D300 or GRD2 - Which one to Paris/Venice

[popum]

I'm taking my family... son, daughter, son-in-law (all in their 30's) and grandson (age 5) to Paris and Venice next week. This is a family vacation (celebrating my wife's and my 40th anniversary) not a photography safari. Moreover, I know both cities fairly well and they've never been there so I'll be tour guide while enjoying their company and their excitement at discovering these two wonderful cities.

All the same, I want to bring a camera with me to shoot while we are out and about and to document the trip. I also hope to get a few hours just for my photography... most likely very early AM or late night to do some shooting on my own. These times are great since I am primarily a street photographer anyway.

We are trying hold down the weight we are hauling (a 5 year old and associated gear adds considerable weight already) so I only want to bring one camera. There will also be a camcorder along. My choices are a GRD2 or a D300 with a Nikon 35/2.0 (I do have the 17-35 but that is a beast for these circumstances). When I had my M8 I would have used the 35Cron as my primary lens.I recognize that each option has its pro's and con's and that I can't go very far wrong either way... I'll just be dealing with a different visual vocabulary under each scenario.

If you've read this far what I am asking is for a variety of perspectives on the choice. Yes, I do recognize how lucky I am on many many fronts and am appreciative of my good fortune.

Best

Mike

 

[simonclivehughes]

Mike,

Having done Paris a couple of times, first with a D1X setup and lastly with a pair of Epson R-D1s, and even though I now have M8s, I'd really be tempted to go with my GRD2, but I'd certainly take the 40mm lens for it too. I've actually got a GX-100 coming and the pair of Ricohs would be my dream setup for travel now.

BTW, a very happy anniversary to you both!

Cheers,

 

[ecliffordsmith]

Hi Mike,

Tough call, if you are certain you will leave the zoom at home then the wider GRD2 and 40mm convertor could be more versatile. If you will be doing a lot of walking the weight may be a deciding factor too.

Regardless of what you choose in the end have a fantastic trip and a very happy anniversary.

 

[kit laughlin]

Mike, do you own the cheap, light, but brilliant, 18–70? That's what I'd be taking on ther D300, for sure. Pucnhes way above its weight, optically, IMHO, anf not much bigger than the 35/2. Just a thought.

 

[popum]

Simon, Ed, Kit...

Thanks for your advice. I've still not made up my mind but in a strange way am enjoying the process of balancing out my alternatives.

Thank you all for your good wishes and even better advice.

I have the 40 mm adapter and would take that if I go the GRD route. Kit, I do not have the 18-70, but have the 18-200VR which is generally a good travel lens but too large when I have a 5 year old tucked under one arm. Also, I really don't want to buy another DX lens because I can see a FF in my future.

Thanks all

Mike

 

[Cindy Flood]

Mike,
It sounds like a wonderful trip. Happy anniversary to you and your wife.
I would be taking both the Ricoh and the D300 if I were you. The Ricoh takes up so little room. I have a GX-100 in my purse all the time. I'm sure that the Ricoh will be just the ticket a lot of the time while touring, but I would want the Nikon for the times I went out on my own for serious work (not that you can't do serious work with the Ricoh, too.) Besides, you always should have a backup on such an important trip.

 

[kit laughlin]

Mike, that 18-70 is less then $200 used and they are available everywhere new:

http://search.ebay.com.au/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=nikon+18-70&category0=

I had that 18-200 but the distortion at he wide end and general softness of the copy I had (plus the fact that everyone wanted one) made that one of the easiest ebay sales I have ever done! Light and small too, even with 5-year old...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think i agree with Cindy ,during the day you may want the D300 to kick around plus the high ISO in places you visit. i would certainly want something wide maybe a 12-24 and the 35 or as Kit suggested. But than i would want the Ricoh when you go at night or just to a lunch or something like that , plus it can do street.

 

[cam]

i agree with Cindy and Guy -- both. especially as the GRD is so small! the D300 might only be for when you get to go off and do your own thing and don't have the five year old hampering your movement

i only have the two models of GRD's in my arsenal and have taken great pics all around Paris. they are mighty fine cameras! still, if i was off on holiday and i had a D300, i'd take it along for the off times when you're not so busy being a grandfather (on your own, late at night, etc.).

whatever you decide, happy anniversary!

 

[popum]

Thank you all for taking the time to reply.


With Cindy, Guy and Cam all lined up behind the "take both" answer and Kit suggesting the D300.... it seems like I'll be doing the double play.


I just need to sort out the lens question for the D300. I'm inclined to follow Kit's advice and pick up a 18-70 rather than using the old 28-200 that I around the house. But need to think a bit... but not too long... leave in 8 days.

Cheers

Mike

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Mike think 21mm as you Focal length in FF terms. The 18-70 is 27mm but that maybe okay. You know your going to get wide in chapels, museums and such so might want to consider that. Kit knows the Nikon glass better than me so his advice is golden.

