR and 18-55 VR zooms. While I will keep the latter as backup I am looking for a sharp, well-built Nikon to use on my D300.

 

Price wise I see I can get a 20-35 AF-D via KEH for around $290 incl shipping to Israel) which is a little more than what I could pay for the 18-35 AF-D bought here new. The fact that the former is also a constant f/2.8 is a plus, but is it as sharp as the 18-35 (I read THAT GUY's review and want a realistic opinion).

 

thanks!

<p>My D300 upgrade will be a D700, sometime towards the end of this year. And I won't so much upgrade as have two high end cameras that complement each other for a variety of tasks.</p>

<p>A DXX00 with a built-in focus motor would solve this debate once and for all as far as I am concerned. Canon can do it so why not Nikon? <br /><br />Right now the only upgrade option I see for my D300 is a D3200 which means I have to say good-bye to my AI-S and AF lenses and spend a lot of money that I don't have on pro-level AF-S glass as nothing less would suffice...</p>

<p>I've had my G9 for 3 years. It's failed on me twice and I had it fixed both times. I'm considering a replacement but it's been with me longer than any other camera. It's rugged and it delivers. Except when it breaks inexplicably :).</p>

<p>My girlfriend has a Powershot A530 which I bought years ago after reading the KR review. she still uses it. It has been worn down so much you could say its been 'brassed', except it's made of plastic!</p>

<p>It was dropped when the lens was open once so the lens cover plate has a dent but it still works fine. Boots up quicker than my G9. I think it's what, 5 years old?</p>

<p>So what does that say about Canon? The mega expensive built-like a tank top-of-the-range model is more prone to breaking down than the ultra cheap entry-level product? Who knows? They both deliver great pictures!</p>

<p>I'm not a pro but I do have an "off-duty" camera. My G9 is almost always with me and I'm happy to pass it around the table as many of my friends are pros, journos, muso's etc and often want to take pics. At the end of the day we're all too busy clinging to the bar to care.</p>

<p>As for weddings, the B&G at one wedding I attended placed disposable cameras at all the tables for the guests to use so that they would have a more intimate and fun perspective as to the goings on at the reception.</p>

<p>According to Canon the SU-800 is a no no in terms of brand compatibility</p>

<p>Thanks for weighing in, Dave. I will be checking them out later this week.</p>

<p>I imagine Nikon will release additional firmware updates for the P7k later in the year to deal with additional bugs.</p>

<p>My plan is to have a really portable kit based around the D300 / P7000 combo that includes</p>

<ul>

<li>35 DX, 50 AF-S</li>

<li>SU-800 Wireless Speedlight Commander</li>

<li>SB-700 / SB-400</li>

<li>Mini softbox and mini Stand</li>

<li>Extra batteries &</li>

<li>Extra high-speed SDHC cards</li>

</ul>

<p>If I keep the Canon it will just necessitate investing in a 270 EX flash (will it work with the SU-800?) rather than an SB-400.</p>

<p>As an aside, I saw a LOT of people last night out on the streets in Jerusalem with G12-style cameras mounted on tripods and monopods.</p>

<p>Lisa, Eric, thanks for the P7K endorsements. I see that price-wise it's not as expensive as I thought it would be (our currency has got stronger against the US dollar) - in fact, my used G9 cost more three years ago!</p>

<p>Two quick flash-related questions: does the P7000 has the commander mode option. What about flash sync speed?</p>

<p>I suspect it;s going to be the latter. Oh well, another episode of gear-lust bites the dust ;-)</p>

<p>Thanks Howard. I have a D300 which is generally a bit OTT to take with me on simple walks when I travel so the G9 keeps me company.</p>

<p>Reviews of the P7000 seem to rate it highly yet with plenty of caveats. It looks like it needs some serious firmware updates to get things just right. A pity as I could share my SB-700 flash on it too.</p>

<p>Until then I may just buy a used D60 and 18-105 VR lens to fill my need for a small, portable high-IQ camera.</p>

<p>Nikon p7000 is an obvious contender; despite the reportedly quirky AF.</p>

<p>I'm also considering the Fujifilm FinePix F80EXR; Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZX3 and the Ricoh CX3, which is what I was shown at the store but they lack manual features I have come to love of the G9.</p>

