Nikkor primes for a DX Shooter

My D90 arrived yesterday and so I took it out for a quick spin after work. Love it! What an amazingly responsive, compact yet solid DSLR. I put on the 18-105mm VR kit lens, and despite my phobia against plastic mount lenses, I was also pleasantly surprised at how well this lens felt and performed. Very good 'walk around' combo.

Nikon D90 with 18-105mm VR kit lens. B&W conversion in Photoshop

With any new body, I start thinking lenses. And whatever I choose, it's always a compromise between features, image quality and price. I'm always looking for the best 'bang' for my buck. I want the best image quality I can get, for the least amount of dollars.

I'd love a Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8G, 24-70mm f2.8G, 70-200mm f2.8 VR, 500mm f4 etc, but my kids wouldn't eat, my wife would kill me, we'd loose our house... you get the idea.

So I start looking around at the hidden (or not so hidden) 'gems' in a manufacturers line-up, to see if I can build a decent (cheap) kit from there. The only lens I'm keeping from my recent kit, the Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5/4.5 is, I believe, one such 'gem' of a lens - with a fairly handy walk-around focal length too. This will form the 'basis' of my new lens kit. But what to add next?

Nikon's 'Nifty' 50!

Actually, that's a pretty easy question to answer - it has to be the 'nifty fifty'. And this time, it was even easier to answer, because a 50mm f1.8D came with the Nikon D90 I bought. Sweet.

With the 1.5x 'crop factor' of a DX body like the D90, a 50mm lens becomes a 75mm f1.8 - a pretty decent portrait lens. The 50mm f1.8D is my 'go to' lens when I'm with the bride as she is getting ready. I can get in nice and close, but still maintain a reasonable working distance, and get beautifully smooth out-of-focus backgrounds at f1.8. All-in-all, a classic 'must have' low-light portrait prime for a DX system, which also happens to be Nikon's cheapest lens. Can't go wrong really.

The more I considered lens choices for the D90, the more I found myself toying with the idea of a 'prime' lens kit. I'm seriously thinking of stopping weddings - and find the idea rather freeing in terms of lens choice. I would never have had the nerve to take an all prime lens kit on a wedding with me, worrying too much that I might not have the 'right' lens and miss an important series of shots. But if I'm now only shooting for myself, a lot of that fear goes away. And if I am just shooting for myself, I want to keep the weight down as much as possible. So a couple of small, light primes makes a lot of sense to me.

Nikon's 'new' 35mm 1.8'G' prime

Enter the Nikkor 35mm f1.8G lens -  a Nikon DX prime lens that gives us back the 'standard' field of view. Attach this to a D90 and you get a 52mm f1.8 - close enough to the 'normal' 50mm lens of old.

Because it's a newer model AF-S (Silent focusing) lens, it's not as cheap as the 50mm f1.8D, but at $300NZ is still a reasonably cheap buy. But it is a DX lens, so you want to be sure that you are sticking with the DX system (I am), since it won't work on an FX (full frame) body.

A mint condition 35mm appeared on Trademe a few days after I won the D90, and I snapped it up. This will give the start of a prime lens kit, with a 35mm and 50mm - with the 17-80mm zoom lens thrown in as my back-up/wedding zoom.

I'm not much of a 'telephoto' shooter - don't really shoot sports, nature, birds etc, or anything that requires a lot of pulling power. Although having said that, when I do shoot the odd sporting event, I really enjoy it. But it's hard to justify owning a big expensive telephoto for a once-a-year sports shoot.  If I'm serious about sticking with primes, then the telephoto end won't be a problem. Nikon have that covered in spades... and I can see an 85mm, 135mm or 180mm in my future at some point. But not at the moment.

When I go out to shoot for myself, I concentrate mainly on landscapes, so it's in the wide angle area that I really need to be looking for my next lens. But if I want that lens to be a prime, then Houston, we have a problem. Nikon (or any other company to be fair) don't make a DX wide angle prime - something like a 17mm f2.8G - and maybe they never will? They do make a 20mm prime (for $1k) but with the crop factor this only really gets us to 35mm - not 'really' wide enough. Something like a 16mm (non-fisheye) or 17mm would be ideal, as this would give us DX shooters a truly wide angle 24mm lens - hopefully with a reasonable price tag to go with it. Is that asking too much?

With a 16mm DX lens (or there abouts), a 35mm and a 50mm (and maybe an 85mm thrown in for good measure), I'd have all my shooting situations covered, with super fast sharp primes - for around half the price of a 17-55mm f2.8G.

