Which Lense
 

I love motorcycle touring and photography and think they are perfectly complementary hobbies... except when you have limited space and don't want to damage your gear. :helpsmilie:

Of course, I'm looking for a do-it-all lense for my Nikon D70. I take your typical moto tourist photos -- landscapse, people outdoors, and friends on bikes doing stupid things. On my last trip through West Texas, I took my kit lense which is a 18-70mm or so. It did great for about 1/2 my photos but was really missing my long lense. I have a 70-300 VR at home but was worried that I'd break the VR bits as I'm guessing they are fragile.

Anyone have any ideas how fragile VR lenses versus non-VR?

I'm thinking of buying an 18-200mm. Those of you who travel w/ em, what do you think? How about a 18-200mm and a teleconverter? I've never used either.

Thanks!

Have not used them but read reviews of the 18-200 Tamron and Sigma. Very positive feedback, and good value at about £250 lastime I looked. Taht and a teleconverter would be more than enough, but note that you might loose AF with the teleconverter. Something to do with the f stop of the lense, IIRR.

Age old dilema. Space, weight, fragility, convenience. And how that affects the ultimate result.

I've used the D70, but have no idea how tough they are. Packing it in a smart place is the key. Quality foam is what I use. Yes, takes up valuable space, but what can you do? A little pocket cam with a plastic lens? In fact, that is what most riders use.

I have a Canon 20D but rarely use it because I'm afraid to ruin it and its big.
But next trip I'm biting the bullet, buying another lens for it and taking it.

If the specs on the 18-200mm are good enough, I'd go with that. The kit lens on the canon is not great. I'm thinking of a Sigma 17-200mm myself for the 20D. I'd love to take a super wide angle too but good ones cost an arm and leg. But they are small and easy to pack.

I've owned and traveled with many cameras, lately all small digital ones.
For years I traveled with a Nikon F2 (then F3) film camera. Big, heavy but
bulletproof.

Then I got a Canon G3, then A520, (broke both of them riding dirt). My latest small digital is a Panasonic Lumix DMC FX-8. I got it for around $250
and the quality is good. The bonus with this type of camera is the Super Zoom. The lens zooms to 432mm !!!:eek3:
The new version of this camera goes a bit wider...28mm instead of the current 35mm I believe. That is the one drawback....35mm is really about
50mm....so I need a wider lens.

On my last trip the Lumix did well. I am not yet fast with it yet....just takes time and practise, but its OK for the price....really expendable in a way. It is small but not small enough. Its like a miniature 35mm Digi SLR. The lens sticks out the front. Still, not bad.

I did a two week Baja ride, mostly all rough dirt and the camera did just fine.

I would buy the best lens you can afford, and don't forget some filters....ND,
polarizer ect.

Packing it all is the tough part. Good luck.

Patrick

http://patricksphotos.smugmug.com/ph...04_4MC3y-L.jpg

http://patricksphotos.smugmug.com/ph...47_TBRj3-L.jpg

http://patricksphotos.smugmug.com/ph...33_mEDmm-L.jpg

lense
 

I use a 18-200 from nikon on my trip, it work pretty well on D200/D2X, the lense is VR but not more fragile than any other.I also use to travel with a 18 -70 but the long focal are a must.I will appreciate a brighter lense but so far nothing came to me .I have been using my lense and Bodies for year and ride often off road, Molly is right you can buy some some foam and cut it to fit your tank bag , that should take of the vibration , not the dust or water.

Good luck

I have used a sigma 28-200 (older version) on a backpacking trip around the world (n90s) and then on my D70s, it is a good piece of kit and going down to 18 would be great too. Just remember then a digital lens means a 1.4X magnification already.. so the 18 is already a 25.2 mm lens.

I want to get my hands on a teleconverter. The more I read (thanks for your opinions!), the more I think an 18-200 will work. I'm curious if the teleconverter is half as great as I think it is.

dave

The Pro's that I've met generally Poo Poo extenders. But most are old school film guys. The best thing you can do is do a series of comparison shots using
the extender against a high quality lens. Get in close and take a look at the pixels and see what is going on. Try different focal lengths and exposures to see where its strong and were its weak.

The little Lumix zoomed out to 400 mm does remarkably well. But its damed hard to steady that little camera. But if you can hold it still its not bad. A cheap way to get in close.

