Hi Guys Just got back from the High Arctic after a five week trip. Took close to 700 Pics+ with my Nikon D50. Over all I'm quite happy with the results though I have to admit after being a Nikon SLR user for close to 30 years this was quite the learning curve. Issues such as getting the horizon to sit horizontal, dust on the sensor and exposure compensation I got some very nice pictures. I really have to ask the question "Do you need a camera withmore than 10 Megapixels?" If so why? Fergie
Welcome back! I was up in Alaska for only three weeks, and had problems with my D70 in terms of moisture and dust, but none with my older D100. My 6 megapixel cameras will print a Super B sheet (13 x 19 inches) with resolution perfectly acceptable to me. Yes, I will probably go to a D200 (or a D80 with the 18-300mm VR lens), but I'm not sure I'd need to go higher right now. Workflow becomes an issue when you are downloading 2000+ images. I sometimes shoot images for exhibit booths--back walls, for example. Even then I'm not sure I need more than 10 mpixels.
Not wanting to create a separate thread just for this but Nikon just announced firmware upgrades for D200, D2X, and D2Hs. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100301nikonfirmware.asp
Glad to see the WT-3 wireless support for the D200. The firmware update for the D100 a while back really improved it. I'm holding off due to a transition period in my work, and also because I'm still pretty happy with the D100 and D70. On my latest photo trip to Alaska, I really worked hard on steadying the camera. I think that improved images more than added pixels. I also bumped the D100 up to ISO 800 when using a telephoto, often shooting at 1/2000. The 4X boost in shutter speed more than made up for any image degradation. BTW, I found the D100 degrades less at ISO 800 than the D70.
