I did shoot at 24MM portrait. The horizontal span that I wanted to stitch together was probably somewhere between 100 and 120 degrees. FOV tables tell me that each portrait image covered 53 degrees of horizontally (vertical coverage of each image was 73.7 degrees). I could have zoomed to max 70mm (19.5 degree FOV). Why would that have been better? At 70mm, I would also have reduced the vertical coverage to about 29 degrees, so I probably would have also had to take two rows of images for the scene.

I often will bring a camera to family events and, for those, typically will either post a collection of images on FB or will create a video montage from some of the photos and video clips taken during the event. I love sharing family photos - particularly pics of my two young grandchildren. Landscape photography is more personal for me - for these I spend a good deal of time trying to pick out favorite images and going through post processing enhancements. So far, I've only done a few photo books but haven't yet generated any quality prints from my images. That's an area that I want to focus more on (and now have invested in first FF camera - D810 - to assist in that endeavor).

The MS ICE SW seems to work well. Here's a stitch of a set of images that span roughly 160 degrees in azimuth overlooking cog railroad/auto road from Mt Washington summit. Much quicker than what I've been used to in photoshop.

(Download)

Thanks for the tip. I downloaded ICE and started to fool around with it. I did find it to be much, much faster than photoshop (photoshop creates massive file sizes during the merge process).

Thanks for the very positive feedback. It is likely that this shot without the added people/traffic would be better than with (of course, as its the only image that I took of the scene, it is clearly the best). The lesson learned for me is to not be afraid to capture multiple images of a scene for review after the fact. I had it framed and ready and had no risk of losing the isolated shot by taking additional shots before hand.

Thanks for the feedback. I recall that I intentionally delayed taking the shot until after traffic passed and several people crossed at road along front. Probably would have been better to take a bunch of shots in various states of activity in the scene.

Using my Tokina 24-70 lens with D810, I set up a sequence of shots for later merging to a panorama. I locked in focus and exposure (F9.0; 1/1250) and took six portrait shots spanning across horizon from left to right with plenty of overlap between shots. First try at post-processing merge (in photoshop) was to select all six images. The result appeared significantly compressed in the horizontal plane vs the actual scene. I investigated further. I eliminated two of the source images that weren't required given available overlap from the others and performed the merge with the remaining four. Still didn't look right. I then eliminated another and performed the merge with the remaining three images. Still very compressed horizontal plane. Finally, I did a merge of two images on the left; a separate merge of two images on the right; and then a third merge to put these left and right parts together. Much better. In each merge of 3 or more images, the result was a panorama roughly 13 by 10. In the 3 step merge (left, right, combine), the resulting panorama was roughly 16 by 10. I've highlighted all of this by coloring in the individual source image layers in photoshop and exporting to the first four images below. These are follwed by two panorama results. The first panorama below is from the 3 step merge (this matches the scene and has no content aware fill added from post). The other is from the 1 step/6 image merge (compressed) - shown with and without content aware fill.

Have others experienced this?

Took a trip around Lake Winnipesaukee in NH yesterday. This one is from Weirs Beach (popular hangout during NH's June Bike Week). Post processing to B&W seemed fitting for the image (original at 70mm; F8.0; 1/1250)

(Download)

With my D7000 DX setup, I purchased a Tokina 11-20 F2.8 two years ago in prep for a trip to Italy later that year. I've been happy with it - one of my favorite Tokina pics from that trip (after post processing) follows. Just last week, I decided to switch to full frame. I decided to buy a refurbished D810 and wanted a 24-70 F2.8 to go with it. With the large outlay for the camera, I wanted to limit spend on lens to about $1000 - that left my decision to either Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina - no affordable Nikon. I didn't have any direct experience with Tamron or Sigma (and still don't). All three were highly rated, but the Tokina seemed to have the best grading on dxomark. I bought the Tokina.

(Download)

I just purchased a refurbished D810 from Adorama last week. However, for me, the decision was more about whether to jump to full frame from DX sensor vs getting upgraded DX setup (D500 , etc). Since you already are shooting full frame, you might consider waiting longer for a camera upgrade. I'm sure, as others have pointed out, that you could find a better deal by waiting till later this year. I can say that I'm very happy with the Adorama deal that I got. In my case, the shutter count was a litter over 8000. I also opted for the 3 year extended "New Leaf" warranty for another $49.

My daughter is an avid reptile enthusiast and traveled there a few years back. I asked her for suggestions and got response below.

I would highly recommend hiring a guide. I had Cesar to show me around he took me to a monkey sanctuary that had sloths and snakes and tons of different monkeys and also lots of turtles and some mammals. He knows the area and I have nothing but good things to say about him.

Cesar can be contacted through this link:

https://www.tourhq.com/guide/pe96310/cesar-pena

He worked with the company I used (http://www.mtamazon.com/margarita-tours/) -
They have a field station that is in a great area for wildlife viewing and may be able to arrange something. I stayed at this field station:

https://www.projectamazonas.org/madre-selva-biological-station

I recommend staying at a field station for a night or two- but, it is very rustic with very few amenities.

Sounds like an awesome trip!!

my favorite is the third - I would touch it up something like below

(Download)

agree - 1 & 2 are better. I like the composition of the HDR one, but, to me, it appears somewhat artificial and grainy. I brought a tripod, but never set it up - it might have made some improvement.

yes, thankfully so - its a water supply for Manchester NH

thanks, totally unexpected shot - he was just sitting there when I pulled into the parking lot and didn't pay much attention to me until after a few shots.