Look at the other so called "Super Zoom" small cameras out there. Not bad, and the Panasonic is using the Leica lens tech....whatever thats worth.

Patrick:Beach:

I've been using a Canon S3 that works well, even wearing it around my neck while riding.

The new super zooms are now up to 18x with image stablization and 8-10mp - really unreal to me - and some will even capture in RAW.

Teleconverters...
 

My first advice, from a "pro" point of view, would be to put the Nikon in the bin, and buy a Canon. :rolleyes2::rolleyes2:


We're a team of "pro" photographers, (all Canon) and ALL of us use extenders on a regular basis (daily if we're travelling) with flawless results.


In fact - Canon manufactures extenders exclusively for their pro lenses...

So, from pro's who actually use them - I would say don't be scared, they're a valuable tool.

And EVEN if you're having to settle for the non-pro versions --- unless you're actually shooting for National Geographic... you have to ask yourself HOW MUCH the hardly noticable deviance (if any) would ACTUALLY matter...

Filters...
 

Mollydog - I've NEVER disagreed with anything you say (rare for me, honestly) - except now! :clap:

Leave the filters at home! Apart from a UV filter, which should stay on your lense permanently, as a protector, more than anything - LEAVE THE FILTERS AT HOME.

Some reasons:

1. Don't need them (ok - maybe polarizing - but how many times do you need that?). Use photoshop.

2. Each time, you remove a filter, and screw on another one - you're giving dust and crap a chance to get onto the lense. You ARE going to be changing filters in the field... so you're exposed to the elements.

3. More things to pack = more things to break, etc, etc, etc.


I challenge any photographer (I knoooow this is revolutionary talk for the purist among you), to bring a filtered photograph, that I can not reproduce EXACTLY in Photoshop. :thumbup1::thumbup1:

One thing i have learned in my life is never insult a mans: bike, wife, or Camera... cus no matter what you say you are wrong....:nono::nono::nono::nono::nono::nono:

The camera does not take the photo the photographer does..

DaveG: also check out Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ

for user based reviews on lenses ...

Heh. THAT is the thing that needs the biggest upgrade for most of us =]. You can have an f1.0 lense with the most interesting subject and still take a terrible pic =].

photosig is my friend :thumbup1:

Nikon D70 with Tamron 18-200
 

I use a Nikon D70 with a Tamrom 18-200 lens. For me it is perfect. I have a good camerabag that will protect my camera when it's in the topcase of my bikes (GoldWing GL1200 and BMW R650GS) and I had no problem with it. The 18-200 is usable for almost all situations.
I also have my SB-600 AF Speedlight flash with me in my camerabag all of the time and some filters, spare battey's etc.

I do have a Nikor 70-300 lens but because of space limitations on a bike, I don't take it with me on trips.

My son has a Nikon D50 that he transported in the topcase of his moped for the last two years and it still working so I'm sure the Nikon's are strong camera's.

Next to the Nikon, I always carry a small Kodak compact camera with me, for snapshots and situations where I don't want to show an expensive camera.

It may be obvious but I always have an UV filter on my lenses to protect it from dust/damage and I always keep my camera and other equipment in my camerabag when I don't use it.

(Some pictures I made with not only the Nikon but also with other camera's are on: Jan Krijtenburg homepage (Photo page))

Thumpers & VR lens
 

This is a constant dilemma for me too. I don't know if it's related, but I took a trip to Yosemite last spring for some photography. All went well, but when I got back all I saw was double vision through my 70-200 VR Nikkor lens. I've always wondered if the 5 hour ride on the KLR is what did it. It was still under warranty and Nikon fixed it no questions asked.

Does anyone else have experience with the VR lens and the constant vibration of a KLR?

I'm sure your right. Coming out of a film background I'm old school and suck at Photo shop. I'm a movie sound guy and learned alot from the DP's I worked with over the years, but now its all photo Shop. I really should spend more time learning it. I took a four day seminar a year ago .... I still never use it. Every month they want you to buy an updated version. I actually spend more time shooting than on the computer.

I'd prefer to learn how to shoot and how to see light and shadow than learning tricks on the computer...even though I should.

I've spent 30 years learning about light, focal lengths, angles and what lenses do.
On a set, sound is always right next to camera. Some of those broken down camera guys were pretty smart. :cool4: Not much rubbed off but I can dream....

