imagextrordinair wrote:
In the past I convinced myself more is better, and my focus has always been to cover all the bases. That meant struggling with a heavy back pack for the tsa checks at the airport, and the weight of an additional Pelican case to accommodate all of the heavy lenses. Walking endlessly to find a taxi make matters worse.
This will be something new for me... A Nikon Zf mirror-less body, Z mount 28mm f/2.8, 40mm f2.0 and the versatile 24-120 f4 zoom lens.
Compact, simple, Image stabilized and a lot of new mirror-less features I will soon learn to appreciate when I travel.
I thought the same, with the kit 24-70 f/4 and the 24-200. However, on a trip to Germany, I wasn’t happy with the 24-200 in lower light situations. So now I carry the 14-30 mm f/4, 85 mm or 50mm f/1.8 prime, and I ended up buying the 70-200mm f/2.8 - if I have enough room, I’ll take that over the 24-200. One of the reasons I originally bought the Z series (I have a Z6ii and a Z7ii) is to cut down on the weight and space of what I carried when I travel, over my old D500 (great camera, BTW). I used that and an 18-300 mm lens almost exclusively. Everything’s a trade off I guess, LOL.
I am convinced I can capture images at the same level as when I carried a hundred pounds of equipment years past. I will be sure to post a few results in the main topic forum soon... Just kidding
I also spelled Traveling with two LL's in the caption to see if I get scolded, that's always a fun way to add extra pages to the post!
Keeping my Canon gear but also looking forward to a new level of freedom when I travel and also when adding in serious work.
In the past I convinced myself more is better, and... (
show quote)
I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 24-200 f/4-6.3 as well. The 24-200 is a great travel lens; my only issue with it (I have a Z6ii and a Z7ii) is in low light situations, and those situations where I need the bigger aperture. I’ve got the 14-30 f/4 as well when I need a wider angle, but if you’re traveling weight does count :-)
ricardo00 wrote:
Not sure why you are asking the question, if you mostly use your D500, why ask about the D7200 versus the OM1? The D7200 (and D500) is a completely different camera than the OM1, which is a micro 4/3 mirrorless. Assuming that you have only Nikon lenses, you will need to get an OM systems lens? Have you picked out which? I have heard good things about the OM-1 camera but my personal view is that I wasn't thrilled at the lens choice for wildlife photography. Micro 4/3 users always are going on about how lightweight their system is, but the "replacement" for the 100-400mm lens (the 180-600mm) is much heavier than many Nikon lenses and even heavier than their 100-400mm TC f/4.5 lens. Some day I may switch to the OM system (I have both the D7200 and D500 and happily used both for many years but mostly use a Z8 these days) but would want an updated light weight "long" lens before switching for my wildlife photography. That is purely my view as a Nikon user.
I am sure there will be many OM users who will be offended by my comments, but are you really excited about their new lens, the 180-600mm? It is $1,000 more than the Nikon 180-600mm, doesn't have internal zoom and weighs more than the Nikon lens.
Not sure why you are asking the question, if you m... (
show quote)
I’ve owned both. You’re very right. The OM is a great light-weight lens and great for a grab-n-go type lens. You can get by with two lenses - both ok for travel as well. But for some reason I always gravitated to my Nikon equipment (I currently have gone mirrorless with the Z series). I’m also still not sure what will happen with the 4/3 system as to any new developments, with Panasonic backing off and Olympus having sold their camera operations to the new OM entity. Given the choice, I think I’d go with either a DSLR, or if weight and size is a consideration, a Mirrorless.
I’m laughing. I have had numerous DSLR’s before and now have a Z6ii and a Z7ii. Do I like my mirrorless better than my old D500 or D7200, yes. But it is because I’m now full frame rather than DX (Crop focus). Whether or not you switch to mirrorless is a subjective decision. DSLR’s can take excellent pictures and one may or may not consider one or the other superior. But they both work. Use what you prefer and enjoy your camera. If you don’t use it, you’re missing out.
