Bad weather halts play

The bad weather over the last week has pretty much stopped play. Normally I am out in most weathers regardless and some of your best shots can come in the worst weather but one thing that really halts photography is a gale force wind.

I have a heavy trip (I know, I carry it) and a heavy lens and camera set up and it was getting blown about (I caught it before it went over). Hand holding was not an option owing to poor light - even with the 2.8 lens I was struggerly to get about 1/125 with most shots needs 1/60 at ISO400. I am reluctant to go above 400 using 800 only when I am in danger of missing a really great shot. I am keen to see the results of the new Nikon D3 and D300 in the field as I think they may have nailed this. The problem is that the new D300's lowest ISO is 200 and when 100 is often too fast for landscapes this brings a problem to the landscape element of my photography.

In wildlife I often have too little light and in landscape too much. Of course with the D200 the landscape situation isn't too bad with ISO100 and f16 being quite normal, the application of an ND or ND grad or combinations thereof usually solves the problem.

Perhaps a D300 or D3 might prove a good investment but I want to give it a while of the market to settle and firmware teething problems (non reported so far) to be resolves. There is almost always a firmware update within 4 months of release for most cameras and I think about 6 months should see the market settle.

It amuses me how many of the magazines are saying the D300 is a replacement for the D200, its logical given that the D200 replaced the D100 but Nikon have kept production and supply of the D200 going so I think they are going to run alongside. This makes sense given the ISO problem I outlined above. For the pro on a budget it makes perfect sense to have a D300 and a D200 running alongside on another.

For the pro with excess cash then depending on their speicalist fields it would make sense to have a D3 and either a D200 or D300. But, most pros will already own a D2 as backup to the D3. Having said that though - the D200 is actually far superior in many situations than the D2.

What would I have in an ideal world? I don't know. I like the look of the D3 and getting a full frame sensor would be great in most respects but does do away with the advantage of the 1.5x equivalent magnification gained on lenses of the APS-C sized chip. With a D200/300 a 500mm lens becomes a 750mm. With the D3 - 500 is 500.

If I had a D3 I would probably need a longer lens again or a teleconverter. I would be tempted by the teleconverter option as the extra light loss will not be felt as the D3 is so impressive in high ISOs upto 1600. ISO800 would be usuable almost as the default setting (in winter when light is at a premium).

So, should a windfall come my way then I am not sure. A D300, a very small compromise and £2,500 in the pocket or a D3 and a teleconverter....... hmmm.....

Take care out there, watch for the black ice

jan