kj_thomas

<p>Hello Laurie,</p>

<p>This is the same tight spot a lot of serious amateurs have with Nikon: the lack of f/4 lenses compared to Canon. However, it's encouraging to see that Nikon released the 16-35 f/4 VR and the 24-120 f/4 VR back in 2010, and something tells me if there was no earthquake/tsunami in Japan and no major flooding in Thailand we probably would have seen some kind of 70-200 f/4 by now. But that's all speculation.</p>

<p>The 80-200 f/2.8 is a great lens that can get an extra stop of light, and on the used market you can probably find one for under $1000...maybe even close to the price of the Canon 70-200 f/4 you have now. The 70-210 f/4 that others have mentioned is an option, and these are out there ok CL or EB for around $200. In either case, AF speed will suffer. If you are willing to spend around $1500 you can probably find a 70-200 f/2.8 VR I used. I had that lens and used it with a D90...the combination was amazing.</p>

<p>I say if you are not in a hurry to upgrade, then just wait (keep in mind you could be waiting a while). But for your original question of how long to wait before you buy a new camera: Nikon is a highly respected company, and cameras come with a 1-year warranty. If you buy one and for some strange reason the first "batch" is bad, I'm sure you won't have a problem replacing it with Nikon. This is all assuming you are fortunate enough to get one in the first batch due to high demand of practically all new Nikon products.</p>

<p>Also, I disagree that replacing a D80 with another DX camera is not a substantial improvement. Any of the latest DX cameras (D3200, D5100, D7000, D300s) will smoke a D80 in IQ and ISO performance. The most comparable camera, the D7000, is worlds better than a D80 in my opinion. I know a lot of pros that shoot with one FX camera (either a D700 or D800) and have a D7000 in the bag or on the shoulder as a backup. I think they would be quite apprehensive going on a job if that D7000 was a D80. And if you want to go FX, you can get a D700, which in my opinion is still much better than a D80 and will be relevant for some time to come.</p>

<p>In the end, there's no sense in speculating on some D600. If it happens, great...I'm sure it'll be a success. But for now, the D600 is a pipe-dream.</p>

<p>I would probably carry the D7000 with the 24-70mm and the 35mm, or the D700 with the 24-70mm and the 50mm. If you like the wider-angle stuff, I would carry the full-frame option and add the 20mm to the group. I've never been to Oaxaca, so I don't know if you will need a telephoto for wildlife. The 85mm would stay home.</p>

<p>In either case I would take the smaller S95 also...you will probably need it in Mexico City. I'm in Salvador, Bahia (Brazil) right now and have my D300s, 16-85mm, and a 50mm 1.4. In the city of Salvador, it can be a little sketchy (particularly at night) and I find myself being overly cautious, which effects the way I take photos. I wish I had a smaller point-and-shoot. In the smaller towns outside of the city the dSLR is fine.</p>

<p>I personally prefer the 50mm over the 35mm for a few reasons. The limited depth of field is one. Also, I tend to take a lot of random portraits of local folks, and I don't like to be on top of people when taking pictures, so the 50mm works better in this regard. Finally, even though the crop factor makes a 35mm like a 50mm on DX, the perspective is still that of a 35mm. For me, this is important for a little more facial compression when taking pictures of people. I would prefer the compression of an 85mm, but that requires way too much working distance, particularly on DX. In most cases I prefer the 35mm on DX, but for traveling I always go with the 50mm. I don't miss the wide-angle or the telephoto much here. </p>

<p>Definitely get all of your gear insured if you don't already. The couple of hundred bucks per year is worth it. And stock up on the right OTC medications before you leave...I would even try to get the doc to write a script for something just in case. Being sick while traveling is no fun. Have a great trip!</p>