Patrick

:mchappy:

Hurray!!

It would have been very depressing (for me) if you were a bike guru as WELL as knowing your way round photoshop - at least there's ONE area where I can look like I know what I'm doing! :cool4::cool4:

If anyone wants to swap bike know-how, for Photoshop skills...!

Nikon D40
 

I got me a Nikon D40 lately and used the Nikor 55~200mm lense (I also got the regular lense - but the "big one" just seems to be more convenient). The few shots I took so far looked good or at least acceptable. Storage-wise I am using a small camera-bag (soemthing like 15x20x15cm) - not the ideal mode of transport - but until I come up with a better solution...
I am also very pleased with the Nikor 200mm lense - very fast, but to make it easy on myself, why not check here: Nikon 55-200mm VR. This should give you all the info you need.

No you shouldnt...Learn to shoot properly (like you said) that is the fun part ..A good shot that come out of the camera is better then a tweaked one every time. Photoshop is a great tool, no doubt, but there is no way it can make a bad photographer a good one.. MOST photoshoped pics have "tells" and a trained eye can see them (even just the filtering effects). Too much photo retouching and you are not a photographer you are a CGI engineer.

My brother is a CGI engineer and he is amazing at it, but even he admits there are tells... And he can spot the ones that most photographers would not even know could exist... Companies like National Geographic and BBC wildlife are starting to employ "Photoshop Busters" people to spot fake images as it is their reputation at stake ( I know this cus my brother was paid an outrageous sum recently to bust a NG spread) that photographer was found to have faked a couple of images and is now on a NG black list...

just something to think about...

Teleconverter caution
 

Daveg,

Be careful if you're thinking of getting a teleconverter. I had a D70s and happily bought one only to find it didn't fit ...... can't remember now if it didn't fit the camera or the lens. Check your user manuals or Nikon website for compatability. I only checked with my local camera shop who got it wrong!

I always take my D200 (was D70s) on my travels along with the 'kit' lens and a 70-300VR. I make sure the VR is in the 'off' position when it's not being used and have had no problems.
I have a padded 'Tamrac' shoulder bag that sits inside a 'Buffalo' bag strapped to the back rack of my bike. It's easy to get at for impromptu photo stops and when I stop in towns etc. I just pull the 'Tamrac' bag out and take it with me.

18-200 Nikon
 

I travel in a car so have the ability to carry more than 1 camera and 1 lens.
The 18-200 is the one lens that never leaves a camera, it's either on my girlfriends d80 or my d200, as for the other stuff it depends what we are photographing. If you wanted to go for a little bit longer for an added extra few hundred buy the cheap plastic 70-300, don't bother with the VR version you will notice that you won't use the longer lens that much.

Milan
Touring Africa

If you're on a once in a lifetime trip good glass is critical. For a small kit AND all 2.8 glass on a D70 (or any DSLR for that matter) I recommend a Sigma 18-50/2.8EX and the 50-150/2.8EX. Take a teleconverter and have a blast.

My problem with all-in-wonder lenses like 18-200's is they suffer from softness or distortion at the extreme ends of the range. Either way, most any lens now will take good pictures and talking about edge2eedge sharpness and all this is splitting hairs. The most out of focus thing in a photograph is usually the photographer. :thumbup1:

Good luck with whatever you choose!

CC

Alright! Finally, a good ol' fashioned hole diggin'!
 

Well looky here! Big words from a high-and-mighty Canon user. Oh look at me and all my "pro" Canon buddies we all hang out and shoot Canon cameras together and use special Canon made tele-converters with flawless results. Toss the Nikon in the bin eh? I hope you're only pumping out this balloon-juice in jest. There's plenty of stuff to insult about Canon products, like their flimsy plastic bodied 1000+ dollar lenses which fall apart, but this is about photography and no matter what brand you use there will be issues.

Anyway, to the point. While I agree with you that most filters can be left at home and that PS is amazingly powerful, I'll take your ludicrous challenge Mr. Professional-Canon-Photographer-PS-Wizard-Man and offer you the following two pictures taken with a polarizer. Let's see you "EXACTLY" (your words) duplicate the effect in PS...and see the PSD too. When you're done not being able to do it, maybe you can tell us why you were wrong.

