Good point. I have sent pics to Carl offline and responded personally to him.

If daveg did buy a nikon teleconverter he would be very disappointed, 200mm f8 is not great anyway but
-No current DX lenses fit the nikon extenders.
-Take appropriate support for the camera system you use.
-No I dont think missing 35/40-50 and 51-70 is an issue. Crop or walk 10m.
-Ansel Adams did ok with just a 50mm lens!
-The slr kits would fit in a tank bag
-Lens = quality. Take the best lens you can afford, how much would it cost to come back and then photograph this again?
-There's some margin between clairvouyance and planning. Those kits offer the best quality that would cover most subjects (with the weight restrictions) of a biker.
-Lee Filters http://www.leefilters.com/camera/pro...46C9C1B6AA3DD/ I still disagree. HDR is not simple to do, and though initial bracketing is simple, a ND grad is extremely simple and quick plus less costly on harddrive space. I have never experienced a problem finding storage for the lens/filter mount adapter.
-If you can do it all in photoshop, then why bother take a flash or wait for great lighting? Someone could get the same effect in photoshop right?
-National Geographic are unrelentingly picky about unmanipulated digital images. Perhaps their standards are a good one to aim for.
-I wrap up filters in a portion of one of these http://www.eos-magazine.com/Sales%20...ccessorie.html though if you have issues with dust on the filter, I dread to think what issues you would have with dust on the sensor.
-Are you taking a sensor cleaning kit?
-I have seen a Nik D70 and an EOS 300D rattle apart on a 1 week safari (Dodoma road) Carls hasnt yet, dispite best attempts, but he acknowledges that all machines will fail. A higher series camera will last longer. eg 30D/D200 series and up. Nik D1/2/3 and EOS 1 series are sold with good reason
-Quality wise with film there are no restrictions, with Digital there is. Hence getting the best available includes body.

Nikon D200-£600 , 17-35 £895, 70-200 £900 (80-200 f2.8 £650), 50mm 1.8 £80 1.7 teleconverter £260, SB800 £225
Total retail Cost = £3610.
Second hand in USA you will get this much cheaper.

Regards G

-No doubt telecons are no good for superzooms
-One gap in the focal lengths is one thing, two is another and can consumer time. Maybe in big flat terrains walking an extra 10m is possible but that's often not true in other places like mountains. Cropping is of course an option but less than ideal for print submissions as editors will often crop again.
-Ansel Adams takes wonderful landscapes, don't know much about his wildlife and portraits though.
-There are other cheaper options to the suggested expensive name brand SLR kits that would fit in a smaller tank bag. How about...

Sigma 10-20, Sigma 18-50/2.8 (or Tamron), Nikon 80-400VR (or Sigma but it's larger) - All three excellent pieces glass for little more than half the cost, more range (15-600mm in 35mm terms!) and a smaller kit. Toss in one of the many sharp and inexpensive 70/2.8 macros for fun or add a Kenko 1.4TC to close the gap (the Kenko can be used with the 18-50).

- It can't all be done in photoshop and it can't even all be done on the camera, although the latter is by far the best and quickest method. Realistically, and perhaps annoyingly, it takes both to get the most out of digital images and even with a good lens/sensor combo, pre-processed RAW files need some adjustment.

- National Geographic certainly has excellent standards for the kind of work they do but that is only one standard and not all photographers need to adhere to those standards. Again, it's a personal choice. If someone wants to take a color picture and make it sepia mono-tone, why not?

Additionally, for every one NatGeo photographer there are at least 1,000 people who could do the job equally as well but don't happen to know the right people or have spent the insane amount of time and money needed to make an image for themselves. Hell, cataloging photographs is hard enough!

- The dust on the ND Grad came from the box it was in and has nothing to do with the sensor. I'm not clear where the relationship between the two surfaced.

- Yes I carry a sensor cleaning kit, it's called a head lamp, bulb-blower and 5 minutes each night. I have successfully cleaned the sensor of more stubborn debris myself in the field several times using optics cleaning fluid and several q-tips. It's not ideal by any means but it works and has never scratched the sensor. The trick is using the right amount of pressure, something which should not be unfamiliar to mechanics.

- Generally a higher end camera will last longer if it's equally taken care of. Again, they are all machines and can fail, no matter how expensive they are. If I baby my D70 and kick my D300 down some stairs, guess which one will last longer? Just like motorcycles, the more expensive bike doesn't always win...it's the riders who make the difference, just like photography.

- Quality wise with film bodies there are still restrictions like focus and metering accuracy. White balance is not a problem on film because you have to change rolls of film for different light conditions - same is true with ISO and grain still applies in film as well and may still need reduction when the slide ends up in digital format anyway after scanning. If film is film then why use an F2 when you could use a K1000? The K1000 is a great camera.

So many questions...so few answer. More to come your way off-line.

CC

For those who are interested, I can recommend a 'sky blue' grad when a polariser isn't wanted for a particular shot. Useful when the fore-ground is in shade and a little extra colour is needed in the sky. Less tweaking in Photoshop.