<p>I would contact EB customer service ASAP!</p>

<p>I think you have a decent start to your photography needs. I agree with most people here: stick with taking photos as much as you can, and of as many things that interest you, with what you currently have. I would consider adding the 35mm 1.8 because it is quite different from the 50mm 1.8 you have. I think you'll find the 35 good for walking around and the 50 as a great portrait option. Use your D3100, the 18-55mm, the 35mm, and the 50mm for a while and see what you like and don't like. You've indicated zooms and primes in your purchase options, but you also need to figure out if you are a zoom or a prime lens type of shooter.</p>

<p>Personally, I started with a D60, a 35mm, an 18-55mm, and a 55-200mm and tried my hand at everything except for weddings (I find they are just too much work): concerts, birthday parties, events, sports, landscapes, products and food, portraits, architecture...you name it and I tried it. I found that the photos from the 35mm were my favorites, and quickly added more primes (namely the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8) and today I shoot with these regularly (bought the 24mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4 and sold the 35mm and 85mm 1.8). I have two 2.8 zooms, but only use them when I know I can't do a whole lot of moving for the paid gigs I now have. If it's not a paid gig, I only take the primes out. And I upgraded my camera to a D300s last year.</p>

<p>At this point, other than the 35mm, the only two lenses you have "missing" from your arsenal are an ultra-wide angle (like a 10-24mm) and a telephoto (like a 70-300mm). A macro would not be a bad thing to try to test out as well if you like that type of thing. I would not jump to those exotic FX lenses yet. For much less than the price of the 24-70mm 2.8, you can add a third-party UWA, a telephoto, the 35mm, and a DX macro (probably for half the price). And consider picking up all of these on the used market...when you go to resell, you will not loose much, and everything you have is very easy to unload on eBay or CL.</p>

<p>On shooting weddings, I agree that coming in with entry-level equipment can raise some eyebrows, but I think this depends on the type of wedding you shoot. If you shoot for clients with a limited budget who will have a smaller wedding, I think you can do very well, won't look to amateur, and get some great practice for when you are ready for the bigger jobs. In other words, if someone is paying you $500 to shoot their wedding, having a D3100 is not a problem; if someone is paying you $5000, then having a D3100 will (likely) make you look out of place.</p>

<p>Hello Cindy,</p>

<p>I would try to put another lens on the camera and see if the problem goes away. If so, it could be a problem with the way the new lens is mounted. Just tinker around with things and it should all work out. I have that same lens and I used to have a D90 before I bought a D300s. It's a great lens. Also, I'm with Owen...where did you buy the lens?</p>

<p>If you have a 24-70 f/2.8, then you pretty much have the best lens. However, you may not have the best lens for your camera (which is a D300). VR lenses are great if you use them for the intended purpose, which is system stabilization at lower shutter speeds.</p>

<p>Also, the VR is engaged the nanosecond after autofocus locks (I actually think these things occur concurrently, but I'm not a Nikon engineer), so you won't have to "wait" for VR unless you are counting in the nanosecond range, which normal humans don't do when taking photos. 99.99% of the time a shooter waits longer for the autofocus to lock than for the VR to fully engage.</p>

<p>Photocraft in Burke, VA (just outside of DC) has it in stock for $454. This is a credible camera shop (I bought my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR 1 there a long time ago). And no tax if you don't live in VA.</p>

<p>http://www.ephotocraft.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=018208021802</p>

<p>Like I said, if you search just a little you can find one. I didn't even leave my immediate area and just looked for the small local family-owned shops.</p>

<p>I was looking for one earlier this year. In March I managed to find one at a Ritz Camera store in Rockville, MD (even though it was out of stock on the Ritz website...and every other site for that matter). A couple of days later, I had to get some white seamless from a store in downtown DC (called Pro Photo or something like that) and they had two sitting on the shelf.</p>

<p>My suggestion is if you really want it (and want a new lens), just go down the list of authorized Nikon dealers and I'm sure some store will have it in stock...shipping is another story. If you can live with used, then you can probably find one on eBay, but likely at a higher price than retail if it's still hard to find. Personally, I would wait over buying on eBay unless the price is under list.</p>