Before:
http://photos.imageevent.com/comrade...ZhaiGou043.JPG

After:
http://photos.imageevent.com/comrade...ZhaiGou044.JPG
Have fun! I shouldn't take too long. :D

CC

I can recommed a 18-200 lens and a 2x or 1.4 teleconverter.

this can cover most of your needs. You can decide 2x or 1.4x due to price and your needs of tele.

:confused1::confused1:
your mean!!!:thumbup1: I love it.:cool4: (but she did acknowledge the usefulness of the polarising filter):rolleyes2:

Yes, but not really. The point is if someone issues a challenge then they should either be willing to defend their claim or admit they are wrong. It wouldn't be so bad but this strikes me as a particualrly "un-professional" thing to say.

I'm interested to see what happens.

CC

Those two lenses may in itself have (a little) better quality but if you change lenses on the road a lot, you will get dust on your chip.
With the 18-200 on my D70s, I don't take my other lenses with me on a trip but only use the 18-200 and keep the body closed and the chip clean.
At home or in another clean environment I don't mind to change lenses but "on the road" I stick to my 18-200.

That's a very good point but I think some dust is bound to get on your sensor anyway. One place dust can get directly into the body is through the eye piece and the nice long action (suction) from a muti-barreled 18-200(300) lens can contribute to that as well...not to mention very very few lenses are dust sealed with a rubber o-ring at the mounting plate.

I guess it's a trade off. On one hand you can have less sensor cleaning and post-processing work. On the other, you can have sharper images and a larger aperture which can use more available light and provide for a more narrow DOF handy for isolating subjects. Is the dust on the sensor extra work in the field and behind the computer? Sure is, but I've never seen a zoom that could produce the contrast, flat image and razor sharpness as my 105/2.8 macro (although some 70-200's come very close).

To me (and maybe to me only, who knows) it's worth changing the lens to get shots I am happier with if it only costs me 5 minutes of headlamp and blower bulb work before I go to sleep that night. I tried as hard as I could to keep a tiny kit but in the end couldn't do it. I ended up with four lenses and I now wouldn't have it any other way. YMMV of course and it ultimately comes down to personal preference. The most important thing is you're happy with your kit and use it to capture your experiences.

CC

Extenders: a word of caution regarding extenders on slower lenses like the 18-200's which have been mention here. If you start with an f5.6 lens then you'll lose 1 or 2 more f-stops when you add the extender depending on the magnification. You could end up with a lens combination which does let enough light through for the AF to function on some cameras, as well as reducing the usable shutter speed where you need it the most - at the telephoto end.
They're popular with pro's using highend lenses, which are usually f2.8 or f4 and can handle the loss of an f-stop or two.

I used the Nikon AF-S 18-70 on my D50 for my last trip, and was very satisfied with the results, but there were occasions where a longer lens would have been useful. I've been looking at the Sigma 18-200's as an alternative, but I'll need to give one a thorough test before the trip to check the quality thoroughly.

Very true, and don't be surprised is they screw your VR/IS/OS image stabilization.

The kit 18-70 is a great lens for the money with it's warm tones and high contrast after f6 or so - AFS is silky smooth. I used one for almost a year before moving to the 18-50/2.8. I can add a 1.4tele to make it about 24-70/4 with very little loss of image quality, won't close down at zoom and is sharp wide open (probably the biggest benefit of most 2.8 glass). Since being able to shoot with confidence wide open, and in lower light conditions, I found it reduced the need for a tripod (or VR for that matter) and I took more pictures than with the 18-70. I figured that can't be a bad thing and never looked back.

Now you mentioned you wanted something for the longer end. How much reach did you want? What kind of subjects do you tend to shoot?

CC

I didn't read all the thread, so I may be out of sync, but I think you already have a good set up - unless of course, you're looking to spend money.:wink3:

The Nikon 18-200 is highly thought of, but it's fragile and the zoom had a tendency to 'creep' out unawares - just waiting to smash against something while you're carrying it. And what's the point of turning an slr into a point and shoot? I actually took mine back. And here's a thought - if you bust a do-it-all lens, you're screwed. If you bust one of a pair, you're still in business.

