Iron_Dreamer

Other than size, I can't imagine what! You could shoot just about anything with that setup.

That should be a great setup for you. I've seen a lot of great comments about that head, never used one, though. Please let me know if you can find a way to make it NOT "stable enough" for a D800, and no, raising the center column in hurricane-force winds doesn't count

Here's a fun image from a couple of days ago, while I was torturing the XE-1's JPEG engine, so this is straight of the camera, with nearly every JPEG setting tweaked in one way or another.

I'm using a Photoclam Pro Gold II, it's a nice compromise of size and performance. I previously had a PC-40NS that was also an excellent head, but I wanted the convenience of the clamp-connector on the PGII. I have used them with an 80-200 2.8, 200-500 5.6, and never had any issues with sag or unwanted movement (unlike the Giottos MH1300 I started out with). The RRS-BH50 is great, but huge/heavy, and I wasn't crazy about the egonomics of their smaller heads.

I've had both Induro and Benro tripods (same OEM), and they're quite well made and always worked very well for me. The CT213 should be extremely solid and well-made, and I don't think you'd go drastically wrong with one. Just make sure you're okay with the weight, folded size, and extended size, as those were the reasons I've jumped around between tripods over the years. Started with a very solid Velbon CF model that was a great extended size (sans center column), but 5lbs and rather long folded down with a head installed. Then I moved to a Benro CF "travel" style tripod (2690, I *think*), which packed much nicer but was still heavier than I wanted, and felt a little wobbly thanks to the 5-section legs. I then overshot towards light, with an Induro C-013 that was on closeout at Amazon. It hit my weight goals, at only around 3lb with head, and was steady, with only 3-section legs, but I often found it too short when extended. I'm currently using a Feisol 3342, which is, without question, my favorite tripod yet. It gets to a comfortable height with room to spare for use on hills, is still only 3lbs with a head, is rock-stable, and folds down small enough for me. The strength to weight ratio is the best I've seen, surely thanks to the Gitzo-style bowl-compatible collar. That aspect also allows for a wider ballhead while still enabling the legs to fold over it. The fit and finish is a modest step up from the Benro/Induro models, while being in the same general price class. My only real annoyances about the Feisol were having to buy the foot spikes separately, and that the included case isn't long enough to contain the tripod with the foot spikes installed. Anyway, think carefully about how/where you want to use the tripod, and how you'll get there, as well as how you need it to perform. The CT213 should perform excellently, but be quite long when folded (no fold-over legs), and >4lbs with a head, so not the friendliest travel companion.

Talk about too little, too late. I'm glad they finally did it, but their behavior on that issue has been a joke. I'm still using my Nikon gear, but I wouldn't mind if I never bought more of it. On that note, I picked up a sweet deal on an XE-1 / 18-55 with RRS grip yesterday, and it should be a great camera for times when the big Nikon just isn't optimal to carry. Still undecided on the zoom lens, it certainly functions and feels nice enough, but it's a bit larger than I'd prefer on this body. Here's a downsized JPEG straight from the XE-1 in Velvia mode. They certainly get JPEG processing in a way Nikon never has:

Have a great birthday Naaman, don't forget the yogapants!

I'd look at: Canon S100/S110/S120 ($100-$300) The thinnest of the lot, slow telephoto lens Sony RX100 / RX100mII ($400-$700) Thicker, but much bigger sensor for the best image quality in low-light Panasonic LX7 ($230) More manual controls, extremely bright lens, easy to use filters, but a little thicker/heavier than the above Fuji X20 ($420) The most manual controls, plus optical viewfinder, bright lens, phase-detect AF, and great build quality. The largest of the group, though.

I've yet to hear a better portable than the HM-901, including the new ($$$$) AK240. Sure, it's big and a little clunky to use, but you just can't beat the sound quality.

Happy birthdewy Colin!

Bummer...RIP!

I remember when my D800 showed up in a box looking like that

Happy Abominable Birthday, Stephen!

A fun image from last night, inspired by this reigon's "don't fix anything until it's a crisis" mentality.