So how about it Nikon? When are we going to see a truly wide-angle prime lens for the DX faithful? What's wrong with a 17mm f2.8G?

I for one am going to start lobbying Nikon for just such a lens. It would be a sure fire winner - wouldn't it? How many Nikon DX shooters are there in the world? 1 million, two million, ten million? There's got to be a market for this lens, doesn't there? Or is it just me?

If it's not just me, then I suggest you start lobbying Nikon too. Let's all ask for a wide angle lens for the DX format - something like an AF-S 17mm f/2.8G so that we can finally go wide with a DX prime lens. And oh yeah, at about the same price as the 35G please. Thanks

Should I stay or should I go.

Having used my D200 over the last wedding season, I'd have to say that we didn't exactly 'bond' together. Why? I don't know. Can't explain it at all really. We should have gotten along swimmingly (as they say), since it's very similar to the D300 - and I loved the D300. But the D200 and I ... - not so much.

Maybe it was too much of a change after the disappointment of drowning my Canon 5D? Maybe it just wasn't quite up to the standard of the D300? Or maybe it was just one of those seasons? There were good weddings, but there were no really 'great' weddings (except maybe one). And that's my fault as much as anyone else's, but there it is. The D200 and me just didn't hit it off.

So what to do? Well, I haven't shot a wedding in a few months, the new season isn't starting for a few months, and so it's that time of year again. The time of year when I review my gear, and decide what stays and what goes.

And not surprisingly, the D200 is going.

But then again, so is a lot of the gear that I bought, not that long ago. Tokina 12-24mm f2.8 - gone. Nikkor 60mm Micro - gone. Nikkor 70-300mm ED - gone. Rokinon 85mm f1.4 - gone. Yonguo 565EX flash - gone (and good ridance!).

Blimey! What exactly am I keeping? Well, not much by the looks of that. I'm keeping the Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5/4.5 lens and SB600 flashgun. And that's it. So yes, I'm sticking with Nikon.

Although sticking with Nikon wasn't an easy decision, and I was only swayed in the end by a too-good-to-miss kind of a deal on Trademe.

I've been considering finishing up the wedding photography, and have found this decision (although not yet made completely) actually quite freeing. It made me stop and ask myself, "If i wasn't having to turn up to shoot such and such a client, to take such and such a shot, then what kind of gear would I be happy to shoot with?" With this question in mind, I seriously began to look at some of the Sony cameras. And in as much as they 'sound' like whiz bang amazing bodies (10fps for crying out loud), I just couldn't quite get over the electronic viewfinder in the newer SLT series of bodies. So it's a 'no' to the Sony's.

So then I thought I might go full frame again and soot all primes. Oh how very art-school trendy of me. But I didn't want to go 'back' to a Canon 5D (too many painful, wet memories), and can't really afford a 5D MkII or MkIII - so full frame was also out. I've never really had a problem with cropped sensor cameras anyway. I flaunted with the Canon 40D and 50D for a while - and almost bought a 40D, but the shutter counts were pretty high on most of them.

I downloaded all of the brochures, read all of the reviews, and finally decided that if I got top dollar for my other gear, and really stretched my budget, I could get a new Nikon D7000 and I'd be sorted. in many ways it's a bit more camera than I actually need, but I'm future-proofing myself, right? This camera will see me through for the next five or six years :-)

And then I saw it. At a price I couldn't really refuse. A Nikon D90 - the venerable D90. On Trademe, hardly used (only 1000 shots on the clock), with a 50mm f1.8 amd 18-105mm VR, for a LOT less than a D7000 was going to cost me - body only! I couldn't help myself. And I know I've made the right decision (read my last post).

In terms of digital camera's, the D90 is practically Methuselah-like! It was first released in 2008 and was the first DSL to have video capabilities. But trust me, I did NOT buy the D90 for its video!

When I looked at the spec sheets, between it and the D7000, I decided that the D7000 didn't bring anything else to the table that was worth spending the extra $$$ on. 12MP is more than enough for me - don't need 16. Likewise, 4.5fps is fine as well - don't need 6. Autofocus isn't an issue either - I always default to the central focus point 99% of the time no matter what camera I'm using. And on it goes. Feature after feature, I decided that the D90 was more than enough camera for me - no matter what I was wanting to do with it.

So I'm sticking with Nikon, I'm waiting patiently (not) for the arrival of my 'new' D90, and I'm looking forward to actually spending a lot of time with this camera. I think it might be finally time for me to settle down with one system for a while. Will wonders never cease!?

