City travel is different though, especially old European cities with narrow streets and large crowds of tourists. My requirements for a city kit are:

• Wide angle for close-up work of buildings and other sites
• Fast lenses for indoor shots without a flash
• Relatively compact, but not minimalist
• Nice portrait capability for taking pictures of people in travel settings
• Camera bag that doesn’t make me look like a gear-head tourist

I should also note that these requirements are for leisure travel. When I am traveling on business and still want to bring a camera along, I lean more towards the minimalist side and would favor a single lens, since I need to carry a laptop and other business-related stuff.

My most recent leisure trip was to Florence, Italy with my wife Lisa. We planned to spend most of time in Florence with a day-trip to Siena. The primary purpose of the trip was not photography, but I knew that I would want to capture our memories as well as I could. I also knew that there would be times when the camera stayed in the hotel so that I could just enjoy myself.

That said, I solicited some advice in the travel forum on Nikonians, and I got a lot of great feedback. Some of the respondents advocated the 18-200 lens, but I had already ruled that out because of the requirements stated above (it is not fast and doesn’t do nice portraits). I had just bought the 17-55 mm f/2.8 and I definitely planned to bring that one, but the real pressing question was whether to bring my 12-24 mm f/4 wide and my 50 mm f/1.4 for indoor work.

Several posters strongly advised bringing the 12-24 mm for the tight streets and expansive views, and they were correct. The best decision I made was to bring this lens. While 17 mm is fairly wide on a DX format, it is still not wide enough to photograph many of the sites in Florence. I probably had this lens on the camera 50% of the time.

Here is a wide shot taken with the 12-24:

I also decided to leave the 50 mm at home. While much faster than f/2.8, I reasoned that it wouldn’t be wide enough to photograph the inside of cathedrals anyway, and I think that turned out to be true. In fact, I sometimes dealt with f/4 and its higher ISO just to get the wide angle needed inside, but most of my cathedral shots are 17mm f/2.8.

Here is a decent high-iso shot from inside:

Having decided on photo gear, I then needed the right bag. I have a Lowepro cube that would easily fit this kit and it has a waterproof cover as well. However, in a city, if the bag is getting that wet, so am I, and I am not carrying the kind of rain gear I might have at home in Colorado. There are two things I don’t like about this bag. One, it screams, “camera bag.” The other, it is so rigid that it bounces against me as I walk. I knew I wanted a bag of a similar size, but something softer and more stylish. After all, we also like to dress well when traveling abroad.

I found the Crumpler bags interesting for their unique looks, but I didn’t want to order one without seeing it and trying it out (and their website is horrible). I couldn’t find them anywhere here in Denver, but I had a trip to New York City this fall and was able to visit the Crumpler store there to test them out. I opted for the 5 Million Dollar Home. It is comes divided into 3 sections, but for these big lenses I took out one divider and just split it in two. It was a great bag for walking around in Italy and I am quite pleased with it (I got the khaki).

Unless some super new versatile lens comes out soon, this setup is likely to be my urban travel kit for a while. I never really missed the zoom of the 18-200 and the added quality from the 17-55 was appreciable in shots like this one.

Some people would complain of the weight from this kit, but I really didn’t find it troublesome. I see a lot of jokes in the online discussions about lifting weights if you buy the 17-55 lens, and that really isn’t a bad idea for those who find it heavy, because the lens is worth the weight and everyone can use some more fitness.

More photos from the trip are available here.

Or a larger set for those who really like to look at travel photos here.

There has been a lot of posting in online forums about how to choose between the D80 and the D200 (believe me, I have read a lot of it in the past two weeks) and the best advice that I have found in those threads is to look inward at the type of photographer you are and then match the camera to your needs. I am posting this to help others who may be going through the same process, but ultimately, you need to make the choice based on your own evaluation of your needs and your assessment of the equipment you test. In other words, don’t decide to buy one camera or the other based on my choice or someone else’s review. Instead, evaluate your needs; evaluate the features of the cameras you are considering, and best of all, test them all, if you can.