Fuji is really killing it in the lens department recently. The 56/1.2 is spectacular, and I was really impressed with the 10-24 as well (tried both at CES). And more great lenses coming from them (16-55 2.8 and 50-140 2., along with the XT-1, is making a great case for them to pick up new fans. I'm looking at maybe adding an XE-1 as my easy-carry camera. As long as you don't need 24+ MP for big prints or cropping, there isn't much to want for with the Fuji X-Trans sensor, which combined with their JPEG engine gives the best SOOC shots around. The Micro 4/3 crowd also has some great stuff out there right now. The Oly EM-1 is a highly impressive camera in a small package, and the Panasonic GM1 is shockingly tiny for an ILC. It's a great time to be a photog, no doubt!

Yeah, having owned both for years, I can certainly attest that the D700 is the tougher build. That camera survived several harsh blows (including one in a certain Chicago hotel in 2010) with no issues whatsoever, apart from a little brassing. The D800 has had an easier existence thus far, but has already had two failures on me, though both are non-critical issues, and I don't feel like playing the Nikon service roulette to fix them (CF slot stopped working, and lock for shooting mode no longer locks). While I appreciate the slightly lower weight of the D800, it seems that perhaps it sacrificed quality a bit. Thom Hogan has reported that fairly light hits to the camera in just the (wrong) spots, can bend the frame, causing the mount to go out of alignment, or the LCD to crack.

Jacob, the difference between the D700 you've been shooting and the D800 you propose is quite monumental, in terms of shot discipline and focus accuracy. A MUCH higher degree of both is called for, particularly with focusing the narrow-DOF shots you two are discussing. Of course, if you don't pixel peep, print huge, and/or downsize your shots for the web or 1080P, you won't notice the focus errors more with the D800, but the instant you pull up a 100% view, they will be staring you in the face. The D700 is amazing forgiving of lenses and technique, and likely to be a lot more enjoyable to most. Unless you need the DR or megapixels of the D800, the D700 is probably the better choice (it's certainly the tougher of the two bodies).

Happy birthday Jeff, make it great one!

Shot from last night in Joshua Tree NP, as the first measurable rainstorm in months began to move across Southern California:

I think Sony will still be in business, but they might be out of a lot of individual markets. They'll definitely be in business, as long as the continue producing the best imaging sensors on the market.

Hmm, guess I got my lens prices a little mixed up, but nevertheless, $1K is quite the premium for a 50/1.8 with a Zeiss badge. The bit about diffraction isn't as true as you might think, see here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03/overcoming-my-fentekaphobia I have no qualms about shooting my D800 at f/11, and will use f/16 or even f/22 if necessary for the shot. I don't do it often, but when I do, it's unquestionably a better result than I got a the same apertures with a D700.

I monkeyed around with the A7r and yet-to-be-released Zeiss 24-70 f/4 lens at CES quite a bit. The camera certainly has potential, but I have no interest in being a first adopter. I liked the EVF implementation, especially for manual focus, which is much easier than on a DSLR. The body size is quite remarkable for being 35mm digital with a tilting LCD. However, the shutter noise (horrible!), glacial FPS rate, useless continuous AF, and mediocre buffer in RAW would all make it quite inconvenient to shoot in a number of circumstances. Then there's the lack of native lenses (in typical Sony fashion), and the less than impressive cost/performance ratio of the lenses the system does have. The 24-70 did not fully impress, considering the cost and relatively slow aperture, I expected it to be sharper. The tripod-mounted testing I did showed soft corners (even when optimally focused for the corners) at 24mm all the way out to f/11. There were also some issues around 35mm, but 50mm and 70mm were better. The 35 f/2.8 Zeiss performed pretty well, but that's a steep price to pay for an f/2.8 prime. Same story with the 55 f/1.8, very nice performance, but very costly for a 50/1.8 (Canon and Nikon versions are $100-200, not $1200). Hopefully the A7 series will spur the market forward, and Sony, Canon, and Nikon will all compete in that space (maybe even Fuji as well?). Let's get Nikon 1 AF performance into a 35mm mirrorless body, and get the e-shutter capability improved quite a bit. Hello 10+ FPS with active phase-detect AF!

Happy Birthday!

Hope it's a great one, Dom, happy birthday!