When it comes to tripods "light weight" is always good when it comes to lugging it around as you look for subjects. But ... the purpose of a tripod is to keep the camera rock steady so in that sense heavy is better.

I get around this dilemma by having a tripod that is very light but also capable of handling a lot of weight. Under the column is a spring loaded hook. When I need real stability like in a hurricane, I fill a plastic grocery bag with rocks or sand and hang it from that hook. Now I have a really heavy solid tripod for the occasion.

Good luck!

In the seventies when I was shooting film I have done so all the way to minus thirty five C. There were never any problems with the camera or the lens or the motor drive. The only problems were with me, that's damned cold for a human.

When I went digital I've not been as adventurous yet. So the most I have tried was minus twenty five C. So far there have been no problems. I could probably go lower too but that's yet to be tested.

The only real issue I've found is battery life and condensation.

I deal with condensation by bringing the camera into a warm place inside a plastic bag and I keep it that way until it's warmed all the way up.

As to batteries, I keep a couple in my parka inside pocket while i use a third one. When the one I'm using starts to get too low I swap a warm one in the camera and place the depleted one in my inside pocket. By the time I've gone through three batteries the first one has warmed up just fine and is able to continue to work for me.

As to the human, I managed to find a parka that is guaranteed to minus fifty. It's also a size larger than I need so there's room for gear inside too. That is my answer to staying warm in those conditions. The only real problem is gloves for the hands. If they protect you from the cold you can't work the controls and if you can work the controls the hands get cold. The only solution for me is fingerless woolen mitts and hand warmer pockets.

First, I shoot Nikon not Canon. However Nikon also has a 28-300 lens and I own one.

What happened to me was that as long as I was using a crop sensor camera the 18-200 lens I had on it really spoiled me in fact so much so that I still own that camera and that lens and I use it for travel as well as some macro (to a limited extent)

When I moved to a full sensor I was really frustrated. I had quite a few first rate lenses but that lens had become my walk around lens where as all the others weren't. So I was thrilled when Nikon came out with the 28-300, that filled a hole in my lenses.

To be fair it's not the best lens I own nor does it compare to my high end lenses but generally for walking around it's ideal none the less. So I would certainly recommend it particularly if you are used to an 18-200 on a crop sensor.

Never mind the paper clip. Get yourself a set of dental picks. I recommend all eight.

With these it's possible to extract all kinds of stuff that can't be reached with tweezers or paper clips. They are also handy for scraping paint out of screw slots if you've ever had that problem too. Good Luck!

http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.aspx?p=31063&cat=1,130,43332,43337

I've had one of those for a few years. My need was simple, brute force flash for doing stuff like lighting up a cavern or something. I use mine with Nikon DSLRs, usually a D3.

When it comes to raw power the flash wins the prize. What I also like about it is that it's got a second flash head under the main one. You can use this as a fill flash when you're bouncing the main head up to the ceiling. That was just an unexpected bonus, I bought the flash for its power, not for this accessory.

All this raw power comes at a stiff price. First of all I find the battery that comes with itdoesn't last very long. It's an old Nickel metal Hydride design that takes hours to charge and that doesn't hold a charge very long. When I first started to use it I was frustrated with it failing half way through an event. I also didn't like having to charge it the day before the event in order to maximize the charge. Eventually I bought a second battery to solve the power issue but that didn't work out either.

Finally I got around the power problem with a GoDox power supply and a cable for the flash. That added more weight but it works admirably leaving me with a lot of power. I've never run out since I got the power supply.

Metx is not clear exactly what adaptor you need or even whether it works with your SLR. In my case the adaptor I finally got sort of works. Where there is a problem is trying to use the flash as a slave or a master, it doesn't do that very well if at all. But then when I use this flash it's the only one I'm using so it doesn't matter whether it works remotely or not.

I also find the control unit that goes on the camera is a very old design which means the text displayed can be fuzzy. You get used to it but it's also always a problem.

The unit sets records for weight particularly when you're using a professional SLR and the power supply too. But then I suppose we should be getting more exercise anyway.

Finally, this isn't a flash that conveniently fits in a pocket or a knapsack. I got an aluminum, foam filled case and custom fitted it into the foam along with its accessories. That allows me to keep it protected from hazards and makes it more convenient to carry.

