«

Stephen Bishop wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:06:32 -0500, Sheila <>
> wrote:
>
>> Dimitris M wrote:
>>> In normal light both cameras are almost equal. D300 have faster autofocus in
>>> 3D full 51 focus points (after the firmware update, makes me look every day
>>> in Nikon for an update for the D700). In low light D700 opened a new world
>>> in front of my eyes. It is almost 2 stop faster. With a fast lens I can
>>> shoot handheld practicaly everyware. In 6.400 ISO is as D300 in 2.000 ISO.
>>> If I shoot in RAW in low ISO (1600 or less) I have plenty of room (dynamic
>>> area) to bring back in life almost completlely dark areas if I want to. Is
>>> no need for fill-in flash as the shadows can be preserved easily.
>>>
>>> In the near furure I wll change the D300 for a D90, just to have a very
>>> light easy camera with my 18-200 when I want to travel light. D700 + 24-70
>>> is very heavy and bulk. I can not make street photo's without attract the
>>> people's attention.
>>
>> Thanks for the detailed reply, mostly I shoot in normal light so I am
>> glad that the lighter and less expensive D300 is almost as good as the
>> D700. I have been shooting some lower light photos with my D300 and
>> have been much happier with the results compared to the D80. I shot
>> some very low light photos a couple days ago that had quite a bit of noise.
>>
>> With a tripod I can shoot low light very nicely.
>
> Personally, I think VR is overrated, but it sells lenses. A good
> tripod is still your best tool to ensure sharp images when shooting
> slow shutter speeds. However, I realize it isn't always practical to
> carry one around everywhere.
>
>

Even with a monopod my photos are much better, but I have a nice but
heavy monopod, I am getting a much lighter one for our upcoming cruise
so that I can carry it all day during touring. Of course, for night
shots I MUST have a tripod.

--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

"Sheila" <> wrote in message
news:S9S%k.6084$...
> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:06:32 -0500, Sheila <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dimitris M wrote:
>>>> In normal light both cameras are almost equal. D300 have faster
>>>> autofocus in 3D full 51 focus points (after the firmware update, makes
>>>> me look every day in Nikon for an update for the D700). In low light
>>>> D700 opened a new world in front of my eyes. It is almost 2 stop
>>>> faster. With a fast lens I can shoot handheld practicaly everyware. In
>>>> 6.400 ISO is as D300 in 2.000 ISO.
>>>> If I shoot in RAW in low ISO (1600 or less) I have plenty of room
>>>> (dynamic area) to bring back in life almost completlely dark areas if I
>>>> want to. Is no need for fill-in flash as the shadows can be preserved
>>>> easily.
>>>>
>>>> In the near furure I wll change the D300 for a D90, just to have a very
>>>> light easy camera with my 18-200 when I want to travel light. D700 +
>>>> 24-70 is very heavy and bulk. I can not make street photo's without
>>>> attract the people's attention.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the detailed reply, mostly I shoot in normal light so I am
>>> glad that the lighter and less expensive D300 is almost as good as the
>>> D700. I have been shooting some lower light photos with my D300 and
>>> have been much happier with the results compared to the D80. I shot
>>> some very low light photos a couple days ago that had quite a bit of
>>> noise.
>>>
>>> With a tripod I can shoot low light very nicely.
>>
>> Personally, I think VR is overrated, but it sells lenses. A good
>> tripod is still your best tool to ensure sharp images when shooting
>> slow shutter speeds. However, I realize it isn't always practical to
>> carry one around everywhere.
>>
>>
>
> Even with a monopod my photos are much better, but I have a nice but heavy
> monopod, I am getting a much lighter one for our upcoming cruise so that I
> can carry it all day during touring. Of course, for night shots I MUST
> have a tripod.
>
> --
> Sheila
> http://swdalton.com

Have you done any checking or reviews of lightweight monopods? That is also
something that interests me for our upcoming trip to Greece. It would need
to be lightweight and compact for that purpose -- but there is no value in
getting one if it is not stable, of course.