<p>Thanks to Shun et. al. for all of this D800 analysis. I was going to get a used D700 because of the low-light performance, but all of this has been really helpful and I'm sure my next purchase is going to be a D800! I'm impressed with these photos, and I'm assuming no one is using any noise reduction (in-camera or otherwise).</p>

<p>I echo Ralph...I'm kicking myself for not pre-ordering, but hopefully these won't be as hard to come by as some of the very popular lenses we've seen recently.</p>

<p>Hello Alfredo,</p>

<p>Thanks for the insight. After speaking with a few more people there I think I may end up buying a small D60 or something similar and use that for when I'm out being a "tourist". However, I would like to find out about some photographic opportunities in Salvador. What kind of photography do you do?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am loaded with money and with strong assistants capable of carrying any load. So I take three of everything because two might fail. And, yes, I am also "too cool for school." Hasta la vista, professors!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hilarious that this dude isn't really serious. I say just let him "say" he's buying up five of every Nikon lens makes in the DX line because he's infinitely loaded.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why not own both? You never know when something will fail. I just had a Nikon battery charger fail in the field. Now I need to travel with a backup battery charger. I have had lenses fail in the field.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An extra $45 charger is a little different than an extra $900 lens. Personally, I can think of better ways to spend that extra cash. I've never had a lens fail, but if I did, I would just switch to another different lens instead of having two practically identical lenses. The only overlap I have in my lens arsenal is the 17-55 with the 16-85. Those two lenses are much more different than these two UWAs, and I never carry both at the same time anyway. But I guess this is a trend...I know a dude who has the new 85 f/1.4 and went out to buy the new 85 f/1.8 just to have the backup (even though he has a 50 f/1.4 as well).</p>

<p>I personally don't think either Nikon lens (10-24 or the 12-24) is worth the price charged...especially $1200 for the 12-24.</p>

<p>Thanks Shun! I'm going to go ahead and carry the D300s. I still may get a smaller camera as a backup, but only if I can get it for around $250-300 body-only.</p>

<p>Hello Borgis,</p>

<p>Thanks for the information. I had a D60 when I was in Jericoacoara (which is north of Fortaleza) and was very comfortable walking around with my camera. When I got back to Fortaleza, I had wasn't comfortable in places like Praia Futuro, but in Beira Mar it was somewhat okay. I would be very skeptical about carrying a D300s in Rio, but I've never been to Salvador so I don't know what the deal is there. Too bad I don't have the D60 anymore, because if that got snatched I wouldn't worry too much. </p>

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I am going to Salvador, Brazil and I would like to take my D300s along with a 50mm f/1.4 and a 16-85mm VR to get photos of my time there. How safe is it? I don't plan to take pictures in shady areas, just mostly in the tourist places like Barra, Pelourinho, and others. My gear is insured, but to have it taken would suck because I wouldn't have to take photos. I'm also thinking about buying a used D3000 as a backup in case something happens.</p>

<p>Any insight would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!</p>

<p>The 12-24 is made in Japan and the 10-24 is made in either China or Thailand, which is probably the biggest reason for the price difference. I agree with Eric - if you want to talk about UWA lenses for DX, 3rd party options have to be in the discussion. In my opinion Tokina by far makes the best built lenses in this category. If I didn't already have a Nikon 12-24, I would probably go get an 11-16 Tokina. Honestly, the only reason to buy a Nikon UWA DX lens is if you shoot a lower-end camera like a D60, D3100, D5000, etc (for the autofocusing).</p>

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I posted this question to the travel forum, but I also wanted to post here since this forum sees a lot more traffic with traveling photographic enthusiasts. I am going to Salvador, Bahia (in Brazil) and I would like to take my D300s along with a 50mm f/1.4 and a 16-85mm VR to get photos of my time there. How safe is it? I don't plan to take pictures in shady areas, just mostly in the tourist places like Barra, Pelourinho, and others. My gear is insured, but to have it taken would suck because I wouldn't have to take photos. I'm also thinking about buying a used D3000 as a backup in case something happens.</p>