That said, I just spent my first 24 hours with my new D200 and I am thrilled with the upgrade from my D70. I plan to keep my D70 around as an extra body for complex shooting situations, a loaner, and just piece of mind in case my D200 needs repair. There is no question in my mind though; I made the right choice in choosing the D200 over the D80. It just fits the place that I am as a developing photographer better than the D80 could.

To make my choice criteria clear, here is my brief background as a photographer. I did a lot of black and white work in high school and college, really tapering off in grad school, so I hadn’t done much hobby work since the early 90’s when I boxed up my Nikkormat and started carrying point-and-shoot cameras. I work in the tech industry and adopted digital point-and-shoot very early, just as I do with many new technologies. I had been aching for an affordable DSLR for some time so that I could get back into photography as a hobby and I bought the original D70 shortly after it came out. The D70 re-ignited my passion in a big way and I carried it around the world in my business travels and started doing landscape work at home in Colorado. Like others who are new to DSLR photography, I started with the preset modes, then moved to P, then to mostly aperture priority. I also moved from JPEG to RAW and started to love power of post processing, just as I loved darkroom work for creative B&W work before. Using Apple’s Aperture, Photoshop CS2, and an Epson 2400, I was able to rely on digital for both B&W and color creative photography and I could manage the complete process myself, from shooting to production on archival media.

The D70 was mostly meeting my needs, but my wife bought me the new Nikor 105 f/2.8 VR for Christmas and I started experimenting with macro work again. This is when I really started noticing the limitations of the D70 viewfinder. I wear glasses, am almost 40, and read and work on computers a lot. My eyes aren’t what they used to be, so I started wanting a larger view finder. This is why I thought I had a dilemma. Both the D80 and the D200 have the nice big view finders and both seemed sufficient for my needs. However, when I really started to examine my needs against these cameras, the decision came easily. Here are the points I used:

-I always shoot in RAW: The D80 (like the D70) has a lot of “wasted” functionality for the way I shoot and it takes up space in controls and menus (JPEG presets on the dial, etc.). Even if all its RAW and custom settings met my needs, there is a lot of “noise” for me to deal with in the controls on the D80. The D200’s settings and custom banks are awesome, despite their quirky implementation. There are more settings to learn, but they are more relevant to my needs. Also, more of what I need is on the surface controls of the camera because there isn’t space dedicated to simplified modes.

-Build quality: My D70 is a bit creaky after heavy use and I never liked the location of the CF door because it is right where my thumb pressure goes when carrying the camera with one hand. To its credit, I have never damaged it though. The 200 just feels so much better, perhaps more professional. I backpack in harsh conditions with my camera, so I thought the lighter weight of D80 would be better, but I now think the rugged weather-sealed body is better for my needs. This camera has solid build-quality, you can even hear it in the shutter.

-Price: By my calculations, there is very little difference in price on these bodies and the D200 is the better value. From what I can find, the reputable places are selling the D80 body at MSRP of $999 USD. The same places have the D200 at around $1350 USD ($250 below MSRP). I have 3 2GB CF cards that would cost me more than $150 to replace with SD. With the cost of an extra battery on the D200, that puts my difference at under $150 for the D200.

-Speed: I can’t wait to get out and shoot some action wildlife at 5 fps!

The only thing I miss from the D70 and that I liked about the D80 is the battery life. I will need to carry two extra batteries for my average 3-4 day backpacking trips and that is even more weight, although, maybe I should just get more conservative with my shots, as we all were when we shot film. I am sure I will grow to love this camera more as I get experience with it, just as I did with the D70. I programmed my custom shooting and settings menus and now I can’t wait to get out to the mountains with this great piece of equipment. If I were coming to this process as the photographer that I was back when I bought the D70, the D80 would be the no-brainer decision now. It is a great camera. As for me, I am now a D200 shooter.