"Sharp, Sharp, Sharp, that' all they talk about. Buy more expensive lens. Bigger Cameras. The cell phone will soon shut them all down."

I agree that sharp is not the be all end all, but that said, I am not willing to surrender my "real" equipment anytime soon. Yes cell cams can take memorable shots, but the ability to vary dof, control shutter/aperture, use the appropriate lens for the shot (macro, super long, perspective control, etc)is not something that a cell cam offers. Yet.

I assume you know the difference between a nikon 810/Canon 5r, and a cell phone and are in no way implying that they can in any way, shape or form,compete with eac other.

I certainly do. See the above paragraph. I would always prefer my Nikon gear over my phone - if I happened to have it with me. By the way, you asked about my Leica reference. I was referring to a Leica Summilux 50mm (on say an M3 body), but I understand that I didn't word it well.

"It's not the gear that makes the artist work, it is the artist that makes the gear work"

Many have made the point that it is the photographer, not the equipment, but your phrasing is the best way I have heard it expressed. I will tuck that away for future use. I always love it when folks say, "Wow, that is some camera. You must take great photos." My standard reply is to ask if when they are at a restaurant, do they say to the chef, "Wow. Those are some pots. You must be a good cook."

And boy how I wish it had been shot in Raw with a good dslr!!

Oh I know that feeling, but more often I am wishing that it had been shot with (take your pick of any of the following) my 105, my 400, my 600 my 14-24, yada yada yada. I think a lot of us are just making the same basic point using different language. "Real" cameras currently outperform cell cams (emphasis on "currently). If you don't have your "real" gear, a cell can be a handy thing to have in your pocket. And Annie Liebowitz will shoot the pants off of me all day long using anything.

Nonsense. This is one of my better selling images taken with an iphone 4 a couple of years back. I am a Nikon Professional Service member and always prefer using my DSLR gear, but as someone above mentioned, my cell phone is always in my pocket and my D3's are often not on my shoulder.

If extreme pixel peeping sharpness is the only measure of success in a photography class, why do we still hold Steichen and Stieglitz in such high regard? Do you think if you enlarged an Ansel Adams print to 100%, his images would compare favorably (sharpness wise) with the proverbial brick wall photo shot with a Leica 50?

If you find yourself in such a photo "class" where your grade depends on extreme sharpness rather than "photography", drop it and enroll in one where the professor recognizes that photography is about vision and not about having a spectacularly focused, poorly composed boring shot. If a student submits an interesting, well composed photo that is slightly soft due to the limitations of the hardware rather than from misfocusing, one might reasonably assume that had the student been able to afford the gear I shoot with, he would have had a better focused shot.

Flatiron Building reflection in a street puddle


Same photo in original colors

If you were trying to include movement in the shot, the "correct" way to have done so would have been to simply slow the shutter speed. I don't think the replies above were smart ass at all. I think they were the right answers. A filter - any filter - will subtract something from a shot and therefore one should be used only when there is a reason to do so.

Sorry to be smart ass, but you made a mistake using this filter to achieve a result that was easily achieved with no filter.

I find the reactions to Lighthouses comments more interesting than the original question. I completely understand why your tighty whities are in a twist over his reply - he certainly could have phrased it better, but I do understand his thinkng.

Frankly, your question is far to broad and vague to allow for a simple answer. Asking what type of lens to buy for landscapes is like asking what kind of car to buy for Monday driving. How can anyone answer that stand alone question? I put it into the same category as "What lens should I bring to Rome?" I confess that I have replied to a question like that with similar, ill considered snark saying, "The same one you would bring to Milan or Paris."

For that matter, define what "landscape" means to you. ANY lens will "work" for landscape. I have used wide angles when there is something interesting in the foreground to include, super long teles if there is a distant object that I want to isolate on, zooms in cases where I cannot zoom with my feet, shorter glass for times that I do not have a tripod, shorter or longer focal lengths and lens weights depending on whether I have my "big boy" tripod or my smaller, lighter "travel" tripod, etc. etc.

While Lighthouse may have been a tad harsh in his reply, I most assuredly agree with the point we was trying to make.

I stand corrected on my earlier comment. From the Nikon Website:

Nikon Care Series



Part I - Proper Care and Storage of Equipment

Storage
•When the camera will not be used for an extended period, replace the monitor cover, remove the battery, and replace the battery terminal cover to prevent leakage and accidental short circuiting of the terminals.
•To prevent mold or mildew, store the camera in a dry, well-ventilated area.
•If you will not be using the product for long periods, store the camera in a camera case containing a desiccant.
•Do not, however, store the camera case in a plastic bag, as this may cause the material to deteriorate. Note that desiccant gradually loses its capacity to absorb moisture and should be replaced at regular intervals.
•Do not store the camera with naphtha or camphor mothballs, or close to equipment that produces strong magnetic fields, or in areas subject to extremes of temperature- for example near a space heater or in a closed vehicle on a hot day, or in locations that are:
◦poorly ventilated or subject to humidity’s of over 60%
◦are next to equipment that produces strong electro magnetic fields, such as televisions or radios
◦are exposed to temperatures above 50 °C/122 °F (for example, near a space heater or in a closed vehicle on a hot day) or below –10 °C (14 °F)

•To prevent mold or mildew, take the camera out of storage at least once a month. Turn the camera on and release the shutter a few times before putting the camera away again.