<p>Any insight would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!</p>

<p>I know a LOT of professional shooters (which means they get paid, file taxes against their photography income, have a website, etc.) that shoot with D300 or D300s cameras, or non-professional cameras as they have been called in this thread. Every time I see one who shoots DX I ask them why haven't they moved to FX, and overwhelmingly the answer is that they don't feel a need to do so. Also, I know a LOT of people waiting to see what the follow-on product to the D300s will be...probably not as many who were salivating over the D800, but quite a few very creative people who shoot but truly cannot afford the $1300 increase from a D300s (or its follow-on) to a D800. Not everyone who shoots professionally wants (or can afford the nearly $20K price tag of) 2 D3s units, a 14-24, a 24-70, and a 70-200.</p>

<p>At the same time, there are people out there who feel pros should shoot with nothing less than a D3s and label the D700 as an amateur camera. Some of the people who call DX amateur may feel otherwise about the D700's amateur label by these D3s loyalists.</p>

<p>The point is that opinions are completely subjective about what a professional camera is. I know someone who shoots phenomenal landscape photos with (according to people posting here) a not only amateur but ancient D60 and gets paid quite well. Shooting DX doesn't mean one cannot be a professional, and shooting FX doesn't make one a professional. Personally, I use a D300s and a 17-55mm DX lens and get paid for work that I shoot. I plan to buy a D700 if its recently reduced price holds up, but for two reasons only: 1) low-light performance with concerts I shoot and 2) ultra-wide angle photos with the best darn wide-angle zoom ever made, the 14-24. Other than that, my DX rig of the D300s/17-55 will hold up quite well for the fashion, portrait, and wedding stuff that I do...and get paid well for as a professional as a matter of fact.</p>

<p>Thanks! I was taking a look at this. Ratings are mixed, but I think I'll check it out. I would like to get something I can use for the fashion stuff I do as well.</p>

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I'm planning to rent a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR Macro lens for two weeks. I want to practice this to see if it's an area of photography that I want to invest in. I want to find out what's the best lighting to use for macro. Some subjects I want to shoot are flowers, water droplets, and jewelry. Also, I'm starting to shoot some weddings in my other work and want to know how a lens like this can benefit my work there as well. I'm thinking about the Nikon R1 system, but the cost of this is a little crazy if I end up buying this lens. I've heard the Promaster RL60 is a good option, and it's only $100. I have some SB-900s I can use as well with modifiers.</p>

<p>Any insight would be greatly appreciated!</p>

<p>I have a D300s and I also want to go FF. I like the new D800, but I'm concerned about it's performance at stressing ISOs (above 500 or so). I've looked closely at the D700 and (to answer your 2nd and 3rd questions) I think it's AF and IQ is better than a D7000, and I'm thinking of adding this instead of the new camera.</p>

<p>My main reasons for wanting to go FF are the wider angle and low-light, which are two things wedding photographers should probably care about as well. So I would say (to answer your first question) that the D700 in the used market would be a great buy if you can find one in great shape with a low shutter count. I actually hope I can find one around $1600 or so to couple with my D300s.</p>

<p>Not sure if this has been posted (or if I can even post this), but a link to Cliff Maunter site that summarizes his D800 use. He specifically demonstrates the dynamic range capabilities. Interesting...</p>

<p>http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/</p>

<p>I would assume that all of the new f/1.4 primes, all of the current f/2.8 pro zooms, all of the current FX macros, and all of the current super-telephoto primes will perform well. Some of the older lenses could have a problem, but as Shun said, not many people have had any experience with a D800. So we will have to wait and see. But given the issues seen with the D7000 on some older variable aperture DX lenses, I wouldn't put a 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 on a D800...ever.</p>