Airlines are all the same. They steal (it doesn't get lost someone has it) your stuff no matter what it is and then they give you a bag of peanuts. Maybe. A bit harsh maybe but $50 for a $2,000 laptop.

I can never fly United if you can never fly Delta...

framer

For anyone thinking about the 200-400, plan on a monopod as well. Yes, it can be handheld, but I promise that you don't really want to. I love it, and use it a lot. But it is big.
In order of weight:

80-400 - 2.99lbs
300 f/4 - 3.17lbs
70-200 f/2.8 - 3.39lbs
300 f/2.8 - 6.39lbs
200 f/2 - 6.46lbs
200-400 f/4 - 7.40lbs
500 f/4 - 8.50lbs
400 f/2.8 - 10.16lbs
600 f/4 - 11.16lbs

Starting from scratch, I'd still get the 200-400 as part of my kit, its just way too useful. I'd also love to have the 600, but I'd buy a whole bunch of other glass first.

Starting from scratch I'd probably go with used Canon gear. :-P

Update:

United offered me a $1000 certificate redeemable for a plane ticket that I will never buy.

Lawyer time.

Moral of the story: never, EVER check your camera gear. EVER. If they tell you that you can't board with it, then DON'T. It would have been cheaper to miss my flight. Hell, it would have been cheaper to buy a car and drive home.

Second moral: do not ever, EVER fly with United.

@sevencrossing - ignoring the costs I would go for two lens solution: N200-400/4 and N600/4 (or N800/5.6) for the extreme end. I have the old N70-200/2.8vr and love this lens with TC14 (on d800 or TC17 on D3s), I had the old II version of TC20 and didn't liked it too much - pictures were too soft. would love to try the new v.III of TC20 but unless I buy it it's not available in my area and can't justify to spend $600 on it (as that's the price over here)

msmoto said:

Yes, this probably needs a new thread... and I will leave it up to someone to start it maybe with a title, "Photographing wild animals, birds, no limits" Probably falls under "Things to do if I win the lotto", ha, ha, ha....

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=8053#post-107583

Let me jump back in and say, the 400mm f/2.8 can be hand held...monopod. And same w/ 2X. With the D4 and I am guessing possibly the D400 being able to focus at f/8, the 500mm, lighter weight, less money, and with the 1.4x able to get out to 700mm...this is nice as well. Then Adam drops in the 800mm f/5.6. I do hope the new Nikkor is as sharp as the 400mm f/2.8. And that with the TC-14EII (or maybe a new TC-14EIII?) this puts us out at 1120 or on a D400 at a phenomenal 1680mm of effective focal length..... lots to talk about here....

Yes, this probably needs a new thread... and I will leave it up to someone to start it maybe with a title, "Photographing wild animals, birds, no limits" Probably falls under "Things to do if I win the lotto", ha, ha, ha....

adamz said:
I'm glad I didn't got the 300/2.8 and save the cash as 300mm it's a great focal length but too short for my needs. right now I'm in the process of persuading my wife (need to get her LV:) - though the upgrade process is extremely painful) to buy 200-400 and glue a 1.4 TC on the end for a versatile zoom. though, the ideal package for my style photography would be to get either the 600mm/4.0 or the new 800/5.6

Not too sure if this needs a new thread

The only long lens I have is a 70 -200 f2.8 with a x2

This "sort of works" but It needs stopping down to f 8 and even then is a bit soft

The 200-400 will allow me shoot at f4 but I sometimes need something longer eg 600mm Yes I can add a x 1.4 but all the reviews I have read, suggest converts are better on primes than zooms

i can't help noticing, the 400mm f 2.8 ( + converters) is used by a lot of pro sport and wild life photographers but it is big and expensive

The compromise is the 300 f 2.8 but with a x 2 it will only be f5.6

Adam ignoring cost and weight, would you still go for the 200-400

+1 msmoto, for a beginner 200-400 is much more versatile than 400/2.8.

300/2.8 is also a good choice though it's a question of preferences: fixed vs zoom. for a long time a was lining towards 300mm/2.8 fixed, though I couldn't afford the 2.8 I got the 4.0 and... I'm glad I didn't got the 300/2.8 and save the cash as 300mm it's a great focal length but too short for my needs. right now I'm in the process of persuading my wife (need to get her LV:) - though the upgrade process is extremely painful) to buy 200-400 and glue a 1.4 TC on the end for a versatile zoom. though, the ideal package for my style photography would be to get either the 600mm/4.0 or the new 800/5.6

as for the difference between 600 vs 800, once again it all depends, IMHO the difference is significant.

@DaveyJ - +1000000000 - "...I'll leave you my friends with THIS ONE thought, imagine going out and buying a D800 and big lens upgrade and then not being at the right place at the right time for say 2 years..."
I would say even more, there is less difference that people may think between d3200 and d800 and between 5.6 lenses vs 2.8. being there with even the cheapest current Nikon setup is worth much more than having the latests and greatest body on a shelf.

No question the 200-400mm f/4 is more versatile than the 400mm f/2.8 And with the D4 the TC-20EIII is usable. When I bought my 400mm f/2.8 no D4 was around, and f/2.8 was needed to use the TC-20EIII.

