If you really must do this, I can provide you with a street address of where to dispose of your old digital equipment. I believe your equipment could be given back if asked for in 6 months. After 12 months, however, you are out-a luck.

Just so long as i can run faster than the 2nd slowest person in the group.

Bring some large gallon size ziplock type bags. put the camera and lenses in the bag and seal it as you come in from the snow to prevent condensation building up on the camera and lenses. Keep them in the bag until they have warmed up to room temperature.

Another Pentaxian here as well. My Brother shoots Nikon's 7100 and 7200. I might have gone the Nikon route as well, but I already had a couple of 3rd party lenses that I used with my old Ricoh XP. So instead of spending money on both lenses and a camera body, I purchased a Pentax. If you go to Pentax USA's website, they will list all of the available dealers in your area. Not alot. Here in So. California it is Sammy's Camera. But as it has been mentioned by others, I love the fact that I can use any Pentax KA lens or newer and take advantage of all of the functionality that a new lens offers except for Auto Focus (unless the lens is an autofocus lens).

Where Pentax lags is in two areas and only one of them really matters to me and the lag isn't that great. The two areas are: Autofocus speed. Since I use alot of Manual lenses, this isn't a big deal. The Video capability is poor. By poor, it only shoots in HD and not 4K and except for the latest bodies, it is 720i HD. The latest couple of bodies will shoot in full HD. The other is continous auto focusing (except for the last two camera bodies). But since I am not a professional video shooter, and I use mainly older lenses, this has not value to me. If I want to shoot HQ video, I will get a video camera.

But all of the other specs, Pentax meets or exceeds nearly every other camera in their respective value points. For example, their K-70, which is a mid-range APSC camera includes weather / dust proofing. Nikon and Canon don't offer that until you get into their higher end APSC cameras. Go check out the low light ISO capabilities on the newest APSC camera, the KP. It blows every APSC and FF expect for perhaps the very latest FF. 819,000. I saw some examples, and even at 52,000 ISO, the pictures were not grainy on a 6 x 8 size photo.

The K-3ii and the new K-1 FF both offer built in GPS, but did away with the built in flash. On the KP, the built in flash was brought back and the built in GPS was removed. If GPS is needed, external hotshoe based GPS options are available.

So for me, the Pentax works and I have too many lenses to want to change now. But if there are anyone out there with some old Pentax lenses just gathering dust, I might be willing to take them off you hands.

I did the same thing with some dead tree's when visiting Crater Lake. Here are both images. The first is uncropped the second is cropped. In the Cropped image, it is easier to see the skeletal beast devouring a part of the forest.

(Download)


(Download)

I think if you cropped it down so the left tree is gone and some of the other branches are removed, for me now, the image you saw is a little clearer. At least this is what I think you saw. Correct?

(Download)

Bosque Del Apache outside of Socorro, NM is a bird sanctuary and part of the Rio Grande Flyway. Bear River Sanctuary just North of Ogden, UT near Tremonton, UT right along side I-15. For landscapes, Zion, Bryce, and the Grand Canyon. Don't forget Yellowstone, great animal shots as well. Kodachrome Basin in Southern Utah along with the Coral Pink Sand Dunes near Kanab, UT. Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Monument Valley, Rocky Mountain National Park, anywhere in the Cascades, but don't miss Crater Lake. Ft. Beck National Wildlife Preserve in Montana along with Flathead Lake, and Glacier National Park. While there, slip over into Canada and see Lake Louise and Banif (sp?) National Parks. I could continue, but this is a nice start for 3 months

Are you stuck on Nikon? If not, consider the Pentax K-70 or K-3 or K-3II. These have the same sensor size as the Nikon 7100 / 7200, They are weather resistant, as is the Nikon, but it they have one more advantage. they have in-body stabilization which means that you can purchase used Pentax lens with SMC coatings that still provide sharpness and clarity of the newest kit lenses. The only thing you really lose with the older lenses is auto focus so long as they are the KA or new lens. You can also purchase used Pentax AF lenses fairly inexpensive as well. You won't bust your budget and you will have a great camera system.

Actually, I think the last two are done well. They tell a story. It is a different story to each viewer, but they seem to talk to me of time gone by or another era and of lost hopes. While the first two also follow the theme, they don't appeal. I think it is because the first one's Depth of View is very shallow so very little is sharp and their is no bokeah just out of focus background. The second one is two busy. Just my two cents, others will probably disagree.

