[edl]

I've never understood this attitude. If I don't bring a tripod I don't deserve to take photos? My camera is quite big enough without a tripod, and the more shots I can get without one the better.

I didn't say that. I'm in the "no-tripod" camp as well - I simply truly don't understand what you would be taking a photo of at with your camera set to 1/4sec, F/1.4, and ISO3200?

I've used my D700 at ISO6400 at night, on the street, in the bar etc. 1/15s, F/1.4, that kind of thing. Yes, it takes photos. But honestly, any subject matter you chose to capture with those settings (wide open, slow shutter, high ISO) would look a lot better with proper lighting, lower ISO, and stopped down aperture. So sometimes you, as the photographer, have to evaluate and decide if you've really put enough effort into making a good photo. That's all I'm saying - do you disagree?

Again, I'm still trying to figure out what subject would absolutely require 1/4s, F/1.4, and ISO3200. Simple question...where's the simple answer.

[drougge]

Well, I don't know specifically what the photo would be of, but it gets dark here in Sweden. I don't much take photos at f/1.4, but I do fail to take many photos at something like f/2.4 because my camera (K20D) doesn't have good enough high iso. (So I cap it at iso 1600 and get shutter times of several seconds. Quite regularly in shots of whatever at night. If it's not illuminated I can't shoot it, and probably still wouldn't be able to with a K-5.)

Plus of course hand held macro. Not the question, but a good reason why you can never have good enough high iso.

But the short answer to your question is "anything not illuminated at night, shot by someone who likes thin DOF", I guess.

[Jonson PL]

Ohh so when polycarbonate is used on a Pentax camera. It's because it's a well thought out engineering decision but when its used on a Nikon its because its used to cut cost right? Obviously none of the material advantages of plastics used by Pentax carry over for plastics used by Nikon.

The polycarbonate notion is my personal opinion. I had good experience with the high end film cam Z-1P, I’ve dropped it, tossed it, it has been hit hard by rocks, etc. Nothing I could do, could keep it from functioning. I think what has helped, was that plastic absorbed more impact and that it was built for high-end use.

Both my film SLR and my friends high-end Nikon SLR was carried in a tent across rocks by wind. My friends camera was the high-end Nikon F90X with Magnesium. It might have been hit harder by the rocks, but it didn’t handle the pressure well, whereas my cam managed. I thought that it might have had to do with polycarbonate in high built quality cam. So for me, there was little to dictate that a camera needed mag alloy.

Of cause it is more expensive with magnesium alloy, and likely one of the reasons we hadn’t seen it with Pentax earlier. The solution with full integrated shell, is generally considered better than sheet metal plates. The D7000 doesn’t have side or bottom magnesium plates.
The midrange Nikons had fairly sturdy, lightweight aluminium and plastic casing. Though it was always recommended that if used with high-end optics, to remember to pick up the kit by the lens and not by camera. Cause though the mounting was metal, it could be ripped from the alu subframe, if too much pressure applied.

The rigid inner steel casing has been with Pentax ever since the original *Ist D. One of the reasons I went DSLR with Pentax, was all the stories of how people had also put their DSLRs through a lot of hardship and they had still managed to keep on clicking.

Klaus, the owner of Photozone.de, describes it :
The D7000 has "magnesium-alloy top and rear cover". The K-5/7 has also front and bottom plates made of metal. It is also likely that it has more seals.
The K-5/7 is a D300 class body, the D7000 is an upgraded D90 or downgraded D300, whatever you wish.



The press release for the D300 stated :
The D300 is also designed for a high level of dust and water resistance.

For the D7000, it was stated :
has durable sealing against dust and moisture.

I’ve used my K10 in hard driving rain. I wouldn’t blink, putting a D300 through the same. But I would be concerned to try it with the D7000

[lock2nl]

Nikon Amateurlenses with seal on the mount are not weatherproof!
They are dustproof in that area,but not the complete tube.
The Prolenses are same weather and dirtproof like Pentax*lenses.

Thanks for the info

I would not bet on that. I use a D300 with the 70-200 VR, and the latter is definitely a PRO lens. This lens (and also the 200-400 VR) rotates on the mount for about 1/2 a mm, and the fit to the mount of these lenses is not perfect. Problems with lens contacts are far from uncommon with Nikon, but most often easily solved when dirty. But in very dry air (e.g. in freezing weather) the contact issue pops up more often, and you have to move the lens on the mount to regain contact. In moisty weather ( like today...) I've been surprized how easily the rear lens element fogs up. The combo has been with Nikon, and they did improve it a bit. But the remaining play should be considered as typical for this mount with heavy lenses. My Sigma -my all day walk around lens- sits on the mount like a rock, but has considerable less weight.
To me the WR-king is still Pentax.


lock

[Jonson PL]

I didn't say that. I'm in the "no-tripod" camp as well - I simply truly don't understand what you would be taking a photo of at with your camera set to 1/4sec, F/1.4, and ISO3200?

I've used my D700 at ISO6400 at night, on the street, in the bar etc. 1/15s, F/1.4, that kind of thing. Yes, it takes photos. But honestly, any subject matter you chose to capture with those settings (wide open, slow shutter, high ISO) would look a lot better with proper lighting, lower ISO, and stopped down aperture. So sometimes you, as the photographer, have to evaluate and decide if you've really put enough effort into making a good photo. That's all I'm saying - do you disagree?

Again, I'm still trying to figure out what subject would absolutely require 1/4s, F/1.4, and ISO3200. Simple question...where's the simple answer.

I agree with your general notion. Having a tripod, or flooding the scene with quality light, are good options.
I think the possibility of low shutterspeed, has to do with widening the scope of photographic possibility. Even as specs improve, we'll just continue to be able to snap photos in a realm that wasn't possible earlier, after dusk, pre-dawn etc.
Several of the photos that have been specially commended in this year's BBC Wildlife Photographer of the year, are action shots taking at around 1/5 sec. And they are not panning shots. Movement can add to a photo, and bring new quality.
(This is of cause, with the Nikon VR tele lenses).

I like to continue to take photos even though light level is very low, and I'll be pushing up against the boundaries, having to cope with higher Iso, slower shutter speed and wide open performance.
Personally I would love to have the clean good looking high Iso of the D700. But for now, I also really like the help that SR provides for me.

Benjikan also showed some impressive work, with the aura effect. Using flash, but then turning the camera fast some times, around the center of the lens. The pictures remained sharp, but with the slower shutter speed, he was able to create an aura around the silhouette.

Here is a link to preview of some of the BBC wildlife images :
Veolia Environnement Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2010 | BBC Wildlife Magazine
(Nr. 3, 8 and 9, are some of the ones I mentioned).
Of the 12 wildlife pictures selected in first of the best sneak preview , 4 were with shutter times from 1/5 - 1/13 of a second. The frontpage of the upcoming portfolio magazine will be with a lion dawn kill, using 1/5 sec. shutter time. The photographer particularly wanted some emphasis of movement. As one of the judges comment, “… this unusual portrait seems to reveal the emotional content of the moment rather than merely its visual aspect”
Of cause going for slow shutter speed, you need to be very good, and know your subject. But it seems to be able to pay off.

In the editorial of this years competition, they stated how they were desperate to see something new. I guess the point is, how anybody can take a sharp picture of a lion, but few can manage meaningful photos involving movement, or taken at times where hardly anybody else is out. I guess it has helped for some this year, to make their picture stand out.