Not yet they don't :^)

Used D80 no EVIL shoots like a DSLR...

Forget what I just said get eh Lumix gf1 Camera plus 20 1.7 lens. OMG i want that camera so much. The Again I am into photojournalism and street so that's my dream camera now.

I am looking forward to getting email offers from Nigerian princesses selling their "new" camera gear.

Depending on what you would be doing there I would get Nikon 50mm 1.8(or alternatively Nikon 35mm 1.8) and 70-300mm. Maybe little Nikon flash sb 400 for 100 bucks. And get a used Nikon d70s or D80. You will be good to go.

Carry all of it in a messenger bag and you should be fine.

Thanks for sharing the page Niko - it looks like the GF1 is a great camera. I was so blinded by the new Leica x1 that I forgot about this panasonic camera :)

I love using film, still do it on some occasion, but there's no way I'd take a film camera with me on a trip like this! If I was going on a photo safari I'd shot some of my Kodachrome film, but I wouldn't shoot film exclusively.

For a trip like this you NEED a small discreet camera. A friend of a friend just posted his experience of a trip to Nepal with a Panasonic GF1 and the 20mm f1.7 pancake lens. Of course Craig's skills as a photographer doesn't hurt neither.

http://craigmod.com/journal/gf1-fieldtest/

Come on Nikon when can I get a camera like this from you? Soon perhaps...

chris - the only difference is that You need film for Your f3, and it's pricey

monty - as for sand, there is a easy and cheap way to deal with it - plastic bag, and with dslr it's really a good way to save Your camera.

It depends on where in Africa you are going.
Also you can't have both excellent IQ and a camera you won't shed a tear over if it is ruined.
Among low end DSLRs Pentax offers good weather sealing in bodies and lenses but a DSLR is still an open system and this could be problematic especially if you happen to be in the sandier parts of Africa. Casio EX-G1 is a new PS for extreme conditions and i believe there are many others.

Still this gear is too expensive, and prone to failure, in my opinion. Why bother with a leica x1's sluggish response times when you can pick up an F3 for 10% of the cost? or if you want a rangefinder, a Voigtlander R series camera, or hell, even a FED or Zorki is hard to break if you get a good one, but that may be too old school for you.

I still say go with the F3, it's compatible with nearly every lens made by niikon (pre-ai up through anything that isn't a G lens), and will be really hard to break. And if you drop it and the viewfinder gets screwed, you can buy another prism for it at relatively little loss. Think about it this way, the lower cost digitals you're being recommended are closer to entry level cameras, the older film bodies I'm talking about were built as professional level, take it it the face everyday and still come out on top, bodies. They are far less likely to fail on you, or get stolen than an impressive looking new digital slr.

I would go for d5000 with the 16-85+70-300vr and leica x1 (as a carry with me 24/7/365 camera), if You can't afford both go for leica x1.

Building off Chris, I'd say get F4/F5 and a D3000/D40. For cheaper lenses, 50 1.8, 70-300 VR, and Sigma 10-20 (DX only, but I love mine enough to recommend it).

I don't know how invested you are in digital, but you could buy a Nikon F3 or F4 (the 5 would be big, and looks current, and by association, expensive), and get a top-flight body that would be well sealed and up to nearly any environment. invest in a few prime lenses (35/2, 50/1.4, and 105/1.8) and you're probably not out a lot more than the cost of a D90 with 18-55 for the whole package, depending on whether they're manual or autofocus lenses (I use the manual variants of all those previously mentioned, among others, and an AF 50/1.4)

Film is hopefully not to hard to get, but you could get a bunch in advance (75 rolls of Tri-X and 25 rolls of Plus-X, and 50 rolls of whatever color neg or slide film you might want, or whatever combination may please you).

The advantage to this is you are less likely to get robbed, and if you mail your film back to the USA or wherever, you'll know your images are secure until you get back. You'll probably become a better photographer in the process too.

If this doesn't sound attractive to you, then, yeah, do what the those above have said :)

Do you know whet the conditions there will be like? I first call would be to take to D700. At some time there will be some shot where you'll wish you had it.

I've volunteered in Uganda 4 times (3 weeks each). 1st time I took my Fuji S2 with a 24-120. We made it to a wildlife preserve and was glad I had that minimum of a setup. The last time I had my D300. we were lucky in that the place we stayed had locking metal cabinets. So I had some assurance of security.

Yeah like no one ever agrees with what I say right PacEagle.