It's not about the gear, stupid.

Bumped into a photographer friend this morning in town on the way to work, and after we parted (about 15 minutes later), I realised that all we had talked about was 'gear'. 5DMk3 this, 70-200mm that, Nikon blah blah, Canon hoo haa.

What is it with photographers and their gear? Do dentists who bump into each other talk about the latest drill? Do mechanics talk about the latest spanner? Maybe they do? (Any dentists or mechanics out there who can verify this?).

I'm obviously as guilty as the next bloke - although I do fluctuate between two complete polar opposites in the gear vs talent debate. It's been very fashionable for a while now to put the 'gearhead' aspect of photography down. You have to have been living under a rock for the last few years not to have heard the 'best camera is the one you have with you' mantra bought up time and time again by the insanely gifted. To which I say - CRAP! Oh, and by the way, what do these 'what you have with you' exponents have with them most of the time? Canon 1DX's or the latest iPhone 4G of course. Quite frankly I'm thoroughly sick of the whole 'I just take my iphone with me on holiday and get beatiful 8x10" prints' brigade. I've got an old iPhone 3 and the camera on that thing is just crap (oh no, I said 'crap' again!)

Go up to a sport photographer at the Olympics and tell him his gear doesn't matter. Go on, I dare you. Would he swap that new 12fps Canon 1Dx for my iPhone 3? I think not. And I wouldn't expect him to either. I find the whole 'gear doesn't matter' thing so condescending it makes me want to spit (in case you hadn't already noticed).

BUT - (and yes, there's always a 'but'), nor do I hold to the whole 'got to have the latest and the greatest' gear mentality either. Do you use a Canon? Do you use a Nikon? Or, heaven forfend - do you use a Sony? To which I say - who gives a flying...... what brand of camera you own? Use a Pentax for all I care - although really, why would you!  :-)  (joking people, joking).

Has it got 6MP, 8MP, 12MP or 36MP!? Who cares? I've owned three of the four megapixel ratings mentioned (guess which is the odd one out), and no client has EVER asked me how many megapixels my camera has. Granted, I'm not shooting for billboards - or cropping heavily - but if you are, or do, then it becomes a real question of need - not merely of keeping up with everybody else. And who really cares whether those 12MP came from a Canon or Nikon? I mean, really....

Most of us are shooting for the web, or computer screen viewing now anyway, aren't we?

Here's a test for you...

Can anyone tell me, just by looking at the image above, whether it was shot on a Canon or a Nikon? Is it from a 6MP, 8MP, 12MP or 24MP camera? Was I wearing sneakers or bare feet when I took the shot? Are any of these questions relevant?

Of course not. All that really matters is whether I've taken a 'good' photo or not. And this is where the 'technical' capabilities of the gear come into play. Am I happy with lens choice, depth of field, is it sharp where I want it to be?

How about another image...

What about this shot? Is it digital? Is it film? Was it cropped to a square image, or shot on medium format? Was it converted to black and white from colour? Again - is it Canon, Nikon or Sony?

More important, for my growth as a photographer, I'd much rather ask - is it a good composition? Does the image have something to say? Is it graphically pleasing? Have I taken it at the right angle so that it expresses what I wanted to say? Was the camera working with me, or against me (the 'gear matters' part of the picture equation).

And finally...

All the same questions as the previous image apply - even though the two photos couldn't have been captured more differently.

When we stop, and concentrate on the image, then 'no', the gear doesn't matter. BUT - of course it does matter, by allowing you to take the kind of image that you have in your mind's eye in the first place. With technology moving at such an alarming rate - and no sign of this slowing up any time soon - the line between want, and need, can easily become blurred.

In the end, though, all I really 'want' to be is a better photographer. Do I really 'need' the latest Nikon D4? Of course not. Will simply owning it make me a 'better' photographer? Ah - no.

And for the record - the first image was taken on an Olympus Pen EP3 - as was the second image. The last image is... film. Taken on a Bronica S2 medium format 6x6 camera. And it also happens to be my favourite image of the bunch.

Out and About with 3 new lenses

I finally got myself up and out of bed early last weekend to go and take some photos. We've been having some great weather leading up to winter, so I decided to head out to Lake Brunner with a bag full of lenses - to try them out.