MaryL

MaryL wrote:
>
> "Sheila" <> wrote in message
> news:S9S%k.6084$...
>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:06:32 -0500, Sheila <>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dimitris M wrote:
>>>>> In normal light both cameras are almost equal. D300 have faster
>>>>> autofocus in 3D full 51 focus points (after the firmware update,
>>>>> makes me look every day in Nikon for an update for the D700). In
>>>>> low light D700 opened a new world in front of my eyes. It is almost
>>>>> 2 stop faster. With a fast lens I can shoot handheld practicaly
>>>>> everyware. In 6.400 ISO is as D300 in 2.000 ISO.
>>>>> If I shoot in RAW in low ISO (1600 or less) I have plenty of room
>>>>> (dynamic area) to bring back in life almost completlely dark areas
>>>>> if I want to. Is no need for fill-in flash as the shadows can be
>>>>> preserved easily.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the near furure I wll change the D300 for a D90, just to have a
>>>>> very light easy camera with my 18-200 when I want to travel light.
>>>>> D700 + 24-70 is very heavy and bulk. I can not make street photo's
>>>>> without attract the people's attention.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the detailed reply, mostly I shoot in normal light so I
>>>> am glad that the lighter and less expensive D300 is almost as good
>>>> as the D700. I have been shooting some lower light photos with my
>>>> D300 and have been much happier with the results compared to the
>>>> D80. I shot some very low light photos a couple days ago that had
>>>> quite a bit of noise.
>>>>
>>>> With a tripod I can shoot low light very nicely.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think VR is overrated, but it sells lenses. A good
>>> tripod is still your best tool to ensure sharp images when shooting
>>> slow shutter speeds. However, I realize it isn't always practical to
>>> carry one around everywhere.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Even with a monopod my photos are much better, but I have a nice but
>> heavy monopod, I am getting a much lighter one for our upcoming cruise
>> so that I can carry it all day during touring. Of course, for night
>> shots I MUST have a tripod.
>>
>> --
>> Sheila
>> http://swdalton.com
>
> Have you done any checking or reviews of lightweight monopods? That is
> also something that interests me for our upcoming trip to Greece. It
> would need to be lightweight and compact for that purpose -- but there
> is no value in getting one if it is not stable, of course.
>
> MaryL
>

Mary, I've not done a lot of research, but the fellow at Best Buy
suggested a Velbon carbon fiber monopod. It's wrapped for Christmas
right now, but I think it was called a Neo Pod 6. It's lighter and also
sturdy. The salesman knew which camera I was buying it for and
suggested this monopod after I was looking at a lighter, but not as
sturdy monopod.

I believe it would be sturdy enough for your D80 and 18-200 lens.

--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

MaryL wrote:
>
> "Sheila" <> wrote in message
> news:S9S%k.6084$...
>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:06:32 -0500, Sheila <>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dimitris M wrote:
>>>>> In normal light both cameras are almost equal. D300 have faster
>>>>> autofocus in 3D full 51 focus points (after the firmware update,
>>>>> makes me look every day in Nikon for an update for the D700). In
>>>>> low light D700 opened a new world in front of my eyes. It is almost
>>>>> 2 stop faster. With a fast lens I can shoot handheld practicaly
>>>>> everyware. In 6.400 ISO is as D300 in 2.000 ISO.
>>>>> If I shoot in RAW in low ISO (1600 or less) I have plenty of room
>>>>> (dynamic area) to bring back in life almost completlely dark areas
>>>>> if I want to. Is no need for fill-in flash as the shadows can be
>>>>> preserved easily.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the near furure I wll change the D300 for a D90, just to have a
>>>>> very light easy camera with my 18-200 when I want to travel light.
>>>>> D700 + 24-70 is very heavy and bulk. I can not make street photo's
>>>>> without attract the people's attention.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the detailed reply, mostly I shoot in normal light so I
>>>> am glad that the lighter and less expensive D300 is almost as good
>>>> as the D700. I have been shooting some lower light photos with my
>>>> D300 and have been much happier with the results compared to the
>>>> D80. I shot some very low light photos a couple days ago that had
>>>> quite a bit of noise.
>>>>
>>>> With a tripod I can shoot low light very nicely.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think VR is overrated, but it sells lenses. A good
>>> tripod is still your best tool to ensure sharp images when shooting
>>> slow shutter speeds. However, I realize it isn't always practical to
>>> carry one around everywhere.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Even with a monopod my photos are much better, but I have a nice but
>> heavy monopod, I am getting a much lighter one for our upcoming cruise
>> so that I can carry it all day during touring. Of course, for night
>> shots I MUST have a tripod.
>>
>> --
>> Sheila
>> http://swdalton.com
>
> Have you done any checking or reviews of lightweight monopods? That is
> also something that interests me for our upcoming trip to Greece. It
> would need to be lightweight and compact for that purpose -- but there
> is no value in getting one if it is not stable, of course.
>
> MaryL
>