Cost wise start with the cost of the flash. Then add about $200 for the adaptor that makes it work with your camera. I added another $250 for the power supply as well as about $75 for an extra battery that never worked as I expected. It also does not have a diffuser so you might add the cost of one of those too. And the foam filled case was about $60.

Bottom line? It's an excellent brute force flash if that is your primary need. Don't count on it to do anything fancy, just be happy with the power of the flash and expect to spend a lot more than just the advertised price of the unit.

I use a high end Sekonic. There is nothing wrong with my camera meters, they are all relatively accurate but then it comes to mixing flash with existing light the meter is very useful. It's also handy for spot metering distant objects and for averaging up to nine exposure readings.

I also have an old Gossen meter that has a spot metering capability too. That one I use for long exposures sometimes measured in hours, something my camera meters and my Sekonic can't do.

Curiously enough though, they are rarely used, it is after all so much easier to rely on the meter in the camera and PP. So I use them only when I have complex lighting issues and the time to solve them.

Pictures change in size natuarlly depending on the subject. If you do a lot of night photography you'll be amazed at how small many of your images can be when compared to pictures taken at high noon.

Pixel could has nothing to do with size, it's the colours in the image and the degree of detail that does it. When I want to send stuff out I usually set a size of 6 x 4 inches and I set the jpg quality to 25% and the resolution to 96 pixels per inch. This gets me files that are usually 10% of the originals and yet they look good on a monitor unless you try to enlarge them.

Give that a try and you may find that your problems are solved.

I shoot Nikons and have for about twenty years. With each new model Nikon has come up with more focus points. Should I be happy? Well I do mostly macro photography and when I do that I tend to only use one focus point not the many available. Why? This way I can control exactly what should be in focus and the camera is able to react faster because it only has one point to worry about. If Nikon were to come up with a thousand focus points I'd still only use one.

One thing you need to be aware of is that the makers play numbers games. I recall when the D800 came out with I think it was 45 megapixels, it was no surprise to anyone that Canon will compete. And they did two years later with a fifty megapixel sensor. And so it goes. No one seems to question whether all that resolution is actually needed or whether it improves IQ, all that seems to be important is the numbers. W#hy? Well it gives some people bragging rights "my maker has more focus points than yours does".

Yes you can switch brands now since Canon seems to have more focus points but I'd recommend that you might want to see how the Nikons perform. I think you'll see that the are as good if not better than the Canons. And if that's not completely true it also doesn't really matter because Nikon plays the numbers games too so it's only a matter of a year or two before both makers are comparable again in their relentless question to always appear to be better.

I vote for the buttons. Once the fingers are trained I find you can make adjustments on the fly without ever taking your eye off the viewfinder. That is a highly desirable capability. Alas though, iif everything was in button form the cameras would have to be a lot bigger. Sop I'm happy with where things stand. I have buttons for the things I do all the time and menus that I can set before I head out to a shoot.

If that speed is something you really need, get a faster Nikon. Canon and Nikon both build very fast cameras. Each year one is ahead of the other but eventually the lagard always catches up too.

But ... faster means more expensive, sometimes much more expensive. And faster assumes a strong light source so at dusk or sunrise or a very overcast day you aren't going to get those speeds unless you set the ISO very high. Today's cameras come with amazing capabilities but how many times do you need those capabailities and are they worth the money they cost?

As to the owl ... unless it's in a screaming dive to catch something it usually just sits around. And when it sits around you don't need 14 frames per second at all. Even a slow point and shoot can get that kind of a picture.

I will often do events. What that means in English is there are settings for shots with no flash. That requires an accurate white balance and often a high ISO. At the same time depending on the subject, I find myself with a subject illuminated by sunlight through a window. To use that initial setting doesn't work, the result is very blue. I ne3ed a different white balance and a much lower ISO. So that's my second setting, adjusting for that. The third is flash, often I find myself in a place after the event where I could use flash. Now my ISO has to go even lower and I need white balance for flash.

I set up all three and this way I am able to switch rapidly from one to another and thereby not miss any shots. When I'm in the bush I use other settings but again often three for a given shoot.

I've subscribed to Consumers' Reports for decades. And I've made some good purchases as a result. The problem with them is that they can't test for everything. When it comes to cameras they are trying to find products that represent good value and that the consumer will like. What that means then is we will not always agree on what is best.

I too have the odd Nikon camera body that doesn't perform well according to CR. And yet it does indeed perform perfectly but differently. The average consumer will not likely achieve stellar results and as a result be disappointed with the product. If you are an above average consumer you do actually get amazing results.