Thanks for the link. Please read down through the article. It stated that most Utahn's supported a local initiative to protect the Bears Ears and then it stated the following:

A Salt Lake Tribune-Hinckley Institute poll in June showed a much more split result when Utah voters were asked if they supported a Bears Ears National Monument.

Then, a third backed a monument while 39 opposed it. Some 28 percent were unsure.

As the National Monument was created and the size and restrictions, no, most Utahn's do not support the National Monument. What most Utahn's do support is the protection of the area.

I have lots of these types of pictures from my visit to Ecuador. From nose to tail they can get 6 feet long. The ones in Ecuador, at least, were not afraid of people and seemed to enjoy posing for pictures.

I would like to see your data on the majority of Utahns supporting the Bears Ears as a National Park. While the National Navajo leadership seemed to support it, the local Navajo's didn't neither did the local Utes. The National Monument / National Park that many Utahn's would support would the be San Rafael Swell between Green River and Salina, UT. Regarding the Bears Ears and in reality it's sister National Monument proclaimed by President Clinton, The Escalante Grand Staircase, you have two national monuments that combined are bigger than Yellowstone National Park. The Bears Ears takes up over 25% of the entire San Juan County. In addition, Canyonlands National Park is also in San Juan County and is only 1/4 the size of Bear Ears. Together they take up over 35% of the entire county (second largest county in the lower 48 states). Accross the Colorado River National Recreation area is the Escalante Grand Staircase National Monument. It almost the same size as Bears Ears. It takes up 30% of Kane Couny, UT and when you add to it the parts of Bryce Canyon, Zion, and Canyonlands Recreational Area, over 40% of the county is tied up in National Monuments and Parks. These two National Parks have exactly 3 Rangers to cover them, no paved roads, and now the dirt and graveled roads are closed to modern vehicles, the only access is via foot and horseback.

The creation of these National Monuments also took away the livelihood of sheep and cattle herders (the reason the local Indians and ranchers opposed their creation).

The main reason given to create these National Monuments was to protect ancient cliff dwelling sites. A National Monument of a 100,000 acres would have covered 90% of these sites. yes, these are beautiful landscapes and vistas, but they could have been protected in ways that didn't cripple the local economies. (And don't say they can live off of tourism, because tourists don't visit areas they can drive to and $10 / hour flipping hamburgers or changing bedsheets doesn't appeal to men and women who have run cattle their entire lives.)

I have found with Step up rings that when shooting wide open say 3.5 or 2.8 that I can get part of the shadow of the ring on my picture if I am not careful. I was using a 77 Star filter stepped down to a 58 or 63 (three rings) and in one corner of the picture there was a shadow. I found out that I didn't have the ring's screwed on straight and so they were just slightly out of alignment.

Are you set on acquiring a Nikon? If not, there are other brands to consider as well. You might also consider a gently used camera or a refurbished one. Also do you have any lenses from your days when shooting with film. Depending upon the brand, those lenses may also work with a new DSLR. For example, even the newest full frame Pentax or ASP-C Pentax can use older Pentax mounted lenses with no degradation of quality such as camera shake due to the shake reduction being mounted in the body of the camera instead of the lens. The Sony mirror-less system can use many of the other brand lenses with a simple adapter.

So you look at your budget, research all of the brands. If possible test drive one or two, then decide what is best for you. On this forum, you will find proponents of every platform and most will say they like the brand they use the best. One other item to remember, the user is the greatest determinant of picture quality, then the glass, and finally the camera body (assuming a decent body). If you are not wedded to a certain make, look at the cost of glass. Then buy the best body you can in that make and a decent tripod, because the rest of your photography budget over the next 3-5 years should be spent on glass. You don't want to have to replace the body next year because it can't provide the functionality you need thereby preventing you from getting a good Macro lens or a great prime portrait lens, etc.

Good luck

Hi D

Do you think this one would have been a better picture? I don't see the camera shake in either picture, but that could because I am still very much in the learning mode. The focus on both pictures was on the horses face knowing that the alfapha and trees in the background or even the horses neck would be out of focus. This picture does appear to be a little sharper as well.

(Download)