Tele-converters? They sound good, but are a complete pain in the butt - taking a lens off the body, attaching it to a t/c and then fixing it back to the body. That's THREE actions, plus a balancing act, as opposed to the two you already have. Sounds like punishment. Anyway, they are geared up for long telephotos, not zooms, and your 300mm lens is equal to 450mm on a 35mm film camera - already a VERY long lens for someone who takes "typical moto tourist photos". You really don't need much - camera and lenses, a small tripod - and a flashgun to take advantage of the D70's brilliant sync speed. Don't let others spend your money! Good luck.

My personal view. Hope it helps.

A 'team of pro photographers' - that doesn't make sense. Do you all take the same photo? :whistling:

I'm curious - are they your own cameras?

My suggestion is to think if one really needs to take a SLR camera with big lens. I have seen many people carrying SLR-s on their trips but *typical* end results are not that much better than one can get from decent point and shoot. Actually the result depends much more on photographer's ability than camera. I'm not telling that p&s is better for all, but many people taking SLR-s just lug a lot of gear, jet their results are not that good.

You can see some typical travel pictures on my web page, these are taken with small Panasonic DMC-LX1 point and shoot camera in 19:9 format (in JPEG format). It ha zoom range of about 28-100mm and real image stabilization.

I really like compactness of small cameras, I can carry one in my motorcycle jacket's front pocket, always accessible.

SLR cameras have better image quality and advanced features but for typical touristic snapshots good p&s with some skill can make wonders. I agree that for more artistic type of shooting other cameras have their advantages, however for general "I was here" types of shots I can really suggest good compact point&shoot cameras over SLR. After all, image quality seems to be over rated compared to content.

I reckon people know what kind of camera they need for the kind of photography they do but choosing what is "right" or "best" for them is always complicated as there are usually many good options and none of them are free.

True, a moron with a D3 won't take any better pictures than a trained eye with an A640 but that's not comparing apple to apples. If someone says they want to bring a DSLR then why spend time trying to convince them to only bring a pns? Especially since people who bring DSLR's usually bring a pns as back up anyway.

Your pictures are great and the Panasonic is a wonderful camera (I might actually pick on up myself here in a few weeks) but it has limitations. What if I want to shoot wildlife? Can 100mm cover it? 100mm won't even do good street candid's without getting in someone's face. Actually, 100mm's isn't even sufficient for some types of landscapes. Telephotos can take some interesting landscapes:

Sigma 80-400OS@320mm
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/p...um/1079748.jpg

Then how about ultra-wide?

Sigma 10-20@10mm
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/p...um/1012772.jpg

Keeping it simple is great and entirely possible if you're taking record ("I was there") shots and a good pns can do wonderful things when placed in front of a good eye. That said, if you want the power and flexibility to shoot more kinds of subjects in different conditions, changing lenses is necessary and, I think, a blessing - think about all the different composition possibilities you can get out of one camera!

What? And risk getting dust in my camera? That's like saying I don't ride my motorcycle because I don't want to get dirt on my engine and, unlike motorcycle engines, there's technology now which helps keep dust off sensors.

Point is, PnS or DSLR, ride with it, use it and take amazing pictures with it. Change lenses, don't change lenses, it doesn't really matter, they all will get dirty and when they do, clean it and take more pictures with it. Motorcycle travel photography is not about photographing pictures in museums or a Mochaccino in Starbucks, this is about capturing the world, every, dirty, dusty, wet, damp, dry, dark and bright beautiful corner of it.

Ride, Take pictures, Ride some more,
CC

People often don't know that they can make decent pictures without a DSLR. That is why everyone thinks that a SLR is the only possibility. My bet is that over half of DSLR users actually don' t know how to use their gear to full potential (eg. they shoot in full auto "green" mode).

Yes, we can make great photos with extreme lenses. However, we can also make nice pictures with only 1 fixed focal length lens (in fact most of iconic images of 20th century were taken that way). Just live with the limitations. Less is more. I have used and still use mostly 35mm fixed lens on my film camera. Yes, I can't do 15mm wide angles and wildlife, but I can still take pictures (I like).

If you want to take many lens and have fun doing so, by all means do it. I'm just trying to say that the peace of mind and ease you get when you have less gear is often worth more than these few extreme pictures that require special lenses. :cool4:

Carl,
Great shots and some good advice.

To be fair, metering and focussing is so good nowadays that, 9 times out of ten, it's easy to get good results when the only thing you have to adjust is the compensation button. Trouble is, that turns an expensive SLR into a bulky point and shoot camera and you still have to choose the lighting and composition - no settings for that! Though that's the point you were making.