I had a D500 which I used a lot for aviation - I tend to shoot commercial jets landing and departing from DFW airport in Dallas. I ultimately switched to the Z6ii (and I also have a Z7ii) and am using a 100-400 Tele (Z mount). I have no issues with departing or landing jets, everything from A380’s to Regional jets. I love the FX format rather than the DX, although the extra reach on the DX was nice, but with the lens at 400mm, it isn’t a problem.
I’m not sure where you are but check google for “Camera repair” in your area. I am in the Dallas area and there are several places here which will work on gray market stuff. My gear is all U.S. market, and registered with Nikon, but the guy there told me that my manufacturer (Nikon) makes it very difficult for them to get parts, so I’d speak to somebody and make sure they can get what they need to fix your Tampon.
I’ve never actually been to the store, but you’re all right about them having EVERYTHING. I’ve bought cameras, lenses, filters, computers, flash/speedlights, printers, and evening ink from them. And I’ve had many occasions to call them and ask for advice. I’m hoping to visit the store one of these days when in New York. Very nice post!
Thanks to everybody here. A lot of good advice. I’ll order a Hoya from B&H!
I’ve usually bought Hoya before, and been happy. But what’s the difference? Better glass? Coating? I have no idea. My 100-400 mm uses a 77mm as well, and I’m thinking about buying a cheap filter to put on the one that’s staying home if I’m traveling, and using the Hoya I already have on it on the new lens (which I think I’ll probably end up using more often)? But if there’s a good reason to spring for the better one after spending $2,500 on a new lens I’d probably do it.
This thread is ridiculous. Some people like Fords, others Chevrolets. Maybe with cameras we should compare Toyotas, Hondas, and Nissan, but the same argument). They all make good products. Whichever one you like best personally is the best for you. I’ve owned Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, and even Minolta (years ago). They were all good. I didn’t like the 4/3 system so I got rid of my Olympus gear, and I didn’t like the menus on Sony, so got rid of them. My last Canon was a great camera, but I like my Nikons better so that’s what I use now. I have a Z6ii and a Z7ii, and six lenses now, and I’m happy. I see no reason to change brands. But that doesn’t mean somebody else might not prefer my choice.
I just spent another small fortune on another lens - a Nikon Z 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens (my cameras are a Z6ii and a Z7ii). Uses a 77 mm filter size. I was looking for filters and I see them priced all over the map - from USD $7-ish up to about $50. I have always thought UV filters were primarily to protect the lens - I really don’t know that they do anything else. But does anybody have any idea how to determine if the more expensive ones are worth the additional money. What do you get for a more expensive one?
Jeff
I have a Nikon Z6ii and a Z7ii. Both great, and previous Nikons dictated my choice when I got them. I’ve also had great luck with Canon in the past. Bottom line is that I think that Canon, Nikon, and Sony all make great cameras - whichever you feel more comfortable with is the best one for you. Some people like Fords, some like Chevrolets. They both do the same thing, and do it relatively well. If you’re already invested in one ecosystem (I.e., lenses), stay with that brand.
I was in 9th grade in High School, in Honolulu, Hawaii. Because of the time change, we heard about it at 9:00am-ish. I was walking from Homeroom to History class when I heard. Our school called an assembly at 1:00 that afternoon but didn’t close the school (they were afraid, that it being Hawaii, everybody would just go to the beach :-) ). I think that wouldn’t have happened because we were all in disbelief, but all of us who were alive back then can pretty much recall exactly where we were when it happened, and most of us spent the next few days watching Walter Cronkite on TV
They’ve also got some available from Nikon’s Refurb website, and you might also find something on Adorama or B&H. I saw a refurb Nikon D3400 for $399 yesterday.
I use the 14” MacBook Pro with 1TB SSD, for portability. The 16” is a bit too big for what I need. The M2 chip is great, and I have no problems with PSE (I also have Lightroom - went with the Lightroom/PS subscription, but I find I’m more comfortable with PSE because I’ve used it longer). I can travel with this computer, download pictures to the laptop immediately, and make any changes I think I need.