 

[harmsr]

Mike,

The 18-70 is actually a very good lens.

I had one with my wifes D80 that was paired with the newer 70-300 VR. They both performed very well, & I liked the photos from them. Unfortunately my wife was adamant about using only one lens and having more reach, so I got her the 18-200. She is now happy but image quality went down the tubes. The 18-70 I sold to a neighbor and the 70-300 to Terry here.

Can I push in the direction of the 18-70? It is a small, convenient, and very good piece of glass from Nikon's consumer/pro-sumer line.

Best,

Ray

 

[Cindy Flood]

Mike,
I saw that Tony at Popflash had a used 18-70. You might want to give him a jingle.

 

[helenhill]

its very Simple
Travel Light
Be Carefree with the GR D
All the Best....helen

 

[kit laughlin]

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=577

Have a look at Steen's images: that's in low light, with a < $200 lens. Pretty nice, I'd say.

I'm with Ray: this lens works better than it should. The pity is that Ken Rockwell raved about the 18–200, and as a result, many think it's a good lens, and it has been hard to get, and commands a premium used, to boot. It does look good on paper, I agree, but as everyone here knows, specs do not necessarily translate to IQ. It is not worth the asking price, IMHO.

Helen: that made me laugh out loud; of course, the GD-D should be in his pocket. This is why I am waiting for the DP-1: to have something that goes anywhere, and *always does*.

I see the world in UWA terms, but the D300 and the 18–70 is what I pack when I travel for work. Let us know how you go. cheers to all, KL

 

[hermie]

> Kit, I do not have the 18-70, but have the 18-200VR which is generally a good travel lens but too large when I have a 5 year old tucked under one arm. Also, I really don't want to buy another DX lens because I can see a FF in my future.

You might want to look into the AF-S 24-85mm F/3.5-4.5 then. Price just a bit higher than 18-70. I regret that I ever sold mine. IMO on par with the 18-70.

 

[gromitspapa]

I agree take both. Once you're there, you can leave one behind. I'd hate to regret not having a DSLR in Paris! How about a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 for size, speed, and IQ?

 

[nostatic]

The pity is that Ken Rockwell raved about the 18–200, and as a result, many think it's a good lens, and it has been hard to get, and commands a premium used, to boot. It does look good on paper, I agree, but as everyone here knows, specs do not necessarily translate to IQ. It is not worth the asking price, IMHO.

thank gawd...I thought maybe I was the only one. I tried one on my D70 and hated it.

Agree with what everyone else says about the 18-70. I still have a D70 body that needs to go in for a hot pixel and sold off all the glass except that lens. I'm keeping it because if I ever decide that I need wicked-fast AF (love my Pentax K20d but that is a weak point), I'll have a good walkaround lens to use with the Nikon body I'd end up buying.

 

[vieri]

I'm taking my family... son, daughter, son-in-law (all in their 30's) and grandson (age 5) to Paris and Venice next week. This is a family vacation (celebrating my wife's and my 40th anniversary) not a photography safari. Moreover, I know both cities fairly well and they've never been there so I'll be tour guide while enjoying their company and their excitement at discovering these two wonderful cities.

All the same, I want to bring a camera with me to shoot while we are out and about and to document the trip. I also hope to get a few hours just for my photography... most likely very early AM or late night to do some shooting on my own. These times are great since I am primarily a street photographer anyway.

We are trying hold down the weight we are hauling (a 5 year old and associated gear adds considerable weight already) so I only want to bring one camera. There will also be a camcorder along. My choices are a GRD2 or a D300 with a Nikon 35/2.0 (I do have the 17-35 but that is a beast for these circumstances). When I had my M8 I would have used the 35Cron as my primary lens.I recognize that each option has its pro's and con's and that I can't go very far wrong either way... I'll just be dealing with a different visual vocabulary under each scenario.

If you've read this far what I am asking is for a variety of perspectives on the choice. Yes, I do recognize how lucky I am on many many fronts and am appreciative of my good fortune.

Best

Mike

Hello Mike, first of all congrats for your wedding anniversary and indeed you are a very lucky & generous man.

About your request, I was wondering if you had the chance to bring a little more Nikon gear to be left in hotels and taken with you whenever (and if) you will go around alone for your photography, together with the GRD II; bringing them with you doesn't necessary mean you will have to lug them around all the time.

Anyway, that aside (it was slightly off topic to your original question), my suggestion is to bring both of course, and the 40mm adapter too. As far as a lens for the D300, I have to agree with the 18-70 advice. Get it used, use it on the trip, sell it afterwards for no loss basically. The 18-70 is way more lens for the money than it should be.

Most of all, enjoy your trip!

 

[kit laughlin]

hermie,

I have the 24–85 too and agree: same IQ. On the D300, though, I find myself using the 18-70 more often, and always for the wide end (27mm EFOV compared to 36). Yes, some barrel distortion, but easily fixed.

So, Mike: do you see the world in 26mm terms or 36?