Taking a damn good picture with a compact is far more satisfying.:wink3:

I borrowed a friend's 18-200 vr and man.. it was great! I rode around my city trying to take my typical touristy shot and was really happy with the range (esp along the 200mm end). :funmeteryes:


I agree that atleast 80% of a photo is independent of the equipment. The camera w/ lens mounted fit nicely into my tank bag, so once I sell my 70-300 VR and sigma 70-300, I'll prolly pick up the 18-200.

The ND filter, that Mollydog suggested, would be needed in bright conditions to achieve a shallow depth of field when required.

Just a thought.

If it floats your boat, then it's right for you. Lots of people like it. Glad you got it sorted.

Mornin' Everyone,

just as an aside to this thread, has anyone discovered a point and shoot that doesn't suffer from shutter lag? A mate's after replacing his G3, which he loves apart from the said lag.

Sigma 10-20. Not expensive, sharp, good build, high contrast and not very large or heavy. It's a WA landscape monster and many Canon users use it.

G3 was a good camera and I'm surprised you had problems with it. I'm considering the Panasonic LX2 (dpreview link) as I think it may perform more like the G9 but not as bulky with nice glass. Also worth noting is it doesn't have those weak little automatic lens covers; instead it uses a traditional snap-on cover which holds itself firmly in place. The LX2, probably more than any other pns I've seen so far, is more like a mini DSLR and shoots panoramic. Zoom range is 28-112 (4x) which I think is plenty for a back up.

I'm not into superzooms because I usually try to obey the rule of 3, meaning anything more than 3x and the quality WILL suffer somewhere. This is not a matter of preference but physical/optical limitations. 4-5x is okay, but 10x and 12x lenses won't even be in the same class. To be clear, if someone is looking for general record shots this is NOT an issue, but if you want to shoot material you can blow up big for print or submit to magazines, the sharp fast glass is important.

If you haven't already, borrow someone's Tamron or Sigma 18-50/2.8 for a day and tell me what you think. Be careful though, resolution in glass is like hp in engines. Once you taste it, it's hard to go back. But then what the hell do I know, I think a 200cc is big. :clap:

CC

That is an excellent question and I wish I had a definitive answer for you. I'm sure there have been improvements in this area since the G3 but it really depends on what your mate is looking to shoot. Does he want to do fast action stuff?

CC

Most current higher end point and shoots are much better than 5 years ago. G3 is a quite old model, current model is G9 (which seems a nice camera except it does not have 28mm wide lens). In-depth reviews at Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ list also different lag times now.

If you want to shoot action with typical camera you need to use pre-focusing. You press shutter release button half way down which will focus the lens on your subject, then you wait for your "decisive moment" (still half-pressing the shutter release button) and if it is there you fully depress shutter release. Then the camera will take picture almost instantly, as most of what is commonly referred as "shutter lag" is actually time that takes to focus the lens (move lens elements to right position using motor). This technique will also work with the old G3.

I'm a bit dissapointed in the responses here.
 

You need to figure out what you need and what you are prepared to carry and use.

Firstly Impasso:
Sorry I disagree: Photoshop is useful, but useless if the images are burnt out or you are digging endlessly in the dark
Neutral density graduate filter. and Polarising filter. You cannot replicate these in photoshop and the grad ND should have been used in CrazyCarls mountain shot. Anyone travelling to NewZealand without a Polariser should be banned at immigration.
You Have to have these two filters. But then I believe you have to have a tripod. even if it is a gorilla pod off the bike

I am a Nikon-Canon convert (but the D3 is going the right way) but I would seriously consider using my old Nikon fm2 with film, it wont rattle to death like your D70 will
And the teleconverter advice guys... please! :nono:I believe that the rear elements of the 18-200 lens will hit the Nikon extenders when mounted hence this can simply be rendered as incompatible. (You can use a 3rd party converter but you are wasting your time)