I don't know what the answer is. I appreciate the focus they have because I am usually a typical consumer too, many things I buy I don't really understand so I rely on their test. But I am also an expert on some products like cameras and for those I don't like the ratings. Should CR use experts to rank the cameras? That might be fair but then the results will leave a lot of angry consumers when they find their cameras don't perform as promised in auto mode. Either way CR is between a rock and a hard place. So I let it go and rely on the tests for products where I need some advice.

Actually when you set it to P you really should not have to do anything more than press the shutter. But like all things it's not always that simple.

When I head out to a shoot I take a few pictures of things that represent my typical subjects of the moment. This gives me a chance to test the brightness of the day and the colour balance too. I will then adjust the camera to ensure optimal pictures and head out to take some. Taking this approach I have minimal adjustments to make every time a subject appears.

The P in your camera automatically sets the aperture and the shutter speed. So take a few pictures and see what happens in P. If the shutter speed is fast enough and the aperture gives you the depth of field you want there's nothing to do but take the picture. On the other hand if the shutter speed is too slow you can increase the ISO to offset this or you can open the aperture more. The mode allows you to adjust the aperture/shutter combination up and down. So usually you just take the picture but if that doesn't get you what you want adjusting the combination using P usually does address the issue.

One other thought. I note a lot of people talk about the green auto button. Yes you can use that too but it works differently. That button completely ignores all your camera settings and decides for itself what to do. Sometimes that's good, sometimes the algorithm that is used actually gets you good stuff. But ... often that is not the case. P works sort of like auto but it also takes into account the camera settings you selected and it works with them.

I hope that helps a little. Good Luck.

First of all I grew up saving to buy and subsequently own whatever it was that I fancied. I don't see software any differently, it's a tool and if the tool does the job then buy it.

That's not to say I have never rented. When I travel I sometimes rent a car for a week or two. When I am renovating my house I sometimes rent a machine to simplify the project. In this case I only wanted something temporarily and I was quite prepared to give it back at the end.

I have fifteen and twenty year old software that meets my needs perfectly. I bought it as a tool and I use it as I would any tool. I also bought it to keep it since I'd be using it likely forever.

So I don't rent Photoshop or MS Office. I use the ones I originally bought. And one thing that's nice about this is that this software always works too. The rented software only works as long as you're paying your dues all the time. Thankfully with Photoshop there's JPG so if the software stops working you can still access your images with other software. But that's not always the case with all software, sometimes you're doomed to have to now rent the software or lose your files.

I have no problem seeing Adobe make a lot of money, that's good since it might get us better software in the longer term, however I am not going to contribute to those profits by constantly paying to use what I already have on my computer.

Personally I think software should go the way of the car. I have a choice there. I can buy my car and use it for a decade or two until it falls apart. Or I can lease the car for a certain number of years usually four or so, and then give it back after that time and buy a new one to replace it. The lease is usually cheaper than the purchase so you get a break when you lease.

Alas Microsoft and Adobe don't give you that option, they force you to rent and they don't allow you to own. That is why a lot of people like me are upset about their rental offerings.

It doesn't matter what kind of a lens you use depending on what you are photographing. If it's a large flower there are a lot of lenses you can use and simply crop the image if you have to.

However, if you really want to do little things you should consider a macro lens. Nikon makes one DX macro ...

http://en.nikon.ca/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-dx-micro-nikkor-85mm-f%252f3.5g-ed-vr.html

This lens has a reasonable working distance, an image stabilizor and is a DX format.

Another lens that was always a favourite with me was the 105 mm macro ...

http://en.nikon.ca/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-vr-micro-nikkor-105mm-f%252f2.8g-if-ed.html

Both lenses will work well with your camera and you should be happy with either.

All that said, since you're new at this, I'd suggest you consider the FX version, the 105 mm. If you pursue this hobby and eventually want to upgrade your camera, you'll eventually drift to an FX body. At that point you will find that the DX lenses you have represent a problem. You can still use them but they will not cover the FX sensor completely, instead you'll have a cropped photo. That's not to say that this is a problem, but you may none the less suddenly want to upgrade your DX lenses too so that you can use all of the FX sensor and that can get rather expensive. I should also mention that FX lenses work just fine with the DX sensors. Something else to think about.

Good Luck!