Now, I think the 300mm f/2.8 is maybe a wiser choice as the difference between 600mm and 800mm is not that much. And the 200-400 as well as the 300 can be hand held. The 400 is a bit too much at least for me to hand hold.

Just my opinion...or maybe the 500mm f/4.0.... if one wants to be way out there....think APS-C and TC-20EIII on a D400 which will focus at f/8, yeah!

@donalddejose: I have been in the field with photographers shootings pics of big Brown Bears. Nothing is worth less than a 400mm lens when a bear is close to you. I have been in places and situations a 70-300VR was not used and a 12-24 would have been the ticket. Platform (distant) photos of wildlife have their limitations. I also think a Nikkor 200-400 is way superior to the 400mm in platform shooting or say on safari. I have heard in the field repeatedly the D400 might be far superior to the D800 (or D700) for wildlife. I base this on having seen a number of slideshows after a shooting day. The 400mm shooters have VERY good images of one thing (usually closeups) of an animals face and not much more. They often have hundreds of images that look pretty much the same.
A lot of this depends if you MUST stay in the sidelines. Say being at a football game and you aren't one of the players. The players don't have cameras on them, and to be honest every time i look at an event like that I see thousands of photos being taken of the same event. Overkill in my opinion. I have seen old men plowing a field with a mule that would have yielded more human interest material than most sports shooters get. I would point out that MOST of the famous photographers in the past were not shooting say basketball games.
I do think a lot of advice I often hear given is use the gear I use. I guess I would say look at an industry and see what is successful and use that.
I agree with donalddejose that starting probably would be D3200 or D5100. Still I'd recommend a D7000 to start myself if one could afford it and they were going to go at it seriously.
From what I can tcole1983 is already got pretty close to the right everything.
I'll leave you my friends with THIS ONE thought, imagine going out and buying a D800 and big lens upgrade and then not being at the right place at the right time for say 2 years. I think ALL of us on NR put a lot of thought, effort, and money on gear.

spraynpray said:
Agreed and as demonstrated by your shots on PAD, you don't need to upgrade that body yet.

Ha, well thanks. I don't necessarily need per say...but I still want ;) LOL especially with all these people and their D800's and D4's...I either need some more MP or FPS to keep up :P

msmoto said:
...... Once this is solved by a new technology,.

There is a camera using new technology being developed by David Brady and Michael J. Fitzpatrick, professor of Electric Engineering at Duke's Pratt School of Engineering, along with scientists from the University of Arizona, and the University of California.

The consumer version is probably 10-20 years away. My gut feeling a new type of camera will come along, which will blow away our existing kit, in the same way Digital blew away film

As a potential buyer of the OMD, X Pro-1, Nex 7 etc., I have done some checking, particularly looking at the high ISO and examining the shadow detail. The OMD above ISO 1600 is absent of anything in the shadows. The OMD and NEX 7 are dead at 6400 while the Fuji is very nice, almost as much detail as the D4, of course not as much resolution. This is checked out at dpreview on the studio comparison tool. If one pulls the enlarged image over to the end of the colored scale in the dark blues/reds, it becomes apparent what I have observed.

And the problem with all these non DSLRs is the continuous servo focusing...basically absent. This makes the cameras useless for action shots which require a follow focus ability. Once this is solved by a new technology, by Nikon or someone, we will see (IMO) a total change in the small format camera lineup.

Oh, I would replace my Yugo with a Cayenne Turbo S :-)

Starting from scratch??

Things i would not change

D800

16-35mm f4 ; 24 -120mm f 4 105 f2.8 macro

The things I would change, would depend on budget

Replace 16 mm f2.8 fish eye with 14mm f/2.8

Replace 70 -200 f2.8 and x 2 converter with 200-400 f4

My second camera is a D700 I would buy another D800 or may be a D4

I use several SB900s I would buy at least one SB910 but would probably replace the others with with Quantum Q's

Bags

Keep the Lowepro Flip side

but replace Lowepro Magnum with a Peli

I would not replace the P7100 just stick to my iPhone

Repalce Skoda with Range Rover :)

Traveling photos, mostly in good light? D3200 or D5100 Body has plenty of pixels for all reasonable enlargements. 18-55 plus 55-200 (or 55-300) zooms or an 18-200 zoom plus a 35mm 1.8 lens for low light conditions. SB400 or SB600 or SB700 flash. Extra batteries for camera and flash. Many Extra SD cards (good to not have all photos from the entire trip on one SD card). You want small light equipment which can all be kept in a fanny pack for in part of a backpack. You will be traveling and snapping as you move quickly from place to place so you don't need tripods, heavy bodies capable of 10 fps or exotic heavy lenses. If you want to be in some of your own photos you can add a very small table top tripod which will allow you to place the camera on a table and aim it at yourself. Keep all your gear with you at all times protected in a fanny pack or small back pack and you wont' need a magnesium body or professional heavy duty metal lenses. After all, the trip isn't going to last more than a month or two, is it? Plastic bodies and lenses will surely last that long. In fact, the plastic body is likely to be technically outdated long before the plastic breaks. How many perfectly working D40s, D40xs, D60s, etc do you think are now sitting in drawers unused? Lots.

