Why didn’t anyone tell me…

I took the kids hiking on the fourth, which for you who don’t know me well means an 8 year old, a 4 year old, and a 1 year old. We went to the bay area hiker web site and picked a hike, and off we went. 2 miles was the projected loop and we set off uphill to find “lookout point”. I was packing the water, the baby, and the camera. For this hike, I had decided that I’d try to use the 18-200 VR in its intended role as “the only lens you’ll need for a day trip”. But knowing that I have the 12-24 which will really shine in wide angles for enclosed spaces, I packed that too. Those and 2 extra cards (I really need to get a couple bigger cards), and I was packed. Not even a separate bag – just one lens in the backpack and the cards on my keychain, and off we went.

First observation – babies are heavy. I mean, ours is only rated as a 23 pounder, but man, water for 3 plus the pack plus the camera plus one lens ended up somewhere in the 60 pound range, I’m sure. Now, I know I’m out of shape for this kind of thing, but my stars.

Second observation – the superzoom lens and camera did okay for where we were. I put it on ISO 400, program mode, and just let it go. This is after all, what it was meant to do. The 18s are a little warpy and fade more than I like in the corners, in the middle it looks pretty good actually, and on closeups it just looks average. The contrast is never great, the colors are not wonderful but not bad, and it’s just not a sharp lens; but I didn’t really expect it to be. I’ll reserve speculation for later in the article. Once we got near the top, I switched out the 18-200 for the 12-24 to get the view from the top in. I did a quick-n-cheesy pano spin of the view for stitching once we got home, recovered my breath, showed the kids San Francisco, Oakland, and our house in San Jose all from one view (nice!) and then we turned back for the shade and refreshing downhill walk to the van. (See July08 folder on www.smurfless.com for more/bigger.)

Third observation – the 12-24 is a nice lens for tripod work, but on the D2x, it’s just not fast enough for shady walking shots. I should have switched to auto-ISO or gone to ISO 800, but I didn’t, and that cost me some none too good shots of us descending. Honestly I don’t miss those pictures, but it did reinforce my geeky desire for the new D3/D700 generation with all the extra ISO horsepower they hold. It also reminded me that for day tripping, I should just switch to my auto-ISO custom setting every time instead of thinking I’d remember to adjust. I was too busy trying not to have a stroke.

But a new camera would knock my 360 precision template out of line, I must not succumb. I must resist! But I am weak. I may be able to wait until the next generation comes out, but it’s hard to say. At least the D2x continues to work, where my D1x just plain ate batteries like candy. The D2x is still after all this time a reliable beast, and 12 megapixels is quite a big image for all its perceived weaknesses compared to newer cameras.

So part of why I’m rattling this off is that I wanted to compare this to the ounce-counting camp. Am I really getting a chance to do something better for the what, 5 pounds of extra gear I’m hauling with me? I’ve seen decent pictures come out of point-n-shoots, and what I’m doing is essentially the same work, but the images are bigger, more clean, and believe it or not, easier on the eyes. I’m certainly getting more exercise, but is it worth it? I guess that’s subjective, but I certainly got a couple shots I’m happy I took with a decent camera. Once the kids can carry themselves, I can easily see carrying a tripod with a light ballhead as well, although perhaps not my 360 Precision. And while I liked having the full range of the zoom, I think I’d only use it on scouting for “real pictures” using heavier lenses and a tripod, because I’m just not happy with it as a fine picture lens. I feel that the far cheaper 28-105 gives far sharper pictures although without the fun VR and -S suffixes. The contrast is better, the falloff is about the same, and the images are just plain sharper. Plus it feels lighter. Maybe I’m nitpicking, but I think next trip I’ll just go with the 28-105. And besides, once I get a full frame camera, the 28-105 remains a full-resolution lens. And it’s cheaper. It’s hard to argue those if you’re shopping.

So, I think it’s time to either hand the VR off to my wife who would probably get full use of it and then sell off the other two lenses she has (kit + 70-300 junker) or just sell it and not disturb what she has going. Either way, I think it’s not going back in my kit. I think I want a medium telephoto that doesn’t suck, which I hear the 80-200 f/2.8 is the answer to.