<p>What is the best replacement camera for the Canon G9?</p>

<p>I love my G9 and am very tempted to purcahse a G12 as a replacement - but the zoom is too short. I prefer the range of the G9 (35-200mm equivalent).</p>

<p>I guess if I could combine the manual controls of the G12 and the lens of the G9 I'd be happy.</p>

<p>Is there a camera out there for me?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Russ</p>

<p>Have you examined your EXIF data to see what focal lengths you shoot with the most when using the 18-200 superzoom?</p>

<p>Doing that would help you a lot in terms of determining your next lens. For all you know, most of your work may be done in the 40mm - 70mm range, or maybe you prefer to shoot out at 200mm while standing far back from the subject?</p>

<p>I don't know but if you can find out than maybe all you need is the 50mm? Or maybe a 200mm prime (I'm citing extreme examples here)?</p>

<p>I've jusy moved to Jerusalem and I am really looking forward to hitting the street tomorrow and her work is inspiring</p>

<p>Ok, thanks Mike. I must say her work blows me away!</p>

 

<p>Four years ago, a Chicago real estate agent stumbled upon a box of negatives. Little did he know that he'd discovered Vivian Maier.</p>

<p>http://www.street-photographers.com/blog/chicago-nanny-discovered-to-be-master-street-photographer-11535.html</p>

<p>D40:<br /> <strong>Pros</strong></p>

<ul>

<li> Feels great in the hand (mine, anyway)</li>

<li> Easy to use.</li>

<li> Super light, portable, etc. especially when used with a 35/1.8 DX.</li>

<li> Decent high ISO</li>

<li> Decent AF in low light</li>

</ul>

<p><strong>Cons</strong></p>

<ul>

<li> melting sun, but how many times did I ever shoot into a light?</li>

<li> 6MP. Fine for web and some printing.</li>

<li> perhaps a little too small for my 60mm AF-s Micro lens. But so light, who cares.</li>

<li> Only 1 control wheel but mounted on the back so easier (for me) to use than the Canon one.</li>

<li>Ltd number of affordable AF-S lenses. </li>

</ul>

<p><br />-<br>

Small viewfinder, pentaprism, penta-mirror, 3-AF points bla biddy bla you wont know better once you have used it for a day, so why care?</p>

<p>Hi Kelly.</p>

<p>When I traded up for the D300 I believed it was the way to go. I never worried about the weight of my 35/1.8 DX when it was attached to my D40 and consequently my EXIF data shows the majority of my photos were taken with that lens.</p>

<p>I did take the trouble to handling a D3100 next to a D40 the other day and didn't like the grip of the former, so I won't be going that route. Im meeting with a friend tomorrow who shoots a D90, and Im keen to try that out.</p>

<p>What else have I tried towards this route?</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>450D + 18-55 IS </strong>lens. I found it to be very noisy at ISO 1600 but the body felt great and the images in good light were OK, perhaps a bit plastic-y...</li>

<li><strong>20D & 24-105 L</strong>. Belonged to a fellow hiker - we took turns with each other's gear along the trail - and the images I took are sharp and contrasty. </li>

<li><strong>30D + 17-40L </strong>&<strong> 18-135 IS</strong>. All used at a camera store in Jerusalem. The lil L zoom is a really nifty lens. Compared to the 18-135 IS, the size of the 17-40 L is more than acceptable. </li>

<li><strong>400D + 17-85 IS</strong>. I took a few shots of that setup inside a pawnshop and really liked the way it all felt like an extension of my hand. At ISO 1600 the images were fine.</li>

</ul>

<p><br />Anyway, when I get back from my current busines trip I lookforward to going into Outdoor Photo in Pretoria and saying "show me a 35 L on a XX0D and a 35/2 and 17-55 IS - just for kicks!"</p>

<p>Evryone, thanks for your comments.<br>

<br />Pascal, if I take my camera out I almost always have my netbook with me in the back of my bag (kata R-101) + other stuff for a daytrip, and as a result prefer to take my G9 than the D300.<br>

<br />Compared to a D40 its very OTT.</p>

<p>That said, everyone on this thread who has the 35 L has pointed out it would negate any weight advantage I would gain by switching to a smaller body so it would not be the route to take. Esp if the L IQ gain is minimal at best when comparing to prints made using a 35/2. I will make a decision once Im back in Johannesburg at the end of the month.</p>