If you insist on taking an SLR then do it right: :thumbup1:
Nikon D200/300 70-200 f2.8 1.7 teleconverter and a 17-35 f2.8 + 50mm f1.8mm and an SB800
Canon do a lighter package: EOS 20-30-40/5D a 17-40f4 with a 70-200f4 and 1.4 extender (or 70-300DOIS hmmm rattly bits!) + 50mm f1.8 and a 430ex
If you are not going to take all of those then dont bother with the SLR idea. Take a Panasonic F50 instead.
OR
Fuji made an Finepix E900, this is an incredible camera, and answers CAMERAMANS queries about what to buy next. Currently they are being released all over ebay.co.uk at £72+postage Its extremely cheap and the image quality is great and it shoots RAW
However everywhere that it is not important the camera is crappy, ie viewfinder, screen and plastic rear (good metal front though) However it goes forever on two AA batteries and takes extendable lenses taking it from about 17mm to 200mm with great image quality.

Oh and a tip, those of you using little compacts you can shoot through your sunglasses for Neutral density or polarising effects.

Oh no! Not another "professional" photographer!
 

Oh so easy? Nothing to do before this? You must be especially clairvoyant!

IMHO you're spot on about the polariser but about as wrong as you can get about the Grad-ND. Photoshop can do it, and even more, using multiple exposures. Matter of fact, some people take it to an absurd extreme and call it "HDR". It takes more time but can give more dynamic results (which means the ability to control the output over various tonal ranges) and with 14bit this becomes even a little easier.

I used to carry an Cokin ND Grad but the glass plate would vibrate around inside the plastic holder and get covered with plastic dust particles that stuck to the glass and could not be blown or wiped off. Also, the screw in frame for the filters was extremely awkward to pack and space on a 150cc is extra premium. What do you store your grad filter in when on rough roads?

No, actually it shouldn't have been. That shot is exactly as I like it. You could so us the honor of sharing some of your work as well. I've also got a fine tooth comb.

You'd stick a DSLR on a Gorilla pod on your bike? There must be no wind where you live. Ever consider a bean bag? You can use it as a pillow too.

I had, and still do have a D70 which has crossed rivers of the Tibetan plateau, two high speed drops (one of which the bike cartwheeled) and countless other get offs with hundreds of hours on crap roads through some of the most extreme environments this planet can toss at a person and it still keeps shooting. Care to explain that? I'll bet not.

Don't act like film cameras are faultless either. All cameras are machines like any other and they will fail.

And after you've finished settling the third mortgage on the house, maybe in a few years you'll be able to able to ride somewhere. DSLR's are not just for people who can afford 2,000 dollar lenses and you don't need a D3 or even a 5D to take good pictures. A D60 or Digital Rebel is still a great camera to take photos with, what's important is being there and using it.

Additionally, your "do it right" setup excludes the ultra-wide (10-24) angle and leaves two important gaps between 35-50 and 50-70. I'm sure you'd only use all Nikon glass too, because other glass, well...doesn't say Nikon. The 50/1.8 is a good piece for the money though - at least as soon as you stop it down to 2.8.

Point is, it's up to everyone to decide what their level of commiment (money, time, energy) and objectives are with the pictures they'll take. If someone wants to make a book, submit to magazines or blow up images for print then the needs are different than someone who want to post to a blog or bbs or simply have some pics to show their family and friends.

Although there is naturally some consternation in making these choices, their needs will become clear through time and as long as everyone does their best, they will arrive at the necessary gear eventually. What's disappointing is people who talk about the "right way" and someone "should do this" when anyone with a brain understands photography and all art is largely a subjective experience with varying levels of interest, commitment and goals. You can like it or not like it and offer comments if needed but at least give some considerate intelligent feedback or you're wasting everyone's time.

Now lets see some pics. I'm sure they're outstanding - they should be for all the hype.

CC

Good point. I have sent pics to Carl offline and responded personally to him.