A kit for home studio or landscapes. Start with the D800 and add the highest quality glass you can afford. If money is an issue you can start with a 35mm 1.8, a 50mm 1.8 and an 85mm 1.8. If money isn't an issue you can start with the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 and then add the 135 f2 DC lens. Less expensive zooms are the old 35-70mm f2.8 (maybe $500 used?) and 80-200 f2.8mm (maybe %800 used?) zooms. Purchase a very solid tripod and cable release (or remote release).

A kit for sports photography. If you are shooting outdoors in good light you can start with a D7000 body. If you are going to shoot indoors in bad light you should start with a D3s or D4 body if you can afford them. A D400 body may work when it comes out if it has clean high ISO performance. Add professional f2.8 lenses if you can and a 35mm or 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 lens.

A kit for wildlife photography. Start with a D800 body. A D400 body would be an option when and if that camera ever surfaces. Add professional f2.8 lenses such as the 24-70 and 70-200. For small wildlife, such as birds, or dangerous wildlife, such as grizzly bears you will be needing at least a 300mm f4 and more likely a 400mm f2.8. And you will need a very solid tripod.

These are starting points and most likely quite common knowledge among NR readers. The only surprise is perhaps the suggestion to go cheap and light for travel rather than take heavy, expensive, exotic equipment you cannot carry with you all the time. The resolution of Nikon's D3200 and D5100 have improved to the point where they will be all you need whenever you have good light. Remember Galen Rowell would run mountain trials with only a Nikon FM body and a wide angle lens. He kept it light and simple. We have even better and lighter gear than he had available to him.

I still wouldn't jump ship, I still enjoy shooting with my D40 and if I were to change bodies, I'd still buy a D7000 were I to upgrade.

But I'd certainly give the OM-D a long hard look if I hadn't had a DSLR in the first place.

tcole1983 said:
Good luck R&R. I can't stand to fly anymore. I have been stranded 4 of the last 5 times I have flown (Salt Lake, Chicago x2, St Luis)...so I try to avoid it when all possible.

If I had to start over now from scratch I would probably get what I have now. Except a D7000 instead of a D5000. I think I have a pretty good DX setup with some of the best lenses out there...35 F1.8, 17-55 F2.8, 105 F2.8, and 300 F4.

Agreed and as demonstrated by your shots on PAD, you don't need to upgrade that body yet.

NSXType-R said:
Starting from scratch, I probably wouldn't even buy a Nikon product. I'd probably buy an Olympus OM-D with the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 lens.

I really like the small size of it and it really looks like a FM2.

As much as I like DX products, there really hasn't been anything new in terms of DX lenses- nothing fast and small like the 35mm 1.8. Yes there has been a bunch of macro lenses, but nothing mind blowing really.

WOW - that's a surprise NSX!

I looked hard at the OMD and decided that - for me - it was riding on the wave started by the OM1. The M4/3rds sensor is just not big enough for me, I'm struggling with the DoF from DX. Plus it is too small for my old hands now. It's smaller than a D3200 which is too small for me.

When larger full frame electronic viewfinder mirrorless bodies come out, I'm there!

Starting from scratch, I probably wouldn't even buy a Nikon product. I'd probably buy an Olympus OM-D with the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 lens.

I really like the small size of it and it really looks like a FM2.

As much as I like DX products, there really hasn't been anything new in terms of DX lenses- nothing fast and small like the 35mm 1.8. Yes there has been a bunch of macro lenses, but nothing mind blowing really.

Good luck R&R. I can't stand to fly anymore. I have been stranded 4 of the last 5 times I have flown (Salt Lake, Chicago x2, St Luis)...so I try to avoid it when all possible.

If I had to start over now from scratch I would probably get what I have now. Except a D7000 instead of a D5000. I think I have a pretty good DX setup with some of the best lenses out there...35 F1.8, 17-55 F2.8, 105 F2.8, and 300 F4.

If I were starting out now, I would go for the same body (D7000), but would have gone for all Nikon FX pro quality fast glass from 12-400mm plus the 105VR Micro. Controversially, the 105 would be my only prime.

Oh dear, now I've written it, I will probably start working towards it. Thanks a LOT!

msmoto said:
@R8R.... can you give us a model number for the Lowepro Omni Trekker? I was looking for it on B & H and could not find exactly what you are talking about.

It's been discontinued for some time. They occasionally pop up on Ebay. The 'Omni' series were four different sized bags, each would fit into a corresponding Lowepro or Pelican case. The Trekker was the largest of these, (fits into a Pelican 1550) down to the 'Sport' (fits into a Pelican 1450).

Some time back the air lines tried to take my gear. I asked for $10,000 in insurance and they told me to keep moving. I have a Tamrac Cyberpack 8 it's deep and also holds my 17" laptop. Very,very sorry for your lost gear.

@R8R.... can you give us a model number for the Lowepro Omni Trekker? I was looking for it on B & H and could not find exactly what you are talking about.