Nikon D200 with Tokina 12-24mm @ f8

First shot of the day - taken at about 7.00am. I started with the Tokina 12-24mm, mainly because I knew I was going to shoot predominantly landscapes, but also because it was the first lens I purchased after getting the D200 and I hadn't taken any shots with it yet! Pretty pleased with the above result first up. I'm such a sucker for a good jetty shot :-)

Trees in the Mist. D200 with Nikkor 70-300mm @ f5.6

The mist was rolling in from the lake - which I knew it would - and I had hoped to take some moody 'boats in the mist' type shots. Trouble is, there were no boats out on the lake, so I had to settle for trees instead. The wide angle wasn't getting me close enough, so I changed to the 70-300mm, shooting right at the 300mm end on a tripod. The 'slight' softness at 300mm only adds to the mood of the shot - although it's still plenty sharp enough.

Te Kinga Morning. D200 with Tokina 12-24mm @ f8

There wasn't much else happening at Lake Brunner, so I drove the five minutes to Te Kinga - one of my favourite places to shoot in any weather. The reeds in the foreground stand out in sharp and stark contrast to the misty background - and converts perfectly to monochrome. At the 12mm end the Tokina has quite a bit of edge distortion - but this becomes less evident towards the middle of its range.

Pontoon. D200 with Tokina 12-24mm @ f5.6

Even with a bag full of new lenses, I feel that my photography is suffering from a bit of familiaritus at the moment. I'm not really getting very inspired whenever I go out with my camera - familiarity is breeding contempt. The above image, however, is a bit of a departure for me - a bit abstracty (artsy) - and I like it. I was originally drawn to it because of the light that was landing on the floating metal platform thingy - but when I took the shot it became more about the shapes, as well as the light. Anyway, it's not my traditional landscape image and maybe that's reason enough to like it.

I also took some images with the Rokinon 85mm f1.4 - but they were mostly boring rubbish - so I haven't even bothered processing them. I'll take some portraits with that lens and post them. It's really what I bought it for - not landscapes.

So despite my general photography 'funk', I enjoyed my early morning excursion with the D200 and lenses. I hope it's just the start of many more.

After the dust has settled...

It seems that all the buying and selling is now over, and I can sit back and reflect on my new kit.

I did buy a D200, and am very happy with its condition. Very good nick - low shutter count, clean lcd, and overall 8 out of 10 condition. Having used it over the last couple of weeks I have found it responsive, with very sure auto focus and quick processing times. Yes, it's a little more 'noisy' at high ISO's, but I certainly don't worry going up to 800, and would use 1600 if I absolutely had to get the shot.

So with the body out of the way, I obviously turned to lenses. And the first lens I went for, given my reasonably tight budget, was the Nikkor 18-70mm f4.5/5.6 EF-S lens.

Yes, it's a 'kit' lens - but I still maintain it's one of the best kit lenses ever built - period. I even saw it recommended by a pro wedding photographer in England as his favourite wedding lens and I have to agree. For a Nikon shooter on a budget, there's just no better walk-around, everyday medium-range lens than this beauty. For the price (I paid $250NZ) it's fast to focus, silent, smooth, well built (metal lens mount) and very sharp. It's not perfect - no lens is - and I would like VR, but you can't have everything (especially not for that price). It stays on my camera 80% of the time, and is my go-to shoot anything, walk-about lens. Brilliant.

My next lens purchase took care of the wide-angle / landscape end of my shooting needs, and is another high quality lens that I consider a real bargain - the Tokina 12 to 24mm f4. At half the price of the equivalent Nikkor, but with almost exactly the same image performance and quality construction, the Tokina is a no-brainer.

It may be a little soft at f4, but that's not what this lens is geared towards. At f5.6 through to F16 this baby is tack sharp, right where you need it to be for a landscape lens. I will probably use it on weddings for the large group shots - again at f5.6 of f8, right in the sweet spot. But it will get most of its use out in the field, shooting landscapes. I will review this lens when I get a chance and post some landscapes I take with it. Can't wait.

Early on, when deciding on the lenses to get for my new kit, I knew I wanted a 'standard' lens that was reasonably 'fast' (large aperture) that I could use in fairly low light, indoors, that could double as a portrait lens (roughly in the 80 to 90mm field of view when taking the cropped sensor of the D200 into consideration).

I figured this would be a Nikkor nifty fifty (50mm f1.8D) that I always recommend to my photography students and use a lot myself on weddings for hair, make-up, getting ready and assorted detail shots - especially in doors.