If daveg did buy a nikon teleconverter he would be very disappointed, 200mm f8 is not great anyway but
-No current DX lenses fit the nikon extenders.
-Take appropriate support for the camera system you use.
-No I dont think missing 35/40-50 and 51-70 is an issue. Crop or walk 10m.
-Ansel Adams did ok with just a 50mm lens!
-The slr kits would fit in a tank bag
-Lens = quality. Take the best lens you can afford, how much would it cost to come back and then photograph this again?
-There's some margin between clairvouyance and planning. Those kits offer the best quality that would cover most subjects (with the weight restrictions) of a biker.
-Lee Filters http://www.leefilters.com/camera/pro...46C9C1B6AA3DD/ I still disagree. HDR is not simple to do, and though initial bracketing is simple, a ND grad is extremely simple and quick plus less costly on harddrive space. I have never experienced a problem finding storage for the lens/filter mount adapter.
-If you can do it all in photoshop, then why bother take a flash or wait for great lighting? Someone could get the same effect in photoshop right?
-National Geographic are unrelentingly picky about unmanipulated digital images. Perhaps their standards are a good one to aim for.
-I wrap up filters in a portion of one of these http://www.eos-magazine.com/Sales%20...ccessorie.html though if you have issues with dust on the filter, I dread to think what issues you would have with dust on the sensor.
-Are you taking a sensor cleaning kit?
-I have seen a Nik D70 and an EOS 300D rattle apart on a 1 week safari (Dodoma road) Carls hasnt yet, dispite best attempts, but he acknowledges that all machines will fail. A higher series camera will last longer. eg 30D/D200 series and up. Nik D1/2/3 and EOS 1 series are sold with good reason
-Quality wise with film there are no restrictions, with Digital there is. Hence getting the best available includes body.

Nikon D200-£600 , 17-35 £895, 70-200 £900 (80-200 f2.8 £650), 50mm 1.8 £80 1.7 teleconverter £260, SB800 £225
Total retail Cost = £3610.
Second hand in USA you will get this much cheaper.

Regards G

-No doubt telecons are no good for superzooms
-One gap in the focal lengths is one thing, two is another and can consumer time. Maybe in big flat terrains walking an extra 10m is possible but that's often not true in other places like mountains. Cropping is of course an option but less than ideal for print submissions as editors will often crop again.
-Ansel Adams takes wonderful landscapes, don't know much about his wildlife and portraits though.
-There are other cheaper options to the suggested expensive name brand SLR kits that would fit in a smaller tank bag. How about...

Sigma 10-20, Sigma 18-50/2.8 (or Tamron), Nikon 80-400VR (or Sigma but it's larger) - All three excellent pieces glass for little more than half the cost, more range (15-600mm in 35mm terms!) and a smaller kit. Toss in one of the many sharp and inexpensive 70/2.8 macros for fun or add a Kenko 1.4TC to close the gap (the Kenko can be used with the 18-50).

- It can't all be done in photoshop and it can't even all be done on the camera, although the latter is by far the best and quickest method. Realistically, and perhaps annoyingly, it takes both to get the most out of digital images and even with a good lens/sensor combo, pre-processed RAW files need some adjustment.

- National Geographic certainly has excellent standards for the kind of work they do but that is only one standard and not all photographers need to adhere to those standards. Again, it's a personal choice. If someone wants to take a color picture and make it sepia mono-tone, why not?

Additionally, for every one NatGeo photographer there are at least 1,000 people who could do the job equally as well but don't happen to know the right people or have spent the insane amount of time and money needed to make an image for themselves. Hell, cataloging photographs is hard enough!

- The dust on the ND Grad came from the box it was in and has nothing to do with the sensor. I'm not clear where the relationship between the two surfaced.

- Yes I carry a sensor cleaning kit, it's called a head lamp, bulb-blower and 5 minutes each night. I have successfully cleaned the sensor of more stubborn debris myself in the field several times using optics cleaning fluid and several q-tips. It's not ideal by any means but it works and has never scratched the sensor. The trick is using the right amount of pressure, something which should not be unfamiliar to mechanics.

- Generally a higher end camera will last longer if it's equally taken care of. Again, they are all machines and can fail, no matter how expensive they are. If I baby my D70 and kick my D300 down some stairs, guess which one will last longer? Just like motorcycles, the more expensive bike doesn't always win...it's the riders who make the difference, just like photography.

- Quality wise with film bodies there are still restrictions like focus and metering accuracy. White balance is not a problem on film because you have to change rolls of film for different light conditions - same is true with ISO and grain still applies in film as well and may still need reduction when the slide ends up in digital format anyway after scanning. If film is film then why use an F2 when you could use a K1000? The K1000 is a great camera.

So many questions...so few answer. More to come your way off-line.

CC

For those who are interested, I can recommend a 'sky blue' grad when a polariser isn't wanted for a particular shot. Useful when the fore-ground is in shade and a little extra colour is needed in the sky. Less tweaking in Photoshop.