When is your cruise?


--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

"Sheila" <> wrote in message
news:9gZ%k.6396$...
> MaryL wrote:
>>
>> "Sheila" <> wrote in message
>> news:S9S%k.6084$...
>>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:06:32 -0500, Sheila <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dimitris M wrote:
>>>>>> In normal light both cameras are almost equal. D300 have faster
>>>>>> autofocus in 3D full 51 focus points (after the firmware update,
>>>>>> makes me look every day in Nikon for an update for the D700). In low
>>>>>> light D700 opened a new world in front of my eyes. It is almost 2
>>>>>> stop faster. With a fast lens I can shoot handheld practicaly
>>>>>> everyware. In 6.400 ISO is as D300 in 2.000 ISO.
>>>>>> If I shoot in RAW in low ISO (1600 or less) I have plenty of room
>>>>>> (dynamic area) to bring back in life almost completlely dark areas if
>>>>>> I want to. Is no need for fill-in flash as the shadows can be
>>>>>> preserved easily.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the near furure I wll change the D300 for a D90, just to have a
>>>>>> very light easy camera with my 18-200 when I want to travel light.
>>>>>> D700 + 24-70 is very heavy and bulk. I can not make street photo's
>>>>>> without attract the people's attention.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the detailed reply, mostly I shoot in normal light so I am
>>>>> glad that the lighter and less expensive D300 is almost as good as the
>>>>> D700. I have been shooting some lower light photos with my D300 and
>>>>> have been much happier with the results compared to the D80. I shot
>>>>> some very low light photos a couple days ago that had quite a bit of
>>>>> noise.
>>>>>
>>>>> With a tripod I can shoot low light very nicely.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I think VR is overrated, but it sells lenses. A good
>>>> tripod is still your best tool to ensure sharp images when shooting
>>>> slow shutter speeds. However, I realize it isn't always practical to
>>>> carry one around everywhere.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even with a monopod my photos are much better, but I have a nice but
>>> heavy monopod, I am getting a much lighter one for our upcoming cruise
>>> so that I can carry it all day during touring. Of course, for night
>>> shots I MUST have a tripod.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sheila
>>> http://swdalton.com
>>
>> Have you done any checking or reviews of lightweight monopods? That is
>> also something that interests me for our upcoming trip to Greece. It
>> would need to be lightweight and compact for that purpose -- but there is
>> no value in getting one if it is not stable, of course.
>>
>> MaryL
>>
>
> When is your cruise?
>
>
> --
> Sheila
> http://swdalton.com

Thank you, Sheila. I will look into the monopod you listed.

My sister and I are going to Greece (with a very brief stop in Turkey) in
April. We will have 8 days on land and 3 days cruising among some of the
Greek Islands. We are very excitied about it!

