I personally can't take the D3 14-24, 24-70, and a longer lens like the 70-300 on a hike or walking around a city all day. It weighs a ton.
For me, if I'm going to use the D3 and some heavy Nikon glass the situation has to be:
1) Will be near the car most of the time and can pick up/drop off lenses as needed.
or
2) Pick just one heavy lens and maybe a couple of light ones for the day. Great light lenses include the Tamron 24-75 f2.8, the 28-80G, the 50 f1.8.
For hiking I find the Panasonic G1, 7-14, 14-45, 45-200, and 20mm f1.7 an amazing kit. Really light, really versatile and gives beautiful results. Not as perfect as the D3 and its heaviest lenses, but very very good.
I think you have to be honest with yourself and ask yourself what kind of photographer you are. Do you often take the time and make the effort to position yourself optimally, set up a tripod, fiddle with settings like custom white balance or spot metering to get the highest quality, usually static, shot? If so a FF body and heavy lenses may be your best option.
Or are you basically on the trip/spending the day enjoying yourself and want to get great pictures while you're at it? Is what makes your pictures great capturing the decisive moment? The perfect facial expression? The unexpected creative composition? Reacting quickly to the surprising opportunity? Then your pictures may not need to be as incredibly technically perfect as all that heavy gear can do -- you just need to be in the right of frame of mind (i.e. not tired, not in pain) and the Panasonic could be just the ticket.
I moved from the 5D MKI and used lenses like the 17-40, 24-105, 16-35 MKII and 70-200 f/2.8. Now have a Nikon kit that includes the D700, D3, 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200.
If I was looking for a lightweight kit for travel photography, I would go with the Canon gear, the f/4 lenses are great, the 17-40mm is great value and the new 70-200mm f/4 is reported to be sharper than the f/2.8 version which I found to be a great lens and better than the Nikon MKi version for landscape (can resolve finer details).
I had the 24-105mm, however a 5x zoom is going to have to suffer in some department and it is at the wide end, it has horrible barrel distortion and it was a lens I never loved, just used because it was handy. One problem with the 5Ds is they have no built in flash, the D700 is useful as you can use it for a bit of pop up flash, okay never going to be as good as hotshoe flash but still means you can leave the flash behind but with the Canon you have to hope you don't need it.
As the for the Nikon, one reason to go for it is the better build of the body and high ISO quality. If you tend to get your gear wet or shot without a tripod then the D700 might be a better camera for you. As for the 14-24mm and 24-70mm, yes they are stella lenes, but put them in a bag with a 70-200mm and you have quite a bit of weight, not too bad if in a backpack, but a shoulder bag you start to feel it. I went round Venice with the above kit, and to be honest I gave up after a day carrying it around, instead I scouted the area first, and then went back later with specific lenses to get the shot.
If you want the Nikon body, then you could look at either the 14-24mm with the 50mm, or if you want a broder focal range and cut down on the weight the 17-35mm and 70-180mm macro zoom might be worth looking at.
I think another important thing would be if you have a load carrying system you are happy with. I recently found one that I know I could load rocks into and I would still be comfortable on the trail all day long.
I bought a 3rd party strap for my camera for when I do keep it slung around my neck, and as long as I stay in a reasonable amount of shape between trips, there isn't much of a problem climbing up mountains with the gear I want to have with me.
I still need to replace my Manfrotto 055XPROB beast with a carbon fiber version, but the price on those CF tripods!!! That will have to wait until just before I hit Nepal next year.
millsart wrote:
Have to remember though Vern that its all really relative.
On one hand having the best possible gear for a once in a lifetime shot is great, but on the other, would a lighter kit mean your actually there to experience more once in a lifetime moments ?
I agree 1000%! That's why I still have my GH1 for mountaineering, skiing and long backpacking trips. Like others have pointed out, sometimes you are focusing on just 'getting out' and other times on just 'getting the shot'. I think the two are very different. Looking back at some of my pictures from over the past summer I kind of wish I had the FF gear, but I never would have carried it with me so the point is moot.