Do not store the camera or lens in excessive heat such as the inside of a vehicle during the summer or near a heater. This can result in damage to the sensor or CPU’s internally in the camera or lens.
•The product is not waterproof, and may malfunction if immersed in water or exposed to high levels of humidity. Rusting of the internal mechanism can cause irreparable damage.
•Extreme temperature change can cause condensation inside the camera body. When taking the camera to a very hot place to a very cold place, or from hot to cold, place it inside an airtight container such as a plastic bag and leave it inside the bag for awhile to expose the camera gradually to the temperature change.

Nikon 24-120 blows away the 28-300 in terms of image quality, it is constant f4 and at 24mm is better suited to me for travel. Of course it is also expensive, especially if you already own the 28-200.

As far as an "extra" lens to throw in - I would leave home the 50 and buy a 20/2.8 (or a 24/2.8) because for me wide is more important than long for general travel use. Unless you know you will be shooting critters or have another need for long length, I would consider wide angle.

When Nikon ships over its gear from Asia to the US (or anywhere else), do you think the shipping containers on the ocean trip are air conditioned?

I have never seen any definitive statement that extreme creates long term damage.

Ever tried non static subject with a pan tilt head? Apparently not or you would have answered both of your own questions.

I have used the Wimberley Sidekick for years with my 400/2.8 and have had no problems whatsoever. I do use the spacer bar on the Sidekick to ensure that the jaws clamp the lens plate securely.

Edit: I just looked at the Wimberely site and it does not say not to use the 400/2.8. It does suggest that the user needs to be aware of certain requirements.

Larger Lenses (600 f/4 & 400 f/2.8): The Sidekick will safely carry the weight of a very big lens provided it is mated with a ball head that will hold the weight of the lens. However, in some cases it is necessary to replace the foot of the lens with a low-profile Lens Replacement Foot, or add special spacers to the Sidekick to make the lens dimensionally compatible with the Sidekick. Use the guide below to determine if your lens has special requirements."

Again - mine works flawlessly

That B&H is a good store.

Interesting that no one has mentioned that a gimbal head does not work particularly well with a lens that changes length as it zooms. The main attraction to a gimbal head is the ease of motion in all planes that it affords. The fact that it supports more weight is secondary. Gimbal heads are a problem when used with lenses that change length when zoomed. The center of gravity (which is how a gimbal works) changes and the rig is no longer stable in the up and down plane. If you let go of the camera/lens, it can flop up or down with disastrous results.

While I totally agree that a pistol grip is a poor solution to a heavy rig, the "solution" to use a gimbal head as opposed to a solid ball head because the gimbal will support the weight is not all that clear. My Arca Swiss ball will hold my 400/2.8 quite solidly, but I prefer the balancing that a gimbal affords.

And what is also unmentioned is what legs the head will be mounted on. No matter what head one uses, if it on top of flimsy legs, it will not perform to expectations.

No arguments. Totally agree. Your shots are great examples of how sharp the SX50 can be when used well. I own (actually, my wife does) an SX50 and the images can indeed be excellent depending of course on the shooters technique, the lighting and other non-gear related factors. The point of my earlier reply was not to be "negative" on these cameras; I was just warning about unrealistic expectations. If you understand both the positives and negatives of the a superzoom, you may well decide that one is right for you.

"Lets see. My sony cost 450.00, my nikon 300 costs 6,000.00 Gee, your above statement is so obvious it really doesn't even need to be posted."


Huh?

I hate to be negative, but the photo you posted as "good as the Nikon 300/2.8" is not at all sharp. For that matter, the shots in the post above this one are not sharp either - not even close. Nor are the house finch and junco shots. This leads me to believe that the real issue in deciding among super zoom cameras is more of "how good is good enough"? At the risk of sounding obnoxious, none of the examples in this entire post (except perhaps for James's house finch) will satisfy someone who expects razor sharp images. Those willing to accept some lesser degree of sharpness may be completely satisfied with the trade off of ultra convenience and portability for exquisite detail.

Since so called bridge cameras are quite popular and selling briskly, it would appear that many people will sacrifice ideal IQ for convenience. This is not a bad thing. It is just a fact of life. Think about it - if a superzoom camera could indeed match the sharpness of a Nikon 300/2.8 (one of the sharpest long lens on the planet), no one would waste money and energy using the big glass. For what it is, a superzoom can be a terrific alternative.

"A lot depends on the shooter"

I would amend that comment and say, "It ALL depends on the shooter". There is no "correct" answer to the question.