MaryL

MaryL wrote:
>
> "Sheila" <> wrote in message
> news:9gZ%k.6396$...
>> MaryL wrote:
>>>
>>> "Sheila" <> wrote in message
>>> news:S9S%k.6084$...
>>>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:06:32 -0500, Sheila <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dimitris M wrote:
>>>>>>> In normal light both cameras are almost equal. D300 have faster
>>>>>>> autofocus in 3D full 51 focus points (after the firmware update,
>>>>>>> makes me look every day in Nikon for an update for the D700). In
>>>>>>> low light D700 opened a new world in front of my eyes. It is
>>>>>>> almost 2 stop faster. With a fast lens I can shoot handheld
>>>>>>> practicaly everyware. In 6.400 ISO is as D300 in 2.000 ISO.
>>>>>>> If I shoot in RAW in low ISO (1600 or less) I have plenty of room
>>>>>>> (dynamic area) to bring back in life almost completlely dark
>>>>>>> areas if I want to. Is no need for fill-in flash as the shadows
>>>>>>> can be preserved easily.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the near furure I wll change the D300 for a D90, just to have
>>>>>>> a very light easy camera with my 18-200 when I want to travel
>>>>>>> light. D700 + 24-70 is very heavy and bulk. I can not make street
>>>>>>> photo's without attract the people's attention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the detailed reply, mostly I shoot in normal light so
>>>>>> I am glad that the lighter and less expensive D300 is almost as
>>>>>> good as the D700. I have been shooting some lower light photos
>>>>>> with my D300 and have been much happier with the results compared
>>>>>> to the D80. I shot some very low light photos a couple days ago
>>>>>> that had quite a bit of noise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With a tripod I can shoot low light very nicely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I think VR is overrated, but it sells lenses. A good
>>>>> tripod is still your best tool to ensure sharp images when shooting
>>>>> slow shutter speeds. However, I realize it isn't always practical to
>>>>> carry one around everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even with a monopod my photos are much better, but I have a nice but
>>>> heavy monopod, I am getting a much lighter one for our upcoming
>>>> cruise so that I can carry it all day during touring. Of course,
>>>> for night shots I MUST have a tripod.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sheila
>>>> http://swdalton.com
>>>
>>> Have you done any checking or reviews of lightweight monopods? That
>>> is also something that interests me for our upcoming trip to Greece.
>>> It would need to be lightweight and compact for that purpose -- but
>>> there is no value in getting one if it is not stable, of course.
>>>
>>> MaryL
>>>
>>
>> When is your cruise?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sheila
>> http://swdalton.com
>
> Thank you, Sheila. I will look into the monopod you listed.
>
> My sister and I are going to Greece (with a very brief stop in Turkey)
> in April. We will have 8 days on land and 3 days cruising among some of
> the Greek Islands. We are very excitied about it!
>
> MaryL
>

Have a wonderful trip and bring back lots of photos.

--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

Sheila <> wrote:
> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:06:32 -0500, Sheila <>
>> wrote:

>> Personally, I think VR is overrated, but it sells lenses. A good
>> tripod is still your best tool to ensure sharp images when shooting
>> slow shutter speeds. However, I realize it isn't always practical to
>> carry one around everywhere.

> Even with a monopod my photos are much better, but I have a nice but
> heavy monopod, I am getting a much lighter one for our upcoming cruise
> so that I can carry it all day during touring. Of course, for night
> shots I MUST have a tripod.

I used to carry a light monopod everywhere, often attached to the
camera so that I could just extend it when needed. When I started
using cameras of DSLR weight and quality I found it had two
disadvantages. The first was that when using it as a pole to hoist the
camera into a viewing position I could not reach, the bottom segment
or two weren't quite strong enough to lift the horizontally extended
weight of the camera, so I lost pole length. The second was that like
all monopods it didn't stop swivel-shake about the rotation axis of
the pole.

So now I carry a much bigger heavier monopod everywhere. The extra
strength means I can hold a DSLR horizontally out on the end with the
pole fully extended. Part of the extra weight is a small set of tripod
feet which are normally folded up inside the pole, but when deployed
stop that annoying swivel shake on very long lenses, and also allow it
to be a tripod in stable calm conditions where there's time to allow
it to stabilise, such as inside churches. So although it's a lot
heavier, it has substantially reduced those times when I say "Maybe
I'd better take a tripod just in case". Apart from the gorillapod I
always carry anyway of course

Last but not least, it could probably knock out a camera thief without
being marked or dented in the slightest

But what about getting tired carrying it around all day? I had also
discovered that over the decades I had aged and weakened so that I
could no longer stroll around for hours with a heavy camera in my
hands without getting tired and sometimes strained. I discovered that
a few months of weight training improved my strength to the point
where I can quite happily carry a heavy camera and monopod around for
hours in my hands without being bothered at all by the weight. I can
also carry heavier shopping bags much further which is handy.