But I have always wished I had a Macro lens on these occasions as well - especially when doing detail and ring shots on a wedding - so I decided to combine both and found a 60mm f2.8D Micro Nikkor for a fantastic price - basically the same price I would have paid for the standard 50mm. What do I loose? Well - two full stops of light for a start - but after that, not much else. And to be honest, I'm often wary of using the 50mm at f1.8 because of the very shallow depth of field, so usually open up to around f2 to f2.8 anyway. And what I'm gaining, of course, is the macro capabilities - as well as a super sharp lens. I haven't tested it out yet, but I also expect it will perform well as a portrait lens, wide open, for bride and groom shots. Again, I will test the lens out for both macro and portraiture and report back.

No kit would be complete without a telephoto lens, but to be honest, it's not a lens that I use a lot. I didn't want to go for the ultra-cheap Nikkor 70-300mm G lens - the reviews aren't great and I have an aversion to lenses with plastic mounts. But since it's not a lens that was high on my priority list, I also didn't want to have to fork out almost $1k for a 70-300mm 4/5.6 VR lens!

I briefly considered the new Tamron 70-300mm with Image Stabilization and a Sonic Motor - it's getting some amazing reviews and I almost bought one. But even $600 was a bit too much for a lens I knew I wouldn't use much, so I held out until the lens that I really wanted eventually came up for auction - the Nikkor 70-300mm f4/5.6 ED.

A 'little' better built than the 'G' lens (it's got a metal lens mount) and fitted with one ED lens element, it's a lens that I've owned before, and is a solid performer (if a bit soft at 300mm). But again, for a lens that I really won't use all that often (but is there when I need it), it was an absolute steal! It cost me $150NZ - less than some of the basic 'G' lenses are going for, so I was very happy and at that price really can't complain (even with poor 300mm performance).

So that rounds out my lenses now, right? Well no, not quite. My last lens was an impulse purchase that I bought almost out of curiosity more than anything - and is very 'left of field', even for me.

While looking on-line at Trademe one night, I came across an auction for an 85mm f1.4 for $350NZ. I almost fell out of my chair and had to re-read the auction to make sure I'd read it right the first time around. An 85mm f1.4 for $350.00 is just crazy stupid - even second hand they should go for $800 to $1000 (and up). What was wrong with this one?

And then I read further and the 'catch' dawned on me - the lens was a 'Rokinon' and is only manual focus - so it's got to be crap, even at that price, right?

Just out of curiosity, I did a Google search for the Rokinon 85mm f1.8, expecting to come across numerous reviews moaning about 'horrible this', and 'rubbish that'. But instead, what I actually read were glowing reviews, very happy owners, and excellent test scores when compared with the equivalent Canon and Nikon 85mm f1.4's. I got very excited!

The Rokinon is sold in America, but is actually a Korean lens (it just seems to get worse really, doesn't it?), made by Samyang and also sold as Bower and Vivitar branded lenses. As mentioned, it is a manual focus only lens, with an aperture ring, although the Nikon version I ended up getting (yes, I couldn't help myself) does have an electronic chip that allows full aperture control on the D200. It also means that the focus confirmation dot lights up in the camera viewfinder to confirm you're in focus, so manual focus needn't necessarily be a chore without the aid of a split-focusing screen.

With so many glowing reviews, both in terms of build quality and lens quality, I just had to grab it and see for myself what this lens was like to use. I have always loved the 85mm focal length for portraits, and have owned both the Canon and Nikon versions of the 85mm f1.8. The f1.4 versions have always been far too rich for my humble bank account to cope with - but here we have an 85mm f1.4 with outstanding image quality - all be it with the 'limiting' factor of no auto focus. Is this really such a problem? Well, apart from getting it out of the box and taking two random shots indoors with it set to f1.4 (and focusing wasn't a problem), only time - and a decent hands-on test, will tell. But ironically, out of all the lenses I've purchased for the D200, this is the one that excites me the most. I can't wait to get out and take some photos with it.

So five 'new' lenses, to go with my 'new' Nikon D200. It might sound like a lot, but I got them all for really great prices on-line, and managed to sell my existing Canon gear for equally good prices (this time in my favour), so came well within budget. I even managed to buy a brand new flash - a Chinese rip-off of the Canon 580EX. But that's another blog post...

It's official - back to Nikon again!

The last couple of weeks have seen me pouring over internet reviews, blogs and brochures, trying to figure out what system I will go for if my Canon 5D has bitten the dust (and officially, as of today, it has).

My last post saw me leaning very strongly towards a Nikon D2x, and I have been following one on Trademe (NZ's version of eBay) for the last few weeks. It hasn't sold yet, but unfortunately I just don't have the cash to put down on it, and probably won't for a while.

So then there's plan B. I want to take this opportunity, with my Canon 5D gone, to make a change. Canon make great gear - don't get me wrong. I've used Canon for over 25 years. But maybe that's the problem? Canon cameras just don't really inspire me anymore. And when they do make a change - I don't really like the result (a-la 60D). The Nikon D300 I sold when the 5D got fixed was, in many ways, the better camera - for me. I really like the Nikon way of putting almost everything on a dial, button or knob on the outside of the camera - very much like the Sony (Minolta) 700 etc...

Which is why, after much thought and deliberation, I've hit upon the Nikon D200.

No - don't try to talk me out of it. And anyway, it's too late. I've already bought one, and it's arriving tomorrow. As well as the vertical grip (a must have for any kit as far as I'm concerned). And viola - a 'D2x' for half the price :-)

Unfortunately it's not coming with the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8VR shown above - I'll have to save up for that. I'm looking for a used 18-70mm 3.5/4.5 instead - a great lens in the Nikon line up that was the D70 kit lens (would you believe) but that performs way better than any kit lens has the right to.

10MP - magnesium alloy body - 11 focus points - 5fps - 2.5" LCD screen. Not bad for $500NZ.

The grand plan is to use it as my main camera for a couple of wedding seasons, and then buy a new (D400?) body and keep the D200 as a backup. Good plan I reckon.

And back to Nikon again...

So I took my Canon 5D swimming with me at the end of the last post. Bad idea.

It's been sent away to Canon for an assessment, but I can tell you now, it's one dead unit. And not only the body, but the battery grip that was attached to it, together with the 28-135mm IS lens. All kabloey!

The insurance company has already forewarned me that I'm only likely to get $2000NZ for everything, since it wasn't itemized out on our content policy (there's a trap for the uninitiated). So, of course, now my mind starts mulling over what I can actually get for 2k.

Never one to shy away from a complete system re-think, I'm now actually favoring a move back to Nikon. More specifically, the Nikon D2x.

Sexy, sexy, sexy...  :-)

Why the D2x, and not the D3x? Well yeah, the D3x would be nice - but it's also way over my price range. We are talking about twice the price, and I just can't justify that kind of expense on a body.

As it is, to make the switch I will have to sell all my accumulated Canon gear - and not necessarily replace it all with equivalent Nikon gear. I'll win some, and loose some in the process.

The money I get for the insurance claim, together with selling my 70-200mm f4L, 20-35mm, 50mm f1.8, 20D body with grip, 18-55mm EF-S, 70-300mm, 580EX flash and 420EX flash, should give me about $4500NZ to 'play' with.

A mint cond. D2x body will hit the $1.5k mark (or thereabouts), and if I add to that a Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 (for about the same price) - together with an SB700 flash and Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR, then that will about do it. Not a bad kit really.

Not bad from the back either!

What will I do for a back-up when I shoot weddings? The same thing when I owned the Nikon D300 - I'll take my wife's D70.

Why the D2x over a D300 or newer D7000? Well, that's a great question, and one that I'm still struggling with. Having already owned the D300, I know what a fantastic camera it is. I'd be more than happy with another one. And the new D7000 is getting good raps from reviewers and users alike - with outstanding high ISO performance, great handling, and a lot of 'pro' features borrowed from the D3. Sounds like the obvious choice, does it not?

Well maybe. But for me, the allure of a 'real' pro camera has its appeal. At 12.4MP it's exactly where I want to be in the megapixel race and, needless to say, it's built like the proverbial brick .....house! It's questionable at high ISO's over 800 - but I don't shoot over 800 with any camera (even when I owned the D300), and having NO video at all suits me right down to the ground. And just look at it... it's gorgeous!

When I wrote reviews for D-Photo, I had a pretty good relationship with the boss at Nikon NZ, and he loaned me a D1x (I think it was) for a few months. It was only 4MP (from memory), but the images were gorgeous, and I fell in lust with that camera. I didn't want to give it back to Nikon, but in the end they had another use for it, and we parted company. I expect the same lust for the D2x - even if it is 'old' technology - and am pretty excited about the prospect of owning such a beast!

Of course the other alternative is to look out for a Canon 1D MkII for probably around the same price and just stick with all the lenses I already have. It's a possibility, I suppose. But where's the fun in that?