Colorado Places and Beauty

[justin_h635]

Just as a note, but not something to recommend unless one has quite a bit of money for equipment, since I purchased a full-frame camera (the D700), I have become spoiled with the quality of the images. I don't know what they are called in other brand names, but with Nikon, DX cameras have a smaller area with the sensor, thus, one doesn't get quite as much "territory" in the image as the full-frame FX cameras do. I can tell quite a bit of difference between my FX and the DX (D300) bodies.

In a sense, I made a mistake in wanting a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. When I got it, all I had was the D300 (DX) and didn't know the difference. Later, when helping a coworker's wife choose a camera, I found out that the 70-200mm lens was an FX lens. Well, of course, that led me to looking at FX cameras. I got my D700 on E-bay for about $1500 for the body alone. When it sold new, they were around $3300. While I do have one issue with the FX, it is still the camera I prefer to use, and do use the most.

Terry,

I have a D5100 and recently bought the exact same lens as you ($$$ ouch) however, have found that although I will purchase a full frame camera in the future, the 2.8 lens works just fine on my body.

 

[TerryMiller]

Terry,

I have a D5100 and recently bought the exact same lens as you ($$$ ouch) however, have found that although I will purchase a full frame camera in the future, the 2.8 lens works just fine on my body.

Justin,

I didn't have any issues with the f/2.8 lenses on my D300, but when I got the full-frame D700, the area seen through the viewfinder and the final images were a world of difference. Right at the moment, I'm not at my own computer. I need to upload some test photos I did at Hafer Park in Edmond to my Photobucket account and post a link. I tested using both the D300 and the D700 with different lenses and saw a world of difference. When I get back to my computer, I'll post those photos at Photobucket and provide a link so you (and anyone one else that is interested) can see the differences.

Between the D300 (DX) and the D700 (FX), I am also seeing a difference in other areas as well as the "viewing area." Clarity and lighting seem to be different, but I've not really done too much testing with those aspects.

I would almost guarantee you that you'd really like the full-frame body over the DX.

 

[justin_h635]

I wouldn't argue with your last statement. Anxious to try the new 2.8 out on some scenic photos rather than just the ball field and gymnasiums pics I have got so far.

 

[TerryMiller]

Justin,

I've now uploaded a series of pictures using the two different camera bodies and two different lenses. At the time I took these, the only lenses I had were the Nikon 18-200mm and the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. Of course, the 18-200 lens is a DX lens and the 70-200 lens is an FX one.

I was confused at first about why it was that the FX seemed to have the subject (the playground equipment) further away. Another OSA member responded to a question that I posed about it and explained that the FX lens is a true setting at whatever millimeter setting it is set at. For instance, 70 mm is a true 70 mm on an FX camera. On a DX camera, there is a factor of 1.5 that comes into play, making the 70 mm to actually appear at 105 mm. So, on a DX, I guess one could say that their lens allows an even longer millimeter range, thus bringing the subject in closer to the viewer.

The link below will take you to my Photobucket account. It will come up at the first picture of the series. I've titled each image with what camera body and lens was being used. To get a better idea of "depths," on the 18-200mm lens the first images are at 70mm so as to compare to the smallest millimeter setting on the 70-200mm. It will certainly give you an idea of how much more area one can get with the full frame camera body and an FX lens. Click on the arrows at the sides of the images to move forward and back. I'd have used the "slideshow" feature, but that didn't show the titles of each image so well.

Comparison of Nikon DX and FX Camera Bodies with Two Different Lenses

As a side note, the next lens that I want to get is the Nikkor 28-300mm lens, which is also an FX lens.

 

[TerryMiller]

Well, it looks like it isn't over yet. While Oklahoma is dealing with tornadoes and LOTS of water from the sky, Colorado has had a couple of tornadoes, but way less rain. Then, last night it got down towards freezing, and I woke up at 7:00 am to see the following. I took these off of the steps/landing at the door of our RV. Happy Mother's Day.

 

[dennishoddy]

Cool! Saw some parts of the Rocky's got 2' of snow.

 

[TerryMiller]

It's been a while since we cruised around Colorado. However, on Tuesday, June 30, we went to check out a campground over by Silverton, Colorado to see if we wanted to do our tent camping there in August. We liked what we saw well enough to book two sites for four nights in late August for six of us. The images below are nothing more than views from that campground.

Oh, the name of the campground is Molas Lake Campground, but be careful if googling it. There is also a "Little" Molas Lake Campground just down the road towards Durango.















The tent camping trip is for the benefit of our nephew, who is a contract employee for the Air Force in the Middle East, our nephew's friend from Albuquerque, and our youngest son. Molas Lake Campground is near the Alpine Loop, Imogene Pass, Ophir Pass, and Black Bear Pass, giving us opportunities of 4-wheeling in our nephew's and his friend's Jeeps. That should also provide some dang good photos. I'm really looking forward to the camping, even though I'm getting to be a bit old for this stuff. However, the wife and her sister are also in their 60's.

 

[Sgt Dog]

Great pictures Terry. Ride some of the backcountry with my Brother-in-law out in Colorado springs when I get a chance. Always impressed with the vistas. If I could give up this interest in Marlin Ballards I could afford to do it more:-)

 

[TerryMiller]

Our last excursion didn't involve so much natural beauty of Colorado. We went to the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs. This place is literally on the skirts of the mountains. It also has an Oklahoma tie. Above the zoo and something one can go see if they buy admission to the zoo is the Will Rogers Shrine of the Sun. The founder of the zoo was a friend of Will Rogers.

Giraffe feeding. One can literally be at eye level with the animals because the "bridge" is up high over their enclosure.





The giraffe enclosure as seen from the walkway above the Zebras.



A view from the zoo out towards Colorado Springs.



Lioness



This is the Will Rogers Shrine of the Sun. We didn't get up there today, but we plan on making another trip to the shrine within two to three weeks.

 

[TerryMiller]

A few more from the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. Here's a picture of some Meerkats.



Here's a Rhino. I've been blessed with getting a Nikkor 28-300mm lens and I was dang glad to have it at the zoo. This guy was quite a ways away, but I still got a good shot.



Mouthy critters. There was another off to my right and one in the water that didn't get into this shot. Each of these were in the range of 3.5 to 4.5 feet long. Or course, I'm guessing at their length. I obviously wasn't in with them to measure. They could have been a bit longer.



Amur Tiger. He was pacing around some behind some fencing, so I went back down the walkway a bit to get away from the fence. I was fortunate to then have him walk around to where I was and then even get into the water.





Last is two bears in a pool. From the viewing area, one can see the activity above and below the water line. They were tussling over a ledge that the back one is sitting or standing on. The one in the foreground doesn't have that advantage.