Actually getting a shot is still more important than what you take the shot with!
millsart wrote:
What its a question of is can you still enjoy yourself with such gear, and also is the point of the trip even to enjoy yourself or not ?
I think you hit the important point here.
If I'm going to get paid for a shoot, I want the very best with me, too bad about the weight. If I'm on vacation though, not so much. Sure, a full DX kit of a 10-20/17-55/70-200, tripod and macro lens will produce awesome shots for me, but carrying just a single body, 18-200vr and 10-20 means after an 8 hour hike I'm jumping out of bed the next morning to do it again.
If you have to look at the pictures you took to remember a hike, you were carrying too much weight.
I moved from a 5D with 24-105 and a 17-40. I used to take this combo backpacking and traveling all the time. It was a bit heavy, but still very manageable, gave a great range and the images were just incredible. I've now switched to a d700, 24-70, 35mm and 24-85. While I absolutely love the d700, I don't take it out nearly as much as I did the Canon gear. The d700 alone is a brick of a camera, and with the 24-70 on there it's just unmanageable for hiking trips especially because it's so nose heavy. I've also been using the 24-85, but it's just ok compared to the Canon 24-105 and lacks IS which is a bummer. Also, they really have nothing to offer as a substitute for the 17-40L. I'm really hoping Nikon comes out with some lighter f/4 zooms soon. I really love the d700 and I enjoy using it much more then the 5D (It's much better wedding camera), but there is just no getting around the fact that Nikon doesn't have a decent replacement to the 24-105, 17-40 combo.
I've also been thinking about getting a g1 or maybe a lighter Nikon body but can't seem to put together a kit I'm happy with at a reasonable price.
rubberband wrote:
I think you hit the important point here.
If I'm going to get paid for a shoot, I want the very best with me, too bad about the weight. If I'm on vacation though, not so much. Sure, a full DX kit of a 10-20/17-55/70-200, tripod and macro lens will produce awesome shots for me, but carrying just a single body, 18-200vr and 10-20 means after an 8 hour hike I'm jumping out of bed the next morning to do it again.
If you have to look at the pictures you took to remember a hike, you were carrying too much weight....Show more →
I agree, that is why I take my travel camera on long hikes: D90 with 18-200 lense.
Interesting side note: when I take a camera on a hike, I have to stop walking and thus appreciate the scenery much more.
There are also two other factors. 1. I cannot afford to loose my D3 work cameras on an unpaid trip. 2. Professional gear attracts thieves and panhandlers.
I will have to rethink this when I get my D700x or D800. The 14-24 will definetly be paired with the 24mp camera and I expect the increased picture quality will justify the extra weight.
My travel kit consists of the D700, 12-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 VR plus flash, filters, CF cards, spare battery etc. I carry all in my backpack. If I feel I don't need it for the day's shoot i leave the 70-200 at "base camp" for the day. I have stopped uuing my shoulder bag because of the wieght of the sytem. With the backpack weight is not an issue for a full day.
when I want to travel light, I take a D40x+18-200VR, when I want to travel light with the best gear possible, I take my D3+Tamron 28-75 2.8, and I add the 14-24 and the 70-200VR. I also hike with a lot of gear (two bodies, all the heavy lenses including a 200-400VR...), as an example: in the mountains in Mont-Tremblant, Québec province:
so weight is a relative concept
I'm a hobbyist, and I don't mind taking my "heavy" D700/14-24/24-70 gear when I'm on vacation. I have a variety of bags to carry my gear (depending upon what I'm doing), but I'm often out all day and I don't worry about my gear slowing me down or inhibiting the fun.
If I might make a suggestion, why don't you take your camera bag - a big one - to your local camera shop and load it with the gear you're talking about? That should help you figure it out, and even though it might be a little uncomfortable asking it's better than paying a ton of money for gear you don't use as much as you'd like because it's too heavy.
The fact that people (including myself) are considering buying entire new/additional kits for traveling says plenty about Nikon's current lens lineup imo.
I'm taking a D700, 24-70 and 14-24mm to Paris in a few weeks. Yep, it's heavy but that's good glass and I want the 24-70 for walk-around and the WA for landscapes. Overall I think it's a great pairing.