So I would say don't buy a light monopod, buy a set of dumb bells and
get stronger

--
Chris Malcolm

Chris Malcolm <> wrote in
news::

> Sheila <> wrote:
>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:06:32 -0500, Sheila <>
>>> wrote:
>
>>> Personally, I think VR is overrated, but it sells lenses. A good
>>> tripod is still your best tool to ensure sharp images when shooting
>>> slow shutter speeds. However, I realize it isn't always practical
>>> to carry one around everywhere.
>
>> Even with a monopod my photos are much better, but I have a nice but
>> heavy monopod, I am getting a much lighter one for our upcoming
>> cruise so that I can carry it all day during touring. Of course, for
>> night shots I MUST have a tripod.
>
> I used to carry a light monopod everywhere, often attached to the
> camera so that I could just extend it when needed. When I started
> using cameras of DSLR weight and quality I found it had two
> disadvantages. The first was that when using it as a pole to hoist the
> camera into a viewing position I could not reach, the bottom segment
> or two weren't quite strong enough to lift the horizontally extended
> weight of the camera, so I lost pole length. The second was that like
> all monopods it didn't stop swivel-shake about the rotation axis of
> the pole.
>
> So now I carry a much bigger heavier monopod everywhere. The extra
> strength means I can hold a DSLR horizontally out on the end with the
> pole fully extended. Part of the extra weight is a small set of tripod
> feet which are normally folded up inside the pole, but when deployed
> stop that annoying swivel shake on very long lenses, and also allow it
> to be a tripod in stable calm conditions where there's time to allow
> it to stabilise, such as inside churches. So although it's a lot
> heavier, it has substantially reduced those times when I say "Maybe
> I'd better take a tripod just in case". Apart from the gorillapod I
> always carry anyway of course
>
> Last but not least, it could probably knock out a camera thief without
> being marked or dented in the slightest
>
> But what about getting tired carrying it around all day? I had also
> discovered that over the decades I had aged and weakened so that I
> could no longer stroll around for hours with a heavy camera in my
> hands without getting tired and sometimes strained. I discovered that
> a few months of weight training improved my strength to the point
> where I can quite happily carry a heavy camera and monopod around for
> hours in my hands without being bothered at all by the weight. I can
> also carry heavier shopping bags much further which is handy.
>
> So I would say don't buy a light monopod, buy a set of dumb bells and
> get stronger
>

I have been using an older Nikon 70-210 lens on a Nikon D50, for sports
events. Most of the pictures are taken at full extended zoom and I have
yet to see a blurred photo and I don't use a tripod. So what is all
this fuss about VR? As long as you have reasonably steady hands, there
is no problem.

In article <gi1nqo$mhj$>, Jack
<> wrote:

> I have been using an older Nikon 70-210 lens on a Nikon D50, for sports
> events. Most of the pictures are taken at full extended zoom and I have
> yet to see a blurred photo and I don't use a tripod. So what is all
> this fuss about VR? As long as you have reasonably steady hands, there
> is no problem.

for sports you probably are using a fast enough shutter speed and vr
isn't going to make much of a difference.

try it with a shutter speed around 1/30-1/60th, at 210mm.

Jack wrote:
[]
> I have been using an older Nikon 70-210 lens on a Nikon D50, for
> sports events. Most of the pictures are taken at full extended zoom
> and I have yet to see a blurred photo and I don't use a tripod. So
> what is all this fuss about VR? As long as you have reasonably
> steady hands, there is no problem.

Outdoor or indoor events? But as nospam said, it you're shooting at
1/200s or faster, that should be enough on a 210mm lens. I can be using
1/50s or slower (non-sporting), and the VR helps me.

David