You don't specify what brand of camera has the problem. APS in Illinois is incomparable if you own a Nikon.

Whoa - you didn't mention that this was a Craigslist deal. While I would have been in with those praising the D700 and that price, now that I hear where the seller is lurking, I would tell you to run like hell. Nothing changed about the quality of the camera; what changed is that I would have serious doubts about the seller.

If you want a D700, buy from someone you know or you can gather details about or just go to KEH, B&H etc and buy with confidence.

Oh - and a big ditto for Ft. Desoto park in St. Pete.

Gary nailed it by asking how far you are willling to travel. 2 of the absolute best birding sites I know of are about 90 minutes south of Tampa on I-75.

Venice Rookery (get there around 8am for ideal light) and, don't laugh, but the Sarasota County Dump (more politely known as the Sarasota County Landfill) which is immediately adjacent to I-75 at the Laurel Road exit. You are guaranteed to see more birds (and more varieties) than most of the other "famous" west coast birding locales and pretty much have the place to yourself as a bonus. No charge to enter and can stay all day. Best place I know to shoot bald eagles - make sure that you can tell the difference between a turkey vulture and a bald eagle in flight. For obvious reasons, the TV's are the most prevelant birds in the area and not particularly photogenic.

Two negatives - you may have to maneuver yourself upwind and you need to watch your backgrounds. That said, you will have unparalelled photo ops of birds. Oh and gators and armadillo are pretty common to.

Willing to travel a little further - Ding Darling and Corkscrew Swamp are must sees for birders in SW FL, but they are in Sanibel and Bonita Springs which require a longer drive.

Google them all to see if they are within your driving range. The dump and the rookery are worth the 60 to 90 minute drive,

Little thin skinned much? I have no idea why my reply bent you so out of joint. You asked why someone would use a bounce card in a room with a 30 foot ceiling and I answered.

A corrollary of that thought might be that if a viewer can tell that a flash was used, the photographer used the flash poorly.

"I understand also, the value of a wider light source, but does adding 2" or 3" at 10-15' justify the loss of light output? "

Actually, I will take a somewhat contrary position.
While I certainly agree that "bouncing" a flash off of a 30' ceiling (or turning on flash in a football stadium) makes little sense, I do indeed often use a flash card (my preference is the Demb) even if there is a high ceiling and even outdoors if my intention is only to throw catchlights into a subject's eyes or to soften eye socket shadows, etc.

As someone above mentioned, if I shoot with high enough ISO (I shoot with Nikon D3s's and routinely shoot at ISO 6400 if necessary), using a small 3x5 bounce card can dramatically improve a candid portrait. The goal in such cases is not to evenly light the frame; rather it is just to get that catchlight and open up shadows. Works quite well incidentally.

So before you jump all over someone using a flash card outdoors or in a high ceiling venue, ask yourself if perhaps he does actually know what he is doing.

You are absolutely correct about using "reply with quote". I was using a cell phone and blew it. Incidentally, speaking of blowing it, I mentioned the 70-300 in my original reply while meaning to say 28-300. It is the 28-300 that I am not fond of. The 70-300 (the new version) is actually quite a good lens, although still not in the class of the 24-70.

My regrets for the confusion.

I respectfully disagree. The 70-300 is not nearly as sharp optically as the 24-120 atmost lengths and the 24-120 has the advantage of remaining f4 throughout the range.

That said, if you need the reach, the 70-300 is not bad at all.

My advice? Buy low and sell high.

I suggest that it would be more useful to the members if those who seek advice are more specific in their topic description.

Using a description such as "Help needed" or "advice needed" or "What would you do" gives no indication to the reader as to what the subject of the inquiry is.

Perhaps saying "Need advice for xxxx" would make it easier for those who want to reply. For example, I am a Nikon shooter and "Need advice" does me no good if the subject pertains to a Canon or other system.

For example - there is a recent post that asks "Will it make a difference?". The question pertains to Sony equipment so there are a large number of members who have no ability to comment on the poster's question, yet the only way one would know that is by bothering to open the thread.

Actually, I suspect that the greater distance between the antenna ball and the [b]background[b/] had more to do with getting the creamy background than the distance you were from the antenna ball.

In addition to those areas mentioned, do not miss the Venice Rookery or Myakka State Park. I have a place in Sarasota and just to recap the various suggestions, in no particular order -

Desoto Park
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary
Ding Darling National Wildlife Preserve on Sanibel
Ringling Museum (I find it boring, but others enjoy it)

WHAT? You are kidding, right? Those two stores are most assuredly "run" by people who are quite well versed in all aspects of photography. They did not become 2 of the largest and most highly respected photography retailers on the planet because of their staff's marketing skills.

Willing to bet that the "marketing guys" in those stores have forgotten more about photography than you (or I for that matter) ever knew.

"These numbers don't tell the whole story"

Probably the best comment in the entire thread. DOX scores are meaningless to me. If I were shooting brick walls, perhaps I might pay more attention to such "lab" results. I prefer to rely on my own eye when shooting in the real world.

If the original poster is dissatisfied with his 24-120, then nothing I or anyone else says will have much impact. The only thing that matters is how the equiment functions in the hands of the shooter. My (and others) praise of the lens is only valid if it prods the OP to determine if perhaps he has a poor copy of the lens or if he is using poor technique. If neither is the case, then the lens is not for him.