Chad I understand you don't want to give up photography while you're over there, but that just might happen if your "fancy" photo equipment gets stolen. The potential for thief isn't just while your walking around sight seeing. Your stuff will be vulnerable while it's sitting at the apartment/hotel/dorm waiting for you to get back.

If you think you'll always carry your bag with you then that will also advertise that what you have is valuable. Crime is every where and in any country, don't think this only applies to Africa, however the less you look like a tourist the better. A small camera as I describe won't get noticed as easily as a "large" DSLR and a bag full of lenses.Since you have a year before you leave hopefully Nikon will have a G11 or ,better yet, a Leica X1 like camera by then.

Here's a story of a guy who also went overseas to do volunteer work. All of his gear got stolen the first week he was there. So he learned his lesson and disguised a digital point & shoot as a worthless film camera. Of course he was volunteering in some pretty bad neighborhoods but perhaps you'll take his advice if not mine.

http://jimmieprodgers.com/2009/05/my-ugly-camera/

One thing I would say is to try to get a single, good quality lens. If you're worried about it getting stolen or "misplaced" then having an extra lens just means you have one more big piece to constantly carry around, or one more big piece to get stolen.

Chad, While I agree with Niko (did I just Say that!!??) a really good P&S would be my first choice if I was worried I would get robbed over there, unless it was a trip specifically for Photography or assignment.

But if its a year a way, then you have time. There will be lots of deals online, EBAY and the like. People will be unloading lots of cameras by the time you leave. If you slowly purchase what you want over the coming months when good deal comes along, then I see no reason why you couldn't save even more money. Remember there will be new lenses and bodies coming out over the next 6-8 months and prices will drop on the older ones. Pick up used if need be, you'll save even more, and in the end you'll have a decent back up to your D700.

and a bit of guidence for going there! I was there a couple of times, and they do look for individuals to "ROLL" it happens all the time. So your worries are justified. If you can, never travel alone, always with one or more others, and always pay attention to your surroundings, it will help to avoid getting beaten and robbed. Just FYI.

Good Luck, and let me be the first to say the peace Corps is a amazing Commitment, Good for you.

PE

Well i definitely think that the 16-85 would be a good option. Thanks for reminding me ted2001, I was so used to FX that i forgot about that option. I don't know what body. I don't think I would want a D300s cause of the price. So i guess a D90 or D5000 would be the models to choose from. I don't know if i would want the 70-300 VR or not, I think i would be more inclined to buy a second body of the same model for IR conversion.

Good point soap. You can get a D5000 w/ 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR for $1000 and the D3000 kit for a couple of hundred less. Both of those lenses use 52mm filters for convenience too. Add the 35/1.8 and you'd have great versatility.

What about getting insurance on his D700?

Please excuse me if I'm being naive.

EDIT: Yeah, I guess I'm being naive :^(

The Dx00 series bodies are sealed tighter than the Dx0 ones, and any of the IF primes, such as the 35mm F/1.8 AFS do not inhale or exhale (dirty) air.
A lens like that on a D300 would be neigh impervious to crap.
Else I need to know what your budget is, and how much you are willing to NOT get back. If you are willing to "sacrifice" $300 the 18-55 / 55-200 combo mentioned above are among Nikon's best bang-for-the-bucks and cover a huge range on DX for not much money. Wost-come-to-worst they are both trashed and you're out only a few pennies. ;)

I understand your dilemma. The D90, 16-85 and 70-300 VR is just about $2000. A lot of money, but less than your D700 body. If any camera of reasonable value would pose an unacceptable risk, get inexpensive P&S's and treat them as semi-disposable.

Yea,
I realize that this isn't going to be a photo safari, but photography is such a big part of my life i don't know if the pen cameras would cut it. Plus i would imagine that it is more showy that a DSLR. I am willing to sacrifice a lot for 2 years, but photography isn't one of them.

Maybe D3000 with 18-55 and 55-200?

I would actually recommend you take a small point & shoot. Unless you are on assignment specifically for photography a DSLR isn't a good idea. It will attract attention and the less gear you take the better. If you want better image quality, then get an olympus E-P1/2 or a Panasonic GF1. I really wish Nikon had a similar camera I could recommend :^(

Remember this won't be like a photo safari.

The D90 with 16-85 could be all you'd need. I usually travel with much more, but I'm happy enough with the combination that it really wouldn't be a huge sacrifice. Besides think how light you'd be traveling! If you added the 70-300 VR, you'd have great range, plus both use 67mm filters.