Chip NoVaMac said:
Me too! Love the Smoky Mountain area. Cades Cove is an awesome area.
I loved it and I definitely want to return! It is just gorgeous! OK, I've posted one photo in the Assignments: Contrasts thread that I shot from Clingman's Dome and one of a new friend I ran across in Cade's Cove in the Picture of the Day thread.... more to come!
Chip NoVaMac said:
In switching from Canon back to Nikon, I have decided to forego the D200, and picked up a second D70s body (a refurb).
I think that was a good move, picking up another D70s rather than going with adding a D200. Why? Because IMHO it is a lot easier to have two identical bodies for working quickly in most situations than it is to have one body of one type and another of another type. I've already noticed that it can be awkward working with a D200 one minute, then picking up the D70 in the next minute.... In my experience it's much better to have two identical D70s bodies or two identical D200 bodies rather than trying to mix-and-match.....
That's interesting you're also interested in going into having a body converted to IR. I've been thinking along these lines, too, especially after seeing some people's intriguing results on Nikon Cafe. I don't remember the name of the company that some of them recommend for this (probably is Life Pixel, but I am not sure) but one of these days I'll be exploring the possibilities, too.
You've got some great gear here! At some point I'll be ready for that R1C1 system, and this past week I was reminded of the value of using ND and gradiated density filters....somewhere I've got a bunch of Cokins that I bought and used years ago but I need to find them and the adapter to see if they'll still be useable on my current lenses.
On this trip I took 2 small external hard drives and the Epson P2000, along with my MBP; I ran into some problems with the P2000 so was glad I had the other backup devices! I'll bring it in to you some day with a full CF card and we can figure out what I was doing wrong (or not doing at all if I were missing an essential step), because I wasn't able to bring up images in the thing after I'd copied them to the drive. ?? As far as I know the HD has plenty of space in it so that wouldn't have been the problem. User error was the problem, I'm sure! LOL!
Chip NoVaMac said:
As an example, looking at Clix's gear, I would be hard pressed to decide on what to take. But love her for having the choice for what ever comes her way.
LOL! It was fortunate for me that we were traveling by car this trip, as I really didn't know what to take since we'd be shooting in many different situations. Easier to just throw all the lenses in the bag and then I'd be sure to have what I needed.... It was convenient being able to work out of the back of the vehicle, just reaching into my bag and grabbing whichever lens I thought would be suitable. Now that I've been to the gathering in Alabama and the Smokies, this next year I will have a much better idea of what to leave at home when I'm packing, both in terms of camera gear and clothing. I tend to overpack and take too much stuff, especially when I don't know what to expect. That's why I made a mental (and physical) note of the lenses I used throughout this trip, so that next year I can travel a little lighter. I am well aware that I am very fortunate to have had the lenses I wanted/needed to fit certain situations but of course if I'd been more limited in my choices I would have found ways to get good shots nonetheless. Actually, I'm sure that the 18-200 VR would have covered a lot of bases! I found that in San Francisco, anyway, as during that trip it lived on the camera the whole time....
It was neat while we Nikon Cafe people were all together shooting: some had really extensive and expensive gear (big tripods equipped with Wimberley (sp?) sidekicks and Wimberley gimbols (sp?), 400mm and 500mm lenses, etc., while others were a bit more limited, maybe having an inexpensive tripod or none at all and maybe just a couple of consumer-level lenses, but, hey, in the end everyone had the best time together and there was no weenie-wagging or bragging about one's equipment. Many people had the lenses they needed for the type of shooting they did (ie: the guys with the 500mm lenses were serious nature photographers), while the rest of us benefitted from seeing some of this equipment in actual use rather than just in a magazine article or in a store. One young guy who is just starting out in serious photography was tickled when a couple of the others lent him some of their gear so that he could try it out, see if it fit his needs so that when he's ready to buy his own stuff he'll know what works for him. People were very generous. Oh: So-and-so forgot his MC-30 cable release? Someone else said, "hang on, I've got an extra one you can use!" A couple of photographers wanted to see what looking at life through a 10.5mm lens would be like? Hands reached out offering one for the testing....
There was no competitiveness, but a lot of learning and sharing. Someone shooting with a 70-300 next to someone else with a 70-200 VR and teleconverter or next to someone else wielding a 300mm f/2.8 still could and did get some great shots, as in the end it is the photographer's creative vision that matters more than the actual gear used.
When traveling, a lot depends upon the reason for the trip, the means of getting there, the situations likely to be encountered there. This was the first time I've traveled with more than just the basics, as I knew I had the flexibility offered by traveling by car as opposed to flying. January 2007 when I fly back out to SF I'll again be taking just a couple of lenses, and having been there before I know what to expect now, too, in the way of shooting situations. That 18-200mm VR is a gem and it works so well for so many situations. It'll be on the camera.....
Chip NoVaMac said:
looking for comments I guess from those that are content with the 200mm "real" focal length, but have some experience or need beyond that in the DSLR world.
Well, this past week, especially in the Smokies, I really got a lot of use out of the 70-200mm VR with the 1.7 TC; I'm now thinking about a 300mm but at the same time need to assess just how much I'd use that, how much nature photography I'll be doing. I do live in an area where there are a lot of opportunities for capturing wildlife (geese, ducks, an occasional blue heron). Slipping a TC on Bertha will certainly give me a lot of additional range.... The 80-400mm is a nice lens but definitely there are limitations to it. I've gotten some really decent shots around here of the geese and ducks in the water or on the ground,but when it comes to capturing BIF (birds in flight), that lens leaves a lot to be desired. It is just too slow and once you've lost focus while panning it is difficult to recapture. I used it in Alabama some, but when we got to the Smokies I set it aside in favor of the 70-200mm with a TC or Bertha without a TC, as both of those lenses were a bit more responsive.
The 12-24mm definitely comes in handy in certain shooting situations, while the 17-55 range can be covered by a couple of combinations of other lenses. I used both to good effect on this last trip.
Now that I'm finally getting the hang of teleconverters I will probably be eventually adding a 2x to my bag and seeing how Bertha and the 70-200mm work with that before making an investment in a 300 mm lens. I need to assess just how often I need and would use the extra range provided by a 300mm or a 300mm plus teleconverter.
The 70-200mm VR is a worthwhile purchase for anyone who wants to reach out and touch wildlife or flowers or whatever, and it works extremely well with the 1.4x and the 1.7x teleconverters (haven't yet tried the 2x)....
In the end, the photographer has to make a decision about what kinds of thins he/she likes to shoot and then ensure that he or she can use the right gear for that situation, either by buying it, renting it or borrowing it. If someone only occasionally shoots wildlife, for instance, it makes sense for them to rent a 300mm, 400mm or 500mm lens rather than purchasing it, but if they find that they're doing a lot of architectural or interior shots they might want to go ahead and invest in the wide-angle lenses which work so well in those situations. Candids of people? The photographer who really likes doing this kind of thing might be happiest by putting his or her money into the lenses which work best in these situations. Love macros of flowers and plants? Plunk down the money for the macro lenses which will do the job....
Sometimes it takes a while to figure out what one really likes to shoot the most and to develop a style and to incorporate